UK had 'one or two' Brexit teething issues on fishing, minister says

[Loiner]

2 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Well nearly 42 for £ where's the pub stool guys saying the £ will hit bottom.

Something else the Remainer pseudo economists got wrong

 

I always thought they reserved their Remain sneers for Leavers they claimed to be bar stool experts. Sounds like the Leavers bar stools encourage accurate assessments. 

Maybe Remainer economic exspurts do all their pontificating from mismatched bistro easy chairs, while sipping a sweet sherry and getting it all wrong?

[7by7]

On 2/19/2021 at 8:43 AM, CG1 Blue said:

So I ask again - how were those numbers from Bloomberg arrived at? Or do you just believe any numbers that are thrown at you? 

I'd like to know how much of that figure is directly and definitely attributable to Brexit, and how much of it is just conjecture. 

 

Pro-EU companies like Bloomberg would blame Brexit for Coronavirus if they could get away with it! 

 

 

I've already mentioned and linked to their use by Full Fact in proving an anti Brexit myth to be incorrect. Most people, including Brexiteers who use them, consider Full Fact to be impartial. How about you? Do you consider them impartial when you agree with their findings but biased when you don't?

 

I've also mentioned and linked to their use by the Express. Surely not even you can consider them to be pro EU!

 

If you care to look you will find that these figures have been accepted by many organisations and authors who know far more about this subject than you or I. 

 

I can find many articles, even the pro Brexit ones, which accept the figures. I can find none which dispute them.

 

As I said to you before, you are disputing that estimate; so where are your alternative figures? 

[7by7]

For @CG1 Blue's benefit an article which is not behind a paywall and which contains links to how they reached their conclusions:

 The Cost of Brexit Uncertainty and the Negative Implications for the UK Economy

Quote

Our analysis—and that of others (PDF)—shows that leaving the EU has had an overall negative economic impact on the UK economy and that there are additional economic costs associated with the uncertainty surrounding the new relationship. Deal or no-deal, the UK economy is suffering from uncertainty in the short-term and may suffer from higher barriers to trade in the long-term.

 

 

[7by7]

More on the cost of Brexit.

 

 The UK will now count the cost of Brexit sovereignty

Quote

In one narrow sense, Brexit’s true believers are right. The gap between a thin trade deal and the absence of any accord is one between severe and more severe disruption....

.....The bargain under discussion is the first trade agreement in history consciously to raise protectionist barriers.

 

Brexit: 71 pages of paperwork for 1 lorry of fish.

Before anyone accuses them of not being ready:

Quote

To begin with, British exporters need an ID number (called an EORI number). They must also make sure the fishermen they work with have a licence to sell sea fish and register their own premises as an "approved establishment" to do business with the EU.

The firm had taken these steps ahead of time and felt "ready to go on day one" when the new trade rules came in, Mr Samways says. But the day-to-day reality is different.

 

"The day to day reality is different." Indeed it is, as the lengthy guidance from HMG shows: Transporting goods between Great Britain and the EU: guidance for hauliers and commercial drivers

[7by7]

7 hours ago, Tofer said:

 

Quite incorrect, we were in a transition period, and had no sitting MEPs to be able to vote on the subject, if in fact there was one?

 

 

 

Yes, we were in the transition period, so, as has been pointed out to you many times, we were still subject to all EU rules and regulations. Including those governing emergency approval of medicines.

 

This unilateral emergency approval is a matter over which MEPs have no say. It is a matter for the sovereign governments of each member state, not the EU parliament. The UK government decided to use the EU regulations to issue emergency approval. Any one of the EU 27 could have done the same. 

[7by7]

3 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

It is true. If the UK had still been a full EU member state we would have been obliged to wait while the EMA approved the vaccines at a snail's pace. Yes the EU rules would technically allow member states to temporarily license a vaccine prior to EMA approval, but there is no way we'd have become a rogue state if we hadn't left the club. 

 

As you finally admit, the EU rules do allow any member to unilaterally temporarily licence a vaccine for emergency use. Therefore we would not have been "obliged to wait while the EMA approved the vaccines at a snail's pace!"

 

The UK used this rule to so do, and any one of the 27 could have done exactly the same.

