politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on the location of the new HQ of the European Medicine

Why is betting on Valletta "suspended"? Does that indicate the possibility of something dodgy?

I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
No one has heard of these two organisations.

What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
Or factories closing down.

archer101au said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/YesBrexit/status/931962331478839298?s=17

Post of the year!

YellowSubmarine said:

rkrkrk said:

I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
No one has heard of these two organisations.

What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
Or factories closing down.

George Osborne's Evening Standard will make hay with London losing two international HQs with the jobs, tax revenue and Soft Power that goes with them. We knew they were going but having other cities named as the new hosts and recipients of the jobs and tax revenues gives legs to the story. I can't see a polling shift from it myself. But it'll get coverage and it's another story about how stupid Brexit is. Not one that will persuade any Leavers but it may firm up the Remain vote.

Do employees of the EU based in the UK actually pay British income tax? I thought not, rather they pay “Community Income Tax” back to the EU itself.
http://www.brusselstimes.com/magazine2/5828/myths-and-truths-about-the-salaries-and-taxes-of-eu-officials

rkrkrk said:

I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
No one has heard of these two organisations.

What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
Or factories closing down.

Eurocrats who don't pay taxes in the UK.....I doubt there will be many tears shed.

Of course today would be a good day to announce the setting up of the 'British Medicines Agency'.....headquartered, oh, I dunno....Canary Wharf?

CarlottaVance said:

rkrkrk said:

I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
No one has heard of these two organisations.

What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
Or factories closing down.

Eurocrats who don't pay taxes in the UK.....I doubt there will be many tears shed.

Of course today would be a good day to announce the setting up of the 'British Medicines Agency'.....headquartered, oh, I dunno....Canary Wharf?

Like! There will be plenty of highly qualified people who won’t want to leave London, let’s set up our own medicines agency to employ them if they wish.

Who thinks we’d be better spending money on setting up our own regulatory and research authorities, rather than sending a large cheque to the EU for the right to sit around the table and discuss trade?

Sandpit said:

YellowSubmarine said:

rkrkrk said:

I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
No one has heard of these two organisations.

What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
Or factories closing down.

George Osborne's Evening Standard will make hay with London losing two international HQs with the jobs, tax revenue and Soft Power that goes with them. We knew they were going but having other cities named as the new hosts and recipients of the jobs and tax revenues gives legs to the story. I can't see a polling shift from it myself. But it'll get coverage and it's another story about how stupid Brexit is. Not one that will persuade any Leavers but it may firm up the Remain vote.

Do employees of the EU based in the UK actually pay British income tax? I thought not, rather they pay “Community Income Tax” back to the EU itself.
http://www.brusselstimes.com/magazine2/5828/myths-and-truths-about-the-salaries-and-taxes-of-eu-officials

VAT receipts must add up to a few hundred thousand?... titters

CarlottaVance said:

rkrkrk said:

I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
No one has heard of these two organisations.

What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
Or factories closing down.

Eurocrats who don't pay taxes in the UK.....I doubt there will be many tears shed.

Of course today would be a good day to announce the setting up of the 'British Medicines Agency'.....headquartered, oh, I dunno....Canary Wharf?

We have an organisation already. It's called the MHRA. But renaming and expanding its remit would be a logical part of any good Brexit plan. The good day to announce the setting up of the British Medicines Agency would have been about 5 years before Brexit. It would need that long to organise an orderly withdrawal from the EMA. In the long run it will cost more to duplicate what is currently done by the EMA. But the real loss is the networking that goes with it. The first big order my business got was as a direct result of a contact I made at a meeting at the EMA. Make no mistake, this is a major blow to the UK. The cost to the country will be a lot greater than the payments involved in the so called divorce bill. If you are getting hot under the collar about those while not taking an interest in the EMA you simply haven't understood the situation.

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

rkrkrk said:

I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
No one has heard of these two organisations.

What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
Or factories closing down.

Eurocrats who don't pay taxes in the UK.....I doubt there will be many tears shed.

Of course today would be a good day to announce the setting up of the 'British Medicines Agency'.....headquartered, oh, I dunno....Canary Wharf?

Like! There will be plenty of highly qualified people who won’t want to leave London, let’s set up our own medicines agency to employ them if they wish.

Who thinks we’d be better spending money on setting up our own regulatory and research authorities, rather than sending a large cheque to the EU for the right to sit around the table and discuss trade?

The answer to your question is nobody who understands what the EMA actually does.

@Sandpit Don't be pathetic. As if the only taxes people pay are Income taxes. Or that the only money the EMA spends in London is salaries. Or that the only economic activity driven in London by the EMA's presence is it's own direct spend.

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

rkrkrk said:

I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
No one has heard of these two organisations.

What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
Or factories closing down.

Eurocrats who don't pay taxes in the UK.....I doubt there will be many tears shed.

