UK government responds to post-Brexit concerns and of course it's all the fault of those pesky EU negotiators The UK's European Scrutiny Committee has published the government's response to concerns over the Brexit divorce bill and the impact on the UK's participation in EU programmes. The original report turned up in October 2021 and highlighted the costs incurred as Brexit negotiations went on. The UK was given the nod for …
Who needs plays on words, hilarious or otherwise to disparage an action by a British government that was ill thought out (if at all), poorly negotiated and so far not fully executed and with few or no clear aims as to what constitutes Britains new found freedom and the directions it can and should take from European influence?
Please downvote as much as you like as a thumb down is about the most potent thing most of you have.
But brexiteers are choosers... they choose rhetoric, division and lies and then to close their eyes and pretend that their perfect sun-blessed future with an oven ready deal negotiated by the amazing UK negotiator and signed by the same is utterly perfect and the only problem is the evil EU is insisting that the UK implement the terms that the UK agreed to is naturally a problem with the EU and not the incompetent narcissists that currently masquerade as the UK government cabinet and ministers.
a little maths might help.. as a percenatge of the popuilation, Brexit was supposedly supported by 37%(ish).
Would you not expect comments anywhere reasonably accessible to everyone (like El Reg. and excluding places that are flagged one way or the other) to be 63% (+however many who, in the light of post 2016 events, have since changed opinion) opposed to the idea?
Explain your working and give reasons for your choice...
Applying the very same logic you could claim that Remain was supported by 36%(ish).
Remember: Non voters by definition do not count. And what little research exists on their hypothetical votes, it appears that they would not change results too much. After all, they did not even bother to vote, so why would you expect strong opinions either way?
OK I'll bite.
I wanted to vote in 2016. As a British citizen living in the EU, I had decided that it was not right for me to vote in UK general elections. Why should I, who pays not taxes in the UK, or use any services there, be able to decide who should sit in a government that regulates such things? This decision cost me the right to vote in a referendum that really did impact my life.
26% of the UK population voted to Leave the EU. The rest voted Remain, did not vote or could not vote.
You can expect a significant chunk of that 74% (over 47 million people) to occasionally post comments showing their dissatisfaction with what is happening to their country. That's how democracy works.
24% of the UK population voted to Remain in the EU. The rest voted Leave, did not vote or could not vote.
You can expect a significant chunk of that 76% (over 51 million people) to occasionally post comments showing their dissatisfaction with what is happening to their country. That's how democracy works.
I'm not sure, do you mean that a significant section of the public who got their way, are now moaning about it?
If so, I guess you're right. Evidence suggests that democracy is equally bad for everyone, or something...
I wonder if many who voted to 'just make it go away' feel their choice was vindicated or not?
I still feel like I need lot's of these every time this nonsense occurs >>
> so why would you expect strong opinions either way?
That only matters if we were talking about another vote - we're talking about comments on a forum.
Even those who didn't feel strongly enough to go out and vote at the time are likely to hold an opinion, and it doesn't need a strong opinion to have a grumble about how Brexit's negatively affected them.
It's weird one too, because whilst 36%ish voted for Brexit, it's not a given that all (or even the majority) of those support the Brexit that we've been delivered, so you might also see them grumbling in comments (even if they'd still vote for Brexit given another chance).
This is bunk. Non-voters fall into multiple categories, and only some of which can be described as apathetic.
Included in the "non-voting" categories are UK citizens who are domiciled outside the UK (who couldn't vote if they'd been domiciled outside the UK for any length of time), and of those, the individuals domiciled elsewhere in the EU can be presumed to be in favor of doing what they were doing!
Another non-voting category was non-UK/non-Irish/non-Maltese EU citizens domiciled in the UK. They were not permitted to vote in the referendum, even though they were permitted to vote in other types of elections. Again, they can be presumed to have been in favor of doing what they were already doing.
A third group is people aged 16 and 17, who could not vote in the referendum for Brexit, but were the same age as those able to vote on Scottish independence a few years earlier. Hmmm... there's precedence and principle in favor of allowing them to vote, but they were denied that right. They're inclinations can be assumed to be similar to that of the 18-24 year old category.
(Another fun one is that the Channel Islands and indeed the IoM, who have been heavily impacted by the decision, had no vote at all, and can be presumed to be opposed to leaving. But Gibraltar did get to vote.)
The core issue is not, though, what the results of the referendum were, or would have been. Rather, the question asked was too simplistic and the nutjob implementation was never put to the population. A sane referendum would have included a second question along the lines of "if in favor of leaving, what features of the EU should be preserved? (a) customs union (b) freedom of movement (c) etc. etc. etc."
"The core issue is not, though, what the results of the referendum were, or would have been. Rather, the question asked was too simplistic and the nutjob implementation was never put to the population. A sane referendum would have included a second question along the lines of "if in favor of leaving, what features of the EU should be preserved? (a) customs union (b) freedom of movement (c) etc. etc. etc.""
First of all, let's not forget this was a *non-binding* referendum. The government didn't have to implement the result.
Secondly, your "second question" suggestion is quite sane and reasonable but overlooks the fact that voters (and talking heads) had no clue what the customs union or FoM actually means.
If I had €1 for every time some pro-Brexit "expert" claimed that we could have a "Norway model" of access to the EU after Brexit, while ignoring the fact that such access requires acceptance of the four freedoms (including FoM)...which is one of the things Brexiteers railed against.
"First of all, let's not forget this was a *non-binding* referendum. The government didn't have to implement the result."
Wrong, it was only non-binding *IF* the govt (Cameron) had not specifically stated that the result *would* be binding.
Cameron took a guess that the 'Scare Tactics' would get a positive result for staying in the EU and therefore 'jumped the gun' and promised the result would be followed.
It then back fired !!!
These are facts, no matter how many times the truth is denied. !!!
>>Wrong, it was only non-binding *IF* the govt (Cameron) had not specifically stated that the result *would* be binding.
Sorry chap, the act of pariliament that enabled the referendum did not make the result legally binding (cf. the Act for the Alternative vote referendum in 2011, in which thew result was declared to be binding ). Parliament is sovreign, which means without specifc words making the refernudum binding it cannot be (legally).