 

In fact, the information sheet given to UK residents following their first dose states that the authorisation is temporary; even though we have left the EU.

 

As for "there is no way we'd have become a rogue state if we hadn't left the club." That is pure, unfounded conjecture on your part. We would certainly have had every right to so do.

[7by7]

3 hours ago, Tofer said:

PS: The NHS are not the only ones administering the vaccine.

 Really?

 

Who else is doing it then?

 

Don't say pharmacies or dentists, as they are doing it under the auspices of and with the approval of the NHS.

 

3 hours ago, Tofer said:

Don't get me wrong, I hold the NHS in high esteem, bit they were not the driving force behind funding and acquiring the vaccine and organising it's distribution, only physically sticking needles in arms

Utter rubbish. The NHS have, and do more than just "physically sticking needles in arms!"

 

COVID-19 vaccine authorised by medicines regulator

Quote

Vaccination will be managed by the health services in each nation: NHS England and NHS Improvement, NHS Wales, NHS Scotland, and Health and Social Care Northern Ireland.

 

3 hours ago, Tofer said:

In other words, had we still been tied to the EU's influence, as were all the other 27 states, we would not have been able to make the success, that we did, of the vaccine roll out, which I think you must now admit was a result of Brexit.

More rubbish.

 

From the HMG link above

Quote

Until the end of December, and as part of the transition period, vaccines must be authorised via the European Medicines Agency and that authorisation will automatically be valid in the UK.

However, if a suitable COVID-19 vaccine candidate, with strong supporting evidence of safety, quality and effectiveness from clinical trials becomes available before the end of the transition period, EU legislation which we have implemented – Regulation 174 – allows the MHRA to temporarily authorise the supply of a medicine or vaccine, based on public health need.

(7by7 emphasis)

 

[CG1 Blue]

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

For @CG1 Blue's benefit an article which is not behind a paywall and which contains links to how they reached their conclusions:

 The Cost of Brexit Uncertainty and the Negative Implications for the UK Economy

 

 

 

So, Rand Corporation are basing their view on a report from The Centre for European Reform, described as: A pro-European think-tank created to counter British Euroscepticism

 

Did you even read the report? There is absolutely no proof that the GDP impact was related to Brexit. Jeez, this is hard work ????‍♂️

 

[CG1 Blue]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

As you finally admit, the EU rules do allow any member to unilaterally temporarily licence a vaccine for emergency use. Therefore we would not have been "obliged to wait while the EMA approved the vaccines at a snail's pace!"

 

The UK used this rule to so do, and any one of the 27 could have done exactly the same.

 

In fact, the information sheet given to UK residents following their first dose states that the authorisation is temporary; even though we have left the EU.

 

As for "there is no way we'd have become a rogue state if we hadn't left the club." That is pure, unfounded conjecture on your part. We would certainly have had every right to so do.

You may be mixing me up with someone else. I didn't 'finally admit' anything. I've said the same from the start. 

 

If you think that the UK would have followed exactly the same course with the vaccines if we'd never have left the EU, that's up to you. I think deep down you know we would have toed the EU line though, and we wouldn't have been in the enviable position with vaccines that we are now. That is, almost all UK vulnerable people vaccinated, and discussions already starting about which countries we can pass excess vaccines to. And that's going to be a very interesting debate. 

[Scott]

Troll post removed.  

 

[Scott]

Post from an unapproved source has been removed.  

 

18) Social Media content is acceptable in most social forums. However, in factual areas such as news, current affairs and health topics, it cannot be used unless it is from a credible news media source or government agency, and must include a weblink to the original source.

 

Rules are here:   https://forum.thaivisa.com/terms/

[Tofer]

15 hours ago, Sujo said:

Which the uk made whilst still in eu influence.

 

Is it that difficult to understand?

 

We were outside the Covid recovery fund arrangements.

 

Is that so difficult to understand!!

[Tofer]

15 hours ago, candide said:

No semantics, facts! 

It's you who is arguing semantics!

You may hold any opinion you like, fact is that the decisions have been made and implemented while UK was still under EU law, and in accordance with EU law.

 

Make your mind up. It was you who stated;

 

During the transition period, the EU law applied. As to the vaccine joint procurement program, It's an initiative, not a law.

