Britain outside the EU

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Reduced trade friction between the UK & EU is not an attractive proposition because it means that they make the rules. As OB said, the majority of the UK didn't want that and the EU's current behaviour militates against any reconciliation.

Threatening to turn off the vaccine tap was, effectively, a potential death threat to many Brits. Enemy comes to mind.

But the very fact that the EU have not switched off the tap is a friendly act, is it not? If preventing vaccine exports is an unfriendly act, how do we stand with the USA? Is India being unfriendly by stopping Serum Institute manufactured vaccine exports?

[Carth]

Russia hasn't nuked us . . . I guess that means we're friends?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

[COLOR="Blue"]
That's rather one sided, don't you think?

Eh? Not at all. "They" refers to the UK and the EU.

---------- Post added at 12:07 ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 ----------

Originally Posted by Carth

Russia hasn't nuked us . . . I guess that means we're friends?

It means we're alive!

Poisoning a British police officer in Salisbury with novichok is not the most friendly of gestures.

Originally Posted by jonbxx

But the very fact that the EU have not switched off the tap is a friendly act, is it not? If preventing vaccine exports is an unfriendly act, how do we stand with the USA? Is India being unfriendly by stopping Serum Institute manufactured vaccine exports?

This is nonsense on stilts. Respect for rule of law isn't a deliberate friendly act. It's neutral. We don't decide each morning whether we're going to follow the rules today. Normal behaviour is simply to do so, and nobody should expect to get a pat on the back for it.

Following the financial crisis of 2008, the UK made bilateral loans to the Republic of Ireland that allowed that country to access finance on more favourable terms than it could secure by going to the money markets directly. That's an example of a deliberate, friendly act. It went over and above the normal rules (while not breaking them) in order to help a neighbour.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

But the very fact that the EU have not switched off the tap is a friendly act, is it not? If preventing vaccine exports is an unfriendly act, how do we stand with the USA? Is India being unfriendly by stopping Serum Institute manufactured vaccine exports?

Beg to differ. If they were threatening us and didn't then carry out their threat doesn't make them friendly in any sense.

The USA is a red herring. They haven't threatened us and vaccines are now being exported by American company. https://www.reuters.com/business/hea...th-2021-04-29/ (paywall but the headline says it all + the quote below):

The vaccine shipment, produced at Pfizer's Kalamazoo, Michigan plant, marks the first time the drugmaker has delivered abroad from US facilities after a Trump-era restriction on dose exports expired at the end of March, the source said.

---------- Post added at 12:21 ---------- Previous post was at 12:19 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Eh? Not at all. "They" refers to the UK and the EU.

---------- Post added at 12:07 ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 ----------


It means we're alive!

Poisoning a British police officer in Salisbury with novichok is not the most friendly of gestures.

Nor is the EU threatening to withhold exports of the vaccine to the UK.


---------- Post added at 12:22 ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

This is nonsense on stilts. Respect for rule of law isn't a deliberate friendly act. It's neutral. We don't decide each morning whether we're going to follow the rules today. Normal behaviour is simply to do so, and nobody should expect to get a pat on the back for it.

Following the financial crisis of 2008, the UK made bilateral loans to the Republic of Ireland that allowed that country to access finance on more favourable terms than it could secure by going to the money markets directly. That's an example of a deliberate, friendly act. It went over and above the normal rules (while not breaking them) in order to help a neighbour.

... who then royally tried to stiff us over Brexit.

Further to the point about the USA, the American decision to invoke emergency defence laws to prevent drug exports was known and understood from a very early stage and was factored into the purchase agreements HMG signed with drugmakers with facilities there. There was no arbitrary, unfriendly attempt to intervene in a privately negotiated contract after the fact.

The EU's behaviour has been quite different. It has, in essence, alleged breach of contract, for which they ought to seek remedy in the courts. However, instead of going to court, they have acted as judge and jury and made regulations allowing them to intervene directly, effectively making a judicial ruling in their own favour.

