You seriously believe that a press release saying they are going to catch up in the next 3 months means they are currently ahead?
Dearie me.
I have to laugh. They have increased their target for the year. They are delivering 10 million doses early.
Oh and what are AZ doing? They are going to be another 110 million doses short to the EU, in the next quarter.
I'm going to go out on a limb here. You have never done accounts, have you?
You believe the EU when they say they are not behind. While 4 times as many UK and 3 times as many US citizens have been vaccinated. Even including all the EU members who have been begging vaccine off Russia, China and Israel.
You believe that AZ are behind, whereas Pfizer's vaccine is magically coming from planned future orders. Not the untold millions they are already behind. You actually believe that guff about 10 million "early" doses?
You believe that 110 million figure is using the same data as the Pfizer. Whereas, in the real world, that 110 million has been counted before. Unlike the Pfizer shortfalls. which, apparently, don't exist.
Politicians play politics. This is the EU pretending that all is right in their world. When it just isn't true. Because politicians routinely twist facts to suit themselves.
I am not doing another list of stuff that you have posted that is untrue.
OK. Let's have a list of stuff that you may or may not agree with. You will find them all on the old "Brexit" thread. They were all said by you. In relation to someone not answering the questions you posed (or not answering them to your satisfaction). I have put the page number if you feel the need to check these really were your words.
1. "Were the questions too difficult?" Page 325 2. "The questions were quite short. That just sounds like an excuse." Page 326 3. "This is quite frustrating, you don't seem to be able to get your head around the debate. This is a Brexit thread. I am debating the pitfalls of the Boris position on Brexit. You are avoiding this." Page 327 4. "I don't intend going back very far to find the questions you have avoided." Page 328 5. "If that is really the best you can do, I must admit that your earlier decision to avoid any questions was a correct one." Page 329 6. "If you had answered the questions that were asked we could have a proper debate." Page 330
Don't do another list of what you disagree with. Answer the questions. Follow your own advice.
Like most Lawyers, I have been to Court many, many times.
Like most Lawyers, I have won cases that i should have lost, and vice versa.
There have been some cases where 1 side was lying. But there have been far more where both sides had genuine belief that their version of the truth was the only true version. That is why there are so many cases. Because facts are far more nuanced than you believe.
There is only 1 set of people where my success rate was 100%. People who just concentrated on presenting their version of events. Ignoring the weaknesses in their case-because EVERY case has them. But these people always had an unshakeable belief that there are only 1 set of facts-theirs.
These people hurled insults at the other side. They refused to answer questions designed to point out the weaknesses in their case, because they only wanted to concentrate on what they perceived as strengths. And they lost. Every single time.
I appreciate that you have both previously hurled insults at someone for refusing to answer your questions, while refusing to answer mine. Not a good look. I'd like to give you the chance to answer some. Nice and easy. Yes or no. you know, like last time.
1. Macron has revealed that France and Germany have entered into negotiations to buy vaccine from Russia. Do you believe France and Germany think that the latest promises from the EU about catching up by 30 June is sufficient? Yes/no 2. AZ has been authorised by the UK and EU Medical Agencies. Sputnik has not. Do you believe that Sputnik is statistically safer than AZ? Yes/no 3. Germany still has not completed vaccinating over-70s. Under 55's (other than health workers) is still months away. Do you disagree with the Regulators when they say that the risk of delay far outweighs any possible (as yet unproven) risk of AZ? Yes/no 4. Do you think it is possible that EU politicians are trying to point the finger at AZ to avoid their own people realising how much extra risk delay is causing, and/or the risk they are taking purchasing product not approved by their regulators? Yes/no
Please feel free not to answer. Because your facts are the only facts, right?
You are completely correct. I have asked questions of people. I have in the past become frustrated when they havent been answered. I am used to it now and dont get frustrated any more. The difference is that all the questions I have asked, have been regarding what someone else has posted. So I have only asked questions regarding what they have said. Generally in an effort to clarify what they have said. The last couple of times were of @HANSON a couple of pages back. He said the UK had taken a risk, and I asked him to clarify what he meant. The previous time was asking @Rinkhals what he meant when he accused the EU of a land grab. As you rightly said questions rarely get answered. So as I said all my questions have been regarding what someone else has said. I have never tried to turn a thread into a quiz.
I have looked at you questions above, and your previous questions, and in my view they are completely irrelevant. I just posted two well written article that summarise this dispute very well. Yet without even getting close to even slightly mentioning anything to do with the topics covered by your questions. It is as though you have said, I am giving up on this argument lets have a quiz
The last 2 articles highlight more of your claims that you have made were untrue. The UK were first, and took the risk etc etc. No the UK were second after the EU. The UK invested upfront. Yes we did, but around a quarter of what the EU invested. Its a Brexit benefit. No its not we were still members when we signed the AZ contract. The UK have a preferential contract. No they dont. The UK contract hasnt been published. It would seem that it has.
You seriously believe that a press release saying they are going to catch up in the next 3 months means they are currently ahead?
Dearie me.
I have to laugh. They have increased their target for the year. They are delivering 10 million doses early.
Oh and what are AZ doing? They are going to be another 110 million doses short to the EU, in the next quarter.
I'm going to go out on a limb here. You have never done accounts, have you?
You believe the EU when they say they are not behind. While 4 times as many UK and 3 times as many US citizens have been vaccinated. Even including all the EU members who have been begging vaccine off Russia, China and Israel.
You believe that AZ are behind, whereas Pfizer's vaccine is magically coming from planned future orders. Not the untold millions they are already behind. You actually believe that guff about 10 million "early" doses?
You believe that 110 million figure is using the same data as the Pfizer. Whereas, in the real world, that 110 million has been counted before. Unlike the Pfizer shortfalls. which, apparently, don't exist.
Politicians play politics. This is the EU pretending that all is right in their world. When it just isn't true. Because politicians routinely twist facts to suit themselves.
I am not doing another list of stuff that you have posted that is untrue.
OK. Let's have a list of stuff that you may or may not agree with. You will find them all on the old "Brexit" thread. They were all said by you. In relation to someone not answering the questions you posed (or not answering them to your satisfaction). I have put the page number if you feel the need to check these really were your words.
1. "Were the questions too difficult?" Page 325 2. "The questions were quite short. That just sounds like an excuse." Page 326 3. "This is quite frustrating, you don't seem to be able to get your head around the debate. This is a Brexit thread. I am debating the pitfalls of the Boris position on Brexit. You are avoiding this." Page 327 4. "I don't intend going back very far to find the questions you have avoided." Page 328 5. "If that is really the best you can do, I must admit that your earlier decision to avoid any questions was a correct one." Page 329 6. "If you had answered the questions that were asked we could have a proper debate." Page 330
Don't do another list of what you disagree with. Answer the questions. Follow your own advice.
