Brexit (Old)

Originally Posted by Mick

BREAKING: Number 10: No plans to call in the army if Britain leaves EU without a deal.

Just goes to show the stories like the one this weekend of the army being on standby, are from Remainers launching Project Fear 2.1 with fiction in combination with the Fake News Media.

The no-deal preparations were being demanded by the Brexiters in Government.

Also the Army are on standby for things a lot. When there is flooding the army comes in and when G4S couldn't handle security for the Olympics then the army covered.

In the end it's costs nothing and if the ports end up being gridlocked then everyone here would be blaming May for not having a plan-B. I am miffed at the people who not only want no deal but don't want us to make any preparations for it.

Originally Posted by pip08456

That was due to a report in project fears biggest promoter, The Sunday Times.

The Sunday Times backed Leave.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...inkId=25687995

This Thursday, therefore, we should vote to leave. Yes, we must be prepared for a bumpy ride, but we should hold our nerve. This vote may be the only opportunity we shall ever have to call a halt to the onward march of the centralising European project. Such a state would be neither in our interests, nor Europe’s. In this referendum campaign, we have been rethinking our identity: not as an offshore island nation, but as a global player. By our example, Britain may also force Europe to think again about its own destination. We can help our friends face a better future.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Nothing stopping us from automatically approving EU regulated drugs or anything else. And we can produce things that meet EU regulations. After all, other non-EU countries must manage it, including China. The thing is we might want to produce or accept products with looser regulations or perhaps stricter regulations.


I can remember an issue from several years ago, where UK regulations for UHT milk were stricter than in France. We were forced to accept French UHT milk which didn't meet our own internal regulations which our producers had to meet. UHT milk may not be much of an issue, but it does demonstrate the issue.

You are absolutely right, the best way would be to mirror EMA rules at least in the short term, creating a ‘one way single market’ for drug imports. The other way with exports may be more tricky but that wasn’t the issue being discussed here.

The major concern regarding drug shortages is holdups at the import stage, especially for cold chain drugs such as vaccines and other biologicals, hence the article from Sir Michael Rawlins, head of the MHRA- https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.c...irstPass=false

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

You are absolutely right, the best way would be to mirror EMA rules at least in the short term, creating a ‘one way single market’ for drug imports. The other way with exports may be more tricky but that wasn’t the issue being discussed here.

The major concern regarding drug shortages is holdups at the import stage, especially for cold chain drugs such as vaccines and other biologicals, hence the article from Sir Michael Rawlins, head of the MHRA- https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.c...irstPass=false

Still not seeing anything that would explain any alleged potential blockage or hold-up.

He said: “We can’t just sit at the edge of the room watching what’s going on, not speaking: we need to have a say.
“We do about a third of scientific assessments for the EMA, so we make a major contribution. The EMA has reassigned the UK’s portfolio of centrally authorised products to other EU member states, but the ideal solution would be to get it all back again.”

Any blockages or hold-ups on drugs or anything else, would be at the EU end, ie Export from the UK.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Still not seeing anything that would explain any alleged potential blockage or hold-up.

Any blockages or hold-ups on drugs or anything else, would be at the EU end, ie Export from the UK.

It's the country that imports goods that would check them to ascertain that they are what they say they are so that they pay the relevant duties and meet the appropriate standards. If medicines were zero-rated and other items not zero-rated, then the importing country would need to check that the goods were actually medicines. And presumably the driver's licence and insurance would need verifying too.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Still not seeing anything that would explain any alleged potential blockage or hold-up.

Any blockages or hold-ups on drugs or anything else, would be at the EU end, ie Export from the UK.

Don't you just love all these reports from Professors,Heads of departments etc who don't even bother prefixing their reports with "In a worst case scenario"?

After all, that's what their reports are.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It's the country that imports goods that would check them to ascertain that they are what they say they are so that they pay the relevant duties and meet the appropriate standards. If medicines were zero-rated and other items not zero-rated, then the importing country would need to check that the goods were actually medicines. And presumably the driver's licence and insurance would need verifying too.

The article doesn't say any of that. How long would any checks(if they're done) take? We are an island and delays happen all the time, eg Channel Tunnel closed, Ferries not operating because of bad weather. Then there are often delays transporting within the UK. Still nothing that would hold things up to such an extent as to cause problems.


Anything in and coming from the EU, is supposed to meet EU regulations. That is supposed to be one of the EUs concerns. That the UK could produce or export something to the EU that doesn't meet their regulations, unless the EU restricts and checks the items.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

The major concern regarding drug shortages is holdups at the import stage, especially for cold chain drugs such as vaccines and other biologicals, hence the article from Sir Michael Rawlins, head of the MHRA- https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.c...irstPass=false

Did you see the link I posted here? It is an interesting article fact checking Sir Michael Rawlins warning. It would be interesting to know you thoughts on it ..

