I wouldn't be saying it because I wouldn't want FBPE idiots turning into antivaxxers in response.
But its true, 100% true.
This is part of what I've long argued here that the UK out of the EU can be more nimble and agile than the sclerotic and slow EU. This is a perfect example and high profile but other things will add up that don't get the publicity.
Its a huge win but I wouldn't boast about it to put salt in the wounds or get Remain idiots turning into antivax idiots. Take the politics out of communications, even if Brexit did help facilitate it.
BiB - Nah, it would be ****ing hilarious if that happened.
I'm intensely relaxed about the uptake of the vaccine. Far too much attention gets given to nutters on the internet; they are a tiny minority of the population.
Only trouble with that is we don't know how long the vaccine protects us for. BioNTech said two weeks ago that it could protect us for a year. If enough people don't get vaccinated, we might still have covid around when the protection runs out
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
F1: Hedged a bit more my Verstappen/Bottas bets. I still hope one of them wins, but as long as one of them is at least 2nd I'm ahead. If they're 1-2 that's lovely. If neither are top 2 then I'm mildly red.
Interesting that Russell plunged to 8.2 yesterday on the exchange long before it was announced he had the gig, and is now 4.7. Big pressure on both him and Bottas. If Russell fails to score in a Mercedes that'll look very poor, and likewise if Bottas doesn't beat him handily. Losing to Hamilton is one thing, losing to the sub from Williams is quite another.
That's just so unnecessary to point out. We should be hoping that the EU approves it quickly so that the EU economy bounces back too.
We should. Though having a few weeks headstart will help ensure early manufactured doses come here instead of being spread throughout the continent.
We want them to bounceback absolutely. But there is no harm at all in being first in the queue.
No, the delivery schedules are contracted. The UK and US are the only countries contracted to receive deliveries from Pfizer in 2020. Part of the reason why Macron is talking about April to get a vaccine programme started is because EU deliveries will commence much later. The EU vaccine buying scheme has been slow to move, I think by the end of April the UK will have taken delivery of around 100m vaccine doses, in the same time frame the whole EU scheme is set for around 40m which will be spread across all 27 countries in the scheme. This was why the government turned down the invitation to be in it.
The EMA isn't going to be the hold up for the EU, it's the vaccine buying scheme that has been painfully slow. They haggled over price and for that they're behind the US, UK, Japan, Switzerland, Canada and a handful of other countries getting mass deliveries in Q1. At a time like this price is irrelevant.
That's just so unnecessary to point out. We should be hoping that the EU approves it quickly so that the EU economy bounces back too.
We should. Though having a few weeks headstart will help ensure early manufactured doses come here instead of being spread throughout the continent.
We want them to bounceback absolutely. But there is no harm at all in being first in the queue.
No, the delivery schedules are contracted. The UK and US are the only countries contracted to receive deliveries from Pfizer in 2020. Part of the reason why Macron is talking about April to get a vaccine programme started is because EU deliveries will commence much later. The EU vaccine buying scheme has been slow to move, I think by the end of April the UK will have taken delivery of around 100m vaccine doses, in the same time frame the whole EU scheme is set for around 40m which will be spread across all 27 countries in the scheme. This was why the government turned down the invitation to be in it.
The EMA isn't going to be the hold up for the EU, it's the vaccine buying scheme that has been painfully slow. They haggled over price and for that they're behind the US, UK, Japan, Switzerland, Canada and a handful of other countries getting mass deliveries in Q1. At a time like this price is irrelevant.
Haggling over price for this is absolute insanity.
Definitely a time where acting quick and writing a large cheque saves both lives and money long term.
That's just so unnecessary to point out. We should be hoping that the EU approves it quickly so that the EU economy bounces back too.
We should. Though having a few weeks headstart will help ensure early manufactured doses come here instead of being spread throughout the continent.
We want them to bounceback absolutely. But there is no harm at all in being first in the queue.
No, the delivery schedules are contracted. The UK and US are the only countries contracted to receive deliveries from Pfizer in 2020. Part of the reason why Macron is talking about April to get a vaccine programme started is because EU deliveries will commence much later. The EU vaccine buying scheme has been slow to move, I think by the end of April the UK will have taken delivery of around 100m vaccine doses, in the same time frame the whole EU scheme is set for around 40m which will be spread across all 27 countries in the scheme. This was why the government turned down the invitation to be in it.
The EMA isn't going to be the hold up for the EU, it's the vaccine buying scheme that has been painfully slow. They haggled over price and for that they're behind the US, UK, Japan, Switzerland, Canada and a handful of other countries getting mass deliveries in Q1. At a time like this price is irrelevant.
Is there any chance that we'll have a surplus that the EU might want? And if so, will they charge themselves tariffs on it, and hold it up in Brexit traffic jams?
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
You must know the last point is daft - the ability to make quicker decisions will manifest itself as a benefit many times in the future, on many issues.
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
We have approved it. We haven't rolled out anything, yet.
George Russell must have delivered a hell of a Powerpoint presentation.
Nope George Russell always has been the next driver lined up for Mercedes - this just makes it obvious.
Bottas is going to have to up his game. If Russell gets the seat for Abu Dhabi as well then he'll have two races to prove himself for Bottas' seat in 2022.
We could see Russell going from never having scored a point to winning a race!
That's just so unnecessary to point out. We should be hoping that the EU approves it quickly so that the EU economy bounces back too.
We should. Though having a few weeks headstart will help ensure early manufactured doses come here instead of being spread throughout the continent.
We want them to bounceback absolutely. But there is no harm at all in being first in the queue.
The EMA isn't going to be the hold up for the EU, it's the vaccine buying scheme that has been painfully slow.
Hasn't the EU vaccine buying scheme been slow because the EMA was slow in reviewing vaccines? As was observed when they bolted at haste to Amsterdam they lost capacity.
I wouldn't be saying it because I wouldn't want FBPE idiots turning into antivaxxers in response.
But its true, 100% true.
This is part of what I've long argued here that the UK out of the EU can be more nimble and agile than the sclerotic and slow EU. This is a perfect example and high profile but other things will add up that don't get the publicity.
Its a huge win but I wouldn't boast about it to put salt in the wounds or get Remain idiots turning into antivax idiots. Take the politics out of communications, even if Brexit did help facilitate it.
I remember when the T&T app was properly launched and there were a number of FBPE idiots on the internet claiming that it was a conspiracy by the UK government to harvest data. Cranks exist on both sides, it's just a good thing that they're obviously fringe idiots given a platform to vent with Twitter rather than actually having influence with the general public.
F1: Hedged a bit more my Verstappen/Bottas bets. I still hope one of them wins, but as long as one of them is at least 2nd I'm ahead. If they're 1-2 that's lovely. If neither are top 2 then I'm mildly red.
Interesting that Russell plunged to 8.2 yesterday on the exchange long before it was announced he had the gig, and is now 4.7. Big pressure on both him and Bottas. If Russell fails to score in a Mercedes that'll look very poor, and likewise if Bottas doesn't beat him handily. Losing to Hamilton is one thing, losing to the sub from Williams is quite another.
Verstappen may be favourite for the win.
I suspect Russell will beat Bottas.
In other F1 news - to the surprise of no-one Mick Schumacher has joined Haas next year.
I wouldn't be saying it because I wouldn't want FBPE idiots turning into antivaxxers in response.
But its true, 100% true.
This is part of what I've long argued here that the UK out of the EU can be more nimble and agile than the sclerotic and slow EU. This is a perfect example and high profile but other things will add up that don't get the publicity.
Its a huge win but I wouldn't boast about it to put salt in the wounds or get Remain idiots turning into antivax idiots. Take the politics out of communications, even if Brexit did help facilitate it.
Is it though? Was entering into EU COVID-19 vaccination program mandatory for EU members if they wanted access to this vaccine?
(Not saying you’re wrong, or right for that matter: this is a citation request!)
That's just so unnecessary to point out. We should be hoping that the EU approves it quickly so that the EU economy bounces back too.
We should. Though having a few weeks headstart will help ensure early manufactured doses come here instead of being spread throughout the continent.
We want them to bounceback absolutely. But there is no harm at all in being first in the queue.
No, the delivery schedules are contracted. The UK and US are the only countries contracted to receive deliveries from Pfizer in 2020. Part of the reason why Macron is talking about April to get a vaccine programme started is because EU deliveries will commence much later. The EU vaccine buying scheme has been slow to move, I think by the end of April the UK will have taken delivery of around 100m vaccine doses, in the same time frame the whole EU scheme is set for around 40m which will be spread across all 27 countries in the scheme. This was why the government turned down the invitation to be in it.
The EMA isn't going to be the hold up for the EU, it's the vaccine buying scheme that has been painfully slow. They haggled over price and for that they're behind the US, UK, Japan, Switzerland, Canada and a handful of other countries getting mass deliveries in Q1. At a time like this price is irrelevant.
Not all EU countries are waiting for deliveries via the EU scheme, some have also ordered directly:
Germany has secured more than 300m vaccine doses via the European Commission, bilateral contracts and options, Spahn said, adding that this was more than enough and even left room to share doses with other countries.