I believe that there are both positive and negative impacts to Brexit. you do not.
You wish to post everything that you perceive as a negative impact-many of which I agree with.
But you refuse to discuss anything that might possibly be seen as showing Brexit, or indeed our country, in a good light. Or answer questions that might show that a coin has 2 sides.
I believe that there are both positive and negative impacts to Brexit. you do not.
You wish to post everything that you perceive as a negative impact-many of which I agree with.
But you refuse to discuss anything that might possibly be seen as showing Brexit, or indeed our country, in a good light. Or answer questions that might show that a coin has 2 sides.
Not much of a debate then, really.
I look forward to positive Brexit stories, there just dont seem to be many.
I posted one the other day.
I dislike Boris Johnson, and am not keen on many in his government.
On a serious note this dispute is clearly between the EU, and AZ, with the UK Government trying to stay out of it.
Although I still think that the UK Government are pulling AZs strings, but admit that there is no evidence yet.
There can be no doubt that AZ have prioritised supplying the UK, over the EU.
All the reasons, excuses, and justifications that you have tried to put forward have gradually fallen by the wayside.
One day Boris and his cronies will realise that the best way out of this situation is by working with other countries, and not just grabbing what you can for yourself, as the guy says in the article.
With all due respect questions about Russia, German over 55s, Sputnik, EU medical agencies, Pfizer, Moderna, the EU vaccine roll out, Hungary, Malta, Israel, Brexit, the EUs survival, and the nature of politicians are completely irrelevant to this dispute.
If you polled big business chief executives on how they would treat two of their best customers if there was a shortage of the product they had ordered, I am certain that the overwhelming majority would supply both on a pro rata basis. I couldnt see many that would supply one in full, and only a small percentage of their order to the other.
the risk i referred to was to get the contracts done early and not sit back and wait which the EU did .. i have no idea what that contract is but i guess as AZ is a private company that would have lawyers to make sure that any contract is watertight so as to not have to put up with scrutiny from the other side in a court ..
i will also say i agree with some that you seem to only post negative news articles and will not post any positive articles to just balance out your negative view on the UK .
the risk i referred to was to get the contracts done early and not sit back and wait which the EU did .. i have no idea what that contract is but i guess as AZ is a private company that would have lawyers to make sure that any contract is watertight so as to not have to put up with scrutiny from the other side in a court ..
i will also say i agree with some that you seem to only post negative news articles and will not post any positive articles to just balance out your negative view on the UK .
I think the problem is that there just havent been many positive Brexit stories.
If you find any please post them.
The EU signed their AZ contract before the UK signed theirs.
This is from an article I posted earlier. I posted 2 earlier one on documents obtained by CNN, the other written by a legal expert, both are quite good.
Newly-released vaccine contracts show Astrazeneca made the same agreements at the same time with the UK and EU, prompting confusion over comments made by Pascal Soriot in the wake of heated disputes in January.
According to documents obtained by CNN the pharmaceutical giant signed a contract to deliver Covid-19 vaccines with the EU one day prior to the UK and used the same ‘best efforts’ language in the agreements.
In January, amid a bitter row between the EU and AZ over shortfalls in delivery, the firm’s chief executive Sorio said the contract only committed to meet the EU’s demands to its “best effort” and that the EU’s deliveries were delayed in part because the bloc signed its contract later than the UK and therefore EU manufacturing facilities were still catching up.
But that argument has been rubbished after a Freedom of Information request showed the UK signed a contract on the same terms, with newly released documents stating the company only needs to make its “best reasonable efforts” to stick to the original agreed delivery schedule, which it could “update and refine” when necessary.
the risk i referred to was to get the contracts done early and not sit back and wait which the EU did .. i have no idea what that contract is but i guess as AZ is a private company that would have lawyers to make sure that any contract is watertight so as to not have to put up with scrutiny from the other side in a court ..
i will also say i agree with some that you seem to only post negative news articles and will not post any positive articles to just balance out your negative view on the UK .
Just want to mention 3 positive effects of Brexit.
1. The UK Government promised to give the electorate a free vote on Brexit, and to respect and implement the result. And-they did. 2. In your old Brexit thread, there was an article that purported to show how Brexit was going to mean that we were at the back of the queue for any vaccine. That there was no way that the UK was going to be able to match the speed with which the EU was going to be able to source vaccine. But it didn't work out like that, did it? Printed the pro-EU article. Forgot to print anything that showed it was wrong. 3. Everybody over the age of 50-like me, & Haysie, are less likely to die of Covid in the first 6 months of 2021, due to 2 above, than if we lived anywhere in the EU. For which I am profoundly grateful.
the risk i referred to was to get the contracts done early and not sit back and wait which the EU did .. i have no idea what that contract is but i guess as AZ is a private company that would have lawyers to make sure that any contract is watertight so as to not have to put up with scrutiny from the other side in a court ..
i will also say i agree with some that you seem to only post negative news articles and will not post any positive articles to just balance out your negative view on the UK .
Just want to mention 3 positive effects of Brexit.
1. The UK Government promised to give the electorate a free vote on Brexit, and to respect and implement the result. And-they did. 2. In your old Brexit thread, there was an article that purported to show how Brexit was going to mean that we were at the back of the queue for any vaccine. That there was no way that the UK was going to be able to match the speed with which the EU was going to be able to source vaccine. But it didn't work out like that, did it? Printed the pro-EU article. Forgot to print anything that showed it was wrong. 3. Everybody over the age of 50-like me, & Haysie, are less likely to die of Covid in the first 6 months of 2021, due to 2 above, than if we lived anywhere in the EU. For which I am profoundly grateful.
Ok, I cant recall the article, but I will take your word for it.
If I remember correctly a certain post on the 'Brexit Thread' claimed that once the EU found a vaccine the U.K. would be barred from accessing the vaccine. People who answered that post with 'Project Fear' were shot down in flames and ridiculed,the power of hindsight is a wonderful thing.
the risk i referred to was to get the contracts done early and not sit back and wait which the EU did .. i have no idea what that contract is but i guess as AZ is a private company that would have lawyers to make sure that any contract is watertight so as to not have to put up with scrutiny from the other side in a court ..
i will also say i agree with some that you seem to only post negative news articles and will not post any positive articles to just balance out your negative view on the UK .
Just want to mention 3 positive effects of Brexit.
