Who told you that?
Should I play guess the media outlet?
edit: Oh no, its because you believe JRM and Matt Hancock without question. Wow.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Should I play guess the media outlet?
edit: Oh no, its because you believe JRM and Matt Hancock without question. Wow.
I want to point out that there is no reasonable way to compare rates between countries when they don't have the same strategies, in France the strategy has been to focus on care homes and health workers first. So it's not about the vaccine itself but strategic decisions from the health administration.
I've already posted a link to one article.
The UK used a measure that is available to all member states who have the possibility to grant a regional and temporary authorisation. It has nothing to do with Brexit.
Please read the whole article. Read past JRM and Hancock tweets.
"But the idea that Brexit enabled the UK to press ahead and authorise one is not right.
It was actually permitted under EU law, a point made by the head of the UK's medicines regulator on Wednesday."
Do you realise that you’ve posted an article which actually disputes your claim? Did you read it?
Try again. Under EU law, the UK was permitted to act independently to approve the vaccine in an emergency. Other EU nations had the same opportunity. Nothing to do with Brexit.
Don't think I ever said I had accepted anything without question, did I? I said apparently that could be the case.
You seem a bit salty. Everything ok?
I would suggest reading the article properly before posting it as evidence that Brexit helped procure the vaccines more quickly.
But the idea that Brexit enabled the UK to press ahead and authorise one is not right.
It was actually permitted under EU law, a point made by the head of the UK's medicines regulator on Wednesday.
What are EU rules on approving vaccines?
Under European law a vaccine must be authorised by the EMA, but individual countries can use an emergency procedure that allows them to distribute a vaccine for temporary use in their domestic market.
Britain is still subject to those EU rules during the post-Brexit transition period which runs until the end of the year.
The UK's own medicines regulator, the MHRA, confirmed this in a statement last month.
And its chief executive, Dr June Raine, said on Wednesday that "we have been able to authorise the supply of this vaccine using provisions under European law, which exist until 1 January".
It was actually permitted under EU law, a point made by the head of the UK's medicines regulator on Wednesday.
What are EU rules on approving vaccines?
Under European law a vaccine must be authorised by the EMA, but individual countries can use an emergency procedure that allows them to distribute a vaccine for temporary use in their domestic market.
Britain is still subject to those EU rules during the post-Brexit transition period which runs until the end of the year.
The UK's own medicines regulator, the MHRA, confirmed this in a statement last month.
And its chief executive, Dr June Raine, said on Wednesday that "we have been able to authorise the supply of this vaccine using provisions under European law, which exist until 1 January".
I remember thinking this was one of the few times Johnson didn't act like a total buffoon when asked about this and sidestepped the question about it totally.
It wasn't really meant to be a criticism of individual countries, just that in this case the EU have not tried to intervene in any way on how countries vaccinate and they can vaccinate who they want, as quickly as they want.
They wanted an EU wide deal, which happened, though as I said, some countries have still done some extra deals individually. And they wanted approval on a certain date and for countries to start vaccinating at roughly the same time. Both of which the individual countries could, within EU rules and laws, have said no to but for the most part, have not.
Seems to be a bit strange that the Uk was the only country that chose to take the option to speed up approval to cure a deadly virus?
It sounds to me that it was probably easier for the Uk to go this route as it could make it's own decision away from the rest of Europe.
I don't really have any "side" to either Brexit or remain by the way. Just think the thread needs a bit of balance from other things that are going on.
Yes, weeks ago and it was correctly debunked then. Keep up.
if you don’t like it here you can choose to jog on
I didn't take it as a criticism of individual countries, I was just making the point that we can't even use vaccination rates to make a point because countries don't even have the same vaccination strategies. Each country is free to do what it wants and that's exactly what they have done.
The UK were the only country in the world to use that type of accelerated procedure.
My god the bitterness runs deep. If you need to talk, send me a DM or something and we can go for a beer after Covid.
A lot of people in this thread seem to get very offended by very little.
But that lying no good turd ferret, Jacob Reece Mogg says otherwise!
Balance is never a bad thing in a debate, but the balance needs to be factual. From the past 5 years, facts isn't something that comes naturally to any supporter of Brexit.
I'm good, thanks. Although a bug bear of mine is how disinformation spreads, without verification, on any topic, Brexit or otherwise.
The truth should not be subjective.