The politicians decided that it would be binding but in no way could anyone force them to act on the result.
for a better breakdown of why it wasn't binding see Fullfact.org
Your argument is one of semantics !!!
I *know* the act that supports the referendum clearly states the result is 'Non-Binding' BUT freely with no duress Cameron promised the result would be acted on.
That promise was taken personally by the PM as 'unbreakable'.
i.e. His honor would not allow him to break his word.
Yes, he could have broken his word and been legally safe but unlike Boris Johnson & his ilk he felt obliged to keep his word.
(The only good thing I can say about Cameron as PM.)
I would expect any PM of any party to keep his/her word ..... it goes with the job !!!
NB:
At no point did I state that legally the result was to be acted upon, but the PM giving his word that the result would be followed changes the expectations of all and in my world I would expect the PM's word to be something you could depend upon to be worth something.
If breaking your word is seen as acceptable, just to get the result you want then the UK was much further down the slippery slope than I thought.
Boris & Co have made it clear that we are in a world were my expectations of the PM are no longer valid and lies & more lies are the MO of the post and his govt.
It was a foregone conclusion that they would only treat it as binding if they liked the result.
See also....Scottish independence and any time there's a vote about Northern Ireland. If the poll goes the way they want, it's immediately rushed through. If it doesn't, they say "Nahhh....I guess you didn't understand the question. We'll ask again in a couple of years."
"...Wrong, it was only non-binding *IF* the govt (Cameron) had not specifically stated that the result *would* be binding."
You're wrong. A UK referendum will only have the force of law if the Act setting it up says so.
Brexit vote 'not legally binding' says Supreme Court judge
Is the EU referendum legally binding?
Rather a baseless assertion. Even today, it is still not clear what Brexit will be in detail.
All those years ago, it was a wise response to say that you didn't know what was being offered, so it would be foolish to express an opinion.
It's reasonable to assume that not voting for a change is a passive vote for the status quo to remain. It is not reasonable to assume the reverse.
The figures were pretty clear: 37.4% for change, 34.7% actively voted for the status quo.
The remaining 27.9% presumably included "don't care", "don't know", "can't decide", "fed up of being lied to", the sick and those on holiday.
Of course that was then. The outcome would be different now.
They were. Everybody entitled to a vote had the opportunity to cast one.
Plus of course, the number of people excluded due to being out of the UK for too long to still qualify as legitimate UK voters was lower than the winning margin in the referendum, so even if they'd been included and even if they'd all voted 'Remain', it would not have changed the result.
No they weren't and the number of UK residents still domiciled in the EU is almost exactly the same as the winning margin and there were more at the time of the vote.
Interestingly the one region of the UK with the most direct contact with the EU, Gibraltar voted 95.9% to remain.
There are a further 5 million UK citizens domiciled in other countries, if they should have had a vote is arguable but our citizens in the EU who were inevitably going to affected should have been given a say - that's what Democracy means.
Yes, they were. Provide evidence if you think otherwise because I distinctly recall British people living in the EU outside of the UK being allowed to vote in that referendum.
Which is why the total number of UK citizens living in what is now the EU is irrelevant. Many of them could and did vote in the referendum.
Our citizens in the EU were given a say. That was democracy. The ones that left the UK so long ago that they weren't considered active participants in UK affairs didn't get a say, and that too is democracy. They chose to leave the UK, I have no time for their complaints that the UK chose to leave them.
And what do you say about the difficulties getting on the UK electoral roll while abroad, the lateness of the ballot papers being sent out, and the supplied prepay envelopes which are the only accepted envelopes for returning postal votes by the UK are actually invalid to return the vote in the country of origin?
Plus of course, the number of people excluded due to being out of the UK for too long to still qualify as legitimate UK voters was lower than the winning margin
Which is perfectly true. However, Cameron promised that the 15 year law would be repealed before the referendum. Yet another manifesto promise broken.
Then, there is the inconvenience that you're forgetting about the little fact that the government made it impossible for those entitled to vote to actually return a vote in time. voting papers were sent out with second class stamps which of course were mostly returned as not having sufficient postage. The few that got though had enclosed prepaid envelopes (which stated that the vote would be invalid unless returned in the prepaid envelope.) However, the prepaid envelope was only valid for postage in the UK. Over 3 million votes were thus not counted. We will never know how those living on the continent would have voted. There was also a lot of confusion about where you should register to vote since the government didn't issue any helpful instructions.
Continental papers at the time were full of complaints from expats. I remember reading a few in the Grauniad at the time as well.
"voting papers were sent out with second class stamps"
After one experience of that, I switched to a proxy vote, which means finding a reliable friend or relative living in the UK. Fortunately that was before the referendum so I got my vote in. Unfortunately that was not enough to avoid the disaster.
Now, about the actual story here. Where do these idiots get off, claiming that problems caused by Brexit are caused by the EU? By simple logic, all problems caused by Brexit were caused by the UK.
The slithery Gove chose his words carefully. He said nobody would have their house taken off them and he said everybody who is legally and ordinarily resident in rEU would be able to stay in their house as long as they wanted. He said nothing about people with a second house abroad being caught up in the Shengen 90/180 rule and about tax rules for stays > 180-ish days.
Video (44 mins in)
"Had British citizens resident in the EU been given a vote as they were entitled to, we would not be in the stupid position we are in now."
Had the vote gone the other way or had there had been *no* vote at all !!!???
How much longer is this whining and arguing against reality going to go on ???
Brexit happened whether you agree with it or not, there is no argument that will change the result !!!
Change the govt to one that will change the reality, otherwise you are wasting your time and energy !!!
How much longer is this whining and arguing against reality going to go on ???
Couldn't agree more, I now know why the Aussies call the Brits whinging poms.
I can feel the life being sucked out of me by this moronic argument about who was right.
You do realise there is more important things going on around the world.
This post has been deleted by its author
Well, at the very least you'd expect about a quarter of the population to be happy now. I think one of the most remarkable things about this Brexit episode is that it doesn't seem to have made anyone happy. Where is the jubilation? The Leave voters are still unhappy and the rest of the people too. Frankly, the country feels more unhappy now than at the start of 2016.
I find it quite amusing that your choice of handle is so apt.