1. The UK Government promised to give the electorate a free vote on Brexit, and to respect and implement the result. And-they did. 2. In your old Brexit thread, there was an article that purported to show how Brexit was going to mean that we were at the back of the queue for any vaccine. That there was no way that the UK was going to be able to match the speed with which the EU was going to be able to source vaccine. But it didn't work out like that, did it? Printed the pro-EU article. Forgot to print anything that showed it was wrong. 3. Everybody over the age of 50-like me, & Haysie, are less likely to die of Covid in the first 6 months of 2021, due to 2 above, than if we lived anywhere in the EU. For which I am profoundly grateful.
Ok, I cant recall the article, but I will take your word for it.
Kind of you. It's on Page 331. Here are the highlights:-
"Brexit means coronavirus vaccine will be slower to reach the UK And it will cost more here because of the UK pulling out of the European Medicines Agency on 30 December • Three experts explain why Brexit leaves the UK less able to respond to pandemic
The UK faces having to wait longer and pay more to acquire a coronavirus vaccine because it has left the EU, health experts and international legal experts warn today. Brexit means the UK will probably have to join other non-EU countries in a queue to acquire the vaccine after EU member states have had it, and on less-favourable terms.
The UK will leave the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the body responsible for the scientific evaluation, supervision and safety monitoring of medicines, at the end of the transition period on 30 December. This means it will no longer be part of the EU’s regulatory regime, which allows for “accelerated assessment” of products developed by drugs companies during a pandemic.
The UK has already withdrawn from the EU’s emergency bulk-buying mechanism for vaccines and medicines, under which member states strike collective agreements with pharmaceutical companies, which speeds up their access to the latest products during a crisis.
The academics write: “For all these reasons ... the UK is likely to have to join the queue for access with other countries outside the EU, and to pay more than it would otherwise as an EU member state.
“Looking further ahead, this problem will not be limited to emergencies and the UK can expect slower and more limited access to medicines, especially those for rare conditions or those used to treat children, where the market is small.”
While it appears the UK government wants to press ahead with its own regulatory system and rapid market authorisation system for emergencies, the experts say this will be all but impossible to put in place in time for a new Covid-19 vaccine, which is expected in about a year.
“Vaccine makers and drug companies may decide to first seek approval from the EMA, which represents some 500 million patients, before seeking approval from the UK MHRA, which covers a smaller patient pool.”
The point here is not that this has proved to be totally untrue. None of us can predict the future.
It is that you have printed lots of these sorts of articles. And still do. Yet when they are proved to be totally incorrect, you don't mention it at all. Or say stuff like
"With all due respect questions about Russia, German over 55s, Sputnik, EU medical agencies, Pfizer, Moderna, the EU vaccine roll out, Hungary, Malta, Israel, Brexit, the EUs survival, and the nature of politicians are completely irrelevant to this dispute."
Really? They are just as relevant as the disaster developing in Northern Ireland. Which, incidentally, is the fault of the EU as well as the UK. Unless by "completely irrelevant" you really mean "don't support my view that the EU is wonderful."
If I remember correctly a certain post on the 'Brexit Thread' claimed that once the EU found a vaccine the U.K. would be barred from accessing the vaccine. People who answered that post with 'Project Fear' were shot down in flames and ridiculed,the power of hindsight is a wonderful thing.
I just had a look at it, there wasnt one single comment on that particular article. It was in the Guardian, and quoted 3 scientists. The main thrust was that the vaccine would be slower to reach the UK, and we would pay more for it. They were correct on the second point.
the risk i referred to was to get the contracts done early and not sit back and wait which the EU did .. i have no idea what that contract is but i guess as AZ is a private company that would have lawyers to make sure that any contract is watertight so as to not have to put up with scrutiny from the other side in a court ..
i will also say i agree with some that you seem to only post negative news articles and will not post any positive articles to just balance out your negative view on the UK .
Just want to mention 3 positive effects of Brexit.
1. The UK Government promised to give the electorate a free vote on Brexit, and to respect and implement the result. And-they did. 2. In your old Brexit thread, there was an article that purported to show how Brexit was going to mean that we were at the back of the queue for any vaccine. That there was no way that the UK was going to be able to match the speed with which the EU was going to be able to source vaccine. But it didn't work out like that, did it? Printed the pro-EU article. Forgot to print anything that showed it was wrong. 3. Everybody over the age of 50-like me, & Haysie, are less likely to die of Covid in the first 6 months of 2021, due to 2 above, than if we lived anywhere in the EU. For which I am profoundly grateful.
Ok, I cant recall the article, but I will take your word for it.
Kind of you. It's on Page 331. Here are the highlights:-
"Brexit means coronavirus vaccine will be slower to reach the UK And it will cost more here because of the UK pulling out of the European Medicines Agency on 30 December • Three experts explain why Brexit leaves the UK less able to respond to pandemic
The UK faces having to wait longer and pay more to acquire a coronavirus vaccine because it has left the EU, health experts and international legal experts warn today. Brexit means the UK will probably have to join other non-EU countries in a queue to acquire the vaccine after EU member states have had it, and on less-favourable terms.
The UK will leave the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the body responsible for the scientific evaluation, supervision and safety monitoring of medicines, at the end of the transition period on 30 December. This means it will no longer be part of the EU’s regulatory regime, which allows for “accelerated assessment” of products developed by drugs companies during a pandemic.
The UK has already withdrawn from the EU’s emergency bulk-buying mechanism for vaccines and medicines, under which member states strike collective agreements with pharmaceutical companies, which speeds up their access to the latest products during a crisis.
The academics write: “For all these reasons ... the UK is likely to have to join the queue for access with other countries outside the EU, and to pay more than it would otherwise as an EU member state.
“Looking further ahead, this problem will not be limited to emergencies and the UK can expect slower and more limited access to medicines, especially those for rare conditions or those used to treat children, where the market is small.”
While it appears the UK government wants to press ahead with its own regulatory system and rapid market authorisation system for emergencies, the experts say this will be all but impossible to put in place in time for a new Covid-19 vaccine, which is expected in about a year.
“Vaccine makers and drug companies may decide to first seek approval from the EMA, which represents some 500 million patients, before seeking approval from the UK MHRA, which covers a smaller patient pool.”
The point here is not that this has proved to be totally untrue. None of us can predict the future.
Nobody can. Not totally untrue. The Guardian claim to be quoting 3 experts, obviously they werent.
It is that you have printed lots of these sorts of articles. And still do. Yet when they are proved to be totally incorrect, you don't mention it at all. Or say stuff like
I am contemplating employing a couple of people to plough throgh the Sky Poker forum archives, on a full time basis, to check on my old posts. I will let you know when I decide.
"With all due respect questions about Russia, German over 55s, Sputnik, EU medical agencies, Pfizer, Moderna, the EU vaccine roll out, Hungary, Malta, Israel, Brexit, the EUs survival, and the nature of politicians are completely irrelevant to this dispute."
