Brexit!

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'm not sure what your point is here, Jon.

 

The EU has always made clear that it wants a deal - indeed it approved one (May's Deal).

It has also made clear that the backstop can go......provided it is replaced by some equivalent means of preventing a hard border if the UK & the Irish Republic end up diverging with different customs & regulatory regimes.

 

Juncker has not not said anything different to that now, has he?

 

They have spent a lot of time saying Mays deal is the only deal on the table.  Did you miss that? Months of it.  Now apparently there could be a different deal!  Amazing what the actual real threat of no deal can do isn’t it?

Edited 19 September 2019 by Jon the Hat

[HappyHamza]

32 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

The problem is you are only seeing half the argument.  The press isn’t reporting the other side.

For example today the vote leave and BeLeave won the appeal and proved they did not break election law despite the claims of the election commission.  I don’t see this anywhere on Sky news app, or BBC app.

so those of us pro Brexit are fed up with it.

I'm not seeing either side of the 'argument. The argument in general is between a bunch of no nothings with opinions.

 

I've gone to an actual expert who's given me the expert view.

 

You can't keep ignoring experts and asserting that arguments by non-experts are just as valid. They're not.

[twoleftfeet]

Perhaps a strange vioce of reason but a pro leave voice from the left about project fear and the shortages of medicine. 

 

Whilst not an expert on this an ex labour mp who knows how the political game is played.

[Kopfkino]

15 minutes ago, HappyHamza said:

I'm not seeing either side of the 'argument. The argument in general is between a bunch of no nothings with opinions.

 

I've gone to an actual expert who's given me the expert view.

 

You can't keep ignoring experts and asserting that arguments by non-experts are just as valid. They're not.

But you didn't question it, that's really the issue. It's not unquestionable just cos the person has credentials. Whats the reason for a 40% increase? Why isn't the government as prepared as they say? It's kind of the crux of any argument to have something to back up what you say. 

[Heathrow fox]

32 minutes ago, twoleftfeet said:

Perhaps a strange vioce of reason but a pro leave voice from the left about project fear and the shortages of medicine. 

 

Whilst not an expert on this an ex labour mp who knows how the political game is played.

Called Trump Brexit and the Scottish Referendum months in advance.

[HappyHamza]

31 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

But you didn't question it, that's really the issue. It's not unquestionable just cos the person has credentials. Whats the reason for a 40% increase? Why isn't the government as prepared as they say? It's kind of the crux of any argument to have something to back up what you say. 

Ok. I accept that point.  I'm seeing the same guy again in November (so long as we've got access to petrol 😙) so I'll ask him if I get the chance. It's not only him working on this basis but as I've mentioned this particular person I'll try to get an answer. 

[Paninistickers]

52 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said:

Called Trump Brexit and the Scottish Referendum months in advance.

 

1 hour ago, twoleftfeet said:

Perhaps a strange vioce of reason but a pro leave voice from the left about project fear and the shortages of medicine. 

 

Whilst not an expert on this an ex labour mp who knows how the political game is played.

I'm a remained but honest enough to admit that the medicine business is as Galloway puts it - a load of old guff.

 

Big pharma ain't gonna let one of their biggest punters disappear overnight.

 

However, this part of project fear is no worse than the gibberish 350m a week to the EU, 50 million Turks on the march and a new EU deal would be the easiest ever done over a cup of tea that the leavers peddled

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

They have spent a lot of time saying Mays deal is the only deal on the table.  Did you miss that? Months of it.  Now apparently there could be a different deal!  Amazing what the actual real threat of no deal can do isn’t it?

 

For countless months, the EU has indeed been saying that the WA is the only deal in town....AND that the backstop can be replaced.....but only with alternatives that achieve the same aims (which they believe impossible):

Here, from January: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/30/theresa-may-can-no-longer-be-trusted-european-press-condemns-pm

"European governments have said Britain must swiftly spell out its proposed Irish backstop alternatives and insisted the Brexit divorce deal cannot be revisited"

(article includes direct quotes from French, German & other ministers, if you don't trust the Guardian)

 

Insisting on the WA but not the backstop is possible because: 

(a) the backstop is a protocol, not part of the main body of the WA; and the plan is for a new deal over future relations, anyway

(b) the clearly agreed aim is that the backstop will be replaced by agreements reached over the future EU-UK relationship....

https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-18-6423_en.htm

"The Protocol includes all the provisions on how the so-called “backstop” solution for avoiding a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland would work. This forms part of the overall Withdrawal Agreement and will apply unless and until it is superseded, in whole or in part, by any subsequent agreement. Both the EU and the UK will use their best endeavours to conclude and ratify a subsequent agreement by 1 July 2020".