[Tofer]

14 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

Well nearly 42 for £ where's the pub stool guys saying the £ will hit bottom.

 

I had one chap tell me the pound would halve in value when we finally left the EU. It appears he was wrong..... Awful news, Brexit was a total disaster.... ????

 

I see the remainers conspicuously ignore this good news, it must really stick in their craw.

 

More to come guys, if you show a little patience....

[Tofer]

13 hours ago, 7by7 said:

The UK government decided to use the EU regulations to issue emergency approval. Any one of the EU 27 could have done the same. 

 

Not when they were under the control of the EU's finance department.

 

I repeat, since you chose to omit this statement from your quote;

 

I doubt any EU state that decided to go it's own way would have received any support for the funding of the vaccines, hence they all fell in line with the UvdL's commissions directive, since they will be paying for the Covid fund for many years to come either way.

 

Tell me I'm wrong??

Edited February 21, 2021 by Tofer

[Rimmer]

A nasty troll meme has been removed

[Tofer]

12 hours ago, 7by7 said:

16 hours ago, Tofer said:

PS: The NHS are not the only ones administering the vaccine.

 Really?

 

Who else is doing it then?

 

The Army, health workers, and volunteers, i.e anyone over the age of 18.

 

12 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Utter rubbish. The NHS have, and do more than just "physically sticking needles in arms!"

 

What involvement exactly did the NHS have in the funding, procurement and distribution of vaccines??

 

The NHS stick needles in arms, manage the appointments to stick needles in arms, train and supervise volunteers to stick needles in arms. What else, please enlighten us?

 

13 hours ago, 7by7 said:

16 hours ago, Tofer said:

In other words, had we still been tied to the EU's influence, as were all the other 27 states, we would not have been able to make the success, that we did, of the vaccine roll out, which I think you must now admit was a result of Brexit.

More rubbish.

 

I think the current facts prove my statements.

 

Or were the EU nations simply happy to prolong the agony to show solidarity within the EU, whilst suffering delays to their recovery, more deaths and more disruption to their businesses?

 

 

 

 

[Kwasaki]

2 hours ago, Tofer said:

 

I had one chap tell me the pound would halve in value when we finally left the EU. It appears he was wrong..... Awful news, Brexit was a total disaster.... ????

 

I see the remainers conspicuously ignore this good news, it must really stick in their craw.

 

More to come guys, if you show a little patience....

Well the remainers are still clinging on to any hi-cups after brexit you can't blame losers for that, it's a shame they won't except the way things are.  

[Chomper Higgot]

47 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Well the remainers are still clinging on to any hi-cups after brexit you can't blame losers for that, it's a shame they won't except the way things are.  

If you can give us an example of a positive, non nebulous, benefit of Brexit you might sway a few to your way of thinking.

[candide]

6 hours ago, Tofer said:

 

Make your mind up. It was you who stated;

 

During the transition period, the EU law applied. As to the vaccine joint procurement program, It's an initiative, not a law.

You are trolling. How exactly does it contradict what I wrote?

Edited February 21, 2021 by candide

[Tofer]

50 minutes ago, candide said:

You are trolling. How exactly does it contradict what I wrote?

 

Try this,

 

Quoting you; 

 

You may hold any opinion you like, fact is that the decisions have been made and implemented while UK was still under EU law, and in accordance with EU law.

 

Followed by;

 

51 minutes ago, candide said:

  7 hours ago, Tofer said:

 

Make your mind up. It was you who stated;

 

During the transition period, the EU law applied. As to the vaccine joint procurement program, It's an initiative, not a law.

 

looks like contradictory statements to me...

[7by7]

18 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

 

So, Rand Corporation are basing their view on a report from The Centre for European Reform, described as: A pro-European think-tank created to counter British Euroscepticism

 

Did you even read the report? There is absolutely no proof that the GDP impact was related to Brexit. Jeez, this is hard work ????‍♂️

 

 

Yet again you have made a fool of yourself by not reading the report in a link in it's entirety before commenting. Had you done so you would have seen that it referred, and linked, to two separate reports produced by Rand themselves.

 

Even though you obviously could not be bothered to read the actual Rand report (too much like hard work for you?), the opening phrase of my quote of the final paragraph should have been enough to show you that the report from the Centre for European Reform was in addition to their own analysis!