With the best will in the world, how on earth could a dispute between the EU and AZ, on vaccine deliveries be relevant to any of the above.
Really? They are just as relevant as the disaster developing in Northern Ireland. Which, incidentally, is the fault of the EU as well as the UK. Unless by "completely irrelevant" you really mean "don't support my view that the EU is wonderful."
I dont believe that the EU is wonderful. I appreciate that some of their actions are ill judged, although many fewer than Boris. I am convinced that they havent been treated fairly by AZ. Dont start me off about the Irish border. I have made my feelings on this very clear on a number of occasions. Boris misled the DUP at their party conference, and denied there was an Irish Sea border after he had agreed to put one there. So I suppose we should blame the EU.
the risk i referred to was to get the contracts done early and not sit back and wait which the EU did .. i have no idea what that contract is but i guess as AZ is a private company that would have lawyers to make sure that any contract is watertight so as to not have to put up with scrutiny from the other side in a court ..
i will also say i agree with some that you seem to only post negative news articles and will not post any positive articles to just balance out your negative view on the UK .
Just want to mention 3 positive effects of Brexit.
1. The UK Government promised to give the electorate a free vote on Brexit, and to respect and implement the result. And-they did. 2. In your old Brexit thread, there was an article that purported to show how Brexit was going to mean that we were at the back of the queue for any vaccine. That there was no way that the UK was going to be able to match the speed with which the EU was going to be able to source vaccine. But it didn't work out like that, did it? Printed the pro-EU article. Forgot to print anything that showed it was wrong. 3. Everybody over the age of 50-like me, & Haysie, are less likely to die of Covid in the first 6 months of 2021, due to 2 above, than if we lived anywhere in the EU. For which I am profoundly grateful.
Ok, I cant recall the article, but I will take your word for it.
Kind of you. It's on Page 331. Here are the highlights:-
"Brexit means coronavirus vaccine will be slower to reach the UK And it will cost more here because of the UK pulling out of the European Medicines Agency on 30 December • Three experts explain why Brexit leaves the UK less able to respond to pandemic
The UK faces having to wait longer and pay more to acquire a coronavirus vaccine because it has left the EU, health experts and international legal experts warn today. Brexit means the UK will probably have to join other non-EU countries in a queue to acquire the vaccine after EU member states have had it, and on less-favourable terms.
The UK will leave the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the body responsible for the scientific evaluation, supervision and safety monitoring of medicines, at the end of the transition period on 30 December. This means it will no longer be part of the EU’s regulatory regime, which allows for “accelerated assessment” of products developed by drugs companies during a pandemic.
The UK has already withdrawn from the EU’s emergency bulk-buying mechanism for vaccines and medicines, under which member states strike collective agreements with pharmaceutical companies, which speeds up their access to the latest products during a crisis.
The academics write: “For all these reasons ... the UK is likely to have to join the queue for access with other countries outside the EU, and to pay more than it would otherwise as an EU member state.
“Looking further ahead, this problem will not be limited to emergencies and the UK can expect slower and more limited access to medicines, especially those for rare conditions or those used to treat children, where the market is small.”
While it appears the UK government wants to press ahead with its own regulatory system and rapid market authorisation system for emergencies, the experts say this will be all but impossible to put in place in time for a new Covid-19 vaccine, which is expected in about a year.
“Vaccine makers and drug companies may decide to first seek approval from the EMA, which represents some 500 million patients, before seeking approval from the UK MHRA, which covers a smaller patient pool.”
The point here is not that this has proved to be totally untrue. None of us can predict the future.
Nobody can. Not totally untrue. The Guardian claim to be quoting 3 experts, obviously they werent.
It is that you have printed lots of these sorts of articles. And still do. Yet when they are proved to be totally incorrect, you don't mention it at all. Or say stuff like
I am contemplating employing a couple of people to plough throgh the Sky Poker forum archives, on a full time basis, to check on my old posts. I will let you know when I decide.
"With all due respect questions about Russia, German over 55s, Sputnik, EU medical agencies, Pfizer, Moderna, the EU vaccine roll out, Hungary, Malta, Israel, Brexit, the EUs survival, and the nature of politicians are completely irrelevant to this dispute."
With the best will in the world, how on earth could a dispute between the EU and AZ, on vaccine deliveries be relevant to any of the above.
Really? They are just as relevant as the disaster developing in Northern Ireland. Which, incidentally, is the fault of the EU as well as the UK. Unless by "completely irrelevant" you really mean "don't support my view that the EU is wonderful."
I dont believe that the EU is wonderful. I appreciate that some of their actions are ill judged, although many fewer than Boris. I am convinced that they havent been treated fairly by AZ. Dont start me off about the Irish border. I have made my feelings on this very clear on a number of occasions. Boris misled the DUP at their party conference, and denied there was an Irish Sea border after he had agreed to put one there. So I suppose we should blame the EU.
PS. I dont agree with many of the articles I post. I often post stuff that is likely to encourage a debate. I often post stuff that I am not particularly interested in debating. I posted an article yesterday about a man that murdered his wife after an argument over a bag of frozen chips. This doesnt mean that I think he was in any way justified in doing this.
Brexit has been a disaster for Britain as collapsing European trade puts UK firms out of business
The UK government promised that Brexit would liberate Britain from European trading regulations and herald a bright new era for Britain on the world stage.
Yet despite spending years campaigning for the UK's exit from the European Union last year, Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his colleagues have been oddly quiet about Britain's fortunes ever since it left.
The reason for their silence is becoming increasingly obvious. In the few short months since Britain left European trade and customs rules, there has been a dramatic decline in UK trade.
Brexit reality only hitting now, EU's Barnier says
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Union's former Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, said on Wednesday the reality of Britain's decision to leave the bloc was only now being felt, years after the British 2016 referendum on membership.
Listing the changes that Brexit has brought since Jan. 1, when Britain ended a transition out of the bloc, Barnier said trade barriers, limits on citizens' movement and work visas were inevitable.
"For many people the real consequences of the referendum are only now starting to sink in," Barnier told an event in Switzerland via video link from Paris. "The reality, which has become clear for all to see, is that Brexit means recreating trade barriers that had not existed for 47 years," he said.
What Brexit changed for clothes, flower and sausage firms
The fashion firm - 'Customers have had to pay extra charges'
The flower grower - 'Each load is probably costing us about £200 extra' The sausage exporter Its truck was held up at the port of Le Havre in France as customs officials questioned whether certificates for some animal products had been filled in correctly.
