advertisement


Brexit: give me a positive effect... XII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Straight from the bouche of the cheval. Michel Barnier, no less, not just admitting that the UK did so much better than the EU with the vaccine development and rollout by virtue of being small, fast-acting and nimble, but that the EU proved ill-suited due to its excessive bureaucracy and tendency to risk-aversion.

"I recognise that there were administrative problems, bureaucracy. There was an almost ideological mistrust of public-private partnerships. We don’t know how to take risks. The British took risks by financing the private sector. The Americans took risks. We don’t know how to do that yet.”

“Perhaps there are issues regarding Europe where we should give back competencies to countries, to regions, to do ‘subsidiarity’ (where national governments decide), and in other areas consolidate competencies.”

At least he got a bit of 'consolidation' in at the end, the old fox.
 
eternumviti said:
Don't get me wrong, I'm appalled at what has happened with regard to the fishing industry, and the wider agri-food sectors. My background is in stock farming, and my livelihood is in what is essentially a small-scale agricultural produce. If there is one thing that has made me falter in my belief that leaving the EU is a positive thing, that is it.
Click to expand...

Interesting. You say the one thing that has given you reason to doubt the wisdom of leaving the EU is the direct or perceived impact on your livelihood, or that of others in related sectors - and yet appear to be dismiss the concerns of the many others upthread who have expressed similar concerns or actual experience of the same in other areas, with repeated declarations to the effect that things will - of course - work out in the fullness of time ?

Comes across very much akin to the poor beleaguered individual who knows full well the company/organisation/country has made a sh*tty decision, but feels duty bound to support and defend it in public, irrespective of whether they believe it or not.

We've all been there :)
 
russel said:
Er, we “gave up” when we decided that we were not going to go through the bothersome hard work and investment of creating wealth, instead the west becoming wealthy involved rentier capitalism and gambling. As I have mentioned before no one in the whole of Europe has the technology to manufacture the pcb used in a modern mobile phone, we are largely dependent on China. Yes your customers got rich by not investing in Europe, shifting production offshore, shifting design offshore and now there is a critical knowledge gap in many key areas, not just PCB manufacture.
Click to expand...
Manufacturing has declined and with it the trained skill base along with well paid jobs.
Chinese students i have met in Durham do Business or Banking degrees, they work very hard and there are thousands of them. Wait until they are able to control the finance work done in London, then we will have a real problem.
 
Colin Barron said:
Manufacturing has declined and with it the trained skill base along with well paid jobs.
Chinese students i have met in Durham do Business or Banking degrees, they work very hard and there are thousands of them. Wait until they are able to control the finance work done in London, then we will have a real problem.
Click to expand...

Don't worry: Brexit will ensure there is less to lose by then. Finance is easier to relocate than manufacturing. And without a golden goose...
 
eternumviti said:
Straight from the bouche of the cheval. Michel Barnier, no less, not just admitting that the UK did so much better than the EU with the vaccine development and rollout by virtue of being small, fast-acting and nimble, but that the EU proved ill-suited due to its excessive bureaucracy and tendency to risk-aversion.

"I recognise that there were administrative problems, bureaucracy. There was an almost ideological mistrust of public-private partnerships. We don’t know how to take risks. The British took risks by financing the private sector. The Americans took risks. We don’t know how to do that yet.”

“Perhaps there are issues regarding Europe where we should give back competencies to countries, to regions, to do ‘subsidiarity’ (where national governments decide), and in other areas consolidate competencies.”

At least he got a bit of 'consolidation' in at the end, the old fox.
Click to expand...
I notice that you like to repeat this mischaracterisation- see paragraph one. Medicines regulation is intrinsic to “vaccine development and roll out”. There’s no legitimate place for politicisation, cutting corners or forcing schedules and for you to describe the process of which regulation is not just a major part but more often than not, the rate determining step, as excessively bureaucratic and risk-averse, is really a display of ignorance and probably worse.
 
wacko said:
Don't worry: Brexit will ensure there is less to lose by then. Finance is easier to relocate than manufacturing. And without a golden goose...
Click to expand...
Reports of verbal abuse and violence toward people of Chinese appearance in Britain are on the increase and the last sentence of the post you were replying to, represents an attitude that is part of the problem I’m afraid.