 

So if, in theory, Boris can find an acceptable alternative to the backstop now, why would the EU not accept that? It's always made clear that it would do so - it's just sceptical that this is possible.

 

You're living in dreamland if you think The Incredible Skulk has scared the EU with his No Deal threats.

Of course, they've always preferred to avoid No Deal as it will do them damage....but it will do us a lot more damage: EU population 440m v. UK population 65m; Almost 50% of UK trade with EU v. less than 10% of EU trade with UK etc.

 

Boris' No Deal threat is equivalent to: "If you don't do what I want, I'll burn half my house down and take your garage with it!"

Honestly, he'd look more threatening if he walked into the European Commission dressed up as the Incredible Hulk...

 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, twoleftfeet said:

Perhaps a strange vioce of reason but a pro leave voice from the left about project fear and the shortages of medicine. 

 

Whilst not an expert on this an ex labour mp who knows how the political game is played.

 

He may be a very bright bloke and a charismatic orator, but he's dishonest to the core and yet another utter charlatan.

 

This video is yet another example of that.

 

He goes on about our ability to make or buy medicines.....but deliberately ignores the whole issue of imported medicines not arriving as needed due to transport disruption & border delays caused by No Deal.

 

Yes, some medicines are manufactured in the UK. But a lot are imported. Maybe some of those could be made here....but production facilities aren't going to spring up overnight like mushrooms!

And presumably there are reasons why many drugs are imported. For some, maybe the expertise or raw materials aren't easily obtained here? Or maybe they are made at low cost in places like India, and would cost an awful lot more if made here?

As for having the money to buy them.....sure! But the money to buy something is no use if the goods concerned are in a customs shed in Calais or on the back of a lorry in a 20-mile traffic jam....

 

I've no idea  where the 40% higher costs figure comes from, but some quick suggestions:

- Higher transport & labour costs due to longer delays getting goods through border controls (hauliers & workers will want paying for their time)

- Higher admin costs to deal with all the extra regulation etc.

- Higher production costs if some production is shifted from countries with cheaper labour to the UK

- Higher storage costs due to need to stockpile more medicines due to less reliable deliveries

- While most medicines do not attract tariffs, some ingredients & other items will

[Wortho]

2 hours ago, twoleftfeet said:

Perhaps a strange vioce of reason but a pro leave voice from the left about project fear and the shortages of medicine. 

 

Whilst not an expert on this an ex labour mp who knows how the political game is played.

At last someone with some sense. And Galloway being a left winger as well.

Posters on here also don't believe that the EU army will exist. 

[Wortho]

5 hours ago, The Guvnor said:

Thankyou for your kind words, fortunately the treatment for my wife has been extremely positive but as we know too well that is not always the case.

 

 

Good health to both of you.

[Wortho]

6 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

This is by far your best effort for months (I presume this is meant to be in the joke thread).

You haven't answered the questions 😁😁

[Wortho]

7 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

I think you’re missing the point. Whether the insulin is in short supply post Brexit or not, this guy is prepared to die for the cause. If that’s not a cult, I don’t know what is.

Blimey mate have you not seen the remainers?? Talk about a cult.

[Wortho]

7 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

I'm saying that's what doctors think might happen. Doctors who supply these drugs to people I know.

 

I'm not willing to see them suffer to prove some bullshit point about the EU being an "empire". None of us will be able to get up to the moral high ground if we're not healthy enough to do so.

Could and might. I sincerely hope there won't be shortage of drugs, as I have said for my son's sake. I don't take these issues lightly. I just think it's exaggerated to scare the public.

[The Fox Covert]

I don't quite know what Johnson thinks he can achieve in a month what Theresa May failed to achieve in two years.

Johnson's statements today about negotiations "making progress" appear to me to be an attempt to soften up the British public for the catastrophic cliff edge at the end of next month.

I have never seen anybody, even another politician, be able to tell so many barefaced lies and remain completely unfazed when he is found out.

This is my take on Boris.

 

 

[Legend_in_blue]

Unfortunately, there are many out there who don't seem to be able to see through him, as troubling as this may be.  There's plenty of back Boris 100%, 100% Boris, go Boris, etc. etc. out there on FB feeds for example.  Worrying the support he gathers, much like Trump draws in with Americans.

[twoleftfeet]

What can Boris achieve in a month?

Have you been to uni, if so you will know that the is nothing like a looming deadline to focus the mind. The time for procrastination is over,  Boris knows it and his stance on no deal has made europe know it. 

Is he softening up the public or does his rise in the opinion polls over Corbyn allow him to be more brazen in his negotiations with the EU.