It was moved to another cold storage unit nearby while the issue was sorted out. Steve was charged €3,914 for storage and admin costs.
The car parts dealer Martyn Wilson set up his classic car parts firm 12 years ago and about 60% of orders are shipped to the EU.
VAT is now applied at the point of sale for parts under £135 - on top of duty charged on car parts at 24%.
Citroen Classic Car Parts typically sends out 130 items per month - but difficulties arose quickly.
"For couriers, I have to supply customers' contact details - and often have to write to them in French and German to get those, which is a bit of a drama we never had to deal with before."
Deliveries into Italy, for example, have never arrived and others have been returned due to customers not paying the new charges.
the risk i referred to was to get the contracts done early and not sit back and wait which the EU did .. i have no idea what that contract is but i guess as AZ is a private company that would have lawyers to make sure that any contract is watertight so as to not have to put up with scrutiny from the other side in a court ..
i will also say i agree with some that you seem to only post negative news articles and will not post any positive articles to just balance out your negative view on the UK .
Just want to mention 3 positive effects of Brexit.
1. The UK Government promised to give the electorate a free vote on Brexit, and to respect and implement the result. And-they did. 2. In your old Brexit thread, there was an article that purported to show how Brexit was going to mean that we were at the back of the queue for any vaccine. That there was no way that the UK was going to be able to match the speed with which the EU was going to be able to source vaccine. But it didn't work out like that, did it? Printed the pro-EU article. Forgot to print anything that showed it was wrong. 3. Everybody over the age of 50-like me, & Haysie, are less likely to die of Covid in the first 6 months of 2021, due to 2 above, than if we lived anywhere in the EU. For which I am profoundly grateful.
Having thought about this, I think you are clutching at straws, and just confirming that my statement about the lack of any good news is true.
On the first point, I think that to qualify as a Brexit benefit it must be an improvement, and should have occurred since we left the EU. As the referendum took place around four and a half years before we actually left, then it cant possibly qualify as a Brexit benefit. Surely nothing that occurred while we were still members could possibly qualify.
Frankly, point number two is quite ridiculous. The discontinued thread has now been demoted to page eight. So you have to scroll through eight pages to find it. Who does that? The referendum campaign was almost based on forecasts, and some were more accurate than others. Are seriously expecting everyone on the forum to look back through years of posts, and update any articles they might have posted that turned out to be inaccurate. I think not. How could you possibly include an incorrect forecast, as a benefit.
Point number three is nonsense. We were still members when the vaccine roll out plan was implemented. Any other EU member country could have followed the same course.
If you have any genuine Brexit good news stories, I would be glad to hear about them.
As far as the above is concerned, you might as well have included winning the World Cup in 1966, as a Brexit benefit.
the risk i referred to was to get the contracts done early and not sit back and wait which the EU did .. i have no idea what that contract is but i guess as AZ is a private company that would have lawyers to make sure that any contract is watertight so as to not have to put up with scrutiny from the other side in a court ..
i will also say i agree with some that you seem to only post negative news articles and will not post any positive articles to just balance out your negative view on the UK .
Just want to mention 3 positive effects of Brexit.
1. The UK Government promised to give the electorate a free vote on Brexit, and to respect and implement the result. And-they did. 2. In your old Brexit thread, there was an article that purported to show how Brexit was going to mean that we were at the back of the queue for any vaccine. That there was no way that the UK was going to be able to match the speed with which the EU was going to be able to source vaccine. But it didn't work out like that, did it? Printed the pro-EU article. Forgot to print anything that showed it was wrong. 3. Everybody over the age of 50-like me, & Haysie, are less likely to die of Covid in the first 6 months of 2021, due to 2 above, than if we lived anywhere in the EU. For which I am profoundly grateful.
Ok, I cant recall the article, but I will take your word for it.
Kind of you. It's on Page 331. Here are the highlights:-
"Brexit means coronavirus vaccine will be slower to reach the UK And it will cost more here because of the UK pulling out of the European Medicines Agency on 30 December • Three experts explain why Brexit leaves the UK less able to respond to pandemic
The UK faces having to wait longer and pay more to acquire a coronavirus vaccine because it has left the EU, health experts and international legal experts warn today. Brexit means the UK will probably have to join other non-EU countries in a queue to acquire the vaccine after EU member states have had it, and on less-favourable terms.
The UK will leave the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the body responsible for the scientific evaluation, supervision and safety monitoring of medicines, at the end of the transition period on 30 December. This means it will no longer be part of the EU’s regulatory regime, which allows for “accelerated assessment” of products developed by drugs companies during a pandemic.
The UK has already withdrawn from the EU’s emergency bulk-buying mechanism for vaccines and medicines, under which member states strike collective agreements with pharmaceutical companies, which speeds up their access to the latest products during a crisis.
The academics write: “For all these reasons ... the UK is likely to have to join the queue for access with other countries outside the EU, and to pay more than it would otherwise as an EU member state.
“Looking further ahead, this problem will not be limited to emergencies and the UK can expect slower and more limited access to medicines, especially those for rare conditions or those used to treat children, where the market is small.”
While it appears the UK government wants to press ahead with its own regulatory system and rapid market authorisation system for emergencies, the experts say this will be all but impossible to put in place in time for a new Covid-19 vaccine, which is expected in about a year.
“Vaccine makers and drug companies may decide to first seek approval from the EMA, which represents some 500 million patients, before seeking approval from the UK MHRA, which covers a smaller patient pool.”
The point here is not that this has proved to be totally untrue. None of us can predict the future.
Nobody can. Not totally untrue. The Guardian claim to be quoting 3 experts, obviously they werent.
It is that you have printed lots of these sorts of articles. And still do. Yet when they are proved to be totally incorrect, you don't mention it at all. Or say stuff like
I am contemplating employing a couple of people to plough throgh the Sky Poker forum archives, on a full time basis, to check on my old posts. I will let you know when I decide.
"With all due respect questions about Russia, German over 55s, Sputnik, EU medical agencies, Pfizer, Moderna, the EU vaccine roll out, Hungary, Malta, Israel, Brexit, the EUs survival, and the nature of politicians are completely irrelevant to this dispute."
With the best will in the world, how on earth could a dispute between the EU and AZ, on vaccine deliveries be relevant to any of the above.
Really? They are just as relevant as the disaster developing in Northern Ireland. Which, incidentally, is the fault of the EU as well as the UK. Unless by "completely irrelevant" you really mean "don't support my view that the EU is wonderful."
I dont believe that the EU is wonderful. I appreciate that some of their actions are ill judged, although many fewer than Boris. I am convinced that they havent been treated fairly by AZ. Dont start me off about the Irish border. I have made my feelings on this very clear on a number of occasions. Boris misled the DUP at their party conference, and denied there was an Irish Sea border after he had agreed to put one there. So I suppose we should blame the EU.