Of course today would be a good day to announce the setting up of the 'British Medicines Agency'.....headquartered, oh, I dunno....Canary Wharf?

Like! There will be plenty of highly qualified people who won’t want to leave London, let’s set up our own medicines agency to employ them if they wish.

Who thinks we’d be better spending money on setting up our own regulatory and research authorities, rather than sending a large cheque to the EU for the right to sit around the table and discuss trade?

However, taking back control has its own costs. To approve a new medicine costs the same amount of money [ in research , testing etc. ] whether it is done for 28 countries or 1 country.

I still think we should be part of the EMA even after Brexit. If it was good enough for so many years, it should be good enough in the future. Of course, we will have to pay a sub but that would be substantially less than the cost of setting up an entirely new agency and costs of running.

I am pretty sure that is what is going to happen. It is mutually beneficial to work together on this. It will be a great case study of how leaving the EU is a complete waste of everybody's time and money.

IanB2 said:

Recidivist said:

CarlottaVance said:

rkrkrk said:

I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
No one has heard of these two organisations.

What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
Or factories closing down.

Eurocrats who don't pay taxes in the UK.....I doubt there will be many tears shed.

Of course today would be a good day to announce the setting up of the 'British Medicines Agency'.....headquartered, oh, I dunno....Canary Wharf?

We have an organisation already. It's called the MHRA. But renaming and expanding its remit would be a logical part of any good Brexit plan. The good day to announce the setting up of the British Medicines Agency would have been about 5 years before Brexit. It would need that long to organise an orderly withdrawal from the EMA. In the long run it will cost more to duplicate what is currently done by the EMA. But the real loss is the networking that goes with it. The first big order my business got was as a direct result of a contact I made at a meeting at the EMA. Make no mistake, this is a major blow to the UK. The cost to the country will be a lot greater than the payments involved in the so called divorce bill. If you are getting hot under the collar about those while not taking an interest in the EMA you simply haven't understood the situation.

Where is this good and logical plan??

In the alternative universe where the people campaigning for Brexit actually thought through what they were doing.

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

rkrkrk said:

I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
No one has heard of these two organisations.

What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
Or factories closing down.

Eurocrats who don't pay taxes in the UK.....I doubt there will be many tears shed.

Of course today would be a good day to announce the setting up of the 'British Medicines Agency'.....headquartered, oh, I dunno....Canary Wharf?

Like! There will be plenty of highly qualified people who won’t want to leave London, let’s set up our own medicines agency to employ them if they wish.

Who thinks we’d be better spending money on setting up our own regulatory and research authorities, rather than sending a large cheque to the EU for the right to sit around the table and discuss trade?

However, taking back control has its own costs. To approve a new medicine costs the same amount of money [ in research , testing etc. ] whether it is done for 28 countries or 1 country.

I still think we should be part of the EMA even after Brexit. If it was good enough for so many years, it should be good enough in the future. Of course, we will have to pay a sub but that would be substantially less than the cost of setting up an entirely new agency and costs of running.

We could just rubber stamp EMA decisions to keep costs down, and quality of assessment up.

Take back control...

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

rkrkrk said:

I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
No one has heard of these two organisations.

What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
Or factories closing down.

Eurocrats who don't pay taxes in the UK.....I doubt there will be many tears shed.

Of course today would be a good day to announce the setting up of the 'British Medicines Agency'.....headquartered, oh, I dunno....Canary Wharf?

Like! There will be plenty of highly qualified people who won’t want to leave London, let’s set up our own medicines agency to employ them if they wish.

Who thinks we’d be better spending money on setting up our own regulatory and research authorities, rather than sending a large cheque to the EU for the right to sit around the table and discuss trade?

However, taking back control has its own costs. To approve a new medicine costs the same amount of money [ in research , testing etc. ] whether it is done for 28 countries or 1 country.

I still think we should be part of the EMA even after Brexit. If it was good enough for so many years, it should be good enough in the future. Of course, we will have to pay a sub but that would be substantially less than the cost of setting up an entirely new agency and costs of running.

In a rational world that would be the logical outcome

YellowSubmarine said:

@Sandpit Don't be pathetic. As if the only taxes people pay are Income taxes. Or that the only money the EMA spends in London is salaries. Or that the only economic activity driven in London by the EMA's presence is it's own direct spend.

You’re right, they’ve also got a long lease on their really expensive prime London Office that they’re desperately trying to get out of, because it didn’t have a Brexit break clause in it.

tlg86 said:

YellowSubmarine said:

@Sandpit Don't be pathetic. As if the only taxes people pay are Income taxes. Or that the only money the EMA spends in London is salaries. Or that the only economic activity driven in London by the EMA's presence is it's own direct spend.

You're really telling us that you knew they didn't pay income tax?