Trump love him or hate him appeals to those voters that believe politicians have been ignoring them wether they have or not. Lets hope it is Boris that gains support because the alternative heir to the right wing throne is Farage. I have said it before but Labour has taken it's traditional voters for granted and the lurch to the fringes of the loony left with a leader considered by many to be a terrorist sympathiser many be what the extreme right have been waiting for. And is probably just as bad as the attempt of Miliband to turn labour into Tory light.

 

 

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Climate change has scientific evidence.  Speculation on the effects of Brexit has literally none whatsoever.  Poor comparison.

While this is a fair point, two of my own:

 

- Exiting the EU without a framework in place means global ability to address climate change is at the very least temporarily inhibited because of the at very least temporary barriers that will be put up to co-operation on such a matter, so we can't pretend Brexit is a good thing for that matter anyway: at best it's on the slightly negative side of neutral.

 

- There's a fair amount of overlap between Brexit and climate change ignorance in the first place: folks who agree with the scientific evidence like yourself, Jon, may well be the exception rather than the rule.

[Gordon the Great]

15 hours ago, Finnaldo said:

 

no.

correct

[Gordon the Great]

On 18/09/2019 at 13:37, String fellow said:

Does anyone take Jo Swinson seriously when she says 'We WILL revoke Article 50 on day one'? Shouldn't that read 'We WOULD revoke Article 50 on day one'? The conditional tense is required, since her completely undemocratic statement is conditional upon (a) the assumption that the next GE will occur prior to the UK leaving the EU, and (b) the assumption that the Liberal (un)Democrats will win the GE with an overall majority. Imo, she's living in cloud-cuckoo land and has clearly taken leave of her senses, rather like David Steel did when he told his party conference to 'go back to your constituencies and prepare for government'. Whilst having a go at her, I'd also like to make the point that she seemed quite happy to accept the result of the Scottish Independence referendum, despite her wish to nullify the result of the Brexit referendum.     

Shushhhhhhhhhhhhhh!...Don`t start telling the truth....Swansong is flavour of the month, can`t say undemocratic or deluded yet.....wait a few weeks, give her time to make a further complete ***** of herself, it won`t be too long.

[StanSP]

7 hours ago, twoleftfeet said:

The time for procrastination is over

Another soundbite-esque line I'd expect Boris to say . 

 

[simFox]

9 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

He may be a very bright bloke and a charismatic orator, but he's dishonest to the core and yet another utter charlatan.

 

This video is yet another example of that.

 

He goes on about our ability to make or buy medicines.....but deliberately ignores the whole issue of imported medicines not arriving as needed due to transport disruption & border delays caused by No Deal.

 

Yes, some medicines are manufactured in the UK. But a lot are imported. Maybe some of those could be made here....but production facilities aren't going to spring up overnight like mushrooms!

And presumably there are reasons why many drugs are imported. For some, maybe the expertise or raw materials aren't easily obtained here? Or maybe they are made at low cost in places like India, and would cost an awful lot more if made here?

As for having the money to buy them.....sure! But the money to buy something is no use if the goods concerned are in a customs shed in Calais or on the back of a lorry in a 20-mile traffic jam....

 

I've no idea  where the 40% higher costs figure comes from, but some quick suggestions:

- Higher transport & labour costs due to longer delays getting goods through border controls (hauliers & workers will want paying for their time)

- Higher admin costs to deal with all the extra regulation etc.

- Higher production costs if some production is shifted from countries with cheaper labour to the UK

- Higher storage costs due to need to stockpile more medicines due to less reliable deliveries

- While most medicines do not attract tariffs, some ingredients & other items will

Why would you bring medicines from India over the channel?

 

You missed Galloway's other point - there are plenty of people willing to sell them to us. Is the USA reliant on drugs from EU too? Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, etc...

[StanSP]

3 minutes ago, simFox said:

Why would you bring medicines from India over the channel?

 

You missed Galloway's other point - there are plenty of people willing to sell them to us. Is the USA reliant on drugs from EU too? Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, etc...

At what cost? Cheaper than we'd get them before? 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, simFox said:

Why would you bring medicines from India over the channel?

 

I didn't say that we would - though, to be fair, I did confuse the issue.

 

I was responding to Galloway's point that the UK can make its own medicines. It already does make some, but also imports a lot for various reasons - including from India, partly for reasons of cost, I presume.

That wasn't a great example, as we'd be able to carry on importing Indian medicines as before after No Deal.

 

I don't know how Indian medicines arrive: air freight? direct container ships?

Maybe they'd get caught up in the potential delays/chaos at ports or maybe not. I don't know. But if we sought to replace them with medicines manufactured in the UK, they'd cost a lot more.

