[Politics] Brexit

[vegster]

Well I guess we'll all take away different things from the impact assessment. This was the one that leapt out at me: "Brexit-voting areas will be worst hit". Just rather sad really.

Riots maybe when they realise they were sold a false hope ?

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

BG: "Well it's not for me to tell you what a wonderful job they are doing, even if I could do so you wouldn't accept it and that's the point really."

Well you could try, and I really think you'd find it quite hard. But please don't assume that I am not fair minded (I did say that I thought you might have a point.)

In which spirit thanks for taking the trouble to provide the links on the £. I quote from one of them: "But economists said the UK was lagging behind its major rivals, and could have enjoyed stronger growth without the leave vote." That is quite significant, I think you'll agree? I guess like many predictions we'll only really find out in the eventual out-turn.

But I do take your point that we all tend to select evidence that supports our case, whichever side of the fence we are on. Let's just say that the crop of evidence to be harvested is rather more convincing on one side of that fence - but I won't say which. In many ways I wish it were not the case: I would be hugely relieved if Brexit turns out to be a success. But I'd be even more hugely surprised it does.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

Riots maybe when they realise they were sold a false hope ?

Goodness knows: I have a horrible feeling that it might even spark a new level of xenophobia. A UKIP narrative will put the 'blame' squarely on the EU and many will buy that.

 

[Baldseagull]

You'd say yes it would be most obvious but then we keep getting told by remainers that all the car manufacturers are running away from us because of Brexit. Toyota do have plants elsewhere in the EU.

None have run away yet, we know Nissan have had a private meeting with UK Government, but we don't know what they have been promised. If we get the trade deal that puts no tariffs on goods, allows goods to cross easily between borders, there will be little problem. But to achieve this, we will probably be tied to EU external tariff policy, which according to quite a few on here, is unacceptable, and not Brexit.

 

[Baldseagull]

Yes you did say that the likely outcome was your option 1) but you added another two scenarios 2) delay in medicines 3) the UK would become the Wild West of medicine and your mates were all over that like a rash.

The whole debate was triggered with a post from another poster saying that Brexit threatened medicines for cancer patients and after your post others went for your scenario 2) and 3) saying they were the likely outcome, I was simply consistent not needed to be some expert but that with the UK being the 5/6th largest economy in the world we would still have total and unfettered access to medicines after Brexit just like it does today.

There's such a resentfulness for the referendum result that it has spawned a near fanatical belief that the UK's government is incompetent at anything it does and is bound to fail at almost everything it undertakes, take a look at the silly photo of Liam Fox and it's comment.

Bit like the story of the threat of disruption when flying to and from the EU and the UK, I bet without being an aviation expert that you will be able to fly seamlessly from Berlin to Gatwick in a post Brexit UK as you do now, but some posters seem to be convinced that travel between the EU and the UK will be nearly impossible.

I think you have been missing some of the argument, the no flights, the delays to medicines, the restriction to access of isotopes, are all still possible if we don't get a deal done, and leave the EU. Clearly, the idea of these negotiations is to not have this sort of shit, but there are obstacles to be overcome, and the idea of leaving without a deal is batshit mental, however often Rees-Mogg pretends it is all so simple. A deal is going to involve us being aligned to EU rules in some areas at least, which you have to ask, is that Brexit enough for you?

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

Thought I'd cheer everyone up.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...l-cause-huge-tailbacks-warns-calais-port-boss

 

[5ways]

[TWEET]mattholehouse/status/971362249343406081[/TWEET]

[tweet]97136224934340608[/tweet]

 

[ManOfSussex]

Thought I'd cheer everyone up.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...l-cause-huge-tailbacks-warns-calais-port-boss

I remember cycling over The M20 when Phase 4 of Operation Stack was implemented the one-and-only time in 2015 - amazing sight - 30 miles of lorries going nowhere all the way up to Maidstone from the coast on The M20 and the knock-on effects causing chaos on the roads across Kent.

Still, despite no lorry parks being built, no widening of the M20, no duelling of the A2, no Lower Thames Crossing, no guarantee the new HMRC Customs Declaration Service will up-and-running next year and obviously no customs union with The EU - no, no, no - I'm sure it'll probably be okay after Brexit though.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I stand by that. Perfectly accurate reporting. Anyway, as I say, thanks for the chuckle. As you were.

