It depends entirely on what deal if any we get. I don't think that there can be any doubt that our car industry is one of the most vulnerable sectors.
Agreed. Along with foodstuffs, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, aeronautics and services, in particular financial services.
Pharmaceuticals should be OK, the volumes are small and they don't have the just-in-time supply chain issue. Foodstuffs will be a bigger problem for our EU friends, we can always get supplies elsewhere. Dunno about chemicals, but I'd have thought as bulk, non-time-critical cargoes they wouldn't be too badly hit. Aeronautics, yep, that's high risk, not least because our EU friends are keen to snaffle the business and are in a position to decide. Services, paradoxically, probably not too badly affected.
The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?
The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.
But when it happens it will still be the fault of the Blairites.
True, the failure will be because the full socialist revolution will have been thwarted by the Blairites in league with big business, the US, Murdoch, the Daily Mail, landowners, Goldman Sachs and other Jewish bankers.
You may joke.
I'll probably be first against the wall.
Wow. The shark of self importance is cleared by several meters.
Actually it was a reference to a comment that a friend of mine at school (who is using his not inconsiderable family resources to support communism in the UK) made...
It depends entirely on what deal if any we get. I don't think that there can be any doubt that our car industry is one of the most vulnerable sectors.
Agreed. Along with foodstuffs, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, aeronautics and services, in particular financial services.
Pharmaceuticals should be OK, the volumes are small and they don't have the just-in-time supply chain issue. Foodstuffs will be a bigger problem for our EU friends, we can always get supplies elsewhere. Dunno about chemicals, but I'd have thought as bulk, non-time-critical cargoes they wouldn't be too badly hit. Aeronautics, yep, that's high risk, not least because our EU friends are keen to snaffle the business and are in a position to decide. Services, paradoxically, probably not too badly affected.
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.
Mathematically he's a Tory.
The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.
But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393
But he doesn't stand as a CON, nor does he vote as a CON.
He doesn't vote at all, but nor does a Lab Deputy Speaker whom he cancels out - so effectively he does vote as a Con.
You can either look at it as he is a Con or his presence reduces Lab by one, either way same net effect.
In Buckingham they didn't have a Con candidate.
No they had a Speaker who counts as Con for voting purposes.
The Ballot Paper in Buckingham looked like this:
The Speaker seeking re-election John Bercow UKIP Brian Mapletoft Independent Scott Raven Green Michael Sheppard
What kind of crappy printing service are they using in Buckingham?
Sky reporting Corbyn promising at the TUC that all public sector workers will get the 'pay rise they deserve' when he is in Government.
As each 1% rise costs 1.8 billion and the TUC are seeking 5% that equals a whopping 9 billion pounds per annum. Also with CPI at 2.9% the pension rise next year will be eye watering.
The Unions and McCluskey in particular threatening illegal strikes and coordinated across the UK has echoes of the militancy of the miners, but the difference today is the much smaller Union membership.
The ICM today had the conservatives and labour jointly on 42% but as Corbyn and his hard left acolytes gain control of labour, I think we may be coming near peak Corbyn
TBF You thought Lab on 25% was peak Corbyn!!!
The record of pundits and pb.com posters on predicting the fortunes of Jeremy Corbyn is not good. The diversity of outcomes predicted (from nailed on PM to flash in the pan disaster) has increased at least since the election.
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.
Mathematically he's a Tory.
The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.
But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393
But he doesn't stand as a CON, nor does he vote as a CON.
He doesn't vote at all, but nor does a Lab Deputy Speaker whom he cancels out - so effectively he does vote as a Con.
You can either look at it as he is a Con or his presence reduces Lab by one, either way same net effect.
In Buckingham they didn't have a Con candidate.
No they had a Speaker who counts as Con for voting purposes.
The Ballot Paper in Buckingham looked like this:
The Speaker seeking re-election John Bercow UKIP Brian Mapletoft Independent Scott Raven Green Michael Sheppard
What kind of crappy printing service are they using in Buckingham?
It depends entirely on what deal if any we get. I don't think that there can be any doubt that our car industry is one of the most vulnerable sectors.
Agreed. Along with foodstuffs, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, aeronautics and services, in particular financial services.
Pharmaceuticals should be OK, the volumes are small and they don't have the just-in-time supply chain issue. Foodstuffs will be a bigger problem for our EU friends, we can always get supplies elsewhere. Dunno about chemicals, but I'd have thought as bulk, non-time-critical cargoes they wouldn't be too badly hit. Aeronautics, yep, that's high risk, not least because our EU friends are keen to snaffle the business and are in a position to decide. Services, paradoxically, probably not too badly affected.
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
Absolutely. In the case of pharmaceuticals the EU could hold up any delivery they chose simply by not recognising UK based accreditations without checking them. As to chemicals, they all go into other products so disruption to deliveries would cascade through the economy. We really need our best team on the negotiations.
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
I think it's more that the pharma industry would basically need to up sticks and move in the absence of an agreement, because of the difficulty there would be in getting regulatory approval for new treatments and drugs. Likewise, without an agreement the UK agricultural sector would find itself in deep, deep trouble. We may be able to find alternative markets to supply us over time, but farmers would struggle to replace the EU markets the sell into now - at least within a timeframe that would enable them to keep on in business.
