Getting brexit done!

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

 

It's funny.

 

I thought with a Biden administration the UK would be "back of the queue"....

[bovril]

I have a slight stirring of pride when I see Our Liz doing so well considering she's a local MP. Met her at a beer festival once; she came, help a pint, had a photo taken and ****ed off. Seemed pretty dense. 

[Wymsey]

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/declare-yourself-european-census-say-5071617

[dsr-burnley]

31 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/declare-yourself-european-census-say-5071617

It's very muddled thinking.  The poor saps give the impression that they think that Britain is no longer in Europe just because we are no longer in the EU.  I presume they are making the same campaign in other non-European countries like Norway, Switzerland, Ukraine, and so on?

 

They would be better served by trying to get people to put "citizens of the EU" on their census form.  At least that way they would be laying claim to be citizen of an actual political entity, not just a land mass.

[Gordon the Great]

On 05/03/2021 at 00:50, dsr-burnley said:

It's very muddled thinking.  The poor saps give the impression that they think that Britain is no longer in Europe just because we are no longer in the EU.  I presume they are making the same campaign in other non-European countries like Norway, Switzerland, Ukraine, and so on?

 

They would be better served by trying to get people to put "citizens of the EU" on their census form.  At least that way they would be laying claim to be citizen of an actual political entity, not just a land mass.

Could always ask for a fifth column to be inserted into the census, sounds appropriate to me.

[Buce]

UK Statistics Authority rebukes Gove over Brexit figures

Cabinet Office used ‘unverifiable data’ to rebut a Road Haulage Association survey showing export volumes dropped by 68%

The Cabinet Office run by Michael Gove has been officially reprimanded by the UK Statistics Authority for using unpublished and unverifiable data in an attempt to deny that Brexit had caused a massive fall in volumes of trade through British ports.

The criticism follows a story in the Observer on 7 February that cited a survey by the Road Haulage Association (RHA) of its international members showing export volumes had dropped by a staggering 68% in January through British ports and the Channel Tunnel.

 

The RHA wrote to Gove at the time saying: “Intelligence that we are collecting on an ongoing basis from international hauliers suggests that loads to the EU have reduced by as much as 68%, which can also be evidenced by the increased number of empty trailers which are not currently considered in the statistics.”

The RHA also accused Gove of failing to heed its warnings that trade would be damaged unless there was a dramatic increase in the number of customs officials.

The Cabinet Office had responded to the Observer’s story with a point-by-point rebuttal of the RHA’s claims on its website, stating that “inbound and outbound flows (across all UK ports) were close to normal, at 95% outbound and 96% inbound, in spite of the impact of Covid lockdowns on trade.”

But in a letter to Richard Laux, chief statistician at the Cabinet Office, sent on Friday – following an investigation – Ed Humpherson, director general for regulation at the Statistics Authority, expressed serious concerns at the way the department had used data to rebut the RHA’s information.

The letter said the Cabinet Office’s strong rebuttal contained “claims based on unpublished data, and as such these figures cannot be verified. It is our expectation that any data used publicly by government should be published in an accessible form, with appropriate explanations of context and sources.”

While Humpherson suggested that the Cabinet Office has given assurances that it would provide more information about where its information came from, he added: “The Cabinet Office should consider how, in future, it can be more transparent through the release of data.

“For example, it should ensure that where there is a significant reason to use unpublished management information in a public statement, the underlying data is published before or at the same time as the public statement. If there is continued or anticipated public interest in the data, it should consider whether there is need for a new ad hoc or regular statistical release.”

The authority, which is independent of ministers, has a statutory objective to “safeguard the production and dissemination of statistics by government.” Its terms of reference state that it will intervene (raise concerns) if “official statistics in a document or statement are presented in such a way that, in the authority’s opinion, they are liable to mislead the public or undermine the integrity of official statistics.”