Originating most likely from the comedy show Much Binding in the Marsh, it was intended as a dig at the morally outraged and conservative middle classes who would write or complain to any news paper or oganisation about almost anything no matter how trival or lacking in justifiable outrage.
I can understand the current outrage though, with any criticism of brextim reminding you of what aess it is.
"The inevitable people with the inevitable comments that will get posted eleventy times, identically to the last article about the subject: do you not bore yourselves?"
Judging by the ratio of downvotes to upvotes you're seeing on your comment, it appears that - contrary to your belief - people aren't bored by commenting about somthing which has fundamentally affected their lives for the worse.
Ah, it's the classic 'attack the person, not the argument' Brexit post. This can be read alternatively as "I have made an enormous mistake, please stop reminding me, I do not wish to take responsibility for my actions."
You altered an entire country for the worse, the consequences of that are people are going to keep reminding you about it until the end of time, or until it gets fixed.
Suck it up.
I'm trying to inhibit a discussion that looks like this:
"Sunlit uplands".
"Brexshit"
"Boris is fat"
etc.
We can all get our fill of that by reading the Guardian's comments section, or by reading used word-of-the-day toilet paper.
OK tell me one single way in which the UK and the majority of UK citizens have benefited from Brexit - just one unequivocal advantage.
On the finance side, Brexit so far has cost ~£300b. This far exceeds our total contributions to the EU in the 40 odd years we were a member (£213b).
@DJO
"OK tell me one single way in which the UK and the majority of UK citizens have benefited from Brexit - just one unequivocal advantage."
UK ordered vaccines and the EU royally screwed it up. Based on the information about vaccines protecting people from severe illness and death that would be the people of the UK having the option of protection while in the EU people didnt and so would have died.
The UK would have been free to go it alone on vaccines within the EU.
Perhaps if the UK had been in the EU, it might even have led the way in getting a region-wide deal.
The UK death rate vs. typical EU is nothing to cheer about, was that because of brexit? The UK is now dragging its heels to approve vaccines that WHO, EU, others have approved, is that because of brexit?No, of course not.
Cherry-picking the good bits and conflating with brexit makes no sense, they are not causally related.
@Empire of the Pussycat
"Cherry-picking the good bits"
This being a proven and demonstrated benefit of not being in the EU hence meeting the criteria. Another one being we are not part of the covid bailout fund where the EU takes a loan out against the member countries to distribute as it feels fit.
"The UK would have been free to go it alone on vaccines within the EU."
This nonsense again. Here we go-
To believe the UK would have gone alone on vaccines is to believe the UK is better run than every member countries government. Countries such as Germany who already made plans abandoned them to join the joint procurement. The pressure was applied to get an 'all for one' approach and you must be a UK supremacist to think the UK wouldnt.
But lets run with your hypothetical UK supremacist suggestion that we remain but go it alone on vaccine. The EU demonstrably stole and intended to steal vaccine to be exported because the EU screwed up procurement. As a result there is zero doubt the UK supply would be stolen and redistributed at EU whim because of *insert reasons* (incompetence of the EU procurement).
>This being a proven and demonstrated benefit of not being in the EU hence meeting the criteria.
Believing that spending more money to arrive at roughly the same end result in terms of fully vaccinated population while having amongst the highest deaths per 100,000 in Western Europe is a "benefit". There is, indeed, the kind of thinking which produced Brexit in the first place.
@Citizen of Nowhere
"Believing that spending more money to arrive at roughly the same end result"
But we didnt end up at the same result. The end result was the UK got vaccine and the EU didnt. It ended up that because brexit Britain had vaccine that EU members dissented and had to play catch up. Where the UK competently ordered and received and then delivered vaccine the EU stole, accused and made a complete spectacle of themselves resulting in companies refusing to sell to them only direct to members.
"while having amongst the highest deaths per 100,000 in Western Europe"
Amongst the highest but below some EU countries. Since each country applied its own rules and of course has counted in different and interesting ways its hard to see how that would be any better under the EU (but certainly worse). However if you want to approach it that way then maybe the UK should have done the same as Sweden, who did better than even more EU countries?-
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1111779/coronavirus-death-rate-europe-by-country/
Since the EU would certainly have delayed vaccination and the EU relied on taking some of the production ment for the UK we can guarantee that people would have died through lack of vaccination had we remained.
"There is, indeed, the kind of thinking which produced Brexit in the first place."
Its called thinking. Scary that you would try to justify killing more people just to be part of the club.
@Citizen of Nowhere
"If you say so, not seeing much evidence."
Yet again I point out serious flaws and errors in your 'interpretation' and you offer back nothing.
"Just repeating the same story over and over, as of repetition will make believable"
Maybe you should address your mistakes. They are glaringly bad
@Malcolm Weir
When you mention EMA and I suppose that to be the European Medicines Agency, David Davis comes to my mind.
As I remember two EU agencies resided happily in London but Davis came to suggest that the UK would have nothing against them staying in the UK after Brexit.
How do you deal with things like that, I still think he was quite serious about it.
I personally don't "deal with things like that", it seems to me that the idiots who thought getting divorced was a good idea should be forced to deal with the consequences of the divorce.
Yes, the EMA in this context is the European Medicines Agency, which used to be located in London. Despite dishonest fools like Davis's aspirations, the chance of it remaining in London following Brexit was nil, and the fact that Davis had "nothing against" them remaining in London is evidence that even he knew there was _value_ in them so doing.
The other EU agency resident in London was the European Banking Authority, which moved a couple of hundred miles south-east....
Just a factual data point, the sort of thing that codejunky pretends he likes:
No-one "stole" anything. All that happened was that delivery timing was adjusted, which happens every day of the week in every industry.
Every dose the UK ordered was delivered. So no theft occurred.
@Malcolm Weir
"No-one "stole" anything"
Yikes:
https://www.politico.eu/article/australia-coronavirus-vaccines-eu-astrazeneca/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56486733
So blocking shipments to Australia and their fall out with the UK, which if you remember is due to the EU getting their contract wrong while the UK got it right (was taken to court).
"All that happened was that delivery timing was adjusted, which happens every day of the week in every industry."
Wow that is desperate. But no, taking the contractually assigned doses because the EU politicians got their contract wrong isnt just an 'adjustment'.
