1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Post-Brexit Thread

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Irish_Tom, 1 Jan 2021.

Tags:
  1. 413x

    Capodecina

    Joined: 13 Jan 2010

    Posts: 21,443

    Location: Llaneirwg

    Has brexit provided any benefits?

    Any at all?

    Serious question.
     
  2. cu3ed

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Jan 2006

    Posts: 11,072

    Location: Belfast

    Vaccine purchasing and rollout?
     
  3. loftie

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 17 Oct 2009

    Posts: 1,243

    Done and started while under all the EU rules AFAIK. Would we have done it the way we have otherwise? Probably not but who knows.
     
  4. cu3ed

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Jan 2006

    Posts: 11,072

    Location: Belfast

    No. EU as a block decided to to central testing, they where slow on that. Then they decided what vaccines to go for as a block. Individually they could have done it on their own, but ze Germans I think thought biotech would bump them up the queue. Obviously they didn't.
     
  5. VincentHanna

    Capodecina

    Joined: 30 Jul 2013

    Posts: 22,514

    Did EU countries have to sign up to the EU vaccine program? Or could we have opted out as part of the EU?
     
  6. cu3ed

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Jan 2006

    Posts: 11,072

    Location: Belfast

    That bit I'm unsure of. I think yes they technically could, but as with all things in the bloc, they wanted to move in the same direction. Unfortunately this meant slower verifying vaccine data plus they as a block didn't seem to have and huge orders from the start. I believe is the same issues for respirators etc, they ran into issues purchasing as a block.
     
  7. garnett

    Soldato

    Joined: 25 Mar 2008

    Posts: 7,487

    It's an odd argument, through, right?

    The member states were each free to decide whether or not to do it that way.

    Brexiteers have always argued that it's not the decisions themselves but the fact the decisions will now be made by "elected UK politicians we can vote out" .

    If you introduce this new point then any bad decision of the UK govt can be said to be a bad effect of Brexit.
     
  8. loftie

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 17 Oct 2009

    Posts: 1,243

    Keep in mind, the scientist/whoever was doing interviews around the start date was asked if Brexit had helped - because conservatives were shouting Brexit- and she said it was all done under EU rules.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55163730
    https://fullfact.org/health/coronavirus-vaccine-brexit/

    As others have said, you can be small and nimble but lack the purchasing power of a big bloc, or have the purchasing power of a big bloc but be slower. The thing is outside the EU we more than likely won't have one of those options, inside we had both.
     
  9. Mr Jack

    Capodecina

    Joined: 19 May 2004

    Posts: 21,621

    Location: Nordfriesland, Germany

    I think at the time the decision was made, a lot of countries hubristicly believed they were not in danger of a second wave, and so they didn't understand how important speed was. The unity approach makes a lot of sense not just because of the advantages of bulk ordering but also because continental Europe is so thoroughly linked together that the virus spreading in one country is a problem to all. Co-ordinated roll-out just makes sense under those circumstances. That it's been badly managed is clear in hindsight, but the programme makes sense in principle.
     
  10. loftie

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 17 Oct 2009

    Posts: 1,243

    I agree, a unified approach would, IMO, be more effective for most things. However us being mostly an island, though I'd also include Ireland in this too, I think probably would be better approaching it more from an individual response, GB as a unit, RoI and NI as a unit, Gibraltar with EU as a unit, in some aspects. I also agree the European response seems a bit pants, but then most are - the countries that seem to do better are few and further away. I don't feel the UK strategy is really one to shout about, even if we are slightly ahead in terms of rollout.
     
  11. Mr Jack

    Capodecina

    Joined: 19 May 2004

    Posts: 21,621

    Location: Nordfriesland, Germany

    In overall terms, the UK approach has been awful, in specific terms of the vaccine the UK is doing better than any other medium-sized country, and it's fair to take pride in that (although, of course, things may change). That said, I do find it a slightly odd approach: the UK pushed through rapid approval for the Pfizer vaccine, and then ignored their guidance on how it should be delivered, but if you're going to do that why stop where we did? The safety data was in place at least a month earlier, and the efficacy data used to justify the delayed second dose was there 3 months earlier before the stage 3 trials were complete. If you're not going to stick to the findings, why not go the whole hog and approve it back in October or November?
     