Rachel Reeves, shadow minister for the Cabinet Office, said: “Our British businesses are under huge strain from the pandemic and reams of costly new red tape as a result of the government’s deal with the EU – the government should spend less time arguing with our businesses and spinning against them, and more time working with them to help.”

Trade experts and industry sources said ministers had deliberately tried to deny there was a serious fall-off in trade caused by Brexit by claiming that “flows” of lorries had been largely unaffected, rather than the volume of goods contained in them.

The RHA had made clear, however, that it was referring to the “volume” of goods carried, and stressed that very high numbers of lorries which travelled to and from the UK were returning to the continent empty because of problems faced by UK exporters as a result of post-Brexit rules and regulations. Industry sources said last night that while there had been an improvement since January, there was evidence that the number of lorries returning empty to the EU was still around 50%.

The first official statistics on the level of trade to and from the EU since 1 January are due to be published later this month.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/06/uk-statistics-authority-rebukes-gove-over-observers-brexit-figures

[bovril]

Fascinating that there are now people in the UK that either want to write "European" on a census or who describe those people as fifth columnists. When and how did this happen exactly? 

[SemperEadem]

Ordering materials to make tifo displays for next season and it is now crazy money to import. 

[Mike Oxlong]

Still not getting the range or quality of fresh produce that we were previously used to. How much can be apportioned to Brexit as opposed to Covid I’m not sure 

[Bellend Sebastian]

We didn't win two world wars to end up being ruled by Germany!

 

My Father's literal words this Thursday evening just gone. He's been captured by the Daily Mail in the same way that US senior citizens are captured by Fox News.

 

As an aside, I asked him how he felt about the £22 billion spunked on the failed Track and Trace system to which his response was 'would it have been any better if CORBYN had been in charge?'

 

It's like being in a real life Viz cartoon

[Sol thewall Bamba]

At the risk of going down another rabbit hole, Brexit has made ordering stuff from Europe absolutely hideous for UFS.

[Strokes]

Despicable behaviour from the EU over the vaccine row, do any of the EU luvvies on here have any support for them on it?

If we were the perpetrators and Europe the victims, I’m not sure it would be quite so silent in here.

[Robo61]

20 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Despicable behaviour from the EU over the vaccine row, do any of the EU luvvies on here have any support for them on it?

If we were the perpetrators and Europe the victims, I’m not sure it would be quite so silent in here.

As a remainer I am not for one minute going to support the EU's poor management of vaccine purchasing  and guess if they go ahead it will backfire on them,  not good politics.  But to paint it as vaccine nationalism is a joke when the UK's gamble from day 1 has been to get and keep as much for ourselves as quickly as possible.  

 

Who having signed a treaty,  announcing it as a triumph, less than three months ago is now renaging on it,  Brexiteers are not talking about that.  

[KrefelderFox666]

On 15/03/2021 at 13:07, Sol thewall Bamba said:

At the risk of going down another rabbit hole, Brexit has made ordering stuff from Europe absolutely hideous for UFS.

That was one of the inevitable things going to happen. I am sure it will get better over time but people have to realise that excesses now have to be paid for expensive UK goods or you go for imports where the goods are fairly cheap but the tax very high. It's unfortunate for people like you and clubs/organisations (like UFS) who were reliant on imported goods.

 

Same thing with fresh produce. People forget how reliant the UK was on EU imports. Not many people bothered going to the local farm shop to support UK businesses at any point. Even before Brexit, there were many choices to support local/British but many people (for ease/price) opted for the foreign alternative.

[dsr-burnley]

39 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

As a remainer I am not for one minute going to support the EU's poor management of vaccine purchasing  and guess if they go ahead it will backfire on them,  not good politics.  But to paint it as vaccine nationalism is a joke when the UK's gamble from day 1 has been to get and keep as much for ourselves as quickly as possible.  

 

Who having signed a treaty,  announcing it as a triumph, less than three months ago is now renaging on it,  Brexiteers are not talking about that.  