Yet we're not in recession ..... despite you claiming we are ?

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Yet we're not in recession ..... despite you claiming we are ?

It's scaremongering week.

 

[BigGully]

I think you have been missing some of the argument, the no flights, the delays to medicines, the restriction to access of isotopes, are all still possible if we don't get a deal done, and leave the EU. Clearly, the idea of these negotiations is to not have this sort of shit, but there are obstacles to be overcome, and the idea of leaving without a deal is batshit mental, however often Rees-Mogg pretends it is all so simple. A deal is going to involve us being aligned to EU rules in some areas at least, which you have to ask, is that Brexit enough for you?

I am not missing the argument, I have total faith that the EU and the UK wouldn't in any circumstance allow a situation where the UK would not be able to access critical medicines, it was you that started the debate with your post saying : ''there is a disagreement on the effect Brexit may have on treatment of Cancer and other conditions''

It's another example how you cannot contemplate how the UK or the EU might possibly show a mutually morally beneficial outcome on the most basics of human need due to Brexit, if you can think this might ever happen then of course disruption to flying and landing planes or anything else claimed as a consequence of Brexit is an easy given.

 

[BigGully]

I stand by that. Perfectly accurate reporting. Anyway, as I say, thanks for the chuckle. As you were.

I was thinking more down the actual fact line, however if you ''stand by it'' that's ok then .......

 

[The Clamp]

Yet we're not in recession ..... despite you claiming we are ?

It's in the post, old boy.

 

[nicko31]

Big Gully writes: "There's such a resentfulness for the referendum result that it has spawned a near fanatical belief that the UK's government is incompetent at anything it does and is bound to fail at almost everything it undertakes..............."

I do think you might have a point. But, to balance things out a bit, perhaps you could point to some of the successes of the senior Cabinet team in terms of Brexit?

To be fair whatever government took on the task of Brexit I think it would be a mess. But not every government is as stupid as this one to go there in the first place, the Tories did it because they were incapable of dealing with their differences

I don't see anyone behind us to walk the plank

 

[Hampster Gull]

It's in the post, old boy.

As you know our relative performance, from the top to the bottom of major countries economic growth, was delivered by the Postie a few months back by Special Delivery

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

To be fair whatever government took on the task of Brexit I think it would be a mess. But not every government is as stupid as this one to go there in the first place, the Tories did it because they were incapable of dealing with their differences

I don't see anyone behind us to walk the plank

It is a tory mess. We may come out of it, But its unforgivable in my book. Cameron is the worst PM of all time. Fact. You don't fire a gun randomly in the air then run away.

Anyway, this thread is far from a debate. It is a shit throwing competition, with no rules. May be a good idea to close it.

 

[Ernest]

[tweet]971819306395807745[/tweet]

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I am not missing the argument, I have total faith that the EU and the UK wouldn't in any circumstance allow a situation where the UK would not be able to access critical medicines, it was you that started the debate with your post saying : ''there is a disagreement on the effect Brexit may have on treatment of Cancer and other conditions''

It's another example how you cannot contemplate how the UK or the EU might possibly show a mutually morally beneficial outcome on the most basics of human need due to Brexit, if you can think this might ever happen then of course disruption to flying and landing planes or anything else claimed as a consequence of Brexit is an easy given.

I have never said the U.K. won’t have access to new drugs.

And the EU and the U.K. don’t necessary need to strike any deal whatsoever over medicine approval; it’s not a trade deal...more a simple pooling of resources and operations which is at stake. The worst case doesn’t mean anything will stop....just that the EU and the U.K. will operate separately. In my opinion there’s no significant incentive for the EU to strike a deal. If anyone thinks there is I’d like to hear why.

That said, the worst case of no deal and the EMA will lose however many of their 4500 decentralised experts are U.K. citizens. The MHRA will lose access to however many of the 4500 are non-UK. But, what you will also find with this worse case scenario is that as all major companies focus on the EU and the US first British approvals could take longer. EU and US are the two biggest markets and this is where the focus is for business. Secondary markets, eg Japan and Canada , are later. And this is where getting-drugs-later angle comes from. You mention Britain being the 5th biggest economy. Japan is 3rd yet companies still focus on the much bigger markets, ie EU and US, and application and subsequent approval, in these markets typically comes first. I think it is fair to draw a market comparison with Japan and Japanese applications are typically later than EU and US.