" while having amongst the highest deaths per 100,000 in Western Europe"
There are many factors involved there and your use of the fact to support an anti-Brexit stance is laughable.
One of the biggest factors is idiocy. Brits are selfish, and often stupid, refusing to wear masks, continuing to hold parties etc.
Then we have a densely packed population, one of the highest obesity rates in the world , government incompetence on care homes, the fact that the UK is an air travel hub, and an aging population.
I may as well reply here.
All EU members could opt out of the vaccine deals. And indeed, one did: Hungary.
Now, as it turns out, Hungary have now rejoined to get vaccines effective against Omicron, but the fact that they did opt out shows that the UK could have as well. It was not a specific benefit of Brexit not available to EU members.
Politico: Hungary rejoins EU’s third vaccine procurement scheme as Omicron variant looms
@Norman Nescio
"I may as well reply here.
All EU members could opt out of the vaccine deals. And indeed, one did: Hungary."
Sorry but I have debunked this too many times now- https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2022/01/28/horizons_response/#c_4404939
Hungary- https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/hungary-has-opted-out-new-vaccine-deal-with-pfizer-2021-05-20/
So Hungary opted out of the new deal but not the initial. After the slow rollout Hungary went and bought from Russia and China (seem to remember the EU wasnt happy about this). Didnt take long for various members to break ranks and order their own due to the EU failure.
The attempts to defend the EU's procurement failure seem to centre on the hypothetical members could opt out (UK supremacist view) or that some EU countries caught up (by placing their own orders independently). Neither stand due to the facts.
The attempts to defend the EU's procurement failure seem to centre on the hypothetical members could opt out (UK supremacist view) or that some EU countries caught up (by placing their own orders independently). Neither stand due to the facts.
I am not attempting to defend the EUs procurement mechanism.
I am pointing out the bald fact that participation in the initial procurement programme, and its successors was, and is, optional for individual member states. Hungary's opting-out demonstrates this, and demonstrates that the ability to not participate was not a benefit of Brexit.
More about Joint Procurement Agreements
More about the procurement programme. Much is uncomplimentary, but it being optional is not disputed.
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/the-eu-vaccine-programme/
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-coronavirus-vaccine-struggle-pfizer-biontech-astrazeneca/
In addition, Germany negotiated bilaterally with Russia with the aim of obtaining 30 million doses of the Sputnik vaccine even while participating in the EU procurement programme.
So we have evidence (a) that participation in the EU procurement programme was optional and (b) joining the programme did not prevent negotiating bilaterally.
There is plenty of criticism of the EU Joint Procurement Agreement approach: some is probably valid - but nothwithstanding that 'going it alone' might have been the better approach by some measures, at least temporarily, Brexit in and of itself did not deliver the ability to act independently of the rest of the EU/EEA in this regard.
I have provided links to back up my statements, you have not, and claim to have debunked things when you have quite clearly not.
Your grasp of the facts appears shaky.
You are trying to move the goalposts.
In any reply, you need to provide evidence that the Joint Procurement Agreement covering the procurement of vaccines was not optional, and the UK would, as an EU member, have been legally obliged to participate.
@Norman Nescio
"I am pointing out the bald fact that participation in the initial procurement programme, and its successors was, and is, optional for individual member states."
In theory with zero demonstration in practice.
"Hungary's opting-out demonstrates this, and demonstrates that the ability to not participate was not a benefit of Brexit."
Hungary didnt opt out of the initial phase. They complained the EU was slow then opted out.
It takes incredible fantasy to believe that the UK wouldnt have joined if we remained. The idea that the UK would go alone is the UK supremacist belief that the UK gov is better than the member countries and EU govs. By not remaining it was almost unthinkable for our gov to have participated.
Also had the UK remained but opted out the EU would have stolen vaccine from the UK. Go back and read my comment on this.
"In addition, Germany negotiated bilaterally with Russia with the aim of obtaining 30 million doses of the Sputnik vaccine even while participating in the EU procurement programme."
They also broke the agreement they had with the EU. Remember its all about solidatiry:
There have been widespread media reports that Germany may have been in breach of EU agreements in holding bilateral talks and a commission spokesman told reporters that all 27 member states, including Germany, had made a “political commitment” to avoid “parallel negotiations” with the same pharmaceutical companies to secure COVID-19 vaccines. - https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/european-commission-denies-germany-breaking-ranks-on-covid19-vaccines-buying-strategy
"So we have evidence (a) that participation in the EU procurement programme was optional and (b) joining the programme did not prevent negotiating bilaterally."
a: technically optional in word but not action. There is no reason to believe the UK is so much better run than every member country of the EU and would have rejected pressure to show solidarity.
a.1: the EU's actions in the real world reject any notion they would be honourable enough to allow the UK to keep the orders should the unlikely event of the UK remaining and not joining joint procurement.
b) If your Germany and at the point where EU member countries were pointing at the success of the US, UK and Israel. The EU's failure being so politically untenable by the members that they ordered from elsewhere either from the east or with companies the EU were already negotiating with (breaking the agreement).
"Brexit in and of itself did not deliver the ability to act independently of the rest of the EU/EEA in this regard."
So can I please get an explanation which nobody has yet been able to deliver. The UK supremacist view that the UK is so much better run that we would have broke ranks under pressure from the EU and remainers in the UK when members who already had a plan dropped them to join the EU's plan? That until brexit the UK was known more for its gold plating of EU instructions. Theory is all well and good but based in fact and reality why do you believe the UK is so much better run?
"I have provided links to back up my statements, you have not"
Erm, I did provide a link in my response, and not just to my previous comment which I have repeated countless times in my post history and its still never been answered. What parts of reality do you disagree with and I will try to find you a link. All that I said was public knowledge and doesnt tend to be argued against as it was so public everyone is pretty much aware.
"You are trying to move the goalposts."
And
"In any reply, you need to provide evidence that the Joint Procurement Agreement covering the procurement of vaccines was not optional, and the UK would, as an EU member, have been legally obliged to participate."
You just moved the goalposts come back:
My first post in this reply thread- https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2022/01/28/horizons_response/#c_4404857
Pointing out that a benefit of brexit was the vaccination procurement.
