[Politics] Brexit

[BigGully]

You forgot again. How a drug could get approved if the staff don’t exist in the UK?

Are really that daft, so the UK cannot recruit staff, it makes you wonder how anyone or anything outside of the EU functions, what would you do if you were the UK ?

 

[BigGully]

So, to summarise, you don't know anything about what's being discussed, but you bet it will be all ok.

If you simply made this your footer, you could save yourself a lot of typing over the next few months.

Its an absurdity to think that the UK might become the 'Wild West of medicine' due to Brexit, or the supply chain will somehow dry up, its project fear at its worst.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Are really that daft, so the UK cannot recruit staff, it makes you wonder how anyone or anything outside of the EU functions, what would you do if you were the UK ?

We'll throw money at it, surely.


No doubt paying a big contract to the people who currently do the work, and spinning the news of this.

 

[GT49er]

What most likely to happen after Brexit then??

If the EMA won't communicate with the MHRA, I guess the drug manufacturers will be quite happy to supply full details of their approval for use in the EU to the UK authorities. They will still want to sell their products in the UK after all.
At the end of the day, it's big business, not politics, and big business usually finds a way.

 

[BigGully]

We'll throw money at it, surely.


No doubt paying a big contract to the people who currently do the work, and spinning the news of this.

Fine, then you seem not to agree with HT that pharmaceutical Armageddon is an likely outcome due to Brexit.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Fine, then you seem not to agree with HT that pharmaceutical Armageddon is an likely outcome due to Brexit.

That is my guess. Not saying I definitely won't be wrong.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Fine, then you seem not to agree with HT that pharmaceutical Armageddon is an likely outcome due to Brexit.

We can just add it to all the other departments and public bodies which will need to recruit, train and manage huge new numbers of staff, offices, infrastructure and computer systems in the next 16 months.

Tick, tock indeed

 

[GT49er]

We can just add it to all the other departments and public bodies which will need to recruit, train and manage huge new numbers of staff, offices, infrastructure and computer systems in the next 16 months.

Yes, it's appalling - we'll have to re-deploy some of the people currently working to implement EU law, and dealing with other matters relating to our membership of the EU. They won't like that - at least, those that voted to remain won't...........................

 

[WATFORD zero]

Yes, it's appalling - we'll have to re-deploy some of the people currently working to implement EU law, and dealing with other matters relating to our membership of the EU. They won't like that - at least, those that voted to remain won't...........................

Brilliant - I didn't realise that we mirrored all the EU jobs with our own BRITISH team. You should have mentioned it earlier

Maybe we can forget about the extra 2 years membership that we are trying to get and just re-assign existing staff. (Those who survived the austerity cuts)

 

[BigGully]

We can just add it to all the other departments and public bodies which will need to recruit, train and manage huge new numbers of staff, offices, infrastructure and computer systems in the next 16 months.

Tick, tock indeed

Yes change, things are changing, recruitment might be needed, money might need to be spent, but you cannot post up an example of something as bound to fail whilst not acknowledging the UK's likelihood of ensuring that will not fail.

Argue the toss about cost, bureaucracy, recruitment or whatever floats your boat, but to post an inevitable pharmaceutical Armageddon is plain daft and project fear at its most ignorant.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Yes change, things are changing, recruitment might be needed, money might need to be spent, but you cannot post up an example of something as bound to fail whilst not acknowledging the UK's likelihood of ensuring that will not fail.

Argue the toss about cost, bureaucracy, recruitment or whatever floats your boat, but to post an inevitable pharmaceutical Armageddon is plain daft and project fear at its most ignorant.

You were telling people from that industry that they were wrong but you still haven't explained how it would work ?

Bit like my experience is with large corporates, government departments, and politicians which is why I am now highlighting the problems in those areas and why I think we will extend our membership beyond the 2 further years we've already requested. I wonder what is your area of expertise that 'floats your boat' ?

But back to the medical industry - what's your solution ?

 

[BigGully]

You were telling people from that industry that they were wrong but you still haven't explained how it would work ?

Bit like my experience is with large corporates, government departments, and politicians which is why I am now highlighting the problems in those areas and why I think we will extend our membership beyond the 2 further years we've already requested.

But back to the medical industry - what's your solution ?

I was telling HT who is a committed Remainer and seems to think that the UK is incapable of most things and those posters on here that immediately accept any morsel of impending UK gloom that it is absurd to think that Brexit is likely to cause the outcomes he suggested, HT didn't once offer a view of how these things might be mitigated, it was his usual wallowing of UK incompetence and Brexiteers ignorance and it's all so predictable.