Spain will begin a comprehensive vaccination programme in January and expects to have covered a substantial part of the population within three months, the prime minister, Pedro Sanchez, said on Sunday.
I'm by nature an optimist - but I fear short sightedness - on both sides - means it will be no deal.
Boris Johnson will always feel the scorn and contempt of history for No Dealing during a pandemic.
The ghosts of Eden and Chamberlain will be able to say in good conscience 'No longer the worst!'
They already won't - Cameron probably beats both of them for stupidest policy decision of all time.
The referendum train was coming long before Dave.
It was but the way he handled it was full of hubris.
He should have either negotiated much harder with the EU or if he was never serious about renegotiating or considering leaving then he should have spoken to John Howard about how to arrange a referendum.
Comparing the way John Howard handled the republic referendum and the way David Cameron handled the Brexit one, with both leaders wanting a No vote, is a complete masterclass of difference.
The reason Cameron should have insisted, as Howard did, on a commission to nail down what Leave actually meant, is not so he could win the referendum but so that we did not end up where we did, with Leave winning but every Brexiteer having their own unicorn version of Brexit in mind.
The reason Cameron lost was the same reason he almost lost Scotland, relying entirely on negative campaigning with no-one, least of all Cameron himself, making a positive case for membership of the EU.
It wasn't that - it was his 'negotiation', the outcome of which was so paltry it barely warranted a mention in the subsequent referendum campaign. He could, through a combination of existing powers (like changing UK rules on universal benefits) and tougher and more constructive negotiations (Juncker was on record saying Cameron had not actually asked for anything), have created a comfortable compromise for most Britons. He didn't want to, because he was a passionate Europhile determined to keep us in lock step with the rest of the EU.
Cameron's renegotiation was rubbish (although we should pause to remember he described it the same way Labour were derided for saying they'd do it -- negotiate an agreement and only then decide whether to recommend it). Cameron himself was probably moderately Eurosceptic (an ironic contrast with Boris of the two essays) insofar as he had given the matter any thought at all.
I wouldn't be saying it because I wouldn't want FBPE idiots turning into antivaxxers in response.
But its true, 100% true.
This is part of what I've long argued here that the UK out of the EU can be more nimble and agile than the sclerotic and slow EU. This is a perfect example and high profile but other things will add up that don't get the publicity.
Its a huge win but I wouldn't boast about it to put salt in the wounds or get Remain idiots turning into antivax idiots. Take the politics out of communications, even if Brexit did help facilitate it.
Is it though? Was entering into EU COVID-19 vaccination program mandatory for EU members if they wanted access to this vaccine?
(Not saying you’re wrong, or right for that matter: this is a citation request!)
The buying program I doubt was mandatory.
The regulatory agency I'm pretty sure it was.
I don't think the MHRA could have granted approval unilaterally previously, though someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
You must know the last point is daft - the ability to make quicker decisions will manifest itself as a benefit many times in the future, on many issues.
I'm by nature an optimist - but I fear short sightedness - on both sides - means it will be no deal.
Boris Johnson will always feel the scorn and contempt of history for No Dealing during a pandemic.
The ghosts of Eden and Chamberlain will be able to say in good conscience 'No longer the worst!'
They already won't - Cameron probably beats both of them for stupidest policy decision of all time.
The referendum train was coming long before Dave.
It was but the way he handled it was full of hubris.
He should have either negotiated much harder with the EU or if he was never serious about renegotiating or considering leaving then he should have spoken to John Howard about how to arrange a referendum.
Comparing the way John Howard handled the republic referendum and the way David Cameron handled the Brexit one, with both leaders wanting a No vote, is a complete masterclass of difference.
The reason Cameron should have insisted, as Howard did, on a commission to nail down what Leave actually meant, is not so he could win the referendum but so that we did not end up where we did, with Leave winning but every Brexiteer having their own unicorn version of Brexit in mind.
The reason Cameron lost was the same reason he almost lost Scotland, relying entirely on negative campaigning with no-one, least of all Cameron himself, making a positive case for membership of the EU.
It wasn't that - it was his 'negotiation', the outcome of which was so paltry it barely warranted a mention in the subsequent referendum campaign. He could, through a combination of existing powers (like changing UK rules on universal benefits) and tougher and more constructive negotiations (Juncker was on record saying Cameron had not actually asked for anything), have created a comfortable compromise for most Britons. He didn't want to, because he was a passionate Europhile determined to keep us in lock step with the rest of the EU.
It was worse than "so paltry it barely warranted a mention" - it was so toxic it was put on the verboten list.
That's just so unnecessary to point out. We should be hoping that the EU approves it quickly so that the EU economy bounces back too.
We should. Though having a few weeks headstart will help ensure early manufactured doses come here instead of being spread throughout the continent.
We want them to bounceback absolutely. But there is no harm at all in being first in the queue.
The EMA isn't going to be the hold up for the EU, it's the vaccine buying scheme that has been painfully slow.
Hasn't the EU vaccine buying scheme been slow because the EMA was slow in reviewing vaccines? As was observed when they bolted at haste to Amsterdam they lost capacity.
Again, it's because the vaccine scheme was dependent on the EMA to make assessments of each candidate. Our vaccine taskforce had outside help to pick likely winners rather than rely on the MHRA to prove assessments. Once again, the EU used cost saving measures because it's true that getting in a bunch of hired guns from the pharma industry to assess vaccines isn't cheap and it's free to use the existing assessment capacity at the regulator.
The whole scheme has been poorly thought out, it's a camel.
I'm by nature an optimist - but I fear short sightedness - on both sides - means it will be no deal.
Boris Johnson will always feel the scorn and contempt of history for No Dealing during a pandemic.
The ghosts of Eden and Chamberlain will be able to say in good conscience 'No longer the worst!'
They already won't - Cameron probably beats both of them for stupidest policy decision of all time.
The referendum train was coming long before Dave.
It was but the way he handled it was full of hubris.
He should have either negotiated much harder with the EU or if he was never serious about renegotiating or considering leaving then he should have spoken to John Howard about how to arrange a referendum.
Comparing the way John Howard handled the republic referendum and the way David Cameron handled the Brexit one, with both leaders wanting a No vote, is a complete masterclass of difference.
The reason Cameron should have insisted, as Howard did, on a commission to nail down what Leave actually meant, is not so he could win the referendum but so that we did not end up where we did, with Leave winning but every Brexiteer having their own unicorn version of Brexit in mind.
The reason Cameron lost was the same reason he almost lost Scotland, relying entirely on negative campaigning with no-one, least of all Cameron himself, making a positive case for membership of the EU.
It wasn't that - it was his 'negotiation', the outcome of which was so paltry it barely warranted a mention in the subsequent referendum campaign. He could, through a combination of existing powers (like changing UK rules on universal benefits) and tougher and more constructive negotiations (Juncker was on record saying Cameron had not actually asked for anything), have created a comfortable compromise for most Britons. He didn't want to, because he was a passionate Europhile determined to keep us in lock step with the rest of the EU.
It was worse than "so paltry it barely warranted a mention" - it was so toxic it was put on the verboten list.
Which is why Boris might prefer an extension - sorry, easement - to putting his name to a deal he knows will be toxic no matter what's in it.
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
You must know the last point is daft - the ability to make quicker decisions will manifest itself as a benefit many times in the future, on many issues.
Really? Such as?
You're only limited by your imagination.
If you can't think of any examples when making quick decisions can be a benefit then I think your imagination is weak. I've long argued for nimbleness and agility as a strength.
Cameron's renegotiation was rubbish (although we should pause to remember he described it the same way Labour were derided for saying they'd do it -- negotiate an agreement and only then decide whether to recommend it). Cameron himself was probably moderately Eurosceptic (an ironic contrast with Boris of the two essays) insofar as he had given the matter any thought at all.
Cameron's renegotiation was the absolute best of all the possible relationships we could have had with our EU friends, once Lisbon had been ratified. Now we can only look back in horror at what has been voluntarily thrown away.
I'm by nature an optimist - but I fear short sightedness - on both sides - means it will be no deal.
Boris Johnson will always feel the scorn and contempt of history for No Dealing during a pandemic.
The ghosts of Eden and Chamberlain will be able to say in good conscience 'No longer the worst!'
They already won't - Cameron probably beats both of them for stupidest policy decision of all time.
The referendum train was coming long before Dave.
Perhaps, but he was solely responsible for framing and choreographing it in such an inevitably catastrophic way. Even if Remain had won it wouldn't have settled anything.
I think it would. Even a narrow win would not have set off demands for another try - part of the pro-referendum thing was the Irish second vote - "They make us vote until we give them the answer we want".
I was expecting a narrow win, followed by peace and quiet until the whole country charged out of the EU, a number of years later, over the creation of an EU wide health service.
The question will never be settled permanently. 2000 years of history suggests that the question of European involvement and integration is never completely answered.
I think we will keep cycling in and out of different levels of integration with the continent. Being isolated before we joined weakened our economy to the point that we overcame our superiority complex and joined up. Over time our economy improved sufficiently that our superiority complex re-emerged and we left. Now we are likely to see our economy fade again thanks to our isolation, until we are weak enough that we want to join up again. And so the cycle will repeat itself.