My comment on this thread that you responded to leading to this conversation- https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2022/01/28/horizons_response/#c_4404939
I clearly state the UK supremacist view which I disagree with. You are moving the goal posts by claiming the technicality of the action being optional. What you dont do is answer why the UK is so much better than it wasnt due to brexit that we didnt join the joint procurement.
No - the goalposts didn't move. It was just pointed out that you were off-side, so no goal. There was no EU rule that prohibited us doing our own vaccine deal, although you are free to assert that hypothetically we wouldn't have gone alone. Although in hat case others are fee to assert that, hypothetically, adopting other measures for pandemic response as early as our neigbours did would have been more likely, and might, hypothetically, have reduced economic damage and death tolls. B
But, hey, world beating vaccine roll-out, the standard government answer to every criticism.
@AC
"No - the goalposts didn't move"
Thats just stupid and ignorant of the comments written above.
"Although in hat case others are fee to assert that, hypothetically, adopting other measures for pandemic response as early as our neigbours did would have been more likely, and might, hypothetically, have reduced economic damage and death tolls."
The only reason I am responding is due to this excellent point. And the answer is yes. In fact I am certain all governments got something wrong but I expect the autopsy of covid responses to be 'interesting'. Personally I am of the belief that the UK overreacted and some others went much further.
"But, hey, world beating vaccine roll-out, the standard government answer to every criticism."
Or that there was no party.
"I am pointing out the bald fact that participation in the initial procurement programme, and its successors was, and is, optional for individual member states."
In theory with zero demonstration in practice.
"Hungary's opting-out demonstrates this, and demonstrates that the ability to not participate was not a benefit of Brexit."
Hungary didnt opt out of the initial phase. They complained the EU was slow then opted out.
So they were allowed to opt out then? How does this reconcile with zero demonstration?
@Triggerfish
"So they were allowed to opt out then? How does this reconcile with zero demonstration?"
It seems you are missing a huge part of the discussion. Read the thread and you will understand the vast difference between the discussion and those 2 selective questions.
@Bogle
Not sure what you think you are getting at there. If your suggestion is that the EU caught up then yes, and thats because they were behind they had to catch up. Also they caught up because member countries broke their agreement with the EU and ordered vaccine themselves copying the UK after the EU screwup.
So, the UK could not have have gone it alone within the EU and if they had tried the EU would have stolen their vaccine orders and at the same time the other nation states within the EU did create their own supply lines alongside the EU one without that being stolen by the EU. That has all the coherence and objectivity of a Boris Johnson article on straight bananas.
@Citizen of Nowhere
"So, the UK could not have have gone it alone within the EU and if they had tried the EU would have stolen their vaccine orders"
Which is demonstrated by the EU publicly and directly threatening and attempting to (with actual accusations of it happening) which did result in the UK even negotiating giving some of the production for the EU to keep.
Unless your trying to claim the EU didnt steal any vaccine for export nor that they were raiding facilities and issuing threats?
"at the same time the other nation states within the EU did create their own supply lines"
And you are wrong. Not at the same time. The EU procurement broke down after the UK was successful and delivering to our own population. After the success of the UK and failure of the EU (public statements again) member countries went their own way.
Your mental gymnastics to defend the EU aint going well
> Your mental gymnastics to defend the EU aint going well
Who’s defending the EU? All I’m pointing out is that your jingoistic interpretation of events contradicts itself. Sovereign EU nations were free to do what they decided, regardless of when and why they did so. The UK in the EU could have done same whenever and for whatever reason they decided.
@Citizen of Nowhere
"All I’m pointing out is that your jingoistic interpretation of events contradicts itself"
You were denying reality. The reality that has been observed and was on public display. Nothing in your comment actually responds to the serious deficits I pointed out in your 'interpretation' (mental gymnastics)
@Citizen of Nowhere
"You are Boris Johnson’s speech writer and I claim my £5 :-)"
Yet again your response doesnt even attempt to address the huge flaws in your comments that I pointed out. That your best response is to try and attack my character demonstrates how little you could add to the discussion. Come back when you have some answers.
@Lars
"Member states like the UK and the rest had the right to order for themselves too. I think you know that very well by now."
Which is the UK supremacist view that seems to shut you guys up as none of you making this claim seem able to answer-
https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2022/01/28/horizons_response/#c_4404939
And if you think the UK is so much better run than every member country and the EU gov then why would we remain?
Wait until you see the bill for that!
HMG ordered everything from everybody without setting any penalties for non-delivery or worrying about the cost.
Consequently we spent over 10 times as much per delivered dose.
We did have a short lead for a little while but within a month that narrow advantage had been completely squandered away.
We have the second highest rate of Covid deaths/million after the USA but I'll grant you that is more because of the morons in Westminster but overall we would have been a lot better off being part of the EU scheme.
@DJO
I take from your comment you now agree an unequivocal advantage of brexit which you recognise with 'We did have a short lead for a little'. So now your another commenter who can stop claiming there are no benefits or you have no idea of any benefits etc.
"Wait until you see the bill for that!"
So kill em all because they aint worth saving? AZ vaccine produced at cost but yes the UK ordered vaccine (the EU still hadnt signed for the orders 3 months later!).
"HMG ordered everything from everybody without setting any penalties for non-delivery or worrying about the cost."
Yes. Thats because there was a pandemic and people wanted vaccine. The vaccines being developed faster than ever before for an unknown virus. The EU approach was to order limited amounts (rejecting more!) because the French dictated theirs must be bought in the quantity of others (the French one didnt work while others already had promising candidates).
"Consequently we spent over 10 times as much per delivered dose."
And got some. While the EU flailed and cried (and they did so publicly) the UK and US (and Israel!!) actually got vaccine. The EU embarrassed itself in court for not understanding its own contracts and failed to order vaccine as it was ment to. Even stepping in to tell Dublin they could not cross the border to actually get vaccinated in the UK where we had vaccine!!!
"We did have a short lead for a little while but within a month that narrow advantage had been completely squandered away."
How? The UK got vaccinated and is opening back up. Not much narrow about our advantage nor was it a short lead.
"but overall we would have been a lot better off being part of the EU scheme."
I am not sure how you can try to justify this. More deaths, having to then order our own vaccines but later (EU members followed our lead) and have whatever we order stolen by the EU. You must be trippin.
So an advantage for about a month and a disadvantage for several years is a positive result?