Yes I am actually.

https://twitter.com/itvwales/status/932502486212104192

IanB2 said:

Worth a read: "The future is digital, our children are analogue. We’re betraying a generation"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/20/future-digital-children-analogue-betraying-generation-michael-gove

We can't simply conjure thousands of teachers up out of nowhere then? One issue the Guardian and most of those confounded experts ignore is that IT-literacy and computer science are different things. All children should be taught the first -- how to type, use word processors, spreadsheets and, yes, social media. Not everyone needs to know how to code or whether P equals NP.

On topic the idea that we would remain the host of EU institutions having left the EU is so absurd that I refuse to believe that anyone entertained it after a moment's thought. That said, there have been persistent rumours that the staff in both institutions don't want to leave.

The question of what we do next is one of the issues to be considered in the Brexit talks. On the financial side this is tied up with the single passport. If we can negotiate continued equivalence between our financial regulation and the EU then there may be some advantage in paying a subscription to remain a member and having an input on new regulation.

On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

DavidL said:

On topic the idea that we would remain the host of EU institutions having left the EU is so absurd that I refuse to believe that anyone entertained it after a moment's thought. That said, there have been persistent rumours that the staff in both institutions don't want to leave.

The question of what we do next is one of the issues to be considered in the Brexit talks. On the financial side this is tied up with the single passport. If we can negotiate continued equivalence between our financial regulation and the EU then there may be some advantage in paying a subscription to remain a member and having an input on new regulation.

On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

Well, yes. It would have been sensible to remain part of both agencies and have a say in the rules and regulations across the EU and EEA. The voters of Boston and Stoke thought otherwise.

I'm not betting on this market, it looks like a good one for shadsy. If forced, I'd bet on Bratislava, the favourite.

Alanbrooke said:

TMerkel now trying to overtake TMay on the road to the history books

The Jamaica coalition always seemed a slightly absurd idea, parties who shared almost no common beliefs were inevitably going to struggle. The problem for Merkel is that the FDP who have walked away are a much, much better fit for her own party than the Greens who would surely be happier with the SPD.

I would have thought that a minority government that could probably rely on the AfD for tacit support on many issues was the obvious way forward but there may be a reluctance to give the AfD that kind of influence.

It all shows that while FPTP has serious drawbacks so does proportional systems which do not have a clear winners bonus allowing strong government.

Alanbrooke said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DavidL said:

On topic the idea that we would remain the host of EU institutions having left the EU is so absurd that I refuse to believe that anyone entertained it after a moment's thought. That said, there have been persistent rumours that the staff in both institutions don't want to leave.

The question of what we do next is one of the issues to be considered in the Brexit talks. On the financial side this is tied up with the single passport. If we can negotiate continued equivalence between our financial regulation and the EU then there may be some advantage in paying a subscription to remain a member and having an input on new regulation.

On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

Well, yes. It would have been sensible to remain part of both agencies and have a say in the rules and regulations across the EU and EEA. The voters of Boston and Stoke thought otherwise.

maybe they should have based it in Stoke and given them a stake in the EU

We could base our new Medicines agency in Stoke and reap that Brexit dividend.

Recidivist said:

DavidL said:

On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

I am pretty sure that is what is going to happen, but it is obviously an EU institution and it is up to them whether or not they let us join. Assuming they do, we'll effectively be accepting EU regulation of our drugs industry. That makes the whole Brexit idea of taking back control pretty nonsensical doesn't it.

What do the Swiss do?

Fysics_Teacher said:

The only real solution I can think of involves paying teachers of shortage subjects (like Physics) significantly more than those in subject which are easier to recruit for. I may have a bit of a conflict of interest here though.

Speaking as a History teacher, I've never understood why that isn't national pay policy anyway. It seems such an obvious thing to do.

And as History teachers are naturally awesome and rise to the top of the tree (with higher pay) just by turning up, that corrects itself later on anyway.

Recidivist said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Alanbrooke said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DavidL said:

On topic the idea that we would remain the host of EU institutions having left the EU is so absurd that I refuse to believe that anyone entertained it after a moment's thought. That said, there have been persistent rumours that the staff in both institutions don't want to leave.

The question of what we do next is one of the issues to be considered in the Brexit talks. On the financial side this is tied up with the single passport. If we can negotiate continued equivalence between our financial regulation and the EU then there may be some advantage in paying a subscription to remain a member and having an input on new regulation.

On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

Well, yes. It would have been sensible to remain part of both agencies and have a say in the rules and regulations across the EU and EEA. The voters of Boston and Stoke thought otherwise.

maybe they should have based it in Stoke and given them a stake in the EU

We could base our new Medicines agency in Stoke and reap that Brexit dividend.

Yes that would be a good idea. Finally a Brexit benefit.

You'd have to feel for the bureaucrats: Bratislava or Burslem. Recruitment might be more challenging all round for the regulators.