Um, no.
Why not?
Because it's a totally made up piece of shite. There is no evidence that EEC membership had any accelerative affect on GDP growth (or whatever measure you wish to use) - in fact it appears to have flatlined in the years immediately following accession, which doesn't speak to a glorious economic feeding frenzy does it? The economic rationale for joining was to get inside the tariff walls, but tariffs declined as a factor over the years anyway.
Our accession coincided with the first oil crisis and the three day week, which is why the mid 70s were not great from a growth point of view. Anyway, we are talking about long term processes not things which happen overnight. Joining the EEC/EU boosted trade and trade boosts productivity, that's why forecasters at the OBR and BOE and in the private sector expect leaving to lower our GDP, relative to if we had stayed in. We were the sick man of Europe outside the EU, and our relative growth performance improved significantly as members. Nothing is certain in the world of Economic forecasting, but I think it is more likely than not that our relative economic performance will now decline, and eventually we may be forced to once again petition for membership from a position of weakness. Probably decades away though, the English superiority complex is a stubborn beast.
That's just so unnecessary to point out. We should be hoping that the EU approves it quickly so that the EU economy bounces back too.
We should. Though having a few weeks headstart will help ensure early manufactured doses come here instead of being spread throughout the continent.
We want them to bounceback absolutely. But there is no harm at all in being first in the queue.
No, the delivery schedules are contracted. The UK and US are the only countries contracted to receive deliveries from Pfizer in 2020. Part of the reason why Macron is talking about April to get a vaccine programme started is because EU deliveries will commence much later. The EU vaccine buying scheme has been slow to move, I think by the end of April the UK will have taken delivery of around 100m vaccine doses, in the same time frame the whole EU scheme is set for around 40m which will be spread across all 27 countries in the scheme. This was why the government turned down the invitation to be in it.
The EMA isn't going to be the hold up for the EU, it's the vaccine buying scheme that has been painfully slow. They haggled over price and for that they're behind the US, UK, Japan, Switzerland, Canada and a handful of other countries getting mass deliveries in Q1. At a time like this price is irrelevant.
Is there any chance that we'll have a surplus that the EU might want? And if so, will they charge themselves tariffs on it, and hold it up in Brexit traffic jams?
Covid vaccines? Are any actually manufactured here or will they all be imported?
That's just so unnecessary to point out. We should be hoping that the EU approves it quickly so that the EU economy bounces back too.
We should. Though having a few weeks headstart will help ensure early manufactured doses come here instead of being spread throughout the continent.
We want them to bounceback absolutely. But there is no harm at all in being first in the queue.
The EMA isn't going to be the hold up for the EU, it's the vaccine buying scheme that has been painfully slow.
Hasn't the EU vaccine buying scheme been slow because the EMA was slow in reviewing vaccines? As was observed when they bolted at haste to Amsterdam they lost capacity.
Again, it's because the vaccine scheme was dependent on the EMA to make assessments of each candidate. Our vaccine taskforce had outside help to pick likely winners rather than rely on the MHRA to prove assessments. Once again, the EU used cost saving measures because it's true that getting in a bunch of hired guns from the pharma industry to assess vaccines isn't cheap and it's free to use the existing assessment capacity at the regulator.
The whole scheme has been poorly thought out, it's a camel.
Isn't it true also that the EMA bolted out of the UK, which was argued here to be a blow for Britain, but when they did the EMA lost a lot of their expertise - much of which went to the MHRA.
So the EMA wasn't 'match fit' when this happened as they were short on expertise.
That's just so unnecessary to point out. We should be hoping that the EU approves it quickly so that the EU economy bounces back too.
We should. Though having a few weeks headstart will help ensure early manufactured doses come here instead of being spread throughout the continent.
We want them to bounceback absolutely. But there is no harm at all in being first in the queue.
No, the delivery schedules are contracted. The UK and US are the only countries contracted to receive deliveries from Pfizer in 2020. Part of the reason why Macron is talking about April to get a vaccine programme started is because EU deliveries will commence much later. The EU vaccine buying scheme has been slow to move, I think by the end of April the UK will have taken delivery of around 100m vaccine doses, in the same time frame the whole EU scheme is set for around 40m which will be spread across all 27 countries in the scheme. This was why the government turned down the invitation to be in it.
The EMA isn't going to be the hold up for the EU, it's the vaccine buying scheme that has been painfully slow. They haggled over price and for that they're behind the US, UK, Japan, Switzerland, Canada and a handful of other countries getting mass deliveries in Q1. At a time like this price is irrelevant.
Not all EU countries are waiting for deliveries via the EU scheme, some have also ordered directly:
Germany has secured more than 300m vaccine doses via the European Commission, bilateral contracts and options, Spahn said, adding that this was more than enough and even left room to share doses with other countries.
Spain will begin a comprehensive vaccination programme in January and expects to have covered a substantial part of the population within three months, the prime minister, Pedro Sanchez, said on Sunday.
David Cameron was pretty much spot on with his assessment of Twitter.
I've just looked something up on Toby Young's Twitter account and on the the sidebar it says 'You might (also) like' Julie Hartley Brewer, Lawrence Fox and Darren Grimes.
It looks like the perfect pigeon hole for him but I wonder who makes that choice and whether you can complain? I've never looked at Trump's but I'd be curious to know who they put in his box.
I wouldn't be saying it because I wouldn't want FBPE idiots turning into antivaxxers in response.
But its true, 100% true.
This is part of what I've long argued here that the UK out of the EU can be more nimble and agile than the sclerotic and slow EU. This is a perfect example and high profile but other things will add up that don't get the publicity.
Its a huge win but I wouldn't boast about it to put salt in the wounds or get Remain idiots turning into antivax idiots. Take the politics out of communications, even if Brexit did help facilitate it.
Is it though? Was entering into EU COVID-19 vaccination program mandatory for EU members if they wanted access to this vaccine?
(Not saying you’re wrong, or right for that matter: this is a citation request!)
Ah, I see from Richard Nabavi’s comment that Philip Thompson is talking out of his arse on the topic of Brexit again & EU countries were in face at liberty to make their own arrangements outside of the EU vaccination program.
I don’t get it. Why does Brexit seem to prevent honest, rational thought in so many people? (on both sides: this isn’t limited to Leavers.)
Cameron's renegotiation was rubbish (although we should pause to remember he described it the same way Labour were derided for saying they'd do it -- negotiate an agreement and only then decide whether to recommend it). Cameron himself was probably moderately Eurosceptic (an ironic contrast with Boris of the two essays) insofar as he had given the matter any thought at all.
Cameron's renegotiation was the absolute best of all the possible relationships we could have had with our EU friends, once Lisbon had been ratified. Now we can only look back in horror at what has been voluntarily thrown away.
The bitter irony is that we'll probably spend a decade or more painfully negotiating with the EU to get us to the place that Dave's Deal guaranteed us to begin with.
We'll have Schumacher and Verstappen, the next generation.
As a sort-of hedge, I'm likely to back Russell, each way, to win qualifying. I do think Verstappen stands a great chance, though. High pressure on both Bottas and Russell.
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
You must know the last point is daft - the ability to make quicker decisions will manifest itself as a benefit many times in the future, on many issues.
Really? Such as?
You're only limited by your imagination.
If you can't think of any examples when making quick decisions can be a benefit then I think your imagination is weak. I've long argued for nimbleness and agility as a strength.
The idea that the UK is going to be consistently nimble and agile is somewhat fanciful. We haven't exactly been nimble and agile in reforming taxation, or social care, or the NHS, or dealing with the decline of the High Street, or dealing with US mega-corporations abusing international tax rule, or setting up the computer systems and customs infrastructure for Brexit in 3 weeks time. And it certainly will never be nimble and agile under Boris - he's an even bigger ditherer than Brown.
I wouldn't be saying it because I wouldn't want FBPE idiots turning into antivaxxers in response.
But its true, 100% true.
This is part of what I've long argued here that the UK out of the EU can be more nimble and agile than the sclerotic and slow EU. This is a perfect example and high profile but other things will add up that don't get the publicity.
Its a huge win but I wouldn't boast about it to put salt in the wounds or get Remain idiots turning into antivax idiots. Take the politics out of communications, even if Brexit did help facilitate it.
Is it though? Was entering into EU COVID-19 vaccination program mandatory for EU members if they wanted access to this vaccine?
(Not saying you’re wrong, or right for that matter: this is a citation request!)
The buying program I doubt was mandatory.
The regulatory agency I'm pretty sure it was.
I don't think the MHRA could have granted approval unilaterally previously, though someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Given that Germany has sourced 300million doses & is to start vaccinations in Jan, it looks like you’re simply wrong on this Philip.
Mr. Roger, Amazon does a similar thing for authors. I was delighted and amused to, briefly, have as a recommended author (for people who liked my books) Marcus Aurelius.
On a day that Britain leads global news at being the first western nation in the world to approve the vaccine, we have @Scott_xP here posting "back of the queue" and querying "How many Brexiters do you think are going to refuse the vaccine".
