Jump to content
Jools

The Positive Brexit Thread

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Very good. Very subtle.

Or is it just a rumour that was spread around town

A telegram or a picture postcard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BigFish said:

Another epic fail from @SwindonCanary, is there no end to the topics he can post about, about which he knows less than nothing.

Defence procurement was always exempt from EU procurement directives while the UK was a member of the EU becuase of reasons of national security. Governments just choose not to.. The UK could have, at any time, built the RN fleet entirely in the UK. That it didn't was a political choice, that and the decisions in Thatcher's Britain to run down the UK's shipbuilding industry.

Now it more likely to look to South Korea for its boats:http://www.defenceviewpoints.co.uk/defence-industry/south-koreans-to-build-new-ships-for-royal-navy

I don't know if deja vu is the right word but it does seem a recurring theme that a lot of stuff we were told we couldn't do, from passport colour through to immigration, because of being in the EU, we could do but just couldn't be arsed. Did we simply join the EU so we could blame someone for dreadful domestic policies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, horsefly said:

Oh dear! Old boiled gammon head is back spouting his lies. The EU decided to suspend the roll-out of the AZ vaccine while they investigated the coincidence of a number of cases of blood clots following AZ injections. Whether they were wise to do that is certainly a question they need to answer. 

The EU had full knowledge that 11 million Brits had already received a dose of AstraZeneca with no sign of excess deaths or blood clots occurring...

Such is the EU's hatred for Brexit Britain.

118 states exempted worldwide from the EU's vaccine export ban and the UK isn't one of them...

Such is the EU's hatred for Brexit Britain.

Has nobody told Ursula that essential ingredients for the EU's vaccines are produced in and exported to the EU from Brexit Britain?

And you ask whether the EU were wise to suspend AstraZeneca 🙃

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

And a bicycle on Moys birthday

Well you Remainiacs certainly spread rumours around town.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Jools said:

The EU had full knowledge that 11 million Brits had already received a dose of AstraZeneca with no sign of excess deaths or blood clots occurring...

Oh dear dumbo! Precisely the reason why one would urgently need to examine why blood clots had occured after the injection of AZ in a number of cases throughout europe. I thought you were supposed to be involved in the health care industry, how can you be so ignorant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Oh dear dumbo! Precisely the reason why one would urgently need to examine why blood clots had occured after the injection of AZ in a number of cases throughout europe. I thought you were supposed to be involved in the health care industry, how can you be so ignorant?

All potential adverse reactions should be investigated Horsey, and they are, but that doesn’t require the vaccine to be suspended, does it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Van wink said:

All potential adverse reactions should be investigated Horsey, and they are, but that doesn’t require the vaccine to be suspended, does it?

That depends on the country, knowing Norway, if they had two cases of clotting in quick succession of the vaccine administered, they have a protocol to investigate! Why the rest of the countries decided to follow suit is the question,  it should have been carried on with. Funny how 18 suspended it the other 9 didn’t, but not sure how many of them are actually using AZ!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Indy said:

That depends on the country, knowing Norway, if they had two cases of clotting in quick succession of the vaccine administered, they have a protocol to investigate! Why the rest of the countries decided to follow suit is the question,  it should have been carried on with. Funny how 18 suspended it the other 9 didn’t, but not sure how many of them are actually using AZ!

Absolutely, but as I said why suspend before investigating?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Absolutely, but as I said why suspend before investigating?

From what I know, it’s the protocol there, but agree with the rest of the EU, should never have suspended it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d love to know the exact figures of AZ available in the EU and the amount injected, the last time I spoke to my cousin they said that AZ wasn’t being used in the Czech Rep, was about a fortnight ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jools said:

Well you Remainiacs certainly spread rumours around town.. 

With all the will in the world, Keep up. We've had that lyric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Van wink said:

All potential adverse reactions should be investigated Horsey, and they are, but that doesn’t require the vaccine to be suspended, does it?

That is precisely the question to be investigated. Of course all adverse reactions need investigating but clearly not all would require a suspension of a vaccine/drug's use. For example, there is a world of difference between a temporary slight reddening of the skin after an injection and the occurence of blood clots. The latter is a life-threatening condition that certainly merits suspending of a drug/vaccines use if there is evidence of a correlation. Medical history ought to be enough to remind us that such correlations demand investigation to determine whether a causal connection is present, and that in some cases this demands that the drug/vaccine concerned should have its use suspended pending the outcome of that investigation (thalidomide provides a salutary example). It was not unreasonable for the EU to suspend use of the AZ vaccine while they investigated the correlation. Indeed, I believe even some AZ scientists themselves have supported this action. What does seem unreasonable is the way this temporary suspension was spun by some politicians (eg. Macron). 

It is in the interest of everybody that all countries gain access to sufficient numbers of safe vaccines as soon as possible. So let's hope that the current statements from the EU and UK about pursuing a cooperative strategy are genuine. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, horsefly said:

It was not unreasonable for the EU to suspend use of the AZ vaccine while they investigated the correlation. 