 

I'll repeat it "Our analysis—and that of others"

 

Yet again you are disputing these various estimates; so where are your alternative figures?

[7by7]

18 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

You may be mixing me up with someone else. I didn't 'finally admit' anything. I've said the same from the start. 

 

If you say so; but that'll make you the only Brexiteer here who has said that the EU rules do allow any member to unilaterally temporarily licence a vaccine for emergency use!

 

18 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

If you think that the UK would have followed exactly the same course with the vaccines if we'd never have left the EU, that's up to you. I think deep down you know we would have toed the EU line though, and we wouldn't have been in the enviable position with vaccines that we are now.

Deep down I know nothing as I have no way of viewing imaginary, alternative universes. But if you want to make assumptions based on zero evidence; that is up to you. 

 

18 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

That is, almost all UK vulnerable people vaccinated,

A huge achievement; but it is just the first dose.

 

As of Friday 19th Feb whilst 17,247,442 people have received their first dose, only 604,885 have received their second (Source HMG).

 

Advice from the manufacturers is that the second dose be given after 21 days or 28 days, depending on which vaccine is given. But in order to hit it's first dose targets the government has decided to extend that to twelve weeks. Up to four times the manufacturers recommendation, and twice the maximum recommended by WHO (Source).

 

I am neither a doctor nor a virologist, so have no idea how this delay in providing the second dose will effect people's immunity. But many health professionals have expressed concern over the policy: 

Covid-19 vaccines: to delay or not to delay second doses

 

Revisiting the UK’s strategy for delaying the second dose of the Pfizer covid-19 vaccine

 

As for the EU, no instructions from the commission; it's up to the individual members to decide their own policy: Overview of the implementation of COVID-19 vaccination strategies and vaccine deployment plans in the EU/EEA

Quote

Considering the option of delaying the administration of the second dose to ensure the highest possible coverage of the first dose with the initial limited vaccine supply, and considering the vaccination course included in current EMA product information for Corminaty (two doses 21 days apart) and COVID-19 vaccine Moderna (two doses 28 days apart), and WHO’s recommendation based on currently available clinical trial data that the interval between vaccine doses may be extended up to 42 days (six weeks), most countries replied that for the time being they will not extend the timing between the first and second dose (14 countries), or that the decision is still pending (six countries). Two countries have extended the 21-day dose interval for Comirnaty (one of them to 28 days and the other to up to 42 days); one other country is also planning to extend the timing between the first and second dose.

 

 

[7by7]

8 hours ago, Tofer said:

 

Not when they were under the control of the EU's finance department.

 

I repeat, since you chose to omit this statement from your quote;

 

I doubt any EU state that decided to go it's own way would have received any support for the funding of the vaccines, hence they all fell in line with the UvdL's commissions directive, since they will be paying for the Covid fund for many years to come either way.

 

Tell me I'm wrong??

 

Only when you provide evidence to back up your assumption.

 

If you can!

[candide]

51 minutes ago, Tofer said:

 

Try this,

 

Quoting you; 

 

You may hold any opinion you like, fact is that the decisions have been made and implemented while UK was still under EU law, and in accordance with EU law.

 

Followed by;

 

 

looks like contradictory statements to me...

So, what is exactly the imaginary contradiction you are seeing between these two assertions?

(1) decisions (not to join the vaccine program, to grant emergency authorisation for a vaccine) have been made and implemented in accordance with EU law

Meaning: there was no EU law preventing UK to do so (in case you did not understand)

And (2) the joint program is not a law

Meaning: there was no legal obligation to join the vaccine program, as it is not a law. The choice was made in accordance with EU law, which did not forbid UK to do so.

Edited February 21, 2021 by candide

[Rookiescot]

23 hours ago, Tofer said:

 

We look forward with bated breath to tomorrows barstool wisdom.... ????

 

Oh did you not get to go to the pub?

Shame really. I had a ball.

Still you can always blame the EU. Those unelected bureaucrats in Brussels stopping you from going eh?

[7by7]

7 hours ago, Tofer said:

The Army, health workers, and volunteers, i.e anyone over the age of 18.

