Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?


  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
The UK were part of the EU and the way you try to separate them while not doing the same for every other member states is the issue. The UK left because they couldn't convince other member states and the latter used their own sovereignty which you interpret as intransigence. It never crossed your mind that your interpretation of the EU's "intransigence" could easily be seen as the UK's refusal to accept that the majority of member states disagreed with them?

Yes, its water under the bridge now, despite what many on here think I did not vote for Brexit, but I understood why people did.
In my generation many recall the that President De Gaulle set the tone, for a long time his response to the UK's application was 'Non' and many believed Edward Heath and his colleagues sold the UK out when we joined. The trouble was the EU concept was never truly accepted in many areas within the UK, perhaps never understood, and De Gaulle's opposition made it difficult for many in the UK to accept, that we did need the EEC as it was then, and they came to need us. According to the British press we seem to constantly be at logger-heads with the EEC, and at one time Jacques Delor also to many seem to go out of his way to make life uncomfortable for the British. I've always taken the view that the EU as an entity and the UK Government, for its own purposes, found it convenient to give the impression they were talking to the back of each others heads.
Opt-outs, rebates, etc. all the other 'bits' we were 'out of' or not fully involved in just serve to widen the gulf. The big mistake was when (ironically two of the biggest Europhiles in Government) Heseltine and Clark stopped/persuaded Thatcher from holding a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty which effectively change the game; had they not done so despite the anti-EU feeling in some quarters in the UK I firmly believe that would have been the defining moment when we where either in or out, both politically and economically and it would a have been the defining victory for remain.

Everything that followed was downhill as far as our involvement in the EU, this aided by Blairs attempts to force us into the euro zone, by adopting the Euro. The buffers were now in place on the track and all it took was Junker to send Cameron away with a flea in his ear, the signals changed, the tracks were moved and the almighty crash loomed. The fat lady will be singing in the not too distant future!
 
Last edited:
Yes, its water under the bridge now, despite what many on here think I did not vote for Brexit, but I understood why people did.
In my generation many recall the that President De Gaulle set the tone, for a long time his response to the UK's application was 'Non' and many believed Edward Heath and his colleagues sold the UK out when we joined. The trouble was the EU concept was never truly accepted in many areas within the UK, perhaps never understood, and De Gaulle's opposition made it difficult for many in the UK to accept, that we did need the EEC as it was then, and they came to need us. According to the British press we seem to constantly be at logger-heads with the EEC, and at one time Jacques Delor also to many seem to go out of his way to make life uncomfortable for the British. I've always taken the view that the EU as an entity and the UK Government, for its own purposes, found it convenient to give the impression they were talking to the back of each others heads.
Opt-outs, rebates, etc. all the other 'bits' we were 'out of' or not fully involved in just serve to widen the gulf. The big mistake was when (ironically two of the biggest Europhiles in Government) Heseltine and Clark stopped/persuaded Thatcher from holding a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty which effectively change the game; had they not done so despite the anti-EU feeling in some quarters in the UK I firmly believe that would have been the defining moment when we where either in or out, both politically and economically and it would a have been the defining victor for remain.

Everything that followed was downhill as far as our involvement in the EU, this aided by Blairs attempts to force us into the euro zone, by adopting the Euro. The buffers were now in place on the track and all it took was Junker to send Cameron away with a flea in his ear, the signals changed, the tracks were moved and the almighty crash loomed. The fat lady will be singing in the not too distant future!

Two things, you keep doing this EU vs UK as if the UK weren't a member of what is called the EU, you need to realize that without the UK you aren't talking about the EU. The second thing is that the UK were one of the main source when it came to lawmaking in the EU, so your impression was wrong.
 
I don't know but someone has to ask them because while there is no justification for their actions there has to be an explanation, there is a rational reason behind it. My guess is that they did it for someone in the City and that Brexit's lobbying is only linked to the service industry, if I'm not mistaken both Ratcliffe and Dyson own a lot of market shares, they also both knew that they could easily move themselves and their industrial businesses out of the UK.

Well they've not moved anything out of the country, they've acquired a factory and the workforce, the latter appearing to be the motive for the purchase. This isn't new news by the way, this was discussed back in July when the talks began with Mercedes.

The timing of the acquisition is in poor taste though, but the headline being painted doesn't match the story behind it though.
 
Worryingly for us our last hope for the country is to send Boris to dinner with a woman where he doesn’t try to bed her.

Doomed.
Hope is long gone.

At this point anybody who didn't want a very hard Brexit or the hardest of Brexits is getting breadcrumbs.
 
Two things, you keep doing this EU vs UK as if the UK weren't a member of what is called the EU, you need to realize that without the UK you aren't talking about the EU. The second thing is that the UK were one of the main source when it came to lawmaking in the EU, so your impression was wrong.

That's because that is how it was seen by many people in the UK all through the majority of the latter part of the 20th Century, I am not saying this view was right, but neither am I making this up.... and you could argue is still seen that way now, hence the Brexit vote!
 
That's because that is how it was seen by many people in the UK all through the majority of the latter part of the 20th Century, I am not saying this view was right, but neither am I making this up.... and you could argue is still seen that way now, hence the Brexit vote!

Your attempt at pretending that you are talking about someone else opinion doesn't work. And you also keep ignoring the question about why the press and british politicians lied about these things which is the actual reason behind Brexit, the lying part.

I should remind you that you wrote that earlier today:

Oh of course not, perish the thought, the EU intransigent, never been heard of before... I'm not selling anything my friend if the EU had not been so intransigent there would never have been a vote in the UK on Brexit in the first place.
 