🤦🏻♂️
Can't you ever be happy Scott? Even Richard Nabavi can recognise this is good news. Everyone should be smiling today at this news, unless you're an antivax fool. 🤦🏻♂️
There's a weird combination of antivax "arguments" in those replies to Hancock on twitter. Some demanding that he and other politicians and their families take the vaccination live on screen before they will (but how would they know it really was the vaccine being taken by Hancock?). Some are insisting on seeing the "ingredients" before they'll touch it, and others are shrieking that they won't have it because it contains genetically modified covid, or because it'll alter their own DNA. It's quite a depressing read..
That's just so unnecessary to point out. We should be hoping that the EU approves it quickly so that the EU economy bounces back too.
We should. Though having a few weeks headstart will help ensure early manufactured doses come here instead of being spread throughout the continent.
We want them to bounceback absolutely. But there is no harm at all in being first in the queue.
No, the delivery schedules are contracted. The UK and US are the only countries contracted to receive deliveries from Pfizer in 2020. Part of the reason why Macron is talking about April to get a vaccine programme started is because EU deliveries will commence much later. The EU vaccine buying scheme has been slow to move, I think by the end of April the UK will have taken delivery of around 100m vaccine doses, in the same time frame the whole EU scheme is set for around 40m which will be spread across all 27 countries in the scheme. This was why the government turned down the invitation to be in it.
The EMA isn't going to be the hold up for the EU, it's the vaccine buying scheme that has been painfully slow. They haggled over price and for that they're behind the US, UK, Japan, Switzerland, Canada and a handful of other countries getting mass deliveries in Q1. At a time like this price is irrelevant.
Is there any chance that we'll have a surplus that the EU might want? And if so, will they charge themselves tariffs on it, and hold it up in Brexit traffic jams?
Covid vaccines? Are any actually manufactured here or will they all be imported?
UK govt is investing in manufacturing in Livingston of the Valneva vaccine (which is French, and given what France did with the NHS' PPE, probably wise):
That's just so unnecessary to point out. We should be hoping that the EU approves it quickly so that the EU economy bounces back too.
We should. Though having a few weeks headstart will help ensure early manufactured doses come here instead of being spread throughout the continent.
We want them to bounceback absolutely. But there is no harm at all in being first in the queue.
The EMA isn't going to be the hold up for the EU, it's the vaccine buying scheme that has been painfully slow.
Hasn't the EU vaccine buying scheme been slow because the EMA was slow in reviewing vaccines? As was observed when they bolted at haste to Amsterdam they lost capacity.
Again, it's because the vaccine scheme was dependent on the EMA to make assessments of each candidate. Our vaccine taskforce had outside help to pick likely winners rather than rely on the MHRA to prove assessments. Once again, the EU used cost saving measures because it's true that getting in a bunch of hired guns from the pharma industry to assess vaccines isn't cheap and it's free to use the existing assessment capacity at the regulator.
The whole scheme has been poorly thought out, it's a camel.
Isn't it true also that the EMA bolted out of the UK, which was argued here to be a blow for Britain, but when they did the EMA lost a lot of their expertise - much of which went to the MHRA.
So the EMA wasn't 'match fit' when this happened as they were short on expertise.
No, it's just the cost saving measure of not bringing in outside help to pick what to buy and relying on the regulator who will always be slower and then negotiating bargain basement prices in a seller's market and competing with nations that were willing to pay sticker price for everything (UK, Japan, Canada, Australia) who ended up getting priority.
I wouldn't be saying it because I wouldn't want FBPE idiots turning into antivaxxers in response.
But its true, 100% true.
This is part of what I've long argued here that the UK out of the EU can be more nimble and agile than the sclerotic and slow EU. This is a perfect example and high profile but other things will add up that don't get the publicity.
Its a huge win but I wouldn't boast about it to put salt in the wounds or get Remain idiots turning into antivax idiots. Take the politics out of communications, even if Brexit did help facilitate it.
Is it though? Was entering into EU COVID-19 vaccination program mandatory for EU members if they wanted access to this vaccine?
(Not saying you’re wrong, or right for that matter: this is a citation request!)
The buying program I doubt was mandatory.
The regulatory agency I'm pretty sure it was.
I don't think the MHRA could have granted approval unilaterally previously, though someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Given that Germany has sourced 300million doses & is to start vaccinations in Jan, it looks like you’re simply wrong on this Philip.
No, Philip is right on this. However, I expect that the EU regulatory approval won't be much delayed.
I wouldn't be saying it because I wouldn't want FBPE idiots turning into antivaxxers in response.
But its true, 100% true.
This is part of what I've long argued here that the UK out of the EU can be more nimble and agile than the sclerotic and slow EU. This is a perfect example and high profile but other things will add up that don't get the publicity.
Its a huge win but I wouldn't boast about it to put salt in the wounds or get Remain idiots turning into antivax idiots. Take the politics out of communications, even if Brexit did help facilitate it.
Is it though? Was entering into EU COVID-19 vaccination program mandatory for EU members if they wanted access to this vaccine?
(Not saying you’re wrong, or right for that matter: this is a citation request!)
The buying program I doubt was mandatory.
The regulatory agency I'm pretty sure it was.
I don't think the MHRA could have granted approval unilaterally previously, though someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Given that Germany has sourced 300million doses & is to start vaccinations in Jan, it looks like you’re simply wrong on this Philip.
How do you figure? January is after next week. It is after today.
I specifically said that I doubt the buying program was mandatory, it is the regulatory agency that was. That is the MHRA approving it today - the EMA is only forecast to approve it by the end of this month or early January thus facillitating Germany to start rollout in January.
The fact Germany aren't scheduled to started vaccinations next week seems to indicate I'm right.
Cameron's renegotiation was rubbish (although we should pause to remember he described it the same way Labour were derided for saying they'd do it -- negotiate an agreement and only then decide whether to recommend it). Cameron himself was probably moderately Eurosceptic (an ironic contrast with Boris of the two essays) insofar as he had given the matter any thought at all.
Cameron's renegotiation was the absolute best of all the possible relationships we could have had with our EU friends, once Lisbon had been ratified. Now we can only look back in horror at what has been voluntarily thrown away.
The bitter irony is that we'll probably spend a decade or more painfully negotiating with the EU to get us to the place that Dave's Deal guaranteed us to begin with.
Question is how long will we spend negotiating to get back to TMay's deal? (Or, indeed, ongoing Pay As You Go EEA equivalence, £250 million a week + pay into any programmes we wish, UK can unilaterally withdraw on 12 month's notice, if it ever gets its act together).
And after a presentation on how the vaccine was approved, the regulatory hurdles and the assessment methodology... first question is
"How can you measure the public this is safe?"
Did they even listen?
No, listening would involve having to understand that science stuff. Which is dirty stuff for those swats who like "stinks" classes at school. Not proper journalism.
I wouldn't be saying it because I wouldn't want FBPE idiots turning into antivaxxers in response.
But its true, 100% true.
This is part of what I've long argued here that the UK out of the EU can be more nimble and agile than the sclerotic and slow EU. This is a perfect example and high profile but other things will add up that don't get the publicity.
Its a huge win but I wouldn't boast about it to put salt in the wounds or get Remain idiots turning into antivax idiots. Take the politics out of communications, even if Brexit did help facilitate it.
Is it though? Was entering into EU COVID-19 vaccination program mandatory for EU members if they wanted access to this vaccine?
(Not saying you’re wrong, or right for that matter: this is a citation request!)
Ah, I see from Richard Nabavi’s comment that Philip Thompson is talking out of his arse on the topic of Brexit again & EU countries were in face at liberty to make their own arrangements outside of the EU vaccination program.
I don’t get it. Why does Brexit seem to prevent honest, rational thought in so many people? (on both sides: this isn’t limited to Leavers.)
NB. I don’t mean by this line to imply that PhilipT is deliberately dishonest. But this vaccine thing seems to be a classic example of jumping to the conclusion you want to believe (Brexit enabled the UK to get vaccines earlier than EU members) instead of performing the most basic of checks to see whether the statement was actually true.
In this case, it looks like some EU members have also obtaining access to vaccine doses outside the EU system, so the statement falls at the first hurdle & a quick Google would have demonstrated that.
That's just so unnecessary to point out. We should be hoping that the EU approves it quickly so that the EU economy bounces back too.
We should. Though having a few weeks headstart will help ensure early manufactured doses come here instead of being spread throughout the continent.
We want them to bounceback absolutely. But there is no harm at all in being first in the queue.
No, the delivery schedules are contracted. The UK and US are the only countries contracted to receive deliveries from Pfizer in 2020. Part of the reason why Macron is talking about April to get a vaccine programme started is because EU deliveries will commence much later. The EU vaccine buying scheme has been slow to move, I think by the end of April the UK will have taken delivery of around 100m vaccine doses, in the same time frame the whole EU scheme is set for around 40m which will be spread across all 27 countries in the scheme. This was why the government turned down the invitation to be in it.