Now. You may think I’m a number of things but I take a lot of pride in the work I do, and I’m very professional at it, I’m sincere with my posts on this matter. I’m not scare mongering and I always try to give reasons why I believe what I write. You can chose to disagree but I’d like you, or anyone for that matter, to give some reasons why.

 

[chip]

I have never said the U.K. won’t have access to new drugs.

And the EU and the U.K. don’t necessary need to strike any deal whatsoever over medicine approval; it’s not a trade deal...more a simple pooling of resources and operations which is at stake. The worst case doesn’t mean anything will stop....just that the EU and the U.K. will operate separately. In my opinion there’s no significant incentive for the EU to strike a deal. If anyone thinks there is I’d like to hear why.

That said, the worst case of no deal and the EMA will lose however many of their 4500 decentralised experts are U.K. citizens. The MHRA will lose access to however many of the 4500 are non-UK. But, what you will also find with this worse case scenario is that as all major companies focus on the EU and the US first British approvals could take longer. EU and US are the two biggest markets and this is where the focus is for business. Secondary markets, eg Japan and Canada , are later. And this is where getting-drugs-later angle comes from. You mention Britain being the 5th biggest economy. Japan is 3rd yet companies still focus on the much bigger markets, ie EU and US, and application and subsequent approval, in these markets typically comes first. I think it is fair to draw a market comparison with Japan and Japanese applications are typically later than EU and US.

Now. You may think I’m a number of things but I take a lot of pride in the work I do, and I’m very professional at it, I’m sincere with my posts on this matter. I’m not scare mongering and I always try to give reasons why I believe what I write. You can chose to disagree but I’d like you, or anyone for that matter, to give some reasons why.

I think that the point about time to market for new drugs is important but not always entirely clear whether this is negative or positive. I know that there has been much scaremongering with claims that "people will die", e.g. particularly in relation to cancer therapies https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...-cancer-specialist-paul-workman-a7573851.html. However, the counter to this is in the very small number of meta studies the outcome has been that most drugs that have entered the market with recent EMA approval have no benefit in quality of life or survival rates (e.g. http://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j4530):

Conclusions This systematic evaluation of oncology approvals by the EMA in 2009-13 shows that most drugs entered the market without evidence of benefit on survival or quality of life. At a minimum of 3.3 years after market entry, there was still no conclusive evidence that these drugs either extended or improved life for most cancer indications. When there were survival gains over existing treatment options or placebo, they were often marginal.

There is also a very strong argument that it is beneficial to get real human data before adopting new agents. The most oft quoted example is thalidomide where a delay in approval allowing pertinent patient-use data to become available would have had a very positive outcome. Evidence-base is the key thing, not the regulatory approval mechanism, where large-scale, and preferably prospective longitudinal studies can really evaluate efficacy. So, I guess that there is a real incentive for the EU to co-operate although from a professional point of view it is probably easier and more effective for the UK to engage in closer co-operation with our partners in the US and Canada. There's also no reason why new theraputic agents should be slower to the UK markets with closer alignment with the USA although no evidence that this will lead to better outcomes. This should be about good science not politics.

 

[Baldseagull]

I am not missing the argument, I have total faith that the EU and the UK wouldn't in any circumstance allow a situation where the UK would not be able to access critical medicines, it was you that started the debate with your post saying : ''there is a disagreement on the effect Brexit may have on treatment of Cancer and other conditions''

It's another example how you cannot contemplate how the UK or the EU might possibly show a mutually morally beneficial outcome on the most basics of human need due to Brexit, if you can think this might ever happen then of course disruption to flying and landing planes or anything else claimed as a consequence of Brexit is an easy given.

Mate, if you are Swiss, you will on average be waiting 6 months longer for new drugs to become licensed in your area than EU members. Now, Theresa May has given her intention to remain part of the EMA, good news, should mean we get them as soon as everyone else, BUT, the deal is not done!

I can contemplate how we have no issues, but it will not look like Brexit to the likes of JCFG and Pastafarian, because it will mean we are adopting EU regulations, if this is ok with you, ok. But what is it you want Brexit to achieve?