If it took the UK 3 months to "renege" on the treaty, it's two months longer than the EU took to suspend it altogether.  We can at least be assured that the EU's objections to the extension of the grace period are not objections in prionciple, they are only objections because they see it as being to the EU's disadvantage.  The EU has no objection to changing the rules as long as the change is in their favour.

[Alf Bentley]

57 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Despicable behaviour from the EU over the vaccine row, do any of the EU luvvies on here have any support for them on it?

If we were the perpetrators and Europe the victims, I’m not sure it would be quite so silent in here.

 

"EU luvvies"? Really? 

Is everyone obliged to comment on every topic? Do you?

 

I don't have the legal knowledge to say whether the EU has any grounds for its allegations that AstraZeneca has not fulfilled contracts with them.

That said, overall the EU seems to have made a pig's ear of vaccine procurement and EU states likewise re. important aspects of vaccine messaging & decision-making (Macron's comments on AZ trials, recent suspension of AZ by some states).

I presume that a big part of the aggressive rhetoric from the EU is due to pressure from their own populations due to mismanagement at EU and member state level (esp. with major elections pending in Germany & France).

 

While the UK made a disastrous mess of other important aspects of Covid response, it has clearly done much better than the EU with vaccine procurement and roll-out.

Not only that, but the UK reportedly put big money into vaccine investment - and the resulting vaccine is to be delivered worldwide at cost price, massive plusses.

 

Is there anything in the EU accusations of the UK blocking vaccine exports? I don't know, but EU accusations seem vague so I suspect there aren't solid legal grounds or evidence for their accusations.

I hope that the EU rhetoric is essentially political pressure on AZ to boost supplies to the EU and on the UK to be generous if, as sounds likely, the EU-AZ contracts are not watertight (talk of "best endeavours" clauses etc.)

I gather that Johnson will have talks with EU leaders between now and a key EU meeting on Thursday. I hope that resolves the tension as it would indeed be despicable for the EU (or anyone else) to launch vaccine trade wars.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

"EU luvvies"? Really? 

Is everyone obliged to comment on every topic? Do you?

 

I don't have the legal knowledge to say whether the EU has any grounds for its allegations that AstraZeneca has not fulfilled contracts with them.

That said, overall the EU seems to have made a pig's ear of vaccine procurement and EU states likewise re. important aspects of vaccine messaging & decision-making (Macron's comments on AZ trials, recent suspension of AZ by some states).

I presume that a big part of the aggressive rhetoric from the EU is due to pressure from their own populations due to mismanagement at EU and member state level (esp. with major elections pending in Germany & France).

 

While the UK made a disastrous mess of other important aspects of Covid response, it has clearly done much better than the EU with vaccine procurement and roll-out.

Not only that, but the UK reportedly put big money into vaccine investment - and the resulting vaccine is to be delivered worldwide at cost price, massive plusses.

 

Is there anything in the EU accusations of the UK blocking vaccine exports? I don't know, but EU accusations seem vague so I suspect there aren't solid legal grounds or evidence for their accusations.

I hope that the EU rhetoric is essentially political pressure on AZ to boost supplies to the EU and on the UK to be generous if, as sounds likely, the EU-AZ contracts are not watertight (talk of "best endeavours" clauses etc.)

I gather that Johnson will have talks with EU leaders between now and a key EU meeting on Thursday. I hope that resolves the tension as it would indeed be despicable for the EU (or anyone else) to launch vaccine trade wars.

Yep, spot on, Alf.

 

The only thing I'll add is that the current debacle involving the EU and vaccines has absolutely nothing to do with the necessity of organisations like it to address problems that can and will come humanitys way in the near future.

[Innovindil]

6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

"EU luvvies"? Really? 

Is everyone obliged to comment on every topic? Do you?

 

I don't have the legal knowledge to say whether the EU has any grounds for its allegations that AstraZeneca has not fulfilled contracts with them.