I went to a talk by an ex-head of what is now the MHRA a couple of weeks ago. He made several points. One is that because the EMA is situated in London much of the work our MHRA does is for the EMA, and the close proximity of the two organisations is, if not vital, very important. There’s a lot of money flowing both ways, and while some of this will continue, there will be barriers. Also, especially with medicines for rarer diseases, we benefit from pan-European studies; if/when we leave the EMA we may well not be part of the studies. There is of course sharing of scientific data but will the designs of such studies continue to allow direct comparisons. Probably, of course, but neither necessarity nor invariably.
We would also lose access to the wider EU scientific budget, where because of our experience we’re ‘pulling up’, in particulkar the Eastern countries and generally, as a result we get more than we put in.
As far as the siting is concerned, very few of the present staff wanted, when a survery was done, to move to Bratislava. We could, in worst case, be looking at a logjam situation in medicines regulation.
He also made the point that the three most sophisticated medidicines regulatory systems are the European, the US, and the Japanese. As a direct result of Brexit the European one is going to have to be rebuilt, at least staff-wise and there will a be a fourth, smaller than either of the other three (Japan’s population is about twice ours) so either our medicines regulation will have to link to one of the big three or we will move further down the queue when it comes to companies licensing new products.

In short, he was very, very concerned about the practical effects of Brexit on medicine safety in Europe as a whole, and in UK, and on the supply of medicines in UK.

Never mind, we’ll have blue passports.

Fysics_Teacher said:

Recidivist said:

For anyone who wants a succinct summary of the issues.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2016/oct/14/why-losing-the-european-medicines-agency-is-bad-news-for-patients-jobs-and-the-nhs

We have been teaching Computing rather than IT for several years now thanks to a dedicated and passionate HoD, but Harris is right that recruiting good teachers is particularly difficult for this subject: worse even than Physics.

Some subjects (History springs to mind) have a large pool of graduates for whom the only way to carry on with a subject they love is to become a teacher. Others (and computing is probably an extreme example even here) have lots of much better paid jobs available. Not only that but most good programmers are probably not that keen on working with children.

The only real solution I can think of involves paying teachers of shortage subjects (like Physics) significantly more than those in subject which are easier to recruit for. I may have a bit of a conflict of interest here though.

Just maybe...

That said the fact that programmers are in such high demand suggests that more kids should indeed be studying it. The risk is what you get taught gets superseded. My eldest daughter did some programing in a language that seems to have fallen out of favour and stuff in Information Systems that no one would bother teaching anymore. Similarly, the pressure on staff to keep up with a curriculum which has changed out of all recognition in the last decade is considerable.

foxinsoxuk said:

Alanbrooke said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DavidL said:

On topic the idea that we would remain the host of EU institutions having left the EU is so absurd that I refuse to believe that anyone entertained it after a moment's thought. That said, there have been persistent rumours that the staff in both institutions don't want to leave.

The question of what we do next is one of the issues to be considered in the Brexit talks. On the financial side this is tied up with the single passport. If we can negotiate continued equivalence between our financial regulation and the EU then there may be some advantage in paying a subscription to remain a member and having an input on new regulation.

On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

Well, yes. It would have been sensible to remain part of both agencies and have a say in the rules and regulations across the EU and EEA. The voters of Boston and Stoke thought otherwise.

maybe they should have based it in Stoke and given them a stake in the EU

We could base our new Medicines agency in Stoke and reap that Brexit dividend.

seems fair, Id also move the law courts out too.

Stoke twinned with Karlsruhe

OldKingCole said:

I went to a talk by an ex-head of what is now the MHRA a couple of weeks ago. He made several points. One is that because the EMA is situated in London much of the work our MHRA does is for the EMA, and the close proximity of the two organisations is, if not vital, very important. There’s a lot of money flowing both ways, and while some of this will continue, there will be barriers. Also, especially with medicines for rarer diseases, we benefit from pan-European studies; if/when we leave the EMA we may well not be part of the studies. There is of course sharing of scientific data but will the designs of such studies continue to allow direct comparisons. Probably, of course, but neither necessarity nor invariably.
We would also lose access to the wider EU scientific budget, where because of our experience we’re ‘pulling up’, in particulkar the Eastern countries and generally, as a result we get more than we put in.
As far as the siting is concerned, very few of the present staff wanted, when a survery was done, to move to Bratislava. We could, in worst case, be looking at a logjam situation in medicines regulation.
He also made the point that the three most sophisticated medidicines regulatory systems are the European, the US, and the Japanese. As a direct result of Brexit the European one is going to have to be rebuilt, at least staff-wise and there will a be a fourth, smaller than either of the other three (Japan’s population is about twice ours) so either our medicines regulation will have to link to one of the big three or we will move further down the queue when it comes to companies licensing new products.

In short, he was very, very concerned about the practical effects of Brexit on medicine safety in Europe as a whole, and in UK, and on the supply of medicines in UK.

Never mind, we’ll have blue passports.

I want my burgundy passport, damnit!