The EMA isn't going to be the hold up for the EU, it's the vaccine buying scheme that has been painfully slow. They haggled over price and for that they're behind the US, UK, Japan, Switzerland, Canada and a handful of other countries getting mass deliveries in Q1. At a time like this price is irrelevant.
Is there any chance that we'll have a surplus that the EU might want? And if so, will they charge themselves tariffs on it, and hold it up in Brexit traffic jams?
Covid vaccines? Are any actually manufactured here or will they all be imported?
I wouldn't be saying it because I wouldn't want FBPE idiots turning into antivaxxers in response.
But its true, 100% true.
This is part of what I've long argued here that the UK out of the EU can be more nimble and agile than the sclerotic and slow EU. This is a perfect example and high profile but other things will add up that don't get the publicity.
Its a huge win but I wouldn't boast about it to put salt in the wounds or get Remain idiots turning into antivax idiots. Take the politics out of communications, even if Brexit did help facilitate it.
Is it though? Was entering into EU COVID-19 vaccination program mandatory for EU members if they wanted access to this vaccine?
(Not saying you’re wrong, or right for that matter: this is a citation request!)
Ah, I see from Richard Nabavi’s comment that Philip Thompson is talking out of his arse on the topic of Brexit again & EU countries were in face at liberty to make their own arrangements outside of the EU vaccination program.
I don’t get it. Why does Brexit seem to prevent honest, rational thought in so many people? (on both sides: this isn’t limited to Leavers.)
What are you talking about? I never said that and Richard agreed with me.
You're fighting with straw men and owe me an apology, I was not talking out of my arse.
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
We have approved it. We haven't rolled out anything, yet.
Every sinue of your being strives every day to find the negatives that in your mind helps with your BDS and it is sad to see
Most every sane person would be joyful over this news and it commences on monday
I wouldn't be saying it because I wouldn't want FBPE idiots turning into antivaxxers in response.
But its true, 100% true.
This is part of what I've long argued here that the UK out of the EU can be more nimble and agile than the sclerotic and slow EU. This is a perfect example and high profile but other things will add up that don't get the publicity.
Its a huge win but I wouldn't boast about it to put salt in the wounds or get Remain idiots turning into antivax idiots. Take the politics out of communications, even if Brexit did help facilitate it.
Is it though? Was entering into EU COVID-19 vaccination program mandatory for EU members if they wanted access to this vaccine?
(Not saying you’re wrong, or right for that matter: this is a citation request!)
Ah, I see from Richard Nabavi’s comment that Philip Thompson is talking out of his arse on the topic of Brexit again & EU countries were in face at liberty to make their own arrangements outside of the EU vaccination program.
I don’t get it. Why does Brexit seem to prevent honest, rational thought in so many people? (on both sides: this isn’t limited to Leavers.)
NB. I don’t mean by this line to imply that PhilipT is deliberately dishonest. But this vaccine thing seems to be a classic example of jumping to the conclusion you want to believe (Brexit enabled the UK to get vaccines earlier than EU members) instead of performing the most basic of checks to see whether the statement was actually true.
In this case, it looks like some EU members have also obtaining access to vaccine doses outside the EU system, so the statement falls at the first hurdle & a quick Google would have demonstrated that.
Brexit enabled the UK to get regulatory approval earlier, that is true. We got regulatory approval today, the EU don't have it yet.
You are talking about purchasing. Purchasing is not the same as regulatory approval. The EU is about regulations not purchasing.
I never said the EU was about purchasing or restricted purchasing. Nobody here said that. You are fighting shadows of your own mind.
I wouldn't be saying it because I wouldn't want FBPE idiots turning into antivaxxers in response.
But its true, 100% true.
This is part of what I've long argued here that the UK out of the EU can be more nimble and agile than the sclerotic and slow EU. This is a perfect example and high profile but other things will add up that don't get the publicity.
Its a huge win but I wouldn't boast about it to put salt in the wounds or get Remain idiots turning into antivax idiots. Take the politics out of communications, even if Brexit did help facilitate it.
I remember when the T&T app was properly launched and there were a number of FBPE idiots on the internet claiming that it was a conspiracy by the UK government to harvest data. Cranks exist on both sides, it's just a good thing that they're obviously fringe idiots given a platform to vent with Twitter rather than actually having influence with the general public.
We need to be slightly careful in dismissing anti-vaxxers (or anti-Covid vaxxers) because there are two distinct camps, one rational, the other quite irrational.
Irrational: the virus is a hoax, or is caused by 5G, or the vaccine injects us with mind-control robots. Rational: the vaccine might have unknown side-effects because the trials did not test it on 70-year-old left-handed diabetics like my dear old mum, or 15-year-old boys like my eldest. This group might be wrong but is not round the twist.
Different responses are needed to persuade each group. The only thing they have in common is both are stirred up by hostile foreign actors (who mysteriously have no effect in election or referendum campaigns).
I wouldn't be saying it because I wouldn't want FBPE idiots turning into antivaxxers in response.
But its true, 100% true.
This is part of what I've long argued here that the UK out of the EU can be more nimble and agile than the sclerotic and slow EU. This is a perfect example and high profile but other things will add up that don't get the publicity.
Its a huge win but I wouldn't boast about it to put salt in the wounds or get Remain idiots turning into antivax idiots. Take the politics out of communications, even if Brexit did help facilitate it.
Is it though? Was entering into EU COVID-19 vaccination program mandatory for EU members if they wanted access to this vaccine?
(Not saying you’re wrong, or right for that matter: this is a citation request!)
The buying program I doubt was mandatory.
The regulatory agency I'm pretty sure it was.
I don't think the MHRA could have granted approval unilaterally previously, though someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Given that Germany has sourced 300million doses & is to start vaccinations in Jan, it looks like you’re simply wrong on this Philip.
If I understand correctly, the German sourcing of doses is outside the EU program. It is a national purchase.
I wouldn't be saying it because I wouldn't want FBPE idiots turning into antivaxxers in response.
But its true, 100% true.
This is part of what I've long argued here that the UK out of the EU can be more nimble and agile than the sclerotic and slow EU. This is a perfect example and high profile but other things will add up that don't get the publicity.
Its a huge win but I wouldn't boast about it to put salt in the wounds or get Remain idiots turning into antivax idiots. Take the politics out of communications, even if Brexit did help facilitate it.
Is it though? Was entering into EU COVID-19 vaccination program mandatory for EU members if they wanted access to this vaccine?
(Not saying you’re wrong, or right for that matter: this is a citation request!)
The buying program I doubt was mandatory.
The regulatory agency I'm pretty sure it was.
I don't think the MHRA could have granted approval unilaterally previously, though someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Given that Germany has sourced 300million doses & is to start vaccinations in Jan, it looks like you’re simply wrong on this Philip.
No, Philip is right on this. However, I expect that the EU regulatory approval won't be much delayed.
I believed he was referring to access to vaccines, not approval of them (which seems unlikely to be delayed?)
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
You must know the last point is daft - the ability to make quicker decisions will manifest itself as a benefit many times in the future, on many issues.
Really? Such as?
You're only limited by your imagination.
If you can't think of any examples when making quick decisions can be a benefit then I think your imagination is weak. I've long argued for nimbleness and agility as a strength.
The idea that the UK is going to be consistently nimble and agile is somewhat fanciful. We haven't exactly been nimble and agile in reforming taxation, or social care, or the NHS, or dealing with the decline of the High Street, or dealing with US mega-corporations abusing international tax rule, or setting up the computer systems and customs infrastructure for Brexit in 3 weeks time. And it certainly will never be nimble and agile under Boris - he's an even bigger ditherer than Brown.
The UK won't be led by Boris Johnson forever, we hold elections every 4-5 years and if you want a change then you can change the government every 4-5 years (or sooner if no confidence etc happens).
If Starmer has a bright idea that can improve the country and he puts that forward rather than abstaining on it then the country can choose to vote for him easier than we can reform 28 nations of the EU.
I wouldn't be saying it because I wouldn't want FBPE idiots turning into antivaxxers in response.
But its true, 100% true.
This is part of what I've long argued here that the UK out of the EU can be more nimble and agile than the sclerotic and slow EU. This is a perfect example and high profile but other things will add up that don't get the publicity.
Its a huge win but I wouldn't boast about it to put salt in the wounds or get Remain idiots turning into antivax idiots. Take the politics out of communications, even if Brexit did help facilitate it.
Is it though? Was entering into EU COVID-19 vaccination program mandatory for EU members if they wanted access to this vaccine?
(Not saying you’re wrong, or right for that matter: this is a citation request!)
Ah, I see from Richard Nabavi’s comment that Philip Thompson is talking out of his arse on the topic of Brexit again & EU countries were in face at liberty to make their own arrangements outside of the EU vaccination program.
I don’t get it. Why does Brexit seem to prevent honest, rational thought in so many people? (on both sides: this isn’t limited to Leavers.)
NB. I don’t mean by this line to imply that PhilipT is deliberately dishonest. But this vaccine thing seems to be a classic example of jumping to the conclusion you want to believe (Brexit enabled the UK to get vaccines earlier than EU members) instead of performing the most basic of checks to see whether the statement was actually true.