The overall death rate per million in the UK is far higher - you think that is an advantage?
We spent about 10 times as much for a worse result - you think that is an advantage?
...UK got vaccinated and is opening back up...
Far far too soon, totally for political reasons, there is NO medical evidence to suggest opening up now is a good idea - I'll guarantee the infection rate will soar in the next month or so.
But this has little to do with Brexit more the staggering incompetence of the current Tory party "leadership", the same "leadership" that gave us Brexit just to placate a few back benchers.
@DJO
"So an advantage for about a month and a disadvantage for several years is a positive result?"
Thats plain bull. Continued advantage and your claiming disadvantage. You seem seriously biased in your exaggerated view of disadvantage and understatement of advantage. But still you wanted an example of an advantage, you do admit an advantage as much as you try to talk it down, so I expect you now wont be claiming not to know of any advantages?
"The overall death rate per million in the UK is far higher - you think that is an advantage?"
Than what? Its lower than some EU countries. Each country made their own decisions in reaction to the pandemic not the EU, but I assume by your statement you think we should have done the Sweden model which worked better than ours?
"We spent about 10 times as much for a worse result - you think that is an advantage?"
Where is the worse result? Thats an amusing claim when you even accepted there was while trying to downplay it. Again you seem happy with more death to save money, your choice. The EU and member countries seemed to disagree though.
"Far far too soon, totally for political reasons, there is NO medical evidence to suggest opening up now is a good idea - I'll guarantee the infection rate will soar in the next month or so."
No medical evidence? Your nuts. Its endemic instead of pandemic, the UK immunity is high enough that infection != hospitalisation nor death so economically there is every reason to open up and medically no reason not to.
"But this has little to do with Brexit more the staggering incompetence of the current Tory party "leadership", the same "leadership" that gave us Brexit just to placate a few back benchers."
I agree it has little to do with brexit nor the EU as each country makes their own choices. As I point out above removing your argument against the advantage.
I agree it has little to do with brexit nor the EU as each country makes their own choices.
Then why do you tediously bleat on about vaccines in the comments section of every Brexit story? Now we've ascertained that Brexit has nothing to do with Covid response, can we also recognise that accumulated case and death statistics show any first-mover advantage the UK had regarding vaccines was lost months ago thanks to incompetent government?
You're in the wrong place for rationale debate Codejunky. Its fun to watch a certain leaning demographic get their impotent rage in a knot :) Either that or they believe everything the BBC or Guardian tell them :) Or more accurately in the Guardians case, what Bill Gates tells them to say ;)
@Tilda Rice
Such vice words, It's obvious you did not fall for the vaccine and thus you avoided having the Bill Gates micro chip implanted in your brains preventing you from thinking straight and rationally.
Lucky you.
Ah there you are again with the false assertion that the vaccine rollout had anything to do with Brexit.
Reminder: it happened while we were still in the EU. The Uk used its right to do its own thing as allowed under the EU regs.
Nothing to do with Brexit, however much you wish to claim it did.
So we can derive from your need to use this false assertion that you're still unable to name a single benefit then.
@batfink
"Ah there you are again with the false assertion that the vaccine rollout had anything to do with Brexit."
Erm... you think thats a false assertion? your really gonna have to explain that one.
"Reminder: it happened while we were still in the EU. The Uk used its right to do its own thing as allowed under the EU regs."
Ahh the UK supremacist view. Read- https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2022/01/28/horizons_response/#c_4404939
Your either lying, severely misinformed or delusional. That you think thats a deficit on my part isnt my problem
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
Music for codejunky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BydJFxtDnEY
And deaths per 100K is not much to boast about.
Britain 232.8
France 195.4
Germany 141.4
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/mapping-spread-new-coronavirus/?itid=hp_pandemic
@Lars
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BydJFxtDnEY"
Not following how any of that is relevant but then I did stop listening to the moan part way. I dont care if you want to complain about our gov, I do too.
"And deaths per 100K is not much to boast about."
Agreed. So we should have done as Sweden did? Could have been worse, there are much worse countries out there and some in the EU! What does that have to do with the price of fish?
"https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/mapping-spread-new-coronavirus/?itid=hp_pandemic"
Want to add some context to the link?
You're wrong about Sweden, @codejunky. 154.1 per 100k. So they are massively better off than the UK. Obs, innit?
Of course, it's a bit redundant saying codejunky is wrong. Can anyone supply a word that describes just how wilfully wrong codejunky is all the time?
@Bogle
The Swedes admitted they made a mistake and made a change but still the numbers in comparison to their neighbours are very telling.
Sweden 154.1
Denmark 64.0
Norway 26.9
Finland 35.2
The Swedish "mistake" was deliberate, they (he) went for it in "belief".
Boris was apparently thinking of the same solution (do nothing), losing time, or then he is just rubbish at making decisions and add to that that Britain is a island and could have done so much better.
(and the Americans have lost more people than soldiers and civilians in WW2)
@Bogle
"You're wrong about Sweden, @codejunky. 154.1 per 100k. So they are massively better off than the UK. Obs, innit?"
You seem to have misunderstood my comment, I mention Sweden as they have come off better and they didnt react as harshly as the UK did. I mention Sweden because it gives aneurysms to people who think the UK needed more locking down.
"Of course, it's a bit redundant saying codejunky is wrong"
It is if you misread the comment but dont feel too butt hurt.
"Can anyone supply a word that describes just how wilfully wrong codejunky is all the time?"
Smarter than you?
Dumb. No-one can assert that a UK still in the EU would not have prevented the "royal screw up".
I can equally claim that had the UK not left, the vaccines would not have been screwed up, and therefore anyone in the EU who died as a result of late vaccine availability is the fault of the Brexiteers.
(That might look like empty hyperbole, but I would suggest people look to see where the European Medicines Agency was located prior to March 2019...)
@Malcolm Weir
"Dumb. No-one can assert that a UK still in the EU would not have prevented the "royal screw up"."
That will take some exceptional mental gymnastics. Based on everything we know where the EU got their contracts wrong, didnt sign until much later than we did, was unprepared nor capable of delivery and resulted in blaming the very companies manufacturing the vaccine and stealing + threats of stealing it from other countries how do you believe that would have been better with the UK remaining?
yup, but after we all gave all our money to the USA we dont have any to spend on having a nice war any more.