Recidivist said:

DavidL said:

On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

I am pretty sure that is what is going to happen, but it is obviously an EU institution and it is up to them whether or not they let us join. Assuming they do, we'll effectively be accepting EU regulation of our drugs industry. That makes the whole Brexit idea of taking back control pretty nonsensical doesn't it.

Only if you are some sort of fanatic. Otherwise you would recognise that it would then be up to us as to whether or not we wanted to remain members, whether we wanted to restrict or extend its role and how we wanted to implement any necessary regulation in our domestic law.

The UK is a large market. If we are not allowed to remain members there will be more trial work going on in the UK, not less, as manufacturers seek approvals in the market with the biggest unitary purchaser of drugs in Europe.

Staff response to the candidate cities:

http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2017/09/WC500235516.pdf

Scroll to the last page....

Fysics_Teacher said:

ydoethur said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

The only real solution I can think of involves paying teachers of shortage subjects (like Physics) significantly more than those in subject which are easier to recruit for. I may have a bit of a conflict of interest here though.

Speaking as a History teacher, I've never understood why that isn't national pay policy anyway. It seems such an obvious thing to do.

And as History teachers are naturally awesome and rise to the top of the tree (with higher pay) just by turning up, that corrects itself later on anyway.

I know you are joking (slightly at least) with your last comment, but good historians are good storytellers and really should make good teachers.

My favourite teacher (from my own schooldays, not now) was an historian. I didn’t do History at A-level because I was not great at essays and double maths, Physics and Chemistry seemed like a doddle; if I were able to chose again I would swap History for Chemistry in a heartbeat.

Well, I was putting it jokily. But it is true in my purely anecdotal experience that History and English graduates are disproportionately represented on SLT.

I think that's most likely because these are subjects where due to oversupply you can pick and choose the ablest so they have a tendency to go further. But also as a result of these very essay writing skills you mention we tend to make good administrators.

Oh, and of course there are a lot of us so it's easier to bodge a timetable around other commitments.

But that does also mean science graduates should be paid a premium simply due to laws of supply and demand.

DavidL said:

Recidivist said:

DavidL said:

On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

I am pretty sure that is what is going to happen, but it is obviously an EU institution and it is up to them whether or not they let us join. Assuming they do, we'll effectively be accepting EU regulation of our drugs industry. That makes the whole Brexit idea of taking back control pretty nonsensical doesn't it.

Only if you are some sort of fanatic. Otherwise you would recognise that it would then be up to us as to whether or not we wanted to remain members, whether we wanted to restrict or extend its role and how we wanted to implement any necessary regulation in our domestic law.

The UK is a large market. If we are not allowed to remain members there will be more trial work going on in the UK, not less, as manufacturers seek approvals in the market with the biggest unitary purchaser of drugs in Europe.

We are indeed a large market, and we are going to stay that way, but we are going to be fourth as far as manufacturers are concerned...... and incidentally, many are, apparently wondering whether they should have major establishments geographically close to the EMA. The speaker I listened was of the opinion that because we were no longer doing much of the EMA’s work, then there would be less work for British Universities (etc). There is, of course, also an issue about recruitment of staff. There is, apparently a devloping problem at such places as the Francis Crick Institute.

DavidL said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Recidivist said:

For anyone who wants a succinct summary of the issues.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2016/oct/14/why-losing-the-european-medicines-agency-is-bad-news-for-patients-jobs-and-the-nhs

We have been teaching Computing rather than IT for several years now thanks to a dedicated and passionate HoD, but Harris is right that recruiting good teachers is particularly difficult for this subject: worse even than Physics.

Some subjects (History springs to mind) have a large pool of graduates for whom the only way to carry on with a subject they love is to become a teacher. Others (and computing is probably an extreme example even here) have lots of much better paid jobs available. Not only that but most good programmers are probably not that keen on working with children.

The only real solution I can think of involves paying teachers of shortage subjects (like Physics) significantly more than those in subject which are easier to recruit for. I may have a bit of a conflict of interest here though.

Just maybe...

That said the fact that programmers are in such high demand suggests that more kids should indeed be studying it. The risk is what you get taught gets superseded. My eldest daughter did some programing in a language that seems to have fallen out of favour and stuff in Information Systems that no one would bother teaching anymore. Similarly, the pressure on staff to keep up with a curriculum which has changed out of all recognition in the last decade is considerable.

Whilst that's true, a lot of the logic on designing programme structure and subroutines carries over.

I learnt BBC Basic (followed by Q-Basic) with a dash of Pascal. I haven't forgotten those lessons, and I still find the principles useful.

Pathetic from David Davis.

David Davis fell out with his most senior civil servant after he blocked him from using a private RAF plane to travel around Europe for Brexit negotiations.

Mr Davis demanded the right to avoid commercial flights for foreign travel shortly after he was appointed. He had to appeal to No 10 after Oliver Robbins, his permanent secretary and the government’s chief Brexit negotiator, kept blocking his flight requests.