Already debunked, the vaccine approval was nothing to do with brexit we applied EU emergency rules. I'm sure you must have come across this?
The weirdest thing is that the UK actually followed the exact same process as the EMA. It seems like they just benefited from having closer contacts with Pfizer/BioNTech - or maybe the EC approval that has to follow EMA's conclusions is taken time. (As Canada also approved the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine today.) I discussed it here:
The European Medicines Agency (EMA - which was located in London before Brexit, but is now in Amsterdam) has a page on the authorization process:

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/about-us/what-we-do/authorisation-medicines

In short, companies that want to sell new medicine that is not generic and requires a prescription in the EU need to get it assessed by the EMA. The Agency then provides a recommendation to the European Commission which decides on approvals. Once that's been granted, the product can be sold in all EU countries, plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway. So nothing to do with Brussels summits or political games (a ridiculous idea for medicine anyway). They have a nice little infograph explaining why a centralized process is beneficial:

centralised-procedure.jpg


I haven't read any arguments on the vaccine process, but I would think that approving the vaccining centrally makes sense. The EMA exists already, why not use it? Also, this creates fairness among member states; no advantage to countries with greater approval process capacity. Plus, no need to add burden to the current work of individual countries by having a few dozen individual approval processes. Finally, given all the conspiracy theories out there and existing vaccine hesitancy, it seems more secure to me to use the known procedure, rather than fuelling suspicion or increasing safety concerns by expiditing the approval process.

Interestingly, as it turns out, the British Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) seems to have followed the exact same process as the EMA. Which provides another reason against countries using individual processes: why go there is they're using the same method anyway?) This CNN article discusses exactly that:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/02/uk/uk-pfizer-vaccine-approval-gbr-intl/index.html

While they keep mentioning this rolling review of the MHRA and how it is only used to expedite approvals in emergency situations, they say that the EMA also used it and even started at the same time. So there is actually no difference there. The only unique explanation I see is someone's suggestion that Pfizer/BioNTech would have worked particularly closely with the MHRA, thus allowing it to move more quickly than others.

So, why did the UK go it alone? Maybe they knew they could make these Pfizer/BioNTech contacts work for them. Or maybe it's just in the spirit of Brexit. But in the end, it seems they really just did the same thing as the EU - except on their own.
 
The weirdest thing is that the UK actually followed the exact same process as the EMA. It seems like they just benefited from having closer contacts with Pfizer/BioNTech - or maybe the EC approval that has to follow EMA's conclusions is taken time. (As Canada also approved the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine today.) I discussed it here:

IIRC, the difference is the amount of samples tested.
 
IIRC, the difference is the amount of samples tested.
Just out of curiosity, could you elaborate on that? I thought these agencies only validated the test results - but that sounds a little superficial and anyway, I'm pretty much a layman on this.
 
I had the misfortune earlier of catching an interview of IDS calling the EU's demands stupid.
 
Just out of curiosity, could you elaborate on that? I thought these agencies only validated the test results - but that sounds a little superficial and anyway, I'm pretty much a layman on this.

I should have said evaluated instead of tested, if I'm not mistaken the difference is the amount of data analyzed.
 
I should have said evaluated instead of tested, if I'm not mistaken the difference is the amount of data analyzed.
Ah OK, that's more in line with what I've been reading, yeah.

I should look up some more details. I've gotten curious now. :)
 
Sounds like the talks haven't gone well. Not really a surprise.
 
This one of the insights not everyone understands, or indeed admits, that Brexit has never been about trade/business/economics its always only ever been about politics, sovereignty in particular. The question now is it what price has to be paid for that sovereignty, who will pay it and how will that sovereignty be used in the future? Some might argue that the UK Governments ability to independently approve and introduce the new Covid-19 vaccine as quickly as it has as an example of our new found sovereignty.

Business people however will always do what is best for their business, or they perceive as being best, that will not change with or without Brexit.
You honestly still believe this?

You may need to find some different sources of information.
 
Upcoming run on the shops?

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...u-fail-agree-brexit-no-deal-shortages-tariffs

Tesco warns of higher prices if UK and EU fail to agree Brexit deal


Shoppers face temporary shortages of some fresh foods and higher prices if the UK fails to strike a Brexit deal with the EU, the chairman of Tesco has warned. John Allan said a no-deal Brexit would trigger tariffs, “which can be quite substantial on some food items”.

“Those almost inevitably are going to lead to higher prices and I think if we go out on no-deal basis that is unavoidable,” Allan told Bloomberg TV.

The chairman of Britain’s biggest supermarket warned that the end of the transition period could trigger temporary disruption of food imports and lead to gaps on supermarket shelves, although he urged shoppers not to panic-buy.


“We may see some shortages of fresh foods, particularly short-life fresh foods. I think that will only be for a limited period, perhaps a month or two, before we get back to normal,” Allan said.

“I don’t think there is any reason at all for any consumer to panic or panic buy at the moment. There is still going to be plenty of food in the UK – there may just be slightly restricted choice for a period of time.”
 
Upcoming run on the shops?

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...u-fail-agree-brexit-no-deal-shortages-tariffs

Tesco warns of higher prices if UK and EU fail to agree Brexit deal

Cue Brexiters rushing out to panic buy.

One very weird point - there will be queues and delays at ports temporarily- it's a regular theme from the UK press -they will somehow mysteriously vanish because......
1) Deliveries to or from the UK cease or reduce significantly or 2) They stop checking. 2) isn't happening so....
 
in a way Brexit was about sovereignty, the Tories sovereign right to give tax cuts to their old Etonian mates and deregulate the feck out of everything
 
Cue Brexiters rushing out to panic buy.

One very weird point - there will be queues and delays at ports temporarily- it's a regular theme from the UK press -they will somehow mysteriously vanish because......
1) Deliveries to or from the UK cease or reduce significantly or 2) They stop checking. 2) isn't happening so....
You're forgetting the 'technology solutions which hasn't been invented yet.