Although the Balkans had a good go didnt they? Seems that there have been quite a few squabbles around Russia as well... and a new one about to start (though I did see a really good video where a USA university of Chicago professor very neatly showed why the USA is to blame for that as well.
OK tell me one single way in which the UK and the majority of UK citizens have benefited from Brexit - just one unequivocal advantage.
* Consumers can buy bendy bananas of any curvature by the lb, free from EU regulation.
* Blue passports!!
* Increased work opportunities in the fruit and veg industry.
* Has the Human Rights Act been repealed yet?
To quote Donald J Trump: "we're going to win so much, you're going to be so sick and tired of winning"
And yet, here you are... throwing shade faster than your mates in the Daily Mail comment section. I'm utterly disappointed (actually no, I pity your 'preemptive strike' of a comment because that's all you can come up with).
I am however mightily impressed that you unfold your used word-of-the-day toilet paper to read it... Usually, one does it the other way around, read first, then wipe and dump.
Nah
Pointing out that
they lied, where is that 350m per week, how is that new found independance working out for fishermen, how is that new trade deal working out for farmers, how are those 'no friction agreements' working out on trade with europe(*), how are the new immigration rules working out, how are small traders managing export / or import to the EU, how is the good friday agreement working out
There is so much more, but space does not allow ... and looking forward to
how is free movement working out when you have to pay to enter the EU next year.
This will never get old. I know you are not listening, but your children and grandchildren are and they will ask why...
(*) this one is particularly good as it is _our_ red tape that is causing a lot of the issues
Adding to that,
Good luck to anyone involved in an import / export business. e.g. import from anywhere, export to other places (~50% of which is the EU).
That includes a lot of people who use to buy in bulk from china and sell retail to the eu, people who make things on a small scale (etsy sellers), wine merchants, antique dealers, probably most of the larger auction houses (smaller ones are UK only), a lot of the london art market.
Those were good jobs. Whole market sectors that will be much reduced because of the time and cost and friction involved in moving goods across borders.
You forget the almost utter destruction of our touring music and events industry. Not only musicians lost out, it was the whole touring industry of specialist hauliers, lighting engineers, sound engineers, stage builders and all the other back-stage experts.
Most musicians don't make money from record sales, it's the tours that bring in the money. New bands got experience touring Europe and the damage to one of our main 'soft' influences has been utterly tragic.
I did not forget, just did not know.
No one person has full knowledge of the entire economy.
however, it is pretty obvs that if you make trade more difficult, if you are not the monopoly supplier, you get less trade.
There are doubtless many other industries that are not going to prosper as they were.
The poster below indicates the cheese industry is suffering. Again, i had no idea.
what saddens me even more is that the govt had over *4 years* to get procedures and systems in place that would have minimised the damage and there is little evidence anyone lifted a finger.
A lot of that 70 miles of lorry queues both ways is more due to the current govt's incompetance.
"it was the whole touring industry of specialist hauliers"
For details, specifically those affecting British hauliers who used to do a lot of work in this sector but have now lost cabotage rights in the EU:
https://www.lsionline.com/news/touring-transport-sector-calls-for-government-support
And the sound and lighting hire companies which used to serve the EU market from the EU are also greatly affected as they now have to make arrangements for temporary import :(
Of course they lied, just like the remainers did (in the 1970s as well). The 350 million is probably around somewhere but try finding that in the morass of crap that is our government finances. The frictionless trade seems to be one way (them to us) not helped of course by the fact that no one in whitehall seems to have a clue about designing a website.... use their cock up to tell me what form I need to export cheese and I will mark you as a total genius.
This post has been deleted by its author
Did you enjoy leaving the European Union but get bored when the Americans didn't want to trade with you? Want to get that same hit that your first dose gave you?
Try leaving the United Kingdom as well, get rid of those pesky Scots and Irish complaining about Mr Johnson's cake.
You're sending £700Million a week to Edinburgh. Why not fund Wetherspoons instead!
The Scots are stealing your Sovereign, keep her in Windsor not Balmoral.
"Did you enjoy leaving the European Union"
No. I was in the half of those who voted who voted against it. I voted against it for several reasons one of which was that it blatantly ignored the blatant incompatibility between Brexit, NI being in the UK and the Good Friday agreement.
When the EU starts penalizing the UK for breaking the protocol (and they will), only a complete idiot is going to think the eight DUP MPs are going to prevail against everyone else. So EU border will be in Cairnryan and Liverpool.
The DUP and the ultra-nationalists will be cross. No-one else will really care.
@Malcolm Weir
"When the EU starts penalizing the UK for breaking the protocol"
I thought remainers were all for following the agreements in place. Often its the GFA spouted as reason for the UK to be trapped in the EU, but if the protocol broke the rules by not getting the required permission from the very people it affects then surely we would want those rules followed?
"Good news for you, it seems the breaking of the rules may be addressed soon-
https://capx.co/will-the-government-finally-face-down-the-eu-over-northern-ireland/
Possibly not as pro-EU people may wish though."
Ah yes, CapX, the libertarian mouthpiece of the Tory-linked Centre for Policy Studies.
I'll be sure to pay special attention to whatever drivel they're spouting :rolleyes:
I don't think that's the will of the people in Ireland.
The country's name is Ireland by the way... otherwise it's just as silly as if someone dropped the word Italia or Deutschland in the middle of an English sentence for no reason whatsoever.
In UK law and media it was called Eire (not even Éire) right up until the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 because the English establishment still hadn't got over losing it and refused to call it Ireland.
@Malcolm Weir
"there was always going to be a huge bill for getting divorced, which money could have better been used to fund the NHS..."
You seem confused. Thats the bill for being in the EU. Thats the money spent in our name as members of the EU and the amount to be paid by the UK at some point. In leaving the EU the argument was to settle the debt before leaving (makes sense) and before May got in the way of the negotiations you may remember negotiations not giving them so much money as we had already bought assets which the EU would be keeping.
Remaining on the other hand guaranteed that bill to increase, but also there is now the covid bailout fund which allows the EU to sign debt in member countries names instead of countries contributing it. At first declared as an emergency measure but then MEP's started talking about using it to fund the EU's spending habit.