That said, overall the EU seems to have made a pig's ear of vaccine procurement and EU states likewise re. important aspects of vaccine messaging & decision-making (Macron's comments on AZ trials, recent suspension of AZ by some states).

I presume that a big part of the aggressive rhetoric from the EU is due to pressure from their own populations due to mismanagement at EU and member state level (esp. with major elections pending in Germany & France).

 

While the UK made a disastrous mess of other important aspects of Covid response, it has clearly done much better than the EU with vaccine procurement and roll-out.

Not only that, but the UK reportedly put big money into vaccine investment - and the resulting vaccine is to be delivered worldwide at cost price, massive plusses.

 

Is there anything in the EU accusations of the UK blocking vaccine exports? I don't know, but EU accusations seem vague so I suspect there aren't solid legal grounds or evidence for their accusations.

I hope that the EU rhetoric is essentially political pressure on AZ to boost supplies to the EU and on the UK to be generous if, as sounds likely, the EU-AZ contracts are not watertight (talk of "best endeavours" clauses etc.)

I gather that Johnson will have talks with EU leaders between now and a key EU meeting on Thursday. I hope that resolves the tension as it would indeed be despicable for the EU (or anyone else) to launch vaccine trade wars.

You don't need legal knowledge, the contract says "best efforts to provide" no guarantees. If they had a legal leg to stand on, they'd be taking it instead of this nonsense posturing. 

 

No, there isn't. We're not exporting completed vaccines because we have purchased all that is being made here. Exports will come after our orders are completed. 

 

If talks don't ease the tension then threats might. Like almost everything, it's a 2 way street. Pfizer can't produce their vaccine in the EU without ingredients shipped from Yorkshire. 

 

 

[twister]

38 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

If it took the UK 3 months to "renege" on the treaty, it's two months longer than the EU took to suspend it altogether.  We can at least be assured that the EU's objections to the extension of the grace period are not objections in prionciple, they are only objections because they see it as being to the EU's disadvantage.  The EU has no objection to changing the rules as long as the change is in their favour.

the eu is a overly complicated organisation hence the mess their making of things

[Alf Bentley]

12 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

You don't need legal knowledge, the contract says "best efforts to provide" no guarantees. If they had a legal leg to stand on, they'd be taking it instead of this nonsense posturing. 

 

No, there isn't. We're not exporting completed vaccines because we have purchased all that is being made here. Exports will come after our orders are completed. 

 

If talks don't ease the tension then threats might. Like almost everything, it's a 2 way street. Pfizer can't produce their vaccine in the EU without ingredients shipped from Yorkshire. 

 

I tend to agree with your point in bold. Or at least, if the EU had a strong legal case v. AZ, they'd be using it to force AZ to increase supplies.

Though it could be a grey area as the precise scope of application of legal concepts like "best endeavours" is much contested in court: https://www.taylorwessing.com/synapse/commercial_endeavours.html#:~:text=recognised this formulation as being,concept of reasonableness still applies.

 

I'm not convinced that no legal knowledge is necessary. I haven't read the EU-AZ contract (presumably you have as you quote from it). Plus, I don't know which courts or legal jurisdiction the contract comes under, which language takes precedence if it is drafted in more than one or how concepts like "best efforts/endeavours" (or possibly French-language equivalents) are interpreted under EU law - assuming the contract ultimately comes under EU/ECJ law?

 

As I said, I suspect that the EU has no solid legal grounds for its accusation about UK blocking exports. You seem 100% confident about this, so I assume you have a detailed knowledge of all EU-UK agreements over vaccine supplies and of the UK export procedures applied in this case. If not, your confidence is the equivalent of someone posting: "Leicester should sell Vardy. Fact!"