Mr Davis appealed to Mrs May’s chief of staff, who approved the expense after he said he would not do the trips unless he got his way. Since then he has repeatedly used RAF transport, which costs up to five times as much.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/david-davis-request-for-raf-flight-was-blocked-t6fd97msc

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

TMerkel now trying to overtake TMay on the road to the history books

The Jamaica coalition always seemed a slightly absurd idea, parties who shared almost no common beliefs were inevitably going to struggle. The problem for Merkel is that the FDP who have walked away are a much, much better fit for her own party than the Greens who would surely be happier with the SPD.

I would have thought that a minority government that could probably rely on the AfD for tacit support on many issues was the obvious way forward but there may be a reluctance to give the AfD that kind of influence.

It all shows that while FPTP has serious drawbacks so does proportional systems which do not have a clear winners bonus allowing strong government.

what it shows is Merkel is no longer the power in Germany and by extension Europe

on balance Id say a weak Merkel is good for the UK - cue remainers telling me Im mad - as it will make the economics of Brexit more important than the politics.

The politics has now been overtaken in Germany by the need to survive and who is lining up as successor for Angela ( currently there isnt one ). Im still hoping it will be David Macallister but he has lost a lot of ground recently

So TMay may yet prove to be in a stronger position than TMerkel - two desperate women clinging to power and needing a deal to keep them there.

Not sure about that. I think it increases the risk of the EU simply being incapable of agreeing a deal that is in their own (and our) interests. If there is no one left that can say yes we have a problem.

AlastairMeeks said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

TMerkel now trying to overtake TMay on the road to the history books

The Jamaica coalition always seemed a slightly absurd idea, parties who shared almost no common beliefs were inevitably going to struggle. The problem for Merkel is that the FDP who have walked away are a much, much better fit for her own party than the Greens who would surely be happier with the SPD.

I would have thought that a minority government that could probably rely on the AfD for tacit support on many issues was the obvious way forward but there may be a reluctance to give the AfD that kind of influence.

It all shows that while FPTP has serious drawbacks so does proportional systems which do not have a clear winners bonus allowing strong government.

what it shows is Merkel is no longer the power in Germany and by extension Europe

on balance Id say a weak Merkel is good for the UK - cue remainers telling me Im mad - as it will make the economics of Brexit more important than the politics.

The politics has now been overtaken in Germany by the need to survive and who is lining up as successor for Angela ( currently there isnt one ). Im still hoping it will be David Macallister but he has lost a lot of ground recently

So TMay may yet prove to be in a stronger position than TMerkel - two desperate women clinging to power and needing a deal to keep them there.

Whenever I feel afraid
I hold my head erect
And whistle a happy tune
So no one will suspect
I'm afraid

chortle

youre nothing but predictable

Alanbrooke said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Alanbrooke said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DavidL said:

On topic the idea that we would remain the host of EU institutions having left the EU is so absurd that I refuse to believe that anyone entertained it after a moment's thought. That said, there have been persistent rumours that the staff in both institutions don't want to leave.

The question of what we do next is one of the issues to be considered in the Brexit talks. On the financial side this is tied up with the single passport. If we can negotiate continued equivalence between our financial regulation and the EU then there may be some advantage in paying a subscription to remain a member and having an input on new regulation.

On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

Well, yes. It would have been sensible to remain part of both agencies and have a say in the rules and regulations across the EU and EEA. The voters of Boston and Stoke thought otherwise.

maybe they should have based it in Stoke and given them a stake in the EU

We could base our new Medicines agency in Stoke and reap that Brexit dividend.

seems fair, Id also move the law courts out too.

Stoke twinned with Karlsruhe

Stoke should twin themselves with Nürnberg.

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

TMerkel now trying to overtake TMay on the road to the history books

The Jamaica coalition always seemed a slightly absurd idea, parties who shared almost no common beliefs were inevitably going to struggle. The problem for Merkel is that the FDP who have walked away are a much, much better fit for her own party than the Greens who would surely be happier with the SPD.

I would have thought that a minority government that could probably rely on the AfD for tacit support on many issues was the obvious way forward but there may be a reluctance to give the AfD that kind of influence.

It all shows that while FPTP has serious drawbacks so does proportional systems which do not have a clear winners bonus allowing strong government.

what it shows is Merkel is no longer the power in Germany and by extension Europe

on balance Id say a weak Merkel is good for the UK - cue remainers telling me Im mad - as it will make the economics of Brexit more important than the politics.

The politics has now been overtaken in Germany by the need to survive and who is lining up as successor for Angela ( currently there isnt one ). Im still hoping it will be David Macallister but he has lost a lot of ground recently

So TMay may yet prove to be in a stronger position than TMerkel - two desperate women clinging to power and needing a deal to keep them there.

Not sure about that. I think it increases the risk of the EU simply being incapable of agreeing a deal that is in their own (and our) interests. If there is no one left that can say yes we have a problem.