 

The example of pharmaceuticals imported from France or Denmark is a better example. Presumably there are good reasons why we import those goods rather than making them all in the UK (expertise? licensing/patents/factory sites of global firms? access to raw materials? cost?). Galloway waxes rhetorical about our great nation not being Burkina Faso and having made mighty steel ships, so it could make its own medicines.....that's the bullshit of a demagogue and a charlatan, otherwise we'd presumably be making all our own medicines already and saving on transport costs, not importing them from Europe.

 

1 hour ago, simFox said:

 

You missed Galloway's other point - there are plenty of people willing to sell them to us. Is the USA reliant on drugs from EU too? Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, etc...

 

I'm no expert on the pharmaceutical industry & have no knowledge whatsoever of the industry in Aus, NZ or Singapore.

 

I do know that US pharma corporations charge high prices, so I'm sure that replacing EU imports with US imports would seriously jack up cost, even before you consider the extra transport cost etc.

 

My impression is that pharma is a global industry in which different nations/corporations specialise in different drugs. I don't know, but guess that the US makes some of its own drugs, but imports others from the EU, India, Mexico etc. Likewise, I assume that some UK/EU drugs already come from the US. Doubtless some EU drugs could be replaced by US equivalents (at a higher cost), but I assume that some could not......but I lack expertise on that. @Bryn? @Kopfkino?

[Strokes]

4. No-deal Brexit
In the event of a no-deal Brexit, and without other arrangements in place, the UK could not continue to participate in the shared regulatory framework with the EMA. This could have wide-ranging impacts on the future regulation of medicines in the UK, and more immediately, the maintenance of medicines and medical device supply between the UK and the EU.
The Government have undertaken actions to address potential impacts relating to the supply of medicines and to ensure medicines will continue to be licenced and available in the UK. A February 2019 Ministerial statement from the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Social Care set out some of the actions that had been taken, including:
• Securing additional roll on, roll off freight capacity away from Dover and Folkstone;
• Purchasing extra warehouse space for storage;
• Booking space on aeroplanes for the transport of products with
short shelf lives;
• Working with pharmaceutical companies to ensure the increase in buffer stocks of 7000 prescription only or pharmacy medicines58; and
• Making changes to regulatory requirements to allow medicines and medical products to continue to be sold in the UK in event of no deal.
This section provides an overview on both immediate and long term concerns related to a no deal Brexit scenario and action that has been taken to address these.
4.1 Impacts of a no-deal Brexit
In the event of a no-deal Brexit where the UK is no longer part of the EU regulatory network, the Government has confirmed that the MHRA would take on responsibility for functions currently undertaken by the EMA and that this would require changes to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012.59 Legislation to do this has already completed its Parliament stages (see below).
For those medicines that are to be licensed and supplied in the EU, the EMA has set out that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, there will be requirements for marketing authorisation holders and batch testing of medicines to be based in the EU from 30 March 2018.60 New medicines in the UK would need to be licensed separately. Concerns have beenexpressed that this could mean delays in applications for licences because the UK would represent a much smaller market, and that this could impact on how quickly medicines would be available.61,62 A no deal Brexit would also impact on the way medicines safety is monitored in the UK in the future.
More immediate concerns relate to the maintenance of supply of medicines in the event of no deal. Currently supply chains for medicines are integrated across the EU, and often involve complicated movement between countries during the medicines production process.63 Medicines can currently easily cross borders between the UK and other EU countries.
There are concerns about an increase in non-tariff barriers in the event of no deal, and the potential delays this could mean for medicines supply, especially for those products with a short shelf life, such as medical radioisotopes.64 In evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee, Mark Dayan from the Nuffield Trust provided further information about the potential delays at the border:
At the border, which for me is a huge issue in and of itself, a no- deal Brexit means a huge leap in the amount of red tape that companies have to go through to bring things into the UK. Some of it is being waived, but not all of it, and not all of it is within the power of the UK Government to waive. That raises two problems.
First, there is the direct delaying effect of additional requirements, declarations, and so on; there is the effect they have on the way companies run things when they are used to being able to get goods through on a lorry that rolls on and off a ferry. Secondly, there is a risk that the people who sign things off and implement the additional checks and regulations—in the UK’s case, HMRC and the Border Force—will simply buckle under the strain of the huge leap upward in the amount of work they have to do. That is where I come from on the border side.65
The Government have acknowledged that a no deal Brexit could lead to delays at the borders on the usual routes for medicines import and export and have taken a number of actions to address these. In a letter to pharmaceutical companies in December 2018, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Matt Hancock, said that whilst the Government had made plans to control arrangements at the UK border to ensure the flow of goods, the European Commission had made clear that in the event of no deal, it will impose third country controls on good entering the EU from the UK. He advised that in the worst-case scenario, the cross government planning assumptions showed that there could “be significantly reduced access across the short straits, for up to six months.”66 More information about Government preparations to ensure continued medicines supply is provided in the following section.