Not salty, just disappointed.
For balance, I think if we had a competent, capable government, Brexit could be turned into something positive for the UK. Big "if" though, isn't it?
It isn't strange at all. The UK was generally in a more dire situation and is currently led by a government that makes a point of making grand statements about leaving the EU, whether or not they're true (see tampon tax and pulse fishing situations), both of which they trumpeted on the day we officially left of course.
That isn't to say the EMA didn't move slightly slowly (and Germany did put some pressure on to get them to authorise more quickly) or that being in a process of leaving the EU made the UK more comfortable using emergency authorisations.
But I'm not sure what more I can say if literally our own vaccine regulator made a statement saying that Brexit had nothing to do with it and what they did was allowed within EU law, in an article that you yourself link, with you continuing to say that Brexit was the reason we were able to approve more quickly.
Also important to note that we approved a couple of weeks before the rest of Europe. Big whoop from me there to be honest.
I also think balance is important and I actually agree, despite my personal hatred of Brexit, that this thread tends to lack some balance on the issue. But if you want to provide some balance, then great but it should be with factual information. Perhaps you feel the UK can be a bigger driver for environmentalism outside of the EU? Perhaps you feel globalisation has been a negative force and immigration to the UK should be more controlled? Perhaps you feel there are too many regulations in the EU? Perhaps you feel that the CAP is terrible and the UK can come up with something better? I would personally disagree but those are all possible hypotheticals that you could argue I guess.
But saying Brexit meant we approved the vaccines earlier or that we can now ban pulse fishing or tampon tax is disingenuous and factually incorrect.
Last edited:
You made a claim, it was disputed, you posted your evidence, it was pointed out that your evidence proves the opposite of your claim and now you’re calling people sensitive because they‘re in no mood to listen to any more disinformation.
Wow. I don't want to call people a moron for no good reason, but I don't know what else to call him. He literally posted a link that refuted himself, thinks he's got everyone beat, acts high and mighty and proceeds to insult everyone in here. Not realising that the vaccines were approved in the UK under EU Law. And did I mention his own link refutes him? I really don't know what else to call him. 
Oh dear.
There was nothing to stop them doing that anyway, so as the article you posted states, it was nothing to do with brexit.
jrm, gove, etc want you to believe it was a brexit win whereas the truth is it’s nothing to do with it.
how did they role out so quickly compared to others? U.K. chose to gamble and gave vaccine approval earlier than everyone else. hopefully it pays off
I’m not bitter, I get irritated by people late to the party who choose to moan about the forum rather than checking first to see if it’s already been talked about and debunked. Which it had.
so, if you don’t like our forum you can always Cafexit
It honestly still blows me away how clueless so many people are, like Hughes35 here.
Bozzer says something and the sheep just follow
Last edited:
That’s completely untrue, leaving the EU has not sped up our ability to approve a vaccine and this has been confirmed many times.
What should worry those who supported brexit, is that if brexit is so brilliant then why are people going to lengths to lie about/misunderstand these supposed brexit benefits? It’s almost as if there aren’t many.
Your error was daring to attempt to praise the current gov. for something. Doesn't stand a chance in this particular echo chamber.
Except it & move on. It's for the best.
Or is error was the lack of correctness of his statement.
Can you list some of the things you currently think they're doing which is praiseworthy?
Regardless, that isn't what they did. If they'd said our vaccine rollout rate is currently one of the quickest in the world, they'd be correct, though there are many nuances to sonething like this.
They linked it to brexit though, which just patently isn't true.
Perhaps, yes. He was shot down though so no harm done.
Acceptional response.
Nope, I can't. I'm not a supporter of them in the slightest. Just advising a poster of the battle he faces attempting to post anything positive about the current gov.
It's futile, for many reasons.
He can do that in a thread about the government but he can't come into a thread about brexit and pretend that something that has nothing to do with brexit is a big win for brexit. He also can't expect to not be corrected.
I mean, he could try posting truthful statements about the current gov? Actual factual statements?
Anyone spreading propaganda will rightfully be shot down, for many reasons.
Agreed, hence the word attempt.
I'm sure he's very aware of this now, yes.
Which begs a question, what was your point about echo chambers then? Since we have established that he shared a lie and did it in the wrong thread.
The forum is an echo chamber for the current opposition party. Was making him aware if he wasn't already.