---------- Post added at 12:24 ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

.. who then royally tried to stiff us over Brexit.

Well, to be fair to them, that Anglophobe Varadkar didn't become teeshirt until 2017.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

However, instead of going to court

??? That's exactly what the EU is doing.

European Union lawyers on Wednesday demanded AstraZeneca (AZN.L) immediately deliver COVID-19 vaccines from its factories in Britain, in a move that risks reigniting a spat with London over scarce vaccine supplies.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...rt-2021-04-28/

---------- Post added at 13:05 ---------- Previous post was at 12:56 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Nor is the EU threatening to withhold exports of the vaccine to the UK.

False equivalence.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

... who then royally tried to stiff us over Brexit.

A Telegraph op ed writer doesn't fully appreciate that the UK is now a third country, I get that. But it doesn't mean anyone's being royally stiffed over.

[jonbxx]

OK, so if I understand, preventing vaccine exports AND preventing the export of materials that allow other countries to make vaccines is all cool but suggesting that you might do similar is not.

If the EU just stopped exports without threatening to do so beforehand, that would be OK? I guess that is how the UK prohibits exports of lifesaving drugs..

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

??? That's exactly what the EU is doing.

Having already taken extrajudicial measures, as you well know. Australia has been denied a shipment, others have been threatened.

[Carth]

European Union lawyers on Wednesday demanded AstraZeneca (AZN.L) immediately deliver COVID-19 vaccines from its factories in Britain

Says it all doesn't it, and lawyers 'demanding' something isn't (to my knowledge) the same as 'going to court'

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Carth

Says it all doesn't it, and lawyers 'demanding' something isn't (to my knowledge) the same as 'going to court'

Correct, stamping your feet and shouting demands isn't quite the same as a judicial hearing.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Carth

Says it all doesn't it, and lawyers 'demanding' something isn't (to my knowledge) the same as 'going to court'

It depends upon the circumstances in which you say it. In the bath, possibly not but at a court hearing like this one, yes.

---------- Post added at 14:48 ---------- Previous post was at 14:44 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Having already taken extrajudicial measures, as you well know. Australia has been denied a shipment, others have been threatened.

You said that the EU ought to seek remedy in the courts. I pointed out that they are doing exactly this. Hopefully we can concur on this.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It depends upon the circumstances in which you say it. In the bath, possibly not but at a court hearing like this one, yes.

---------- Post added at 14:48 ---------- Previous post was at 14:44 ----------


You said that the EU ought to seek remedy in the courts. I pointed out that they are doing exactly this. Hopefully we can concur on this.

No, because if their intention was to abide by the rule of law this would have been their first and only action. What they’re doing now is giving themselves political cover - they’re aiming for exactly what you’re far too eager to give them, which is to get people to forget their heavy-handed and clumsy foray into foreign policy and to fix their attention on the subsequent PR effort.

Regretfully you’re sounding a bit like a regime apologist today.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

No, because if their intention was to abide by the rule of law this would have been their first and only action. What they’re doing now is giving themselves political cover - they’re aiming for exactly what you’re far too eager to give them, which is to get people to forget their heavy-handed and clumsy foray into foreign policy and to fix their attention on the subsequent PR effort.

Regretfully you’re sounding a bit like a regime apologist today.

I've been saying that about Andrew for months.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

No, because if their intention was to abide by the rule of law this would have been their first and only action. What they’re doing now is giving themselves political cover - they’re aiming for exactly what you’re far too eager to give them, which is to get people to forget their heavy-handed and clumsy foray into foreign policy and to fix their attention on the subsequent PR effort.

Regretfully you’re sounding a bit like a regime apologist today.

You're crediting the EU's actions on vaccine procurement with more respect than they deserve, Chris. They've blundered along like a drunk in a dark alleyway and eventually have reached the correct route with this week's court hearings.