The “year of hatred”-

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021...-asians-in-the-uk-reflect-on-a-year-of-hatred
 
TheDecameron said:
I notice that you like to repeat this mischaracterisation- see paragraph one. Medicines regulation is intrinsic to “vaccine development and roll out”. There’s no legitimate place for politicisation, cutting corners or forcing schedules and for you to describe the process of which regulation is not just a major part but more often than not, the rate determining step, as excessively bureaucratic and risk-averse, is really a display of ignorance and probably worse.
Click to expand...

One gamble pays off - we should gamble more.
 
Always remember that Spaffer’s first plan was herd immunity through exposure. Thank **** the experts talked him out of that gamble.
 
-alan- said:
Interesting. You say the one thing that has given you reason to doubt the wisdom of leaving the EU is the direct or perceived impact on your livelihood, or that of others in related sectors - and yet appear to be dismiss the concerns of the many others upthread who have expressed similar concerns or actual experience of the same in other areas, with repeated declarations to the effect that things will - of course - work out in the fullness of time ?

Comes across very much akin to the poor beleaguered individual who knows full well the company/organisation/country has made a sh*tty decision, but feels duty bound to support and defend it in public, irrespective of whether they believe it or not.

We've all been there :)
Click to expand...

Not at all. Brexit has certainly impacted my industry, but I voted to leave in the full knowledge that it would do so. To a greater or lesser extent I placed principle over personal consequences. It was a fine line.
 
TheDecameron said:
I notice that you like to repeat this mischaracterisation- see paragraph one. Medicines regulation is intrinsic to “vaccine development and roll out”. There’s no legitimate place for politicisation, cutting corners or forcing schedules and for you to describe the process of which regulation is not just a major part but more often than not, the rate determining step, as excessively bureaucratic and risk-averse, is really a display of ignorance and probably worse.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. There's a line that has to be drawn somewhere between 'caution' and 'excessive caution'. Barnier himself was admitting that the EU veered too much towards the excessive, as of course it inevitably would do, because the EC, which runs the show, is also the union's bureaucracy.
 
Look at the advertising linkage-

v8T8wJm.jpg
 
Incidentally, at no point did I dismiss the importance of medicine regulation. The Pfizer and AZ vaccines both went through the UK's meds regulatory body, which just happened to act more quickly that the EMA.
 
eternumviti said:
Not at all. Brexit has certainly impacted my industry, but I voted to leave in the full knowledge that it would do so. To a greater or lesser extent I placed principle over personal consequences. It was a fine line.
Click to expand...

I can respect that.

Do you think it's fair to say that at the national level, the UK Govt has in effect done the same i.e placed the principle of 'Sovereignty' (whatever that may be) over any and all foreseeable commercial and social consequences ?
 
I'm not sure what principles the government has employed, if any. I try to look past individual governments on this. What they and future governments do with what we've got is now the most important factor.
 
eternumviti said:
I'm not sure what principles the government has employed, if any. I try to look past individual governments on this. What they and future governments do with what we've got is now the most important factor.
Click to expand...
Had the U.K. regulator approved Sputnik and Sinovax first, would you have supported their roll out and administration to the U.K. public?
 
Interesting discussion on LBC yesterday. Seems the government are now concerned about the serious levels of investment the Chinese state has made in to UK business sectors.

Osborne and Cameron were pivotal in this opening to China in their time at the helm.

Yet people here think that being part of the EU gave us some sort of security.

It did nothing of the sort. The world is changing big time, and a reset is unavoidable IMO. Brexit could be a sideshow in comparison.
 
Duty free cigarettes, if you're lucky enough to holiday in Europe any time soon. And er, you like tobacco as much as I do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top