We stopped the bill from rising so your welcome
@AC
"And the UK Covid debt will have to be paid starting in April by the UK citizens only"
Who else do you think would pay it? Just as most other wealthy countries will have to pay their debts they racked up. As my comments point out brexit stopped these debts going up even further to service the EU. Your welcome
"Meanwhile, the incalculable cost of non-participation continues to rise."
Yes, quite right.
There is a saying which is apposite:
Look before you leap.
If you leave the club then don't be surprised if you don't get to enjoy all the benefits that membership gave you.
Instead we were sold the fantasy that "Taking back control" and "A global Britain" would solve all the problems that having been building up over the past few years,, Now that reality is starting to bite the likes of Bill Cash are whinging that we can't have our cake and eat it too.
God, it makes me wonder if these fools can walk and fart at the same time given the level of intelligence and knowledge being exhibited by this government.
If you leave the club then don't be surprised if you don't get to enjoy all the benefits that membership gave you.
You also shouldn't be surprised if the club doesn't bend over backwards to help you out. We chose to leave so the onus is on us to deal with the consequences. That should include 'reparations' to the club for any damage we cause when we leave although it doesn't seem the EU is going that far.
Perhaps he's expecting a reply along the lines of "Her Majesty's Government will immediately sort out the Northern Ireland protocol to the island of Ireland's satisfaction, sort out access to fishing grounds to France's satisfaction, sort out Gibraltar to Spain's satisfaction, and solemnly swears not to fuck up again"?
>Brexit means that British politicians are now accountable for running the country.
They always were, just that now they can't - although they are trying to - blame their cockups on Brussels.
So the question is how is it Brussels fault that the UK governments response is "big on rhetoric and promises" but totally lacking in detail.
Which makes literally no difference to you. You have gained and lost absolutely no personal power. Politicians are not 'accountable' to you, no matter where they are located. You stick a tick in a box once every four years and ultimately, it doesn't matter. Your voice doesn't carry any weight. You do not affect political change, regardless of whether your politicians are in the UK or the EU. You are only a part of a homogenous and easily swayed group, moulded and formed by the biggest political parties for their own ends. You are their tool, not the other way around.
If Brexit should have taught us anything, it is that, taken as a group, the populace are not well informed or clever enough to decide their own political destiny.
"...taken as a group, the populace are not well informed or clever enough to decide their own political destiny."
The trouble is all the alternative solutions are worse.
Do you really want to live in a country run like China or Russia?
Winston Churchill once said:
"Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"
This post has been deleted by its author
"If Brexit should have taught us anything, it is that, taken as a group, the populace are not well informed or clever enough to decide their own political destiny."
Yes, of course, but iẗ́s also obvious that affordable and good education for the whole population helps a lot while a two party system doesn't at all.
Our old friend Socrates did worry about it long ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLJBzhcSWTk&list=LLSKzalg5s0rjExeDy91F8uw&index=155
Can you spot the British candymen.
I mean, the civil service negotiated what has to be the worst deal ever, we seem to be paying a thumping great bill and getting sod all back.
The civil service are also responsible for the farce that serves as a web crap pile (sorry, web page) apparently telling people what form to fill in to export goods to the EU, I know there are some total genius people reading this, perhaps they an use the website to tell me what form is needed to export a lump of cheese?
Not sure if you are being sarcastic or what.
The civil service can only do what they are told to do by their political masters in Whitehall. If you want to blame anybody it's Boris, Rees-Smug and the rest of them as it's 100% their fault.
There were warnings beforehand that trade with the EU would be hindered and that it would be far more expensive but it was all labelled "Project fear" and ignored, shame as almost every warning turned out correct and almost every promise from the Leave side turned out to be false.
HMG IT procurement is and always has been a train wreck, mainly due to the governments (of both stripes) continually changing the specification. underfunding and forcing the use of outside contractors for stuff that would be cheaper and better done in house.
I love the way the brexitters can argue about what they should be entitled to because it's in the brexit agreement without a hint of irony, While at the same time insisting that if the EU doesn't agree to rewrite the Northern Ireland agreement to their liking, they don't have to follow it, and are already unilaterally ignoring bits of it and extending implementation dates.
I suppose when you hold all the cards you can do this kind of thing? Though curiously despite holding all the cards last time, Johnson and Frost signed an agreement they both say now is intolerably damaging to the UK only a few months later.
Those EU guys must be pissing themselves laughing at the UK for electing these clowns.
I can't really understand how Brainexiters don't get the irony of Frost having to go back and back again to renegotiate the deal he sealed with massive fanfare!
"My predecessor (me) did a rubbish job, I'm going to fix the mess this Muppet ( still me) left behind!!"
Microwave ready meal deal indeed... Might be ok for some of the British public, but European have a much better food taste and expectations.
"I love the way the brexitters can argue about what they should be entitled to because it's in the brexit agreement without a hint of irony, While at the same time insisting that if the EU doesn't agree to rewrite the Northern Ireland agreement to their liking, they don't have to follow it..."
I believe the word to describe this trait is "exceptionalism".
They're superior to the those bloody foreigners, so why shouldn't they tell them what to do and how to do it...?
Quoting a Twatter feed;
"I knew a guy in his late forties who was convinced his wife was the only thing stopping a debauched life, sleeping with 20 year olds. So he left her and found himself alone in a bedsit washing his pants in the sink. I've yet to think of a better analogy for Brexit"
the problem is it hasn't all happened yet ...
there are still parts of the transition working themselves out, and categories of goods that have yet to have full restrictions enforced.
The only way to keep the Good Friday Agreement Intact is for there not to be a border either in the Irish Sea (unionists hate this), or on the island of Ireland (Nationalists hate this) is for both The Republic of Ireland and the UK to have the same customs regime, this requires that both are either in the EU or Out. The Irish are not leaving.
If the UK want to go back, they have to follow the rules for non-members, Accept the Euro, be part of the Schengen area, have no active disputes with member nations (Gibraltar / NI,) Paying their fair share (No-rebate (was about 2/3rd of what we paid in,) Accepting the oversight of EU Institutions (ECJ,ECHR,etc) Be approved by the Council of the EU, Be approved by a majority vote of the European Parliament.
The deal we had as a legacy member was a lot sweeter.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