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
It's very easy to understand why so few people are changing their minds either way. Those who didn't want to leave will be getting more & more concerned, whilst those who did want to leave will be feeling more & more convinced that this is an organisation to get out of.
He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.
Mathematically he's a Tory.
The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.
But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393
But he doesn't stand as a CON, nor does he vote as a CON.
He doesn't vote at all, but nor does a Lab Deputy Speaker whom he cancels out - so effectively he does vote as a Con.
You can either look at it as he is a Con or his presence reduces Lab by one, either way same net effect.
In Buckingham they didn't have a Con candidate.
No they had a Speaker who counts as Con for voting purposes.
The Ballot Paper in Buckingham looked like this:
The Speaker seeking re-election John Bercow UKIP Brian Mapletoft Independent Scott Raven Green Michael Sheppard
What kind of crappy printing service are they using in Buckingham?
We'd probably be a lot better off if Keir Starmer - who actually reads his briefs and understands how the EU works - was leading the negotiations rather than the perennial Winger-in-Chief.
We'd probably be a lot better off if Keir Starmer - who actually reads his briefs and understands how the EU works - was leading the negotiations rather than the perennial Winger-in-Chief.
Agreed. Is there any scenario where he becomes PM of a National Government for the duration of the talks?
We'd probably be a lot better off if Keir Starmer - who actually reads his briefs and understands how the EU works - was leading the negotiations rather than the perennial Winger-in-Chief.
Agreed. Is there any scenario where he becomes PM of a National Government for the duration of the talks?
Not sure you can get rid of the Corbynistas that easily.
It depends entirely on what deal if any we get. I don't think that there can be any doubt that our car industry is one of the most vulnerable sectors.
Agreed. Along with foodstuffs, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, aeronautics and services, in particular financial services.
Pharmaceuticals should be OK, the volumes are small and they don't have the just-in-time supply chain issue. Foodstuffs will be a bigger problem for our EU friends, we can always get supplies elsewhere. Dunno about chemicals, but I'd have thought as bulk, non-time-critical cargoes they wouldn't be too badly hit. Aeronautics, yep, that's high risk, not least because our EU friends are keen to snaffle the business and are in a position to decide. Services, paradoxically, probably not too badly affected.
All the industries I mentioned are highly regulated, which means third countries need to have mutual recognition agreements in place to trade freely, which raises the issues of rule taking, jurisdiction and freedom of movement. Switzerland's most important industry sector is pharmaceuticals, but only because they have a set of MRAs through their bilateral agreements with the EU. They have to harmonize their regulation to the EU's. They have to accept freedom of movement as part of those agreements. The EU isn't indicating that a Swiss style deal would be available to us. Generally they don't like the Swiss bilateral agreements due to the lack, as they see it, of a level judicial playing field.
PS the Swiss still have to certify their pharma products twice, including in the EU. They want a third bilateral to cover that, but the EU refuses to talk to them until they get the judicial oversight issue sorted.
Actually it was a reference to a comment that a friend of mine at school (who is using his not inconsiderable family resources to support communism in the UK) made...
And he backs Corbyn... but only as a first step...
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
It's very easy to understand why so few people are changing their minds either way. Those who didn't want to leave will be getting more & more concerned, whilst those who did want to leave will be feeling more & more convinced that this is an organisation to get out of.
The problem isn't the organisation. The problem is that we have become geared up to it over 40 years.
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
I think it's more that the pharma industry would basically need to up sticks and move in the absence of an agreement, because of the difficulty there would be in getting regulatory approval for new treatments and drugs. Likewise, without an agreement the UK agricultural sector would find itself in deep, deep trouble. We may be able to find alternative markets to supply us over time, but farmers would struggle to replace the EU markets the sell into now - at least within a timeframe that would enable them to keep on in business.
Bollocks.
The UK pharma industry regularly gets drugs approved by the FDA.
It would be a pain - and completely unnecessary duplication of work - to have to get drugs approved by the EMA as well as a UK regulatory authority.
But global companies are not going to abandon the UK market.
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
It's very easy to understand why so few people are changing their minds either way. Those who didn't want to leave will be getting more & more concerned, whilst those who did want to leave will be feeling more & more convinced that this is an organisation to get out of.
All the industries I mentioned are highly regulated, which means third countries need to have mutual recognition agreements in place to trade freely, which raises the issues of rule taking, jurisdiction and freedom of movement. Switzerland's most important industry sector is pharmaceuticals, but only because they have a set of MRAs through their bilateral agreements with the EU. They have to harmonize their regulation to the EU's. They have to accept freedom of movement as part of those agreements. The EU isn't indicating that a Swiss style deal would be available to us. Generally they don't like the Swiss bilateral agreements due to the lack, as they see it, of a level judicial playing field.
Given the size of the UK pharmaceutical industry and its huge R & D spend, I really can't see the EU cutting off European patients from access to UK medicines. After all, many pharmaceutical products are single-source and protected by patents, so it's not as though they can simply transfer to another supplier. In any case, they manage to buy plenty of US and Japanese medicines, so why not UK ones?
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
I think it's more that the pharma industry would basically need to up sticks and move in the absence of an agreement, because of the difficulty there would be in getting regulatory approval for new treatments and drugs. Likewise, without an agreement the UK agricultural sector would find itself in deep, deep trouble. We may be able to find alternative markets to supply us over time, but farmers would struggle to replace the EU markets the sell into now - at least within a timeframe that would enable them to keep on in business.