In this case, it looks like some EU members have also obtaining access to vaccine doses outside the EU system, so the statement falls at the first hurdle & a quick Google would have demonstrated that.
Brexit enabled the UK to get regulatory approval earlier, that is true. We got regulatory approval today, the EU don't have it yet.
You are talking about purchasing. Purchasing is not the same as regulatory approval. The EU is about regulations not purchasing.
I never said the EU was about purchasing or restricted purchasing. Nobody here said that. You are fighting shadows of your own mind.
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
We have approved it. We haven't rolled out anything, yet.
Every sinue of your being strives every day to find the negatives that in your mind helps with your BDS and it is sad to see
Most every sane person would be joyful over this news and it commences on monday
Anti-Brexit rhetoric seems to be much more important than the Covid vaccine to many on here
What I don't know is how many EU countries are relying only on the EU purchase scheme - any that are may experience a significant delay by the sounds of things.
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
You must know the last point is daft - the ability to make quicker decisions will manifest itself as a benefit many times in the future, on many issues.
Really? Such as?
You're only limited by your imagination.
If you can't think of any examples when making quick decisions can be a benefit then I think your imagination is weak. I've long argued for nimbleness and agility as a strength.
The idea that the UK is going to be consistently nimble and agile is somewhat fanciful. We haven't exactly been nimble and agile in reforming taxation, or social care, or the NHS, or dealing with the decline of the High Street, or dealing with US mega-corporations abusing international tax rule, or setting up the computer systems and customs infrastructure for Brexit in 3 weeks time. And it certainly will never be nimble and agile under Boris - he's an even bigger ditherer than Brown.
The UK won't be led by Boris Johnson forever, we hold elections every 4-5 years and if you want a change then you can change the government every 4-5 years (or sooner if no confidence etc happens).
If Starmer has a bright idea that can improve the country and he puts that forward rather than abstaining on it then the country can choose to vote for him easier than we can reform 28 nations of the EU.
Not really, because so many things in the modern world involve negotiations with other countries. The EU speeds that up, not slows it down.
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
We have approved it. We haven't rolled out anything, yet.
Every sinue of your being strives every day to find the negatives that in your mind helps with your BDS and it is sad to see
Most every sane person would be joyful over this news and it commences on monday
Unfortunately Hancock in particular but the government in general has cried wolf so many times that it's only sensible to warn people that what they say and what they do have little in common.
What I don't know is how many EU countries are relying only on the EU purchase scheme - any that are may experience a significant delay by the sounds of things.
Yesterday it was reported Macron said that France would be starting their vaccination scheme in April. Which did seem a bit pessimistic.
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
You must know the last point is daft - the ability to make quicker decisions will manifest itself as a benefit many times in the future, on many issues.
Really? Such as?
You're only limited by your imagination.
If you can't think of any examples when making quick decisions can be a benefit then I think your imagination is weak. I've long argued for nimbleness and agility as a strength.
The idea that the UK is going to be consistently nimble and agile is somewhat fanciful. We haven't exactly been nimble and agile in reforming taxation, or social care, or the NHS, or dealing with the decline of the High Street, or dealing with US mega-corporations abusing international tax rule, or setting up the computer systems and customs infrastructure for Brexit in 3 weeks time. And it certainly will never be nimble and agile under Boris - he's an even bigger ditherer than Brown.
The UK won't be led by Boris Johnson forever, we hold elections every 4-5 years and if you want a change then you can change the government every 4-5 years (or sooner if no confidence etc happens).
If Starmer has a bright idea that can improve the country and he puts that forward rather than abstaining on it then the country can choose to vote for him easier than we can reform 28 nations of the EU.
Not really, because so many things in the modern world involve negotiations with other countries. The EU speeds that up, not slows it down.
I'm by nature an optimist - but I fear short sightedness - on both sides - means it will be no deal.
Boris Johnson will always feel the scorn and contempt of history for No Dealing during a pandemic.
The ghosts of Eden and Chamberlain will be able to say in good conscience 'No longer the worst!'
They already won't - Cameron probably beats both of them for stupidest policy decision of all time.
The referendum train was coming long before Dave.
True but the critical error was to allow a referendum requiring only a simple majority WITHOUT the Brexit option being defined at the time we voted.
Should have been a vote on the principle of leaving followed by a confirmatory referendum once we knew what the terms of leaving were. There was never a majority for any particular form of Brexit but we are stuck with it and that's down to Cameron I'm afraid.
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
You must know the last point is daft - the ability to make quicker decisions will manifest itself as a benefit many times in the future, on many issues.
Really? Such as?
You're only limited by your imagination.
If you can't think of any examples when making quick decisions can be a benefit then I think your imagination is weak. I've long argued for nimbleness and agility as a strength.
The idea that the UK is going to be consistently nimble and agile is somewhat fanciful. We haven't exactly been nimble and agile in reforming taxation, or social care, or the NHS, or dealing with the decline of the High Street, or dealing with US mega-corporations abusing international tax rule, or setting up the computer systems and customs infrastructure for Brexit in 3 weeks time. And it certainly will never be nimble and agile under Boris - he's an even bigger ditherer than Brown.
The UK won't be led by Boris Johnson forever, we hold elections every 4-5 years and if you want a change then you can change the government every 4-5 years (or sooner if no confidence etc happens).
If Starmer has a bright idea that can improve the country and he puts that forward rather than abstaining on it then the country can choose to vote for him easier than we can reform 28 nations of the EU.
Not really, because so many things in the modern world involve negotiations with other countries. The EU speeds that up, not slows it down.
What I don't know is how many EU countries are relying only on the EU purchase scheme - any that are may experience a significant delay by the sounds of things.
Yes, the French timetable seems to be starting in April. By then the UK will be talking about vaccinations for the young and healthy. That's France, for some of the smaller countries it could be even later.
I'm by nature an optimist - but I fear short sightedness - on both sides - means it will be no deal.
Boris Johnson will always feel the scorn and contempt of history for No Dealing during a pandemic.
The ghosts of Eden and Chamberlain will be able to say in good conscience 'No longer the worst!'
They already won't - Cameron probably beats both of them for stupidest policy decision of all time.
The referendum train was coming long before Dave.
It was but the way he handled it was full of hubris.
He should have either negotiated much harder with the EU or if he was never serious about renegotiating or considering leaving then he should have spoken to John Howard about how to arrange a referendum.
Comparing the way John Howard handled the republic referendum and the way David Cameron handled the Brexit one, with both leaders wanting a No vote, is a complete masterclass of difference.
The reason Cameron should have insisted, as Howard did, on a commission to nail down what Leave actually meant, is not so he could win the referendum but so that we did not end up where we did, with Leave winning but every Brexiteer having their own unicorn version of Brexit in mind.
The reason Cameron lost was the same reason he almost lost Scotland, relying entirely on negative campaigning with no-one, least of all Cameron himself, making a positive case for membership of the EU.
That’s a bit harsh on Stuart Rose, who clearly made the point on the first day of the campaign, that EU membership, and specifically Freedom of Movement, was a great mechanism for keeping wages low.
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
You must know the last point is daft - the ability to make quicker decisions will manifest itself as a benefit many times in the future, on many issues.
Really? Such as?
You're only limited by your imagination.
If you can't think of any examples when making quick decisions can be a benefit then I think your imagination is weak. I've long argued for nimbleness and agility as a strength.
The idea that the UK is going to be consistently nimble and agile is somewhat fanciful. We haven't exactly been nimble and agile in reforming taxation, or social care, or the NHS, or dealing with the decline of the High Street, or dealing with US mega-corporations abusing international tax rule, or setting up the computer systems and customs infrastructure for Brexit in 3 weeks time. And it certainly will never be nimble and agile under Boris - he's an even bigger ditherer than Brown.
The UK won't be led by Boris Johnson forever, we hold elections every 4-5 years and if you want a change then you can change the government every 4-5 years (or sooner if no confidence etc happens).
If Starmer has a bright idea that can improve the country and he puts that forward rather than abstaining on it then the country can choose to vote for him easier than we can reform 28 nations of the EU.
Not really, because so many things in the modern world involve negotiations with other countries. The EU speeds that up, not slows it down.
But the EU doesn't always want what we want.
We don't always want what 'we' want either.
Much better just to agree to whatever the EU thinks it wants then?
What I don't know is how many EU countries are relying only on the EU purchase scheme - any that are may experience a significant delay by the sounds of things.
According to BioNtech, doses of the vaccine will be distributed fairly. No "one country will get everything".
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
You must know the last point is daft - the ability to make quicker decisions will manifest itself as a benefit many times in the future, on many issues.
Really? Such as?
You're only limited by your imagination.
If you can't think of any examples when making quick decisions can be a benefit then I think your imagination is weak. I've long argued for nimbleness and agility as a strength.
The idea that the UK is going to be consistently nimble and agile is somewhat fanciful. We haven't exactly been nimble and agile in reforming taxation, or social care, or the NHS, or dealing with the decline of the High Street, or dealing with US mega-corporations abusing international tax rule, or setting up the computer systems and customs infrastructure for Brexit in 3 weeks time. And it certainly will never be nimble and agile under Boris - he's an even bigger ditherer than Brown.