---------- Post added at 20:53 ---------- Previous post was at 20:51 ----------

Originally Posted by pip08456

Don't you just love all these reports from Professors,Heads of departments etc who don't even bother prefixing their reports with "In a worst case scenario"?

After all, that's what their reports are.

But why are they warning of potential issues? Are they all conspiring to mislead the public or are they trying to be realistic on what is a probable outcome?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Repeating "we will be fine, have faith" with no proof or worked examples is just hot air.

Spot on.

---------- Post added at 21:08 ---------- Previous post was at 21:04 ----------

Originally Posted by pip08456

Don't you just love all these reports from Professors,Heads of departments etc who don't even bother prefixing their reports with "In a worst case scenario"?

After all, that's what their reports are.

I think that's as accurate as the statement that The Sunday Times being the biggest proponent of Project Fear. I think you'll find caveats a plenty in these reports.

---------- Post added at 21:10 ---------- Previous post was at 21:08 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

But why are they warning of potential issues? Are they all conspiring to mislead the public or are they trying to be realistic on what is a probable outcome?

I think that they are describing a worse case scenario which I'm sure won't arise. But if you don't know what a worst case scenario looks like, there's less motivation to avoid it.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Did you see the link I posted here? It is an interesting article fact checking Sir Michael Rawlins warning. It would be interesting to know you thoughts on it ..

---------- Post added at 20:53 ---------- Previous post was at 20:51 ----------



But why are they warning of potential issues? Are they all conspiring to mislead the public or are they trying to be realistic on what is a probable outcome?

Ultimately we can initially wave through anything from the EU in whatever way we do now. It is only when we start to apply our our specific regulations and tariffs that we would have to have any further checks.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Ultimately we can initially wave through anything from the EU in whatever way we do now. It is only when we start to apply our our specific regulations and tariffs that we would have to have any further checks.

In the event of a no-deal WTO rules would prevent our giving special treatment to any single trading partner. So we couldn't wave EU goods through without doing the same to those from China, India, Russia, US, Albania, etc.

[Sephiroth]

Hence I expect there to be a fudge. Damien agrees with me!

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Hence I expect there to be a fudge. Damien agrees with me!

Beano! Sorry BINO.

Meanwhile, a Sky survey has some bad news for Theresa May with just 10% of the British public thinking the Government is doing a good job on Brexit.

British public opinion has shifted sharply against Brexit, according to a new Sky Data poll.

The survey reveals:

:: The government is haemorrhaging trust regarding the Brexit negotiations

:: Two-thirds of the public - including a majority of Leave voters - now think the outcome of Brexit negotiations will be bad for Britain

:: A significant increase in the proportion who think Brexit will negatively affect themselves personally, the economy and the country overall

:: Most people would like to see a referendum asking between the deal suggested by the government, no deal, and remaining in the EU.

https://news.sky.com/story/public-op...veals-11453220

:: Sky Data interviewed a nationally representative sample of 1,466 Sky customers online 20-23 July 2018. Data are weighted to the profile of the population. Sky Data is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. For full tables, please click here.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

In the event of a no-deal WTO rules would prevent our giving special treatment to any single trading partner. So we couldn't wave EU goods through without doing the same to those from China, India, Russia, US, Albania, etc.

Then how does the EU impose it's own restrictions at the moment? Effectively we currently give "special treatment" to certain countries ie the EU, so how is that allowed?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Then how does the EU impose it's own restrictions at the moment? Effectively we currently give "special treatment" to certain countries ie the EU, so how is that allowed?

So, we are currently part of the EU which is a WTO member. When we leave the EU, we become a WTO member in our own right.
If we leave the EU without a deal (aka "clean break", "hard Brexit") then we trade on WTO terms and have to treat every WTO member the same hence talk of delays.

[1andrew1]

Bit more information here for those wishing to grow their understanding of how Dover might be impacted. This comes from impact reports from the local (Conservative) authorities there.

13-mile lorry park may last 'many years' after Brexit, impact reports reveal
Brexit impact reports from local councils, obtained by Sky News, reveal exasperation at government planning for March 2019.
According to internal Brexit impact reports from two Conservative-run local councils, the conversion of four lanes of the M20 motorway into a 13-mile (20km) long lorry park [Project Brock] could be in place for a number of years after the UK's departure from the EU...

Worryingly, the Government is trying to hide this preparation from voters.

The government has suggested the need for this disruption is not part of its Brexit plans, and the UK's departure from the EU was not mentioned in the written statement announcing the plan or the consultation document.
This does not appear to be correct, however.
Local businesses have been told it will take up to two weeks to activate the plan, unlike the few minutes Operation Stack requires following news of disruption in Calais.
The only plausible use for such a system is in anticipation of a structural increase in customs and regulatory checks at the UK border following Brexit in March next year.
Kent County Council also point out in its report that "Brock" stands for "Brexit Operations Across Kent".

https://news.sky.com/story/13-mile-l...eveal-11454991