Bollocks.
The UK pharma industry regularly gets drugs approved by the FDA.
It would be a pain - and completely unnecessary duplication of work - to have to get drugs approved by the EMA as well as a UK regulatory authority.
But global companies are not going to abandon the UK market.
There's more to drug regulation than drug approvals. For example every batch needs to be signed off by a qualified person. The EU could simply bring in a rule that the credentials of UK QPs need to be checked before the goods are allowed in. They could insist on facilities being audited by EU based auditors. Etc. I am not saying they would do these things, but we'd have no redress if they did. As I say, we need our best team out there to handle this.
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
I think it's more that the pharma industry would basically need to up sticks and move in the absence of an agreement, because of the difficulty there would be in getting regulatory approval for new treatments and drugs. Likewise, without an agreement the UK agricultural sector would find itself in deep, deep trouble. We may be able to find alternative markets to supply us over time, but farmers would struggle to replace the EU markets the sell into now - at least within a timeframe that would enable them to keep on in business.
Bollocks.
The UK pharma industry regularly gets drugs approved by the FDA.
It would be a pain - and completely unnecessary duplication of work - to have to get drugs approved by the EMA as well as a UK regulatory authority.
But global companies are not going to abandon the UK market.
There's more to drug regulation than drug approvals. For example every batch needs to be signed off by a qualified person. The EU could simply bring in a rule that the credentials of UK QPs need to be checked before the goods are allowed in. They could insist on facilities being audited by EU based auditors. Etc. I am not saying they would do these things, but we'd have no redress if they did. As I say, we need our best team out there to handle this.
Presumably the American pharma industry already has a solution for this?
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
I think it's more that the pharma industry would basically need to up sticks and move in the absence of an agreement, because of the difficulty there would be in getting regulatory approval for new treatments and drugs. Likewise, without an agreement the UK agricultural sector would find itself in deep, deep trouble. We may be able to find alternative markets to supply us over time, but farmers would struggle to replace the EU markets the sell into now - at least within a timeframe that would enable them to keep on in business.
For pharma - UK companies will continue to apply European rules and will be okay to export? US is the biggest exporter to EU and I think have very different regulations on Pharma?
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
I think it's more that the pharma industry would basically need to up sticks and move in the absence of an agreement, because of the difficulty there would be in getting regulatory approval for new treatments and drugs. Likewise, without an agreement the UK agricultural sector would find itself in deep, deep trouble. We may be able to find alternative markets to supply us over time, but farmers would struggle to replace the EU markets the sell into now - at least within a timeframe that would enable them to keep on in business.
Bollocks.
The UK pharma industry regularly gets drugs approved by the FDA.
It would be a pain - and completely unnecessary duplication of work - to have to get drugs approved by the EMA as well as a UK regulatory authority.
But global companies are not going to abandon the UK market.
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
I think it's more that the pharma industry would basically need to up sticks and move in the absence of an agreement, because of the difficulty there would be in getting regulatory approval for new treatments and drugs. Likewise, without an agreement the UK agricultural sector would find itself in deep, deep trouble. We may be able to find alternative markets to supply us over time, but farmers would struggle to replace the EU markets the sell into now - at least within a timeframe that would enable them to keep on in business.
For pharma - UK companies will continue to apply European rules and will be okay to export? US is the biggest exporter to EU and I think have very different regulations on Pharma?
I am talking about a cliff edge Brexit where there is no agreement. There are established protocols in place between the US and the EU, which both sides understand and have adapted to. Of course, that takes us to another point: if we crash out of the EU with no deal, agreements to which the UK has been a party thanks to our EU membership will no longer apply.
I am talking about a cliff edge Brexit where there is no agreement. There are agreements in place between the US and the EU. Of course, that takes us to another point: if we crash out of the EU with no deal, agreements to which the UK has been a party thanks to our EU membership will no longer apply.
Surely in that case we would simply let them sell their medicines to us without restriction. If they chose to let their own citizens die because they suddenly decided to cut off imports of drugs from the UK, well, that would be the ultimate self-foot-shooting.
I really think pharma is the least of our worries, to be honest.
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
I think it's more that the pharma industry would basically need to up sticks and move in the absence of an agreement, because of the difficulty there would be in getting regulatory approval for new treatments and drugs. Likewise, without an agreement the UK agricultural sector would find itself in deep, deep trouble. We may be able to find alternative markets to supply us over time, but farmers would struggle to replace the EU markets the sell into now - at least within a timeframe that would enable them to keep on in business.
Bollocks.
The UK pharma industry regularly gets drugs approved by the FDA.
It would be a pain - and completely unnecessary duplication of work - to have to get drugs approved by the EMA as well as a UK regulatory authority.
But global companies are not going to abandon the UK market.
There is no UK regulatory authority and there is no sign of one being created. If we are serious about planning for a No Deal scenario we really need to get on with that as it will take time and money to do - unless we cede sovereignty by continuing to accept de facto EMA approval or use the FDA.