The UK won't be led by Boris Johnson forever, we hold elections every 4-5 years and if you want a change then you can change the government every 4-5 years (or sooner if no confidence etc happens).
If Starmer has a bright idea that can improve the country and he puts that forward rather than abstaining on it then the country can choose to vote for him easier than we can reform 28 nations of the EU.
Not really, because so many things in the modern world involve negotiations with other countries. The EU speeds that up, not slows it down.
Not really, it just makes it more uniform across 27 it does nothing to speed it up.
And actually most of what we do on a daily basis in unilaterally determined within this nation not part of international relations, even more so post-Brexit.
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
We have approved it. We haven't rolled out anything, yet.
Every sinue of your being strives every day to find the negatives that in your mind helps with your BDS and it is sad to see
Most every sane person would be joyful over this news and it commences on monday
Anti-Brexit rhetoric seems to be much more important than the Covid vaccine to many on here
There's not much to talk about with respect to the vaccine. I mean, it's great news and I am sure we are all in agreement on that. Brexit means we have approved it before the EU. Assuming this doesn't mean that corners were cut in the process then you can put that in the Brexit dividend column, alongside no longer paying into the EU budget. I'm not sure what else is in there.
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
You must know the last point is daft - the ability to make quicker decisions will manifest itself as a benefit many times in the future, on many issues.
Really? Such as?
You're only limited by your imagination.
If you can't think of any examples when making quick decisions can be a benefit then I think your imagination is weak. I've long argued for nimbleness and agility as a strength.
The idea that the UK is going to be consistently nimble and agile is somewhat fanciful. We haven't exactly been nimble and agile in reforming taxation, or social care, or the NHS, or dealing with the decline of the High Street, or dealing with US mega-corporations abusing international tax rule, or setting up the computer systems and customs infrastructure for Brexit in 3 weeks time. And it certainly will never be nimble and agile under Boris - he's an even bigger ditherer than Brown.
The UK won't be led by Boris Johnson forever, we hold elections every 4-5 years and if you want a change then you can change the government every 4-5 years (or sooner if no confidence etc happens).
If Starmer has a bright idea that can improve the country and he puts that forward rather than abstaining on it then the country can choose to vote for him easier than we can reform 28 nations of the EU.
Not really, because so many things in the modern world involve negotiations with other countries. The EU speeds that up, not slows it down.
But the EU doesn't always want what we want.
We don't always want what 'we' want either.
Much better just to agree to whatever the EU thinks it wants then?
The EU is a polity. If we're part of it, then we're part of it. There's no us and them unless we leave.
What I don't know is how many EU countries are relying only on the EU purchase scheme - any that are may experience a significant delay by the sounds of things.
Yesterday it was reported Macron said that France would be starting their vaccination scheme in April. Which did seem a bit pessimistic.
If you're thinking of booking a holiday abroad next summer, especially early summer, it would be a good idea to research how quickly each country will be rolling out its vaccination programme.
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
You must know the last point is daft - the ability to make quicker decisions will manifest itself as a benefit many times in the future, on many issues.
Really? Such as?
You're only limited by your imagination.
If you can't think of any examples when making quick decisions can be a benefit then I think your imagination is weak. I've long argued for nimbleness and agility as a strength.
The idea that the UK is going to be consistently nimble and agile is somewhat fanciful. We haven't exactly been nimble and agile in reforming taxation, or social care, or the NHS, or dealing with the decline of the High Street, or dealing with US mega-corporations abusing international tax rule, or setting up the computer systems and customs infrastructure for Brexit in 3 weeks time. And it certainly will never be nimble and agile under Boris - he's an even bigger ditherer than Brown.
The UK won't be led by Boris Johnson forever, we hold elections every 4-5 years and if you want a change then you can change the government every 4-5 years (or sooner if no confidence etc happens).
If Starmer has a bright idea that can improve the country and he puts that forward rather than abstaining on it then the country can choose to vote for him easier than we can reform 28 nations of the EU.
Not really, because so many things in the modern world involve negotiations with other countries. The EU speeds that up, not slows it down.
But the EU doesn't always want what we want.
We don't always want what 'we' want either.
Much better just to agree to whatever the EU thinks it wants then?
The EU is a polity. If we're part of it, then we're part of it. There's no us and them unless we leave.
There was less and less of 'us' and more and more of 'them' until we chose to leave. That's what ever closer union means.
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
You must know the last point is daft - the ability to make quicker decisions will manifest itself as a benefit many times in the future, on many issues.
Really? Such as?
You're only limited by your imagination.
If you can't think of any examples when making quick decisions can be a benefit then I think your imagination is weak. I've long argued for nimbleness and agility as a strength.
The idea that the UK is going to be consistently nimble and agile is somewhat fanciful. We haven't exactly been nimble and agile in reforming taxation, or social care, or the NHS, or dealing with the decline of the High Street, or dealing with US mega-corporations abusing international tax rule, or setting up the computer systems and customs infrastructure for Brexit in 3 weeks time. And it certainly will never be nimble and agile under Boris - he's an even bigger ditherer than Brown.
The UK won't be led by Boris Johnson forever, we hold elections every 4-5 years and if you want a change then you can change the government every 4-5 years (or sooner if no confidence etc happens).
If Starmer has a bright idea that can improve the country and he puts that forward rather than abstaining on it then the country can choose to vote for him easier than we can reform 28 nations of the EU.
Not really, because so many things in the modern world involve negotiations with other countries. The EU speeds that up, not slows it down.
But the EU doesn't always want what we want.
We don't always want what 'we' want either.
Much better just to agree to whatever the EU thinks it wants then?
The EU is a polity. If we're part of it, then we're part of it. There's no us and them unless we leave.
Nonsense, there is always us and them. There are layers of us and them. Atomisation exists at multiple levels.
Do you think that because they're part of the UK that Nicola Sturgeon is the same "us" as Boris Johnson?
We'll have Schumacher and Verstappen, the next generation.
As a sort-of hedge, I'm likely to back Russell, each way, to win qualifying. I do think Verstappen stands a great chance, though. High pressure on both Bottas and Russell.
Don’t forget team orders in the race, to favour Bottas over Russell. After a couple of lacklustre races, the Finnish driver is under threat from Max, for his second place in the championship.
I'm by nature an optimist - but I fear short sightedness - on both sides - means it will be no deal.
Boris Johnson will always feel the scorn and contempt of history for No Dealing during a pandemic.
The ghosts of Eden and Chamberlain will be able to say in good conscience 'No longer the worst!'
They already won't - Cameron probably beats both of them for stupidest policy decision of all time.
The referendum train was coming long before Dave.
It was but the way he handled it was full of hubris.
He should have either negotiated much harder with the EU or if he was never serious about renegotiating or considering leaving then he should have spoken to John Howard about how to arrange a referendum.
Comparing the way John Howard handled the republic referendum and the way David Cameron handled the Brexit one, with both leaders wanting a No vote, is a complete masterclass of difference.
The reason Cameron should have insisted, as Howard did, on a commission to nail down what Leave actually meant, is not so he could win the referendum but so that we did not end up where we did, with Leave winning but every Brexiteer having their own unicorn version of Brexit in mind.
The reason Cameron lost was the same reason he almost lost Scotland, relying entirely on negative campaigning with no-one, least of all Cameron himself, making a positive case for membership of the EU.
That’s a bit harsh on Stuart Rose, who clearly made the point on the first day of the campaign, that EU membership, and specifically Freedom of Movement, was a great mechanism for keeping wages low.
To be fair to Stuart Rose, he wasn't to know that a large portion of the population were the kind of FascitsRacistNaziGammonScum who didn't think that keeping wages low was a plus.
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
You must know the last point is daft - the ability to make quicker decisions will manifest itself as a benefit many times in the future, on many issues.
Really? Such as?
You're only limited by your imagination.
If you can't think of any examples when making quick decisions can be a benefit then I think your imagination is weak. I've long argued for nimbleness and agility as a strength.
The idea that the UK is going to be consistently nimble and agile is somewhat fanciful. We haven't exactly been nimble and agile in reforming taxation, or social care, or the NHS, or dealing with the decline of the High Street, or dealing with US mega-corporations abusing international tax rule, or setting up the computer systems and customs infrastructure for Brexit in 3 weeks time. And it certainly will never be nimble and agile under Boris - he's an even bigger ditherer than Brown.
The UK won't be led by Boris Johnson forever, we hold elections every 4-5 years and if you want a change then you can change the government every 4-5 years (or sooner if no confidence etc happens).
If Starmer has a bright idea that can improve the country and he puts that forward rather than abstaining on it then the country can choose to vote for him easier than we can reform 28 nations of the EU.
Not really, because so many things in the modern world involve negotiations with other countries. The EU speeds that up, not slows it down.
But the EU doesn't always want what we want.
We don't always want what 'we' want either.
Much better just to agree to whatever the EU thinks it wants then?
The EU is a polity. If we're part of it, then we're part of it. There's no us and them unless we leave.