No, let's get back to the Irish border.
You are an intelligent man. You saw through what Boris was trying to do in an instant. You posted about it immediately.
Not defending Boris on this. It could only be through extreme ignorance as to the reality, or deliberately lying. For me, it is undoubtedly a mixture of the 2.
But let's look at the actions of the DUP, Fianna Fail, etc. Do you believe that the ruling parties of Northern Ireland/Ireland couldn't see fine well that Boris was either lying, ignorant as to the reality, or both? Really? You believe that no-one in the ruling parties of 2 countries is intelligent enough to see through Boris?
Could it be that the DUP made the political decision to keep quiet, so that Boris could take all the blame instead of them? Because I expect the DUP to have understood instantly what that border was, and how important it would be.
Could it be that Ireland Government decided that the likely ensuing economic dependence on Ireland from NI was worth the problems that would undoubtedly be faced by a lot of Irish people in the Borders or North West of Ireland, and kept quiet for that reason?
It is not only you that has a "just blame Boris" agenda.
the risk i referred to was to get the contracts done early and not sit back and wait which the EU did .. i have no idea what that contract is but i guess as AZ is a private company that would have lawyers to make sure that any contract is watertight so as to not have to put up with scrutiny from the other side in a court ..
i will also say i agree with some that you seem to only post negative news articles and will not post any positive articles to just balance out your negative view on the UK .
Just want to mention 3 positive effects of Brexit.
1. The UK Government promised to give the electorate a free vote on Brexit, and to respect and implement the result. And-they did. 2. In your old Brexit thread, there was an article that purported to show how Brexit was going to mean that we were at the back of the queue for any vaccine. That there was no way that the UK was going to be able to match the speed with which the EU was going to be able to source vaccine. But it didn't work out like that, did it? Printed the pro-EU article. Forgot to print anything that showed it was wrong. 3. Everybody over the age of 50-like me, & Haysie, are less likely to die of Covid in the first 6 months of 2021, due to 2 above, than if we lived anywhere in the EU. For which I am profoundly grateful.
Ok, I cant recall the article, but I will take your word for it.
Kind of you. It's on Page 331. Here are the highlights:-
"Brexit means coronavirus vaccine will be slower to reach the UK And it will cost more here because of the UK pulling out of the European Medicines Agency on 30 December • Three experts explain why Brexit leaves the UK less able to respond to pandemic
The UK faces having to wait longer and pay more to acquire a coronavirus vaccine because it has left the EU, health experts and international legal experts warn today. Brexit means the UK will probably have to join other non-EU countries in a queue to acquire the vaccine after EU member states have had it, and on less-favourable terms.
The UK will leave the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the body responsible for the scientific evaluation, supervision and safety monitoring of medicines, at the end of the transition period on 30 December. This means it will no longer be part of the EU’s regulatory regime, which allows for “accelerated assessment” of products developed by drugs companies during a pandemic.
The UK has already withdrawn from the EU’s emergency bulk-buying mechanism for vaccines and medicines, under which member states strike collective agreements with pharmaceutical companies, which speeds up their access to the latest products during a crisis.
The academics write: “For all these reasons ... the UK is likely to have to join the queue for access with other countries outside the EU, and to pay more than it would otherwise as an EU member state.
“Looking further ahead, this problem will not be limited to emergencies and the UK can expect slower and more limited access to medicines, especially those for rare conditions or those used to treat children, where the market is small.”
While it appears the UK government wants to press ahead with its own regulatory system and rapid market authorisation system for emergencies, the experts say this will be all but impossible to put in place in time for a new Covid-19 vaccine, which is expected in about a year.
“Vaccine makers and drug companies may decide to first seek approval from the EMA, which represents some 500 million patients, before seeking approval from the UK MHRA, which covers a smaller patient pool.”
The point here is not that this has proved to be totally untrue. None of us can predict the future.
Nobody can. Not totally untrue. The Guardian claim to be quoting 3 experts, obviously they werent.
It is that you have printed lots of these sorts of articles. And still do. Yet when they are proved to be totally incorrect, you don't mention it at all. Or say stuff like
I am contemplating employing a couple of people to plough throgh the Sky Poker forum archives, on a full time basis, to check on my old posts. I will let you know when I decide.
"With all due respect questions about Russia, German over 55s, Sputnik, EU medical agencies, Pfizer, Moderna, the EU vaccine roll out, Hungary, Malta, Israel, Brexit, the EUs survival, and the nature of politicians are completely irrelevant to this dispute."
With the best will in the world, how on earth could a dispute between the EU and AZ, on vaccine deliveries be relevant to any of the above.
Really? They are just as relevant as the disaster developing in Northern Ireland. Which, incidentally, is the fault of the EU as well as the UK. Unless by "completely irrelevant" you really mean "don't support my view that the EU is wonderful."
I dont believe that the EU is wonderful. I appreciate that some of their actions are ill judged, although many fewer than Boris. I am convinced that they havent been treated fairly by AZ. Dont start me off about the Irish border. I have made my feelings on this very clear on a number of occasions. Boris misled the DUP at their party conference, and denied there was an Irish Sea border after he had agreed to put one there. So I suppose we should blame the EU.
No, let's get back to the Irish border.
You are an intelligent man. You saw through what Boris was trying to do in an instant. You posted about it immediately.
Not defending Boris on this. It could only be through extreme ignorance as to the reality, or deliberately lying. For me, it is undoubtedly a mixture of the 2.
But let's look at the actions of the DUP, Fianna Fail, etc. Do you believe that the ruling parties of Northern Ireland/Ireland couldn't see fine well that Boris was either lying, ignorant as to the reality, or both? Really? You believe that no-one in the ruling parties of 2 countries is intelligent enough to see through Boris?
Could it be that the DUP made the political decision to keep quiet, so that Boris could take all the blame instead of them? Because I expect the DUP to have understood instantly what that border was, and how important it would be.
Could it be that Ireland Government decided that the likely ensuing economic dependence on Ireland from NI was worth the problems that would undoubtedly be faced by a lot of Irish people in the Borders or North West of Ireland, and kept quiet for that reason?
It is not only you that has a "just blame Boris" agenda.
I think Boris misled everyone over this. He was still claiming that there was no Irish Sea border after the agreement was done. He was on tv advising businesses that they could bin the extra paperwork, and that if anyone queried this they were to say that Boris said they could.
There was an easy solution to this which our government wouldnt consider,
I am reluctant to blame the EU. There has to be a border. The EU accepted that it couldnt be on the island of Ireland, the most logical place. They reached an agreement with Theresa May. They reached an alternative agreement with Boris. I believe that this points to their flexibility.