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
I think it's more that the pharma industry would basically need to up sticks and move in the absence of an agreement, because of the difficulty there would be in getting regulatory approval for new treatments and drugs. Likewise, without an agreement the UK agricultural sector would find itself in deep, deep trouble. We may be able to find alternative markets to supply us over time, but farmers would struggle to replace the EU markets the sell into now - at least within a timeframe that would enable them to keep on in business.
Bollocks.
The UK pharma industry regularly gets drugs approved by the FDA.
It would be a pain - and completely unnecessary duplication of work - to have to get drugs approved by the EMA as well as a UK regulatory authority.
But global companies are not going to abandon the UK market.
There is no UK regulatory authority and there is no sign of one being created. If we are serious about planning for a No Deal scenario we really need to get on with that as it will take time and money to do - unless we cede sovereignty by continuing to accept de facto EMA approval or use the FDA.
Why not do that in the interim while a body is being set up?
I am talking about a cliff edge Brexit where there is no agreement. There are agreements in place between the US and the EU. Of course, that takes us to another point: if we crash out of the EU with no deal, agreements to which the UK has been a party thanks to our EU membership will no longer apply.
Surely in that case we would simply let them sell their medicines to us without restriction. If they chose to let their own citizens die because they suddenly decided to cut off imports of drugs from the UK, well, that would be the ultimate self-foot-shooting.
I really think pharma is the least of our worries, to be honest.
I am not sure the pharma industry would see it like that. It will want continued unfettered access to its biggest markets. I agree that this is not a health issue. But it is certainly a business, and therefore an economic, one.
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
It's very easy to understand why so few people are changing their minds either way. Those who didn't want to leave will be getting more & more concerned, whilst those who did want to leave will be feeling more & more convinced that this is an organisation to get out of.
The problem isn't the organisation. The problem is that we have become geared up to it over 40 years.
Many countries have sought to release themselves from their enmeshment in one empire or another.
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
I think it's more that the pharma industry would basically need to up sticks and move in the absence of an agreement, because of the difficulty there would be in getting regulatory approval for new treatments and drugs. Likewise, without an agreement the UK agricultural sector would find itself in deep, deep trouble. We may be able to find alternative markets to supply us over time, but farmers would struggle to replace the EU markets the sell into now - at least within a timeframe that would enable them to keep on in business.
Bollocks.
The UK pharma industry regularly gets drugs approved by the FDA.
It would be a pain - and completely unnecessary duplication of work - to have to get drugs approved by the EMA as well as a UK regulatory authority.
But global companies are not going to abandon the UK market.
There is no UK regulatory authority and there is no sign of one being created. If we are serious about planning for a No Deal scenario we really need to get on with that as it will take time and money to do - unless we cede sovereignty by continuing to accept de facto EMA approval or use the FDA.
Why not do that in the interim while a body is being set up?
We absolutely can. But it means we cede sovereignty. I have no problem with that whatsoever - indeed a UK-only agency makes little sense to me given we will essentially shadow one of the EMA or FDA anyway - but it would not be the Brexit that we have been told we are going to get.
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
I think it's more that the pharma industry would basically need to up sticks and move in the absence of an agreement, because of the difficulty there would be in getting regulatory approval for new treatments and drugs. Likewise, without an agreement the UK agricultural sector would find itself in deep, deep trouble. We may be able to find alternative markets to supply us over time, but farmers would struggle to replace the EU markets the sell into now - at least within a timeframe that would enable them to keep on in business.
For pharma - UK companies will continue to apply European rules and will be okay to export? US is the biggest exporter to EU and I think have very different regulations on Pharma?
I am talking about a cliff edge Brexit where there is no agreement. There are established protocols in place between the US and the EU, which both sides understand and have adapted to. Of course, that takes us to another point: if we crash out of the EU with no deal, agreements to which the UK has been a party thanks to our EU membership will no longer apply.
Thanks for the lse article - interesting. EMA is gone - I can see that will have an impact. On skilled workers - i doubt they will be restricted (but may be less keen to come) A smart govt would reinvest EU contributions heavily in pharma research/to support similar industries. So that is indeed uncertain.
But as article notes there will be no tariffs... you say agreements will no longer apply - but surely that isn't true for something like patents or trademarks? Hard Brexit won't mean I can suddenly start producing on patent drugs or fake dyson vacuum cleaners in Europe?
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
I think it's more that the pharma industry would basically need to up sticks and move in the absence of an agreement, because of the difficulty there would be in getting regulatory approval for new treatments and drugs. Likewise, without an agreement the UK agricultural sector would find itself in deep, deep trouble. We may be able to find alternative markets to supply us over time, but farmers would struggle to replace the EU markets the sell into now - at least within a timeframe that would enable them to keep on in business.
Bollocks.
The UK pharma industry regularly gets drugs approved by the FDA.
It would be a pain - and completely unnecessary duplication of work - to have to get drugs approved by the EMA as well as a UK regulatory authority.
But global companies are not going to abandon the UK market.
The UK is in the EU (for a while). Every major drug company has big operations in the US, replicating work that also happens elsewhere. There is a reason why most pharmaceutical product development happens in the US and the EU or in a closely associated country like Switzerland. The UK might also be closely associated but we have to accept various things first that we are currently objecting to: EU exit fee, FoM, rule taking, ECJ oversight.