Merkel as the observers have said will do us no favours she will drive a hard bargain in Germanys interest, since she now cant determine what that interest is imo protecting the economy has just moved up several notches in priority

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Alanbrooke said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DavidL said:

On topic the idea that we would remain the host of EU institutions having left the EU is so absurd that I refuse to believe that anyone entertained it after a moment's thought. That said, there have been persistent rumours that the staff in both institutions don't want to leave.

The question of what we do next is one of the issues to be considered in the Brexit talks. On the financial side this is tied up with the single passport. If we can negotiate continued equivalence between our financial regulation and the EU then there may be some advantage in paying a subscription to remain a member and having an input on new regulation.

On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

Well, yes. It would have been sensible to remain part of both agencies and have a say in the rules and regulations across the EU and EEA. The voters of Boston and Stoke thought otherwise.

maybe they should have based it in Stoke and given them a stake in the EU

We could base our new Medicines agency in Stoke and reap that Brexit dividend.

seems fair, Id also move the law courts out too.

Stoke twinned with Karlsruhe

Stoke should twin themselves with Nürnberg.

Dresden may be better, or Meissen. As well as porcelain the cities could be convivial on the subject of ethnic nationalism.

foxinsoxuk said:

DavidL said:

Recidivist said:

DavidL said:

On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

I am pretty sure that is what is going to happen, but it is obviously an EU institution and it is up to them whether or not they let us join. Assuming they do, we'll effectively be accepting EU regulation of our drugs industry. That makes the whole Brexit idea of taking back control pretty nonsensical doesn't it.

Only if you are some sort of fanatic. Otherwise you would recognise that it would then be up to us as to whether or not we wanted to remain members, whether we wanted to restrict or extend its role and how we wanted to implement any necessary regulation in our domestic law.

The UK is a large market. If we are not allowed to remain members there will be more trial work going on in the UK, not less, as manufacturers seek approvals in the market with the biggest unitary purchaser of drugs in Europe.

The UK has two further obstacles to new medicines. Even when licensed, new drugs have to go through NICE for appproval on the NHS, then the NHS drives a hard bargain on price as it is a monopoly purchaser. As such there is an extra delay and lower profit for pharmaceutical companies in the UK compared to other European countries.

Still very worthwhile though. And there are many other benefits of working with the NHS, especially for epidemiological longitudinal studies where considerable costs can be saved. But I agree continued membership is probably in our interests.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Alanbrooke said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DavidL said:

On topic the idea that we would remain the host of EU institutions having left the EU is so absurd that I refuse to believe that anyone entertained it after a moment's thought. That said, there have been persistent rumours that the staff in both institutions don't want to leave.

The question of what we do next is one of the issues to be considered in the Brexit talks. On the financial side this is tied up with the single passport. If we can negotiate continued equivalence between our financial regulation and the EU then there may be some advantage in paying a subscription to remain a member and having an input on new regulation.

On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

Well, yes. It would have been sensible to remain part of both agencies and have a say in the rules and regulations across the EU and EEA. The voters of Boston and Stoke thought otherwise.

maybe they should have based it in Stoke and given them a stake in the EU

We could base our new Medicines agency in Stoke and reap that Brexit dividend.

seems fair, Id also move the law courts out too.

Stoke twinned with Karlsruhe

Stoke should twin themselves with Nürnberg.

Are you suggesting we try Leavers there in a series of show trials ?

Yup. Once Brexit turns out to be disaster.

Surely trials are just more of that EU/ECHR human rights crap that we want to get rid of? Just get on to the executions.

foxinsoxuk said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Alanbrooke said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DavidL said:

On topic the idea that we would remain the host of EU institutions having left the EU is so absurd that I refuse to believe that anyone entertained it after a moment's thought. That said, there have been persistent rumours that the staff in both institutions don't want to leave.

The question of what we do next is one of the issues to be considered in the Brexit talks. On the financial side this is tied up with the single passport. If we can negotiate continued equivalence between our financial regulation and the EU then there may be some advantage in paying a subscription to remain a member and having an input on new regulation.

On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

Well, yes. It would have been sensible to remain part of both agencies and have a say in the rules and regulations across the EU and EEA. The voters of Boston and Stoke thought otherwise.

maybe they should have based it in Stoke and given them a stake in the EU

We could base our new Medicines agency in Stoke and reap that Brexit dividend.

seems fair, Id also move the law courts out too.

Stoke twinned with Karlsruhe

Stoke should twin themselves with Nürnberg.

Dresden may be better, or Meissen. As well as porcelain the cities could be convivial on the subject of ethnic nationalism.

Coventry is Dresden's twin

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Alanbrooke said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DavidL said:

On topic the idea that we would remain the host of EU institutions having left the EU is so absurd that I refuse to believe that anyone entertained it after a moment's thought. That said, there have been persistent rumours that the staff in both institutions don't want to leave.