The problems will worsen when the grace periods end.
So NI remains subject to EU rules. Is separated from the rest of the UK. I believe this leaves the UK as the only country in the world with an internal customs border. It seems like the UK made it up as they went along. While the border exists there will be problems.
The most likely long term solution is for NI to leave the UK.
Even if the EU dont ratify the deal, and we end up with no deal, there will still have to be a border.
Comments
1. "Were the questions too difficult?" Page 325
2. "The questions were quite short. That just sounds like an excuse." Page 326
3. "This is quite frustrating, you don't seem to be able to get your head around the debate. This is a Brexit thread. I am debating the pitfalls of the Boris position on Brexit. You are avoiding this." Page 327
4. "I don't intend going back very far to find the questions you have avoided." Page 328
5. "If that is really the best you can do, I must admit that your earlier decision to avoid any questions was a correct one." Page 329
6. "If you had answered the questions that were asked we could have a proper debate." Page 330
Don't do another list of what you disagree with. Answer the questions. Follow your own advice.
I have asked questions of people.
I have in the past become frustrated when they havent been answered.
I am used to it now and dont get frustrated any more.
The difference is that all the questions I have asked, have been regarding what someone else has posted.
So I have only asked questions regarding what they have said.
Generally in an effort to clarify what they have said.
The last couple of times were of @HANSON a couple of pages back.
He said the UK had taken a risk, and I asked him to clarify what he meant.
The previous time was asking @Rinkhals what he meant when he accused the EU of a land grab.
As you rightly said questions rarely get answered.
So as I said all my questions have been regarding what someone else has said.
I have never tried to turn a thread into a quiz.
I have looked at you questions above, and your previous questions, and in my view they are completely irrelevant.
I just posted two well written article that summarise this dispute very well.
Yet without even getting close to even slightly mentioning anything to do with the topics covered by your questions.
It is as though you have said, I am giving up on this argument lets have a quiz
The last 2 articles highlight more of your claims that you have made were untrue.
The UK were first, and took the risk etc etc.
No the UK were second after the EU.
The UK invested upfront.
Yes we did, but around a quarter of what the EU invested.
Its a Brexit benefit.
No its not we were still members when we signed the AZ contract.
The UK have a preferential contract.
No they dont.
The UK contract hasnt been published.
It would seem that it has.
You wish to post everything that you perceive as a negative impact-many of which I agree with.
But you refuse to discuss anything that might possibly be seen as showing Brexit, or indeed our country, in a good light. Or answer questions that might show that a coin has 2 sides.
Not much of a debate then, really.
I posted one the other day.
I dislike Boris Johnson, and am not keen on many in his government.
On a serious note this dispute is clearly between the EU, and AZ, with the UK Government trying to stay out of it.
Although I still think that the UK Government are pulling AZs strings, but admit that there is no evidence yet.
There can be no doubt that AZ have prioritised supplying the UK, over the EU.
All the reasons, excuses, and justifications that you have tried to put forward have gradually fallen by the wayside.
One day Boris and his cronies will realise that the best way out of this situation is by working with other countries, and not just grabbing what you can for yourself, as the guy says in the article.
With all due respect questions about Russia, German over 55s, Sputnik, EU medical agencies, Pfizer, Moderna, the EU vaccine roll out, Hungary, Malta, Israel, Brexit, the EUs survival, and the nature of politicians are completely irrelevant to this dispute.
If you polled big business chief executives on how they would treat two of their best customers if there was a shortage of the product they had ordered, I am certain that the overwhelming majority would supply both on a pro rata basis.
I couldnt see many that would supply one in full, and only a small percentage of their order to the other.
i will also say i agree with some that you seem to only post negative news articles and will not post any positive articles to just balance out your negative view on the UK .
If you find any please post them.
The EU signed their AZ contract before the UK signed theirs.
This is from an article I posted earlier.
I posted 2 earlier one on documents obtained by CNN, the other written by a legal expert, both are quite good.
Newly-released vaccine contracts show Astrazeneca made the same agreements at the same time with the UK and EU, prompting confusion over comments made by Pascal Soriot in the wake of heated disputes in January.
According to documents obtained by CNN the pharmaceutical giant signed a contract to deliver Covid-19 vaccines with the EU one day prior to the UK and used the same ‘best efforts’ language in the agreements.
In January, amid a bitter row between the EU and AZ over shortfalls in delivery, the firm’s chief executive Sorio said the contract only committed to meet the EU’s demands to its “best effort” and that the EU’s deliveries were delayed in part because the bloc signed its contract later than the UK and therefore EU manufacturing facilities were still catching up.
But that argument has been rubbished after a Freedom of Information request showed the UK signed a contract on the same terms, with newly released documents stating the company only needs to make its “best reasonable efforts” to stick to the original agreed delivery schedule, which it could “update and refine” when necessary.
1. The UK Government promised to give the electorate a free vote on Brexit, and to respect and implement the result. And-they did.
2. In your old Brexit thread, there was an article that purported to show how Brexit was going to mean that we were at the back of the queue for any vaccine. That there was no way that the UK was going to be able to match the speed with which the EU was going to be able to source vaccine. But it didn't work out like that, did it? Printed the pro-EU article. Forgot to print anything that showed it was wrong.
3. Everybody over the age of 50-like me, & Haysie, are less likely to die of Covid in the first 6 months of 2021, due to 2 above, than if we lived anywhere in the EU. For which I am profoundly grateful.
"Brexit means coronavirus vaccine will be slower to reach the UK
And it will cost more here because of the UK pulling out of the European Medicines Agency on 30 December
• Three experts explain why Brexit leaves the UK less able to respond to pandemic
The UK faces having to wait longer and pay more to acquire a coronavirus vaccine because it has left the EU, health experts and international legal experts warn today.
Brexit means the UK will probably have to join other non-EU countries in a queue to acquire the vaccine after EU member states have had it, and on less-favourable terms.
The UK will leave the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the body responsible for the scientific evaluation, supervision and safety monitoring of medicines, at the end of the transition period on 30 December. This means it will no longer be part of the EU’s regulatory regime, which allows for “accelerated assessment” of products developed by drugs companies during a pandemic.
The UK has already withdrawn from the EU’s emergency bulk-buying mechanism for vaccines and medicines, under which member states strike collective agreements with pharmaceutical companies, which speeds up their access to the latest products during a crisis.
The academics write: “For all these reasons ... the UK is likely to have to join the queue for access with other countries outside the EU, and to pay more than it would otherwise as an EU member state.