Nonsense, there is always us and them. There are layers of us and them. Atomisation exists at multiple levels.
Do you think that because they're part of the UK that Nicola Sturgeon is the same "us" as Boris Johnson?
Are you part of the same "us" as me?
In this equation you are an individual voter, the UK is an amalgamation of all UK voters, and the EU is an amalgamation of all EU voters. It's perfectly possible that what you want is more aligned with the collective EU than with the collective UK.
Indeed, all of this is just unnecessary. Celebrate that next week 800,000 NHS workers will receive the first jab and that we're finally on the way to living normally again. No need to gloat that we're first in the world, it could very easily have turned out differently.
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
You must know the last point is daft - the ability to make quicker decisions will manifest itself as a benefit many times in the future, on many issues.
Really? Such as?
You're only limited by your imagination.
If you can't think of any examples when making quick decisions can be a benefit then I think your imagination is weak. I've long argued for nimbleness and agility as a strength.
The idea that the UK is going to be consistently nimble and agile is somewhat fanciful. We haven't exactly been nimble and agile in reforming taxation, or social care, or the NHS, or dealing with the decline of the High Street, or dealing with US mega-corporations abusing international tax rule, or setting up the computer systems and customs infrastructure for Brexit in 3 weeks time. And it certainly will never be nimble and agile under Boris - he's an even bigger ditherer than Brown.
The UK won't be led by Boris Johnson forever, we hold elections every 4-5 years and if you want a change then you can change the government every 4-5 years (or sooner if no confidence etc happens).
If Starmer has a bright idea that can improve the country and he puts that forward rather than abstaining on it then the country can choose to vote for him easier than we can reform 28 nations of the EU.
Not really, because so many things in the modern world involve negotiations with other countries. The EU speeds that up, not slows it down.
But the EU doesn't always want what we want.
We don't always want what 'we' want either.
Much better just to agree to whatever the EU thinks it wants then?
The EU is a polity. If we're part of it, then we're part of it. There's no us and them unless we leave.
Nonsense, there is always us and them. There are layers of us and them. Atomisation exists at multiple levels.
Do you think that because they're part of the UK that Nicola Sturgeon is the same "us" as Boris Johnson?
Are you part of the same "us" as me?
In this equation you are an individual voter, the UK is an amalgamation of all UK voters, and the EU is an amalgamation of all EU voters. It's perfectly possible that what you want is more aligned with the collective EU than with the collective UK.
Its possible but not true on average since your vote is greatly watered down by the 27 other nations in Europe, whereas on average across the UK your vote counts much, much more.
Indeed, all of this is just unnecessary. Celebrate that next week 800,000 NHS workers will receive the first jab and that we're finally on the way to living normally again. No need to gloat that we're first in the world, it could very easily have turned out differently.
Just imagine the crowing if it had been the other way around though.
Indeed, all of this is just unnecessary. Celebrate that next week 800,000 NHS workers will receive the first jab and that we're finally on the way to living normally again. No need to gloat that we're first in the world, it could very easily have turned out differently.
It could have, but it didn't.
Its a reason to smile, in what has been a grim year. Not for flag waving or chestthumping but a smile is a good thing to have today.
Had it worked out differently and had we been "at the back of the queue" then some like Scott wouldn't have held back their glee at that.
Comments
F1: Hedged a bit more my Verstappen/Bottas bets. I still hope one of them wins, but as long as one of them is at least 2nd I'm ahead. If they're 1-2 that's lovely. If neither are top 2 then I'm mildly red.
Interesting that Russell plunged to 8.2 yesterday on the exchange long before it was announced he had the gig, and is now 4.7. Big pressure on both him and Bottas. If Russell fails to score in a Mercedes that'll look very poor, and likewise if Bottas doesn't beat him handily. Losing to Hamilton is one thing, losing to the sub from Williams is quite another.
Verstappen may be favourite for the win.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbcnews
The EMA isn't going to be the hold up for the EU, it's the vaccine buying scheme that has been painfully slow. They haggled over price and for that they're behind the US, UK, Japan, Switzerland, Canada and a handful of other countries getting mass deliveries in Q1. At a time like this price is irrelevant.
Definitely a time where acting quick and writing a large cheque saves both lives and money long term.
We could see Russell going from never having scored a point to winning a race!
In other F1 news - to the surprise of no-one Mick Schumacher has joined Haas next year.
(Not saying you’re wrong, or right for that matter: this is a citation request!)
Germany has secured more than 300m vaccine doses via the European Commission, bilateral contracts and options, Spahn said, adding that this was more than enough and even left room to share doses with other countries.
Spain will begin a comprehensive vaccination programme in January and expects to have covered a substantial part of the population within three months, the prime minister, Pedro Sanchez, said on Sunday.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/23/us-germany-and-uk-could-start-covid-vaccinations-as-early-as-december
The regulatory agency I'm pretty sure it was.
I don't think the MHRA could have granted approval unilaterally previously, though someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
The whole scheme has been poorly thought out, it's a camel.
If you can't think of any examples when making quick decisions can be a benefit then I think your imagination is weak. I've long argued for nimbleness and agility as a strength.
Joining the EEC/EU boosted trade and trade boosts productivity, that's why forecasters at the OBR and BOE and in the private sector expect leaving to lower our GDP, relative to if we had stayed in. We were the sick man of Europe outside the EU, and our relative growth performance improved significantly as members.
Nothing is certain in the world of Economic forecasting, but I think it is more likely than not that our relative economic performance will now decline, and eventually we may be forced to once again petition for membership from a position of weakness. Probably decades away though, the English superiority complex is a stubborn beast.
So the EMA wasn't 'match fit' when this happened as they were short on expertise.
https://twitter.com/NatashaC/status/1334077912258056192
It looks like the perfect pigeon hole for him but I wonder who makes that choice and whether you can complain? I've never looked at Trump's but I'd be curious to know who they put in his box.
Stalin or Mr Bean?
I don’t get it. Why does Brexit seem to prevent honest, rational thought in so many people? (on both sides: this isn’t limited to Leavers.)
We'll have Schumacher and Verstappen, the next generation.
As a sort-of hedge, I'm likely to back Russell, each way, to win qualifying. I do think Verstappen stands a great chance, though. High pressure on both Bottas and Russell.
"How can you measure the public this is safe?"
🤦🏻♂️
Can't you ever be happy Scott? Even Richard Nabavi can recognise this is good news. Everyone should be smiling today at this news, unless you're an antivax fool. 🤦🏻♂️
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-invests-in-livingston-facility-to-bolster-vaccine-manufacturing-capacity
I specifically said that I doubt the buying program was mandatory, it is the regulatory agency that was. That is the MHRA approving it today - the EMA is only forecast to approve it by the end of this month or early January thus facillitating Germany to start rollout in January.
The fact Germany aren't scheduled to started vaccinations next week seems to indicate I'm right.
(Or, indeed, ongoing Pay As You Go EEA equivalence, £250 million a week + pay into any programmes we wish, UK can unilaterally withdraw on 12 month's notice, if it ever gets its act together).
In this case, it looks like some EU members have also obtaining access to vaccine doses outside the EU system, so the statement falls at the first hurdle & a quick Google would have demonstrated that.
You're fighting with straw men and owe me an apology, I was not talking out of my arse.
Most every sane person would be joyful over this news and it commences on monday
You are talking about purchasing. Purchasing is not the same as regulatory approval. The EU is about regulations not purchasing.
I never said the EU was about purchasing or restricted purchasing. Nobody here said that. You are fighting shadows of your own mind.
Irrational: the virus is a hoax, or is caused by 5G, or the vaccine injects us with mind-control robots.
Rational: the vaccine might have unknown side-effects because the trials did not test it on 70-year-old left-handed diabetics like my dear old mum, or 15-year-old boys like my eldest. This group might be wrong but is not round the twist.
Different responses are needed to persuade each group. The only thing they have in common is both are stirred up by hostile foreign actors (who mysteriously have no effect in election or referendum campaigns).
https://twitter.com/fact_covid/status/1334081734359584768?s=20
If Starmer has a bright idea that can improve the country and he puts that forward rather than abstaining on it then the country can choose to vote for him easier than we can reform 28 nations of the EU.
Should have been a vote on the principle of leaving followed by a confirmatory referendum once we knew what the terms of leaving were. There was never a majority for any particular form of Brexit but we are stuck with it and that's down to Cameron I'm afraid.
https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/biontech-pfizer-corona-impfstoff-antrag-101.html
And actually most of what we do on a daily basis in unilaterally determined within this nation not part of international relations, even more so post-Brexit.
https://twitter.com/GermanAmbUK/status/1334074827632746509?s=20
Do you think that because they're part of the UK that Nicola Sturgeon is the same "us" as Boris Johnson?
Are you part of the same "us" as me?
It is naive in the extreme not to expect Boris and others not to make a big play on this story
Its a reason to smile, in what has been a grim year. Not for flag waving or chestthumping but a smile is a good thing to have today.
Had it worked out differently and had we been "at the back of the queue" then some like Scott wouldn't have held back their glee at that.