Change is happening, Brexit will involve some challenges, but to think the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world is unable to find solutions to pharmaceutical supply seems unlikely.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I was telling HT who is a committed Remainer and seems to think that the UK is incapable of most things and those posters on here that immediately accept any morsel of impending UK gloom that it is absurd to think that Brexit is likely to cause the outcomes he suggested, HT didn't once offer a view of how these things might be mitigated, it was his usual wallowing of UK incompetence and Brexiteers ignorance and it's all so predictable.

Change is happening, Brexit will involve some challenges, but to think the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world is unable to find solutions to pharmaceutical supply seems unlikely.

But back to the medical industry - what's your solution ?

 

[BigGully]

But back to the medical industry - what's your solution ?

Dont be daft, finding a solution implies there is firstly a problem and if one does exist then I shall leave that to the UK government.

 

[CHAPPERS]

I was telling HT who is a committed Remainer and seems to think that the UK is incapable of most things and those posters on here that immediately accept any morsel of impending UK gloom that it is absurd to think that Brexit is likely to cause the outcomes he suggested, HT didn't once offer a view of how these things might be mitigated, it was his usual wallowing of UK incompetence and Brexiteers ignorance and it's all so predictable.

Change is happening, Brexit will involve some challenges, but to think the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world is unable to find solutions to pharmaceutical supply seems unlikely.

I agree with the point that solutions will be found, of course they will. It’s how long it takes to find them and the cost implications that are worrying. This government doesn’t seem to have any idea what they are doing are they are in charge of finding these solutions.

 

[BigGully]

I agree with the point that solutions will be found, of course they will. It’s how long it takes to find them and the cost implications that are worrying. This government doesn’t seem to have any idea what they are doing are they are in charge of finding these solutions.

I doubt whether the government is as inept as you say, I suspect that there is an army of highly skilled civil servants that will unpick most regulation and deliver positive outcomes within time frames that don't adversely effect stuff.

I do agree that it is a valid position to challenge costs and implementation times if you think these exists, but that wasn't how HT instigated this debate.

 

[Two Professors]

No one has been abused for having an Italian mother, they are getting some stick for telling us all so frequently, likewise no one has been abusive about anyones medical condition, there is a disagreement on the effect Brexit may have on treatment of Cancer and other conditions. I and others believe it could cause delays and increase costs, particularly for new treatments coming to the UK, and could cause treatments for rarer diseases to not reach us at all.
By having the EMA approve treatments for all member states, conditions that affect only 1 in 100,000, which would be not financially interesting for most Pharma companies if they had to apply for 28 licenses, suddenly become worth looking at. It also reduces the cost of approval for use, which should result in a reduced price on the market. If we are outside of this, we would be asking Pharma companies to pay for trials just for the UK market, adding to their cost and therefore the price, and for rarer disease, even if they have a drug which they know will get through trials, it may not be financially viable for them to do so, if the numbers of people requiring the treatment are small.
Then there is the ability to fund services, but that is just project fear nonsense I would guess.

I find it odd that you claim nobody has been abused for having an ITALIAN mother-how did you manage to choose that particular nationality?Why someone should specifically target medical drugs for cancer,knowing a fellow poster has it,if not intending to cause distress,to the extent of continuing after they had that information again.Groovy gang at their worst again.

 

[beorhthelm]

I agree with the point that solutions will be found, of course they will. It’s how long it takes to find them and the cost implications that are worrying. This government doesn’t seem to have any idea what they are doing are they are in charge of finding these solutions.

i agree with that to a point - the government isnt being seen to be doing much. they do have several 10000s of staff with hundreds in a department dedicated to this. there are further quasi-government and industry bodies researching and providing papers on this. the trouble is the politicians are still fighting over the result and in some cases making cheap party political points, last night a couple of MPs were on TV and one made a good point to begin then regressed back to argument over whether we should/could leave or not. not about the how, but whether it should happen.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

there's another legitimate option you ignore, call it 1.5. MHRA cooperates with EMA, signing off EMA approved drugs are suitable for UK. you dont need to apply EU law to do this.

another point that MHRA wont have the staff to handle regulation seems overstated. its a larger organisation than EMA to begin, and neither are directly involved in trials and evaluations which occur out in the hospitals etc by drug companies and third parties. depending on where EMA moves to there may be an large number of staff from EMA who dont want to relocate (likely 30% staff by their own estimates).

Are you suggesting, for your 1.5, that the UK simply accepts another body’s recommendation? Or have I misunderstood?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Yes change, things are changing, recruitment might be needed, money might need to be spent, but you cannot post up an example of something as bound to fail whilst not acknowledging the UK's likelihood of ensuring that will not fail.

Argue the toss about cost, bureaucracy, recruitment or whatever floats your boat, but to post an inevitable pharmaceutical Armageddon is plain daft and project fear at its most ignorant.

My definition of ignorant is talking about things you don’t have a clue about.