The question of what we do next is one of the issues to be considered in the Brexit talks. On the financial side this is tied up with the single passport. If we can negotiate continued equivalence between our financial regulation and the EU then there may be some advantage in paying a subscription to remain a member and having an input on new regulation.

On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

Well, yes. It would have been sensible to remain part of both agencies and have a say in the rules and regulations across the EU and EEA. The voters of Boston and Stoke thought otherwise.

maybe they should have based it in Stoke and given them a stake in the EU

We could base our new Medicines agency in Stoke and reap that Brexit dividend.

seems fair, Id also move the law courts out too.

Stoke twinned with Karlsruhe

Stoke should twin themselves with Nürnberg.

Are you suggesting we try Leavers there in a series of show trials ?

Yup. Once Brexit turns out to be disaster.

Ok, but only on the condition that if it's a success we can make all the remainers live in Cumbernauld

JosiasJessop said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Recidivist said:

.

Just maybe...

That said the fact that programmers are in such high demand suggests that more kids should indeed be studying it. The risk is what you get taught gets superseded. My eldest daughter did some programing in a language that seems to have fallen out of favour and stuff in Information Systems that no one would bother teaching anymore. Similarly, the pressure on staff to keep up with a curriculum which has changed out of all recognition in the last decade is considerable.

Whilst that's true, a lot of the logic on designing programme structure and subroutines carries over.

I learnt BBC Basic (followed by Q-Basic) with a dash of Pascal. I haven't forgotten those lessons, and I still find the principles useful.

Computer languages are the relatively unimportant fluff, and are generally fairly transferable, especially within families - if you know C, Java isn't that difficult to learn.

What matters much more IMO, and is rarely taught well, is process. How do you specify the problem to be solved, how do you come up with the right solution, how do you implement, and how do you test? How do you work with others in a group concurrently on the same code base? How do you document the code? How do you make the user interface suitable for the end-user rather the coder?

These, and more, are the difference between a professional programmer and an amateur or hacker. They also contain skills that are applicable in wider life as well.

Too many people think that producing reams of code is what is needed. It isn't. It's people who can engineer code as part of a team working on a specific task.

Interesting insight. I will draw it to master L's attention.

Good morning, everyone.

It's ironic. The EU are desperate to move their agencies out, but very keen to keep people in the UK subject to the ECJ.

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Alanbrooke said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DavidL said:

On topic the idea that we would remain the host of EU institutions having left the EU is so absurd that I refuse to believe that anyone entertained it after a moment's thought. That said, there have been persistent rumours that the staff in both institutions don't want to leave.

The question of what we do next is one of the issues to be considered in the Brexit talks. On the financial side this is tied up with the single passport. If we can negotiate continued equivalence between our financial regulation and the EU then there may be some advantage in paying a subscription to remain a member and having an input on new regulation.

On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

Well, yes. It would have been sensible to remain part of both agencies and have a say in the rules and regulations across the EU and EEA. The voters of Boston and Stoke thought otherwise.

maybe they should have based it in Stoke and given them a stake in the EU

We could base our new Medicines agency in Stoke and reap that Brexit dividend.

seems fair, Id also move the law courts out too.

Stoke twinned with Karlsruhe

Stoke should twin themselves with Nürnberg.

Are you suggesting we try Leavers there in a series of show trials ?

Yup. Once Brexit turns out to be disaster.

Surely trials are just more of that EU/ECHR human rights crap that we want to get rid of? Just get on to the executions.

Nah, I’m not in favour of the death penalty.

Make Leavers like Gove and Johnson live in places like Stoke, Sunderland, and Barnsley for the rest of their lives.

err isnt it Osborne and Cameron and Starmer who should live there ?

foxinsoxuk said:

DavidL said:

Recidivist said:

DavidL said:

On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

I am pretty sure that is what is going to happen, but it is obviously an EU institution and it is up to them whether or not they let us join. Assuming they do, we'll effectively be accepting EU regulation of our drugs industry. That makes the whole Brexit idea of taking back control pretty nonsensical doesn't it.

Only if you are some sort of fanatic. Otherwise you would recognise that it would then be up to us as to whether or not we wanted to remain members, whether we wanted to restrict or extend its role and how we wanted to implement any necessary regulation in our domestic law.

The UK is a large market. If we are not allowed to remain members there will be more trial work going on in the UK, not less, as manufacturers seek approvals in the market with the biggest unitary purchaser of drugs in Europe.

The UK has two further obstacles to new medicines. Even when licensed, new drugs have to go through NICE for appproval on the NHS, then the NHS drives a hard bargain on price as it is a monopoly purchaser. As such there is an extra delay and lower profit for pharmaceutical companies in the UK compared to other European countries.

I think it’s very debatable whether the NHS does drive a hard bargain on drugs prices.
On orphan drugs I think it’s clear we are getting ripped off in many cases.

Wondering what odds you might have got in June saying that May would outlast Merkel and Mugabe.