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
I think it's more that the pharma industry would basically need to up sticks and move in the absence of an agreement, because of the difficulty there would be in getting regulatory approval for new treatments and drugs. Likewise, without an agreement the UK agricultural sector would find itself in deep, deep trouble. We may be able to find alternative markets to supply us over time, but farmers would struggle to replace the EU markets the sell into now - at least within a timeframe that would enable them to keep on in business.
For pharma - UK companies will continue to apply European rules and will be okay to export? US is the biggest exporter to EU and I think have very different regulations on Pharma?
I am talking about a cliff edge Brexit where there is no agreement. There are established protocols in place between the US and the EU, which both sides understand and have adapted to. Of course, that takes us to another point: if we crash out of the EU with no deal, agreements to which the UK has been a party thanks to our EU membership will no longer apply.
Thanks for the lse article - interesting. EMA is gone - I can see that will have an impact. On skilled workers - i doubt they will be restricted (but may be less keen to come) A smart govt would reinvest EU contributions heavily in pharma research/to support similar industries. So that is indeed uncertain.
But as article notes there will be no tariffs... you say agreements will no longer apply - but surely that isn't true for something like patents or trademarks? Hard Brexit won't mean I can suddenly start producing on patent drugs or fake dyson vacuum cleaners in Europe?
Patent rights will be completely unaffected by Brexit, that is absolutely true. Although if the Unified Patent Court regime does come into being with the UK as a member that may change. That's not going to happen for a while, though. Trademark rights will be significantly affected, but I'd expect there to be no problems in sorting any issues out.
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
I think it's more that the pharma industry would basically need to up sticks and move in the absence of an agreement, because of the difficulty there would be in getting regulatory approval for new treatments and drugs. Likewise, without an agreement the UK agricultural sector would find itself in deep, deep trouble. We may be able to find alternative markets to supply us over time, but farmers would struggle to replace the EU markets the sell into now - at least within a timeframe that would enable them to keep on in business.
Bollocks.
The UK pharma industry regularly gets drugs approved by the FDA.
It would be a pain - and completely unnecessary duplication of work - to have to get drugs approved by the EMA as well as a UK regulatory authority.
But global companies are not going to abandon the UK market.
The UK is in the EU (for a while). Every major drug company has big operations in the US, replicating work that also happens elsewhere. There is a reason why most pharmaceutical product development happens in the US and the EU or in a closely associated country like Switzerland. The UK might also be closely associated but we have to accept various things first that we are currently objecting to: EU exit fee, FoM, rule taking, ECJ oversight.
The EU and US manage just fine, yet the US doesn't have to accept freedom of movement.
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
It's very easy to understand why so few people are changing their minds either way. Those who didn't want to leave will be getting more & more concerned, whilst those who did want to leave will be feeling more & more convinced that this is an organisation to get out of.
The problem isn't the organisation. The problem is that we have become geared up to it over 40 years.
Many countries have sought to release themselves from their enmeshment in one empire or another.
Which has no relevance to leaving an organisation we freely chose to join and played a full part in its workings. The problem is that we are now losing the many benefits of membership.
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
I think it's more that the pharma industry would basically need to up sticks and move in the absence of an agreement, because of the difficulty there would be in getting regulatory approval for new treatments and drugs. Likewise, without an agreement the UK agricultural sector would find itself in deep, deep trouble. We may be able to find alternative markets to supply us over time, but farmers would struggle to replace the EU markets the sell into now - at least within a timeframe that would enable them to keep on in business.
Bollocks.
The UK pharma industry regularly gets drugs approved by the FDA.
It would be a pain - and completely unnecessary duplication of work - to have to get drugs approved by the EMA as well as a UK regulatory authority.
But global companies are not going to abandon the UK market.
There is no UK regulatory authority and there is no sign of one being created. If we are serious about planning for a No Deal scenario we really need to get on with that as it will take time and money to do - unless we cede sovereignty by continuing to accept de facto EMA approval or use the FDA.
FFS
This "cedes sovereignty" argument gets on my tits. NO ONE CARES about sovereign for technical issues such as approval of drugs. It's matters of *national* sovereignty - like fiscal, monetary, defence and immigration where it matters
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
I think it's more that the pharma industry would basically need to up sticks and move in the absence of an agreement, because of the difficulty there would be in getting regulatory approval for new treatments and drugs. Likewise, without an agreement the UK agricultural sector would find itself in deep, deep trouble. We may be able to find alternative markets to supply us over time, but farmers would struggle to replace the EU markets the sell into now - at least within a timeframe that would enable them to keep on in business.
Bollocks.
The UK pharma industry regularly gets drugs approved by the FDA.
It would be a pain - and completely unnecessary duplication of work - to have to get drugs approved by the EMA as well as a UK regulatory authority.
But global companies are not going to abandon the UK market.
The UK is in the EU (for a while). Every major drug company has big operations in the US, replicating work that also happens elsewhere. There is a reason why most pharmaceutical product development happens in the US and the EU or in a closely associated country like Switzerland. The UK might also be closely associated but we have to accept various things first that we are currently objecting to: EU exit fee, FoM, rule taking, ECJ oversight.
The EU and US manage just fine, yet the US doesn't have to accept freedom of movement.
The EU and US do manage just fine. In fact my sister in law manages a certification team in the USA that replicates the work of the Swiss parent company so that company can maintain a full presence in the US market. It's a huge operation with many teams like my SiL's. That kind of work won't continue in the UK without the UK having a close association with one of the two major markets. In practice, the EU.