  12. loftie

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 17 Oct 2009

    Posts: 1,243

    Agreed

    But is this a case of us doing well, or us doing less badly? As you say below

    which I agree with, it doesn't feel like we're doing well. I've noticed that the news seems to reporting the number who have had 1 dose as the 'people vaccinated' which seems odd to me because the vaccine comes in two doses so they haven't been vaccinated, they're midway through vaccination or partially vaccinated.
     
  13. Mr Jack

    Capodecina

    Joined: 19 May 2004

    Posts: 21,621

    Location: Nordfriesland, Germany

    I dunno, I think at the point we're doing better than all the comparable countries, the argument that we're doing less badly is a comparison to an unlikely fantasy version of what could have been done rather than a pragmatic assessment of how a country is doing.
     
  14. Mr Badger

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 27 Dec 2009

    Posts: 8,778

    Looks as though the border between Gibraltar and the EU/Spain is coming down and it will join the Schengen free travel zone. Will Brexiters view this as a victory or a sell out?
     
  15. dowie

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: 29 Jan 2008

    Posts: 50,432

    Vaccines for a start as pointed out a few times already.

    Objectively we are doing rather well, the EU approach has been slow and bureaucratic, both the approval (which they did speed up under pressure) and more importantly the purchasing. There apparently weren't any significant advantages to purchasing as a block in terms of the price according to the commentary at the time when the UK made the decision not to take part in the EU scheme... given the UK already had deals in progress then it was a good decision to just carry on with them. Other EU nations had to scrap that process (aside from Germany putting in a cheeky side order they weren't really supposed to) and deligated it to some EU commissioner to handle.

    We're slightly ahead now but I don't think you really appreciate fully what has happened here in terms of future supplies too, looking at the reporting of the leaked Scottish data we'd seem to have quite ample supply, EU countries (regardless of differing abilities to distribute - Denmark very good, France utterly inept) still have future supply issues over the next couple of months or so in addition to starting off slower.

    I don't think it is odd, they've changed their approach... They've not just ignored the guidance on how it should be delivered, a good argument has been made for delaying the second dose and it has finally got enough acceptance for people to see the sense in it.

    How do you know when the decision was made? Presumably back in October or November the plan was to follow the original second dose schedule, if the decision wasn't made back then then of course they'd not have done anything towards this plan then either.
     
  16. Mr Jack

    Capodecina

    Joined: 19 May 2004

    Posts: 21,621

    Location: Nordfriesland, Germany

    And, as many times, it's been pointed out that nothing about the EU scheme required the UK to join and the UK, most likely, wouldn't have done anyway.
     
  17. dowie

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: 29 Jan 2008

    Posts: 50,432

    You don't know that... how many EU countries decided to not join, how many EU countries went with unilateral approval via their own regulators?

    It's pretty clear that Brexit was a factor in the speedier purchasing (it was literally cited as one of the reasons for not joining the EU scheme at the time) and that purchasing itself is a good illustration of the EU being slow to act, apparently (if a German newspaper is to be believed) letting internal politics hamper the choice of how much to purchase (equal numbers of German/US vaccine vs French etc.. despite one being some way off approval), all that faff and delay comes at a cost and supposedly the benefits of purchasing as a big block weren't anything to shout about after all.
     
  18. Tony Edwards

    Soldato

    Joined: 4 Feb 2018

    Posts: 6,002

    Part 2

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/15/leaveeu-has-domain-name-temporarily-suspended
     
  19. Mr Jack

    Capodecina

    Joined: 19 May 2004

    Posts: 21,621

    Location: Nordfriesland, Germany

    The UK's MHRA was operating under EU rules at the time.

    You don't need to retread the problems of the EU scheme, we've been over it dozens of times. None-the-less, Brexit or no, the UK was offered the chance to take part and chose not to. Historically the UK has been reluctant to enter these kind of schemes regardless of Brexit and I see no reason to believe we'd have behaved differently were we still members. Ironically, had the UK not chosen not to enter I don't think there would be anything like the same criticism of the EU's roll-out. The UK on their doorstep doing it better is what is driving criticism.
     
  20. Monkeynut

    Soldato

    Joined: 7 Nov 2007

    Posts: 6,535

    Location: Cheshire

    Andy Wigmore sounds unprofessional and odious.