 

Yes, whether it's through a more conciliatory approach (esp. from the EU) or through threats of mutual harm, let's hope that a co-operative way forward can be found. EU blocking and UK counter-blocking is a Lose-Lose scenario - and on such a crucial, urgent issue (not to mention an increased likelihood of further EU-UK conflict over other issues).

[Spudulike]

I don't think the UK should block export of components essential to produce the Pfizer vaccine even if the EU Commission carry out their threat. 

 

The UK would have the highest of moral high grounds in this circumstance whilst they pursue the legal options. 

 

The EU really need to understand that inflammatory language is unlikely to succeed. They need to have their shovels removed for the sake of the citizens. 

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

"EU luvvies"? Really? 

Is everyone obliged to comment on every topic? Do you?

 

I don't have the legal knowledge to say whether the EU has any grounds for its allegations that AstraZeneca has not fulfilled contracts with them.

That said, overall the EU seems to have made a pig's ear of vaccine procurement and EU states likewise re. important aspects of vaccine messaging & decision-making (Macron's comments on AZ trials, recent suspension of AZ by some states).

I presume that a big part of the aggressive rhetoric from the EU is due to pressure from their own populations due to mismanagement at EU and member state level (esp. with major elections pending in Germany & France).

 

While the UK made a disastrous mess of other important aspects of Covid response, it has clearly done much better than the EU with vaccine procurement and roll-out.

Not only that, but the UK reportedly put big money into vaccine investment - and the resulting vaccine is to be delivered worldwide at cost price, massive plusses.

 

Is there anything in the EU accusations of the UK blocking vaccine exports? I don't know, but EU accusations seem vague so I suspect there aren't solid legal grounds or evidence for their accusations.

I hope that the EU rhetoric is essentially political pressure on AZ to boost supplies to the EU and on the UK to be generous if, as sounds likely, the EU-AZ contracts are not watertight (talk of "best endeavours" clauses etc.)

I gather that Johnson will have talks with EU leaders between now and a key EU meeting on Thursday. I hope that resolves the tension as it would indeed be despicable for the EU (or anyone else) to launch vaccine trade wars.

No I don’t comment on every point nor do I expect you too, the luvvies was a bit tongue in cheek no need to get defensive.

I think you’ve covered it quite well in all fairness and I do hope we, as a country can hold our heads high on our part (it’s by no means certain, even if I believe it to be malicious). 
I really don’t take pleasure in EU exposing themselves as the callous, disgusting dictators that I always believed they were. Well, not under these circumstances anyway. 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Strokes said:

No I don’t comment on every point nor do I expect you too, the luvvies was a bit tongue in cheek no need to get defensive.

I think you’ve covered it quite well in all fairness and I do hope we, as a country can hold our heads high on our part (it’s by no means certain, even if I believe it to be malicious). 
I really don’t take pleasure in EU exposing themselves as the callous, disgusting dictators that I always believed they were. Well, not under these circumstances anyway. 

 

[Jon the Hat]

 

31 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

I don't think the UK should block export of components essential to produce the Pfizer vaccine even if the EU Commission carry out their threat. 

 

The UK would have the highest of moral high grounds in this circumstance whilst they pursue the legal options. 

 

The EU really need to understand that inflammatory language is unlikely to succeed. They need to have their shovels removed for the sake of the citizens. 

I would really hope it doesn't come to that, but have to say it would be bloody stupid for the EU to block exports knowing full well they need UK supplies to make the vaccine in the first place.  Completely mental.

[Jon the Hat]

11 minutes ago, Strokes said:

No I don’t comment on every point nor do I expect you too, the luvvies was a bit tongue in cheek no need to get defensive.

I think you’ve covered it quite well in all fairness and I do hope we, as a country can hold our heads high on our part (it’s by no means certain, even if I believe it to be malicious). 
I really don’t take pleasure in EU exposing themselves as the callous, disgusting dictators that I always believed they were. Well, not under these circumstances anyway. 

There is a unwelcome satisfaction to seeing many people finally see the truth about these arseholes.