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
I think it's more that the pharma industry would basically need to up sticks and move in the absence of an agreement, because of the difficulty there would be in getting regulatory approval for new treatments and drugs. Likewise, without an agreement the UK agricultural sector would find itself in deep, deep trouble. We may be able to find alternative markets to supply us over time, but farmers would struggle to replace the EU markets the sell into now - at least within a timeframe that would enable them to keep on in business.
Bollocks.
The UK pharma industry regularly gets drugs approved by the FDA.
It would be a pain - and completely unnecessary duplication of work - to have to get drugs approved by the EMA as well as a UK regulatory authority.
But global companies are not going to abandon the UK market.
There is no UK regulatory authority and there is no sign of one being created. If we are serious about planning for a No Deal scenario we really need to get on with that as it will take time and money to do - unless we cede sovereignty by continuing to accept de facto EMA approval or use the FDA.
FFS
This "cedes sovereignty" argument gets on my tits. NO ONE CARES about sovereign for technical issues such as approval of drugs. It's matters of *national* sovereignty - like fiscal, monetary, defence and immigration where it matters
I am much more concerned about this kind of nuts and bolts issue than abstractions like sovereignty.
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
I think it's more that the pharma industry would basically need to up sticks and move in the absence of an agreement, because of the difficulty there would be in getting regulatory approval for new treatments and drugs. Likewise, without an agreement the UK agricultural sector would find itself in deep, deep trouble. We may be able to find alternative markets to supply us over time, but farmers would struggle to replace the EU markets the sell into now - at least within a timeframe that would enable them to keep on in business.
Bollocks.
The UK pharma industry regularly gets drugs approved by the FDA.
It would be a pain - and completely unnecessary duplication of work - to have to get drugs approved by the EMA as well as a UK regulatory authority.
But global companies are not going to abandon the UK market.
There is no UK regulatory authority and there is no sign of one being created. If we are serious about planning for a No Deal scenario we really need to get on with that as it will take time and money to do - unless we cede sovereignty by continuing to accept de facto EMA approval or use the FDA.
FFS
This "cedes sovereignty" argument gets on my tits. NO ONE CARES about sovereign for technical issues such as approval of drugs. It's matters of *national* sovereignty - like fiscal, monetary, defence and immigration where it matters
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
I think it's more that the pharma industry would basically need to up sticks and move in the absence of an agreement, because of the difficulty there would be in getting regulatory approval for new treatments and drugs. Likewise, without an agreement the UK agricultural sector would find itself in deep, deep trouble. We may be able to find alternative markets to supply us over time, but farmers would struggle to replace the EU markets the sell into now - at least within a timeframe that would enable them to keep on in business.
Bollocks.
The UK pharma industry regularly gets drugs approved by the FDA.
It would be a pain - and completely unnecessary duplication of work - to have to get drugs approved by the EMA as well as a UK regulatory authority.
But global companies are not going to abandon the UK market.
There is no UK regulatory authority and there is no sign of one being created. If we are serious about planning for a No Deal scenario we really need to get on with that as it will take time and money to do - unless we cede sovereignty by continuing to accept de facto EMA approval or use the FDA.
FFS
This "cedes sovereignty" argument gets on my tits. NO ONE CARES about sovereign for technical issues such as approval of drugs. It's matters of *national* sovereignty - like fiscal, monetary, defence and immigration where it matters
I am much more concerned about this kind of nuts and bolts issue than abstractions like sovereignty.
And that's fair - nuts and bolts are important and some people weight economics more heavily than politics.
It's people thinking they are being clever when they are being trite and repeatative than annoy me
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
I think it's more that the pharma industry would basically need to up sticks and move in the absence of an agreement, because of the difficulty there would be in getting regulatory approval for new treatments and drugs. Likewise, without an agreement the UK agricultural sector would find itself in deep, deep trouble. We may be able to find alternative markets to supply us over time, but farmers would struggle to replace the EU markets the sell into now - at least within a timeframe that would enable them to keep on in business.
Bollocks.
The UK pharma industry regularly gets drugs approved by the FDA.
It would be a pain - and completely unnecessary duplication of work - to have to get drugs approved by the EMA as well as a UK regulatory authority.
But global companies are not going to abandon the UK market.
The UK is in the EU (for a while). Every major drug company has big operations in the US, replicating work that also happens elsewhere. There is a reason why most pharmaceutical product development happens in the US and the EU or in a closely associated country like Switzerland. The UK might also be closely associated but we have to accept various things first that we are currently objecting to: EU exit fee, FoM, rule taking, ECJ oversight.
The EU and US manage just fine, yet the US doesn't have to accept freedom of movement.
The EU and US do manage just fine. In fact my sister in law manages a certification team in the USA that replicates the work of the Swiss parent company so that company can maintain a full presence in the US market. It's a huge operation with many teams like my SiL's. That kind of work won't continue in the UK without the UK having a close association with one of the two major markets. In practice, the EU.
I still don't get why an association with the EMA will require the UK to accept freedom of movement? I thought it was linked to the freedom of goods/services, not medicine regulations.