 

It might not have been in alternative reality where 10 million vaccines had not been administered, in the real world however where 10 million vaccines had been administered without any adverse morbidity outside the normal parameters it was an extraordinary and dangerous decision in the midst of a pandemic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Van wink said:

It might not have been in alternative reality where 10 million vaccines had not been administered, in the real world however where 10 million vaccines had been administered without any adverse morbidity outside the normal parameters it was an extraordinary and dangerous decision in the midst of a pandemic.

A little too simplistic I fear given that governments are charged with a duty to protect their populations from the possibility of unleashing a harmful drug upon them (a duty too often neglected in the past under pressure from the big pharma corporate interests). That duty to investigate the correlation of AZ vaccines with an occurence of blood clots is not simply abrogated by the emergency of the situation. The UK experience would obviously factor into that investigation but it is far from obvious that it ought to prove conclusive. For example, it is not difficult to imagine that the UK recieved different batches of AZ from that received by the EU and that a specific batch could be responsible for the correlation with blood clots in the EU. Such possibilities require investigation before millions of people are possibly exposed to a danger that could turn out to be more dangerous than the virus. As it is the EMA moved very quickly to investigate and subsequently dispel the concerns raised (although Denmark, it seems, remain unconvinced and have retained the suspension). 

Edited by horsefly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, horsefly said:

A little too simplistic I fear given that governments are charged with a duty to protect their populations from the possibility of unleashing a harmful drug upon them (a duty too often neglected in the past under pressure from the big pharma corporate interests). That duty to investigate the correlation of AZ vaccines with an occurence of blood clots is not simply abrogated by the emergency of the situation. The UK experience would obviously factor into that investigation but it is far from obvious that it ought to prove conclusive. For example, t is not difficult to imagine that UK recieved different batches of AZ from the EU and that a specific batch could be responsible for the correlation with blood clots in the EU. Such possibilities require investigation before millions of people are possibly exposed to a danger that could turn out to be more dangerous than the virus. As it is the EMA moved very quickly to investigate and subsequently dispel the concerns raised (although Denmark, it seems, remain unconvinced and have retained the suspension). 

EMA and WHO didn’t “subsequently” dispel the concerns, they said all along that that any small potential risk of side effects was hugely outweighed by the benefits. There was causative relationship.

Edited by Van wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Van wink said:

EMA and WHO didn’t “subsequently” dispel the concerns, they said all along that that any small risk was hugely outweighed by any potential side effects.

You can play at semantics if you wish but the facts remain that each government has to take responsibility for licensing the medications that it allows for use on its citizens. Those governments had concerns that the AZ vaccine was correlated with the occurence of blood clots and decided to suspend its use until further investigations showed that it was safe. The EMA did indeed engage in further investigations to confirm their original view that the vaccine was safe. No drug reaches a market without be passed as safe by an appropriate government agency to begin with, but we have plenty of examples of a drug's licence being reviewed by the same agency that passed it as subsequent evidence mounts that it is correlated with dangerous side-effects.

Thus it is absolutely correct to describe the EMA investigation as "subsequently dispelling" the concerns raised by various governments. 

Edited by horsefly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, horsefly said:

You can play at semantics if you wish but the facts remain that each government has to take responsibility for licensing the medications that it allows for use on its citizens. Those governments had concerns that the AZ vaccine was correlated with the occurence of blood clots and decided to suspend its use until further investigations showed that it was safe. The EMA did indeed engage in further investigations to confirm their original view that the vaccine was safe. Thus it is absolutely correct to describe their investigation as "subsequently dispelling" the concerns raised by various governments. 

Yes indeed each government has to take responsibility, I’m sure they will be reminded of that as they see a third wave of infection and reflect on the days wasted when they could have been vaccinating their populations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Yes indeed each government has to take responsibility, I’m sure they will be reminded of that as they see a third wave of infection and reflect on the days wasted when they could have been vaccinating their populations.

more non Brexit stuff

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Van wink said:

Yes indeed each government has to take responsibility, I’m sure they will be reminded of that as they see a third wave of infection and reflect on the days wasted when they could have been vaccinating their populations.

And, indeed, we are right back where we started. Each government's own citizens will be the final arbiters of whether they were justified to proceed with caution and suspend the AZ roll-out while they investigated the possible connection with blood clots. Given the many medical disasters that have occured in the past it really isn't that difficult to understand that there is at least a case for proceeding as they did. Such decisions are often extremely complicated by a number of factors, not the least of which are the cultural factors mentioned by Indy above. I suspect that the Danish government's persistence with the AZ suspension has more to do with its understanding of its citizens expectations concerning medicine licensing than it has to do with some putative obstinacy or petulance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BigFish said:

Another epic fail from @SwindonCanary, is there no end to the topics he can post about, about which he knows less than nothing.