All working for and to support the NHS!

 

For example: COVID: The Military's Role In UK's Mass Vaccination Programme

Quote

Armed Forces personnel are helping the NHS to roll out a COVID-19 mass vaccination programme.

 

7 hours ago, Tofer said:

What involvement exactly did the NHS have in the funding, procurement and distribution of vaccines??

 

The NHS stick needles in arms, manage the appointments to stick needles in arms, train and supervise volunteers to stick needles in arms. What else, please enlighten us?

Coronavirus vaccine rollout

Quote

Purchasing vaccines and R&D falls under the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and the Vaccine Task Force. The rollout is the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), working with NHS England, NHS Improvement and Public Health England to co-ordinate vaccinations across a large network of vaccination sites including in hospitals, GPs and pharmacies. The two areas need to be closely aligned.

In December, the prime minister appointed Nadhim Zahawi as minister for Covid-19 vaccinations, based in the health department. The prime minister and Matt Hancock, the health secretary, will also be held accountable for oversight of the programme.

 

So a minister in the Health Department is in charge, with the Health Secretary, along with the Prime Minister, having overall responsibility.

 

See also the government press release COVID-19 vaccine authorised by medicines regulator for more on the NHS's involvement.

 

Only you know why you want to  denigrate the NHS in the way you have. 

 

7 hours ago, Tofer said:

I think the current facts prove my statements.

The facts are not as you state, they are as I previously quoted from the government press release. 

Quote

 EU legislation which we have implemented – Regulation 174 – allows the MHRA to temporarily authorise the supply of a medicine or vaccine, based on public health need.

 

7 hours ago, Tofer said:

Or were the EU nations simply happy to prolong the agony to show solidarity within the EU, whilst suffering delays to their recovery, more deaths and more disruption to their businesses?

Pure speculation from you again.

 

The reasons for the EU members deciding on a unified approach rather than following the UK's lead are complex. But at the end of the day whilst the UK's programme started on the 8th December, that in most EU (and EEA) member's started on the 26th December.

 

How many extra deaths that resulted in is impossible to calculate, but you seem to have forgotten, if you ever knew, that the UK's death rate is the third highest in the world. (Source) I am, of course, aware that the two countries above us are EU members; but that means the other 25 members have fared better than us.

[Sujo]

21 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

All working for and to support the NHS!

 

For example: COVID: The Military's Role In UK's Mass Vaccination Programme

 

Coronavirus vaccine rollout

 

So a minister in the Health Department is in charge, with the Health Secretary, along with the Prime Minister, having overall responsibility.

 

See also the government press release COVID-19 vaccine authorised by medicines regulator for more on the NHS's involvement.

 

Only you know why you want to  denigrate the NHS in the way you have. 

 

The facts are not as you state, they are as I previously quoted from the government press release. 

 

Pure speculation from you again.

 

The reasons for the EU members deciding on a unified approach rather than following the UK's lead are complex. But at the end of the day whilst the UK's programme started on the 8th December, that in most EU (and EEA) member's started on the 26th December.

 

How many extra deaths that resulted in is impossible to calculate, but you seem to have forgotten, if you ever knew, that the UK's death rate is the third highest in the world. (Source) I am, of course, aware that the two countries above us are EU members; but that means the other 25 members have fared better than us.

Enough with facts, its not nice to those that believe in alternative facts.

 

Thanks kellyann for that one.

[Hi from France]

On 2/19/2021 at 2:16 AM, vinny41 said:

Frosty reports to Gove so if the UK public want they can removed Gove through an election

 

Frost is the main decision - maker in the present trade deal, and an example to civil servants

 

Quote

For years, liberals have warned about the danger of politicians corrupting the independence of the civil service. The inexorable rise of David Frost is a lesson to us. It shows there are civil servants who so want to be politicised that they yearn to become politicians, as long as they do not have to stand for election in the process.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/20/david-frost-rise-eu-uk-relations

[Nout]

On 2/9/2021 at 5:50 PM, OneMoreFarang said:

And lets not forget that a huge majority of Brits votes for those morons. And they actually though Boris would tell them the truth. 555

No politicians tell the truth all the time. The alternative to BJ was that woke, marxist Jeremy Corbin.