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
I think it's more that the pharma industry would basically need to up sticks and move in the absence of an agreement, because of the difficulty there would be in getting regulatory approval for new treatments and drugs. Likewise, without an agreement the UK agricultural sector would find itself in deep, deep trouble. We may be able to find alternative markets to supply us over time, but farmers would struggle to replace the EU markets the sell into now - at least within a timeframe that would enable them to keep on in business.
Bollocks.
The UK pharma industry regularly gets drugs approved by the FDA.
It would be a pain - and completely unnecessary duplication of work - to have to get drugs approved by the EMA as well as a UK regulatory authority.
But global companies are not going to abandon the UK market.
There's more to drug regulation than drug approvals. For example every batch needs to be signed off by a qualified person. The EU could simply bring in a rule that the credentials of UK QPs need to be checked before the goods are allowed in. They could insist on facilities being audited by EU based auditors. Etc. I am not saying they would do these things, but we'd have no redress if they did. As I say, we need our best team out there to handle this.
I'm amused how easy it is to believe that the EU would willingly let its citizens die from lack of access to the right treatment, in order to punish a country that wouldn't do as it was told.
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
I think it's more that the pharma industry would basically need to up sticks and move in the absence of an agreement, because of the difficulty there would be in getting regulatory approval for new treatments and drugs. Likewise, without an agreement the UK agricultural sector would find itself in deep, deep trouble. We may be able to find alternative markets to supply us over time, but farmers would struggle to replace the EU markets the sell into now - at least within a timeframe that would enable them to keep on in business.
Bollocks.
The UK pharma industry regularly gets drugs approved by the FDA.
It would be a pain - and completely unnecessary duplication of work - to have to get drugs approved by the EMA as well as a UK regulatory authority.
But global companies are not going to abandon the UK market.
There is no UK regulatory authority and there is no sign of one being created. If we are serious about planning for a No Deal scenario we really need to get on with that as it will take time and money to do - unless we cede sovereignty by continuing to accept de facto EMA approval or use the FDA.
FFS
This "cedes sovereignty" argument gets on my tits. NO ONE CARES about sovereign for technical issues such as approval of drugs. It's matters of *national* sovereignty - like fiscal, monetary, defence and immigration where it matters
I understand that, which is why I don't see there should be any issue with the UK being part of the EU customs union, although there seems to be. The main point, though, is that it isn't just up to us. The EU has to be part of it too. They operate a system and have no interest in selective access or replicating their system just for us because we don't want their membership. The USA certainly won't offer us close association.
The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?
The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.
But when it happens it will still be the fault of the Blairites.
True, the failure will be because the full socialist revolution will have been thwarted by the Blairites in league with big business, the US, Murdoch, the Daily Mail, landowners, Goldman Sachs and other Jewish bankers.
You may joke.
I'll probably be first against the wall.
Don't worry comrade, I'll put a good word in for you.
The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?
The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.
But when it happens it will still be the fault of the Blairites.
True, the failure will be because the full socialist revolution will have been thwarted by the Blairites in league with big business, the US, Murdoch, the Daily Mail, landowners, Goldman Sachs and other Jewish bankers.
You may joke.
I'll probably be first against the wall.
After WWII the Nazi list of people to be eliminated in an occupied Britain was released - Trades Unionists, Communists and other 'undesirables' - including Noel Coward - who quipped 'to think, the people we'd have been seen dead with'.....
Did it not include the editor of the Beano?
Boy Scouts, too.
Interesting, George Bernard Shaw was not on the list. The Germans knew he had a soft spot for dictators.
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
I think it's more that the pharma industry would basically need to up sticks and move in the absence of an agreement, because of the difficulty there would be in getting regulatory approval for new treatments and drugs. Likewise, without an agreement tfarmers would struggle to replace the EU markets the sell into now - at least within a timeframe that would enable them to keep on in business.
Bollocks.
The UK pharma industry regularly gets drugs approved by the FDA.
It would be a pain - and completely unnecessary duplication of work - to have to get drugs approved by the EMA as well as a UK regulatory authority.
But global companies are not going to abandon the UK market.
The UK is in the EU (for a while). Every major drug company has big operations in the US, replicating work that also happens elsewhere. There is a reason why most pharmaceutical product development happens in the US and the EU or in a closely associated country like Switzerland. The UK might also be closely associated but we have to accept various things first that we are currently objecting to: EU exit fee, FoM, rule taking, ECJ oversight.
The EU and US manage just fine, yet the US doesn't have to accept freedom of movement.
The EU and US do manage just fine. In fact my sister in law manages a certification team in the USA that replicates the work of the Swiss parent company so that company can maintain a full presence in the US market. It's a huge operation with many teams like my SiL's. That kind of work won't continue in the UK without the UK having a close association with one of the two major markets. In practice, the EU.
I still don't get why an association with the EMA will require the UK to accept freedom of movement? I thought it was linked to the freedom of goods/services, not medicine regulations.
Let's hope it doesn't. We need a team who really know what they are doing negotiating this.
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True, but that works both ways, and I think it should be easy to reach agreement, at least for mutual recognition in a transitional period. On foodstuffs, they mainly sell to us, so it's up to them if they want to shoot themselves in the foot. On pharmaceuticals, are they really going to decide their doctors can no longer prescribe medicines which happen to be made in the UK?