“Looking further ahead, this problem will not be limited to emergencies and the UK can expect slower and more limited access to medicines, especially those for rare conditions or those used to treat children, where the market is small.”
While it appears the UK government wants to press ahead with its own regulatory system and rapid market authorisation system for emergencies, the experts say this will be all but impossible to put in place in time for a new Covid-19 vaccine, which is expected in about a year.
“Vaccine makers and drug companies may decide to first seek approval from the EMA, which represents some 500 million patients, before seeking approval from the UK MHRA, which covers a smaller patient pool.”
The point here is not that this has proved to be totally untrue. None of us can predict the future.
It is that you have printed lots of these sorts of articles. And still do. Yet when they are proved to be totally incorrect, you don't mention it at all. Or say stuff like
"With all due respect questions about Russia, German over 55s, Sputnik, EU medical agencies, Pfizer, Moderna, the EU vaccine roll out, Hungary, Malta, Israel, Brexit, the EUs survival, and the nature of politicians are completely irrelevant to this dispute."
Really? They are just as relevant as the disaster developing in Northern Ireland. Which, incidentally, is the fault of the EU as well as the UK. Unless by "completely irrelevant" you really mean "don't support my view that the EU is wonderful."
It was in the Guardian, and quoted 3 scientists.
The main thrust was that the vaccine would be slower to reach the UK, and we would pay more for it.
They were correct on the second point.
I appreciate that some of their actions are ill judged, although many fewer than Boris.
I am convinced that they havent been treated fairly by AZ.
Dont start me off about the Irish border.
I have made my feelings on this very clear on a number of occasions.
Boris misled the DUP at their party conference, and denied there was an Irish Sea border after he had agreed to put one there.
So I suppose we should blame the EU.
I often post stuff that is likely to encourage a debate.
I often post stuff that I am not particularly interested in debating.
I posted an article yesterday about a man that murdered his wife after an argument over a bag of frozen chips.
This doesnt mean that I think he was in any way justified in doing this.
The UK government promised that Brexit would liberate Britain from European trading regulations and herald a bright new era for Britain on the world stage.
Yet despite spending years campaigning for the UK's exit from the European Union last year, Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his colleagues have been oddly quiet about Britain's fortunes ever since it left.
The reason for their silence is becoming increasingly obvious. In the few short months since Britain left European trade and customs rules, there has been a dramatic decline in UK trade.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/brexit-disaster-britain-collapsing-european-164409916.html
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Union's former Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, said on Wednesday the reality of Britain's decision to leave the bloc was only now being felt, years after the British 2016 referendum on membership.
Listing the changes that Brexit has brought since Jan. 1, when Britain ended a transition out of the bloc, Barnier said trade barriers, limits on citizens' movement and work visas were inevitable.
"For many people the real consequences of the referendum are only now starting to sink in," Barnier told an event in Switzerland via video link from Paris. "The reality, which has become clear for all to see, is that Brexit means recreating trade barriers that had not existed for 47 years," he said.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/brexit-reality-only-hitting-now-175744977.html
The fashion firm - 'Customers have had to pay extra charges'
The flower grower - 'Each load is probably costing us about £200 extra'
The sausage exporter
Its truck was held up at the port of Le Havre in France as customs officials questioned whether certificates for some animal products had been filled in correctly.
It was moved to another cold storage unit nearby while the issue was sorted out. Steve was charged €3,914 for storage and admin costs.
The car parts dealer
Martyn Wilson set up his classic car parts firm 12 years ago and about 60% of orders are shipped to the EU.
VAT is now applied at the point of sale for parts under £135 - on top of duty charged on car parts at 24%.
Citroen Classic Car Parts typically sends out 130 items per month - but difficulties arose quickly.
"For couriers, I have to supply customers' contact details - and often have to write to them in French and German to get those, which is a bit of a drama we never had to deal with before."
Deliveries into Italy, for example, have never arrived and others have been returned due to customers not paying the new charges.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56441829
On the first point, I think that to qualify as a Brexit benefit it must be an improvement, and should have occurred since we left the EU.
As the referendum took place around four and a half years before we actually left, then it cant possibly qualify as a Brexit benefit.
Surely nothing that occurred while we were still members could possibly qualify.
Frankly, point number two is quite ridiculous.
The discontinued thread has now been demoted to page eight.
So you have to scroll through eight pages to find it.
Who does that?
The referendum campaign was almost based on forecasts, and some were more accurate than others.
Are seriously expecting everyone on the forum to look back through years of posts, and update any articles they might have posted that turned out to be inaccurate.
I think not.
How could you possibly include an incorrect forecast, as a benefit.
Point number three is nonsense.
We were still members when the vaccine roll out plan was implemented.
Any other EU member country could have followed the same course.
If you have any genuine Brexit good news stories, I would be glad to hear about them.
As far as the above is concerned, you might as well have included winning the World Cup in 1966, as a Brexit benefit.
You are an intelligent man. You saw through what Boris was trying to do in an instant. You posted about it immediately.
Not defending Boris on this. It could only be through extreme ignorance as to the reality, or deliberately lying. For me, it is undoubtedly a mixture of the 2.
But let's look at the actions of the DUP, Fianna Fail, etc. Do you believe that the ruling parties of Northern Ireland/Ireland couldn't see fine well that Boris was either lying, ignorant as to the reality, or both? Really? You believe that no-one in the ruling parties of 2 countries is intelligent enough to see through Boris?
Could it be that the DUP made the political decision to keep quiet, so that Boris could take all the blame instead of them? Because I expect the DUP to have understood instantly what that border was, and how important it would be.
Could it be that Ireland Government decided that the likely ensuing economic dependence on Ireland from NI was worth the problems that would undoubtedly be faced by a lot of Irish people in the Borders or North West of Ireland, and kept quiet for that reason?
It is not only you that has a "just blame Boris" agenda.
He was still claiming that there was no Irish Sea border after the agreement was done.
He was on tv advising businesses that they could bin the extra paperwork, and that if anyone queried this they were to say that Boris said they could.
There was an easy solution to this which our government wouldnt consider,
I am reluctant to blame the EU.
There has to be a border.
The EU accepted that it couldnt be on the island of Ireland, the most logical place.
They reached an agreement with Theresa May.
They reached an alternative agreement with Boris.
I believe that this points to their flexibility.
The problems will worsen when the grace periods end.
So NI remains subject to EU rules.
Is separated from the rest of the UK.
I believe this leaves the UK as the only country in the world with an internal customs border.
It seems like the UK made it up as they went along.
While the border exists there will be problems.
The most likely long term solution is for NI to leave the UK.
Even if the EU dont ratify the deal, and we end up with no deal, there will still have to be a border.