Defence procurement was always exempt from EU procurement directives while the UK was a member of the EU becuase of reasons of national security. Governments just choose not to.. The UK could have, at any time, built the RN fleet entirely in the UK. That it didn't was a political choice, that and the decisions in Thatcher's Britain to run down the UK's shipbuilding industry.

Now it more likely to look to South Korea for its boats:http://www.defenceviewpoints.co.uk/defence-industry/south-koreans-to-build-new-ships-for-royal-navy

all jobs like that were put out to tender to the rest of the EU "RULES BY THE EU" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

all jobs like that were put out to tender to the rest of the EU "RULES BY THE EU" 

Tell me @SwindonCanary are you just incredibly stupid or a liar or possibly both? Is this the RULES BY THE EU you are talking about?

(b) any Member State may take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war material; such measures shall not adversely affect the conditions of competition in the internal market regarding products which are not intended for specifically military purposes.

RULES BY THE EU that say exactly the opposite of what you claim?

Truth is succesive Tory governments ran down UK shipyards and pushed work abroad because it was cheap, hence South Korea winning contracts now. It wasn't the EU that made this happen it was the UK.

No, EU rules won’t stop us building UK ships in UK shipyards

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

all jobs like that were put out to tender to the rest of the EU "RULES BY THE EU" 

£450M to the Koreans and £150M to the UK.

Is that another fantastic trade deal? Who negotiated that one? Obviously we cannot build ships here anymore. 

And why concentrate on the Navy but get rid of 10K infantry? Are we worried about the Taliban Navy? Do ISIS marines pose a real threat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news for 'Keelansgrandpapa' in Cornwall  👇

 

afdabdfb-de55-452b-b000-43e4d45f1094-16f4140b-d00a-4f87-9b73-9a44eacb2007

 

Of course one will never hear it mentioned in/on the Lefty Guardian or BBC, but it's a fact that if one has something to sell and there's a market that wants to buy it, a workaround some bureaucratic  t0sser with a clip board can always be found 🙃

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Jools said:

Good news for 'Keelansgrandpapa' in Cornwall  👇

 

afdabdfb-de55-452b-b000-43e4d45f1094-16f4140b-d00a-4f87-9b73-9a44eacb2007

 

Of course one will never hear it mentioned in/on the Lefty Guardian or BBC, but it's a fact that if one has something to sell and there's a market that wants to buy it, a workaround some bureaucratic  t0sser with a clip board can always be found 🙃

oh dear, poor mad moy

trying desperate;y in his bid to wrestle the 'most dimmest brexiteer' crown * from the ever simple minded Swindo

nothing, absolutely nothing, of what he posts addresses the problem his sort caused by making the UK a third country, and so imposing huge costs, restrictions and delays upon exporting UK fish and shellfish to the EU

the only known case of a country imposing a trading embargo........................on itself 😂

 

* a hotly fought contest

Edited by Bill
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jools said:

Of course one will never hear it mentioned in/on the Lefty Guardian or BBC, but it's a fact that if one has something to sell and there's a market that wants to buy it, a workaround some bureaucratic  t0sser with a clip board can always be found 🙃

You caused this.Never forget.

You can carry on being angry all you like, I assume it is guilt, but we warned you constantly that voting to make it harder to trade with our biggest trading partner would make it harder to trade with our biggest trading partner. And so it is.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Herman said:

You caused this.Never forget.

You can carry on being angry all you like, I assume it is guilt, but we warned you constantly that voting to make it harder to trade with our biggest trading partner would make it harder to trade with our biggest trading partner. And so it is.

I can't decide whether the RWNJs are just astonishingly stupid or astonishingly brazen liars. Probably both I suspect. Just how thick do you have to be to fail to grasp the obvious consequences of removing yourself from a single market and then continuing to trade with that market as a different market regime? Given that there isn't a single example in the world of two different markets trading with each other without necessary restrictions such as tariffs, customs checks, red-tape etc etc, you would have thought no one would lack awareness of what is blatantly obvious. It is precisely because of this that so many countries seek to form themselves into trading blocks to avoid such onerous and restrictive bureaucracy.

Thus, with an hilarious lack of self-awareness we find Jools et al lauding our attempt to join the CPTPP. So in the name of "independence" and "sovereignty" they demand we should withdraw from the EU and SM in order that we can join the CPTPP and subject our "independence" and "sovereignty" to the rules of a alternative trading organisation. You can almost hear the echo of their few confused brain cells slamming into the sides of their skulls.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're in the denial stage. And the angry stage. Maybe they should focus their attention on the people that sold them the magic beans. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Herman said:

They're in the denial stage. And the angry stage. Maybe they should focus their attention on the people that sold them the magic beans. 

Indeed! But if you lack intelligence and courage it's so much easier to shoot the messenger.

Edited by horsefly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...