I think it's more that the pharma industry would basically need to up sticks and move in the absence of an agreement, because of the difficulty there would be in getting regulatory approval for new treatments and drugs. Likewise, without an agreement the UK agricultural sector would find itself in deep, deep trouble. We may be able to find alternative markets to supply us over time, but farmers would struggle to replace the EU markets the sell into now - at least within a timeframe that would enable them to keep on in business.
Bollocks.
The UK pharma industry regularly gets drugs approved by the FDA.
It would be a pain - and completely unnecessary duplication of work - to have to get drugs approved by the EMA as well as a UK regulatory authority.
But global companies are not going to abandon the UK market.
There is no UK regulatory authority and there is no sign of one being created. If we are serious about planning for a No Deal scenario we really need to get on with that as it will take time and money to do - unless we cede sovereignty by continuing to accept de facto EMA approval or use the FDA.
FFS
This "cedes sovereignty" argument gets on my tits. NO ONE CARES about sovereign for technical issues such as approval of drugs. It's matters of *national* sovereignty - like fiscal, monetary, defence and immigration where it matters
I understand that, which is why I don't see there should be any issue with the UK being part of the EU customs union, although there seems to be. The main point, though, is that it isn't just up to us. The EU has to be part of it too. They operate a system and have no interest in selective access or replicating their system just for us because we don't want their membership. The USA certainly won't offer us close association.
Nobody I've met can give me anexamlple of this so called lack of control. They still beieve their right but can't justify it.
The problem for many of these is not supply chain, but regulatory - that certainly applies to pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs & chemicals.
True,pen to be made in the UK?
I think it's more that the pharma industry would basically need to up sticks and move in the absence of an agreement, because of the difficulty there would be in getting regulatory approval for new treatments and drugs. Likewise, without an agreement the UK agricultural sector would find itself in deep, deep trouble. We may be able to find alternative markets to supply us over time, but farmers would struggle to replace the EU markets the sell into now - at least within a timeframe that would enable them to keep on in business.
Bollocks.
The UK pharma industry regularly gets drugs approved by the FDA.
It would be a pain - and completely unnecessary duplication of work - to have to get drugs approved by the EMA as well as a UK regulatory authority.
But global companies are not going to abandon the UK market.
.
The EU and US manage just fine, yet the US doesn't have to accept freedom of movement.
The EU and US do manage just fine. In fact my sister in law manages a certification team in the USA that replicates the work of the Swiss parent company so that company can maintain a full presence in the US market. It's a huge operation with many teams like my SiL's. That kind of work won't continue in the UK without the UK having a close association with one of the two major markets. In practice, the EU.
I still don't get why an association with the EMA will require the UK to accept freedom of movement? I thought it was linked to the freedom of goods/services, not medicine regulations.
Because the EU runs everything as a package. Now we can say they are being inflexible and we don't want to be a part of it and arguably we did say that in the referendum last year. To be fair to the EU no-one else is offering that kind of close integration. The only other country or bloc that really matters, the USA, certainly isn't. Other industry sectors will less affected - machinery , oil and gas, tourism and manufactured goods should all be OK. But several very key industries for us will be badly affected by a lack of integration. Unless we can agree a close association with the EU.
Reposting a new ORB poll I posted late last night, UK voters are split 43% to 43% over whether immigration control or free trade is more important post Brexit ttps://mobile.twitter.com/britainelects/status/907703497898053633?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Comments
The diversity of outcomes predicted (from nailed on PM to flash in the pan disaster) has increased at least since the election.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-12/hammond-says-u-k-is-seeking-status-quo-brexit-transition
We'd probably be a lot better off if Keir Starmer - who actually reads his briefs and understands how the EU works - was leading the negotiations rather than the perennial Winger-in-Chief.
PS the Swiss still have to certify their pharma products twice, including in the EU. They want a third bilateral to cover that, but the EU refuses to talk to them until they get the judicial oversight issue sorted.
Do you really think I'm a Wykehamist?
The UK pharma industry regularly gets drugs approved by the FDA.
It would be a pain - and completely unnecessary duplication of work - to have to get drugs approved by the EMA as well as a UK regulatory authority.
But global companies are not going to abandon the UK market.
US is the biggest exporter to EU and I think have very different regulations on Pharma?
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/07/17/the-pharmaceutical-industry-is-at-risk-from-brexit/
For voting purposes he's not just a Con, he is the most loyal of ultra-loyal Con's as he never rebels.
I really think pharma is the least of our worries, to be honest.
EMA is gone - I can see that will have an impact.
On skilled workers - i doubt they will be restricted (but may be less keen to come)
A smart govt would reinvest EU contributions heavily in pharma research/to support similar industries.
So that is indeed uncertain.
But as article notes there will be no tariffs...
you say agreements will no longer apply - but surely that isn't true for something like patents or trademarks?
Hard Brexit won't mean I can suddenly start producing on patent drugs or fake dyson vacuum cleaners in Europe?
This "cedes sovereignty" argument gets on my tits. NO ONE CARES about sovereign for technical issues such as approval of drugs. It's matters of *national* sovereignty - like fiscal, monetary, defence and immigration where it matters
It's people thinking they are being clever when they are being trite and repeatative than annoy me
NEW THREAD
Interesting, George Bernard Shaw was not on the list. The Germans knew he had a soft spot for dictators.