Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

thirdwave

Members
  • Posts

    1,200
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by thirdwave

  1. How else would you describe conducting 20% of all SM external border checks on goods moving into a province with a population of 1.8 m or rejecting entire consignments of perishable items due minor admin errors such as the use of the wrong ink colour? The chairman of M&S, no fan of Brexit himself, is also clear where much of the blame lay.. "It is not the overall purposes of the customs union that are the problem," Mr Norman added. "It is the pointless and byzantine way in which the regime is enforced that is so business destructive." https://news.sky.com/story/m-s-warns-of-political-running-sore-in-northern-ireland-over-sausage-wars-12360402
  2. Except there is a fundamental difference- the decision to leave was an expression of people's will that the government of the day had to give effect to whereas the decision to deny the city equivalence, along the lines of that granted to the likes of the US, Brazil and Australia, was taken by a bunch of bureaucrats and failed ex politicians 'appointed' to the EU commission.
  3. These are all well rehearsed EU/ rejoiner arguments. For the City, the UK was seeking equivalence and not passporting and there is no rational reason for the EU not to grant it. As for the current problems with the NIP,the document authored by David Frost, which can be found on the gov.uk website, offers a comprehensive rebuttal of all EU/rejoiner claims.
  4. +1 I think the rejoiner line of reasoning, which essentially mirrors that of the EU, reveals a fundamental lack of strategic thinking. I'm frankly baffled by what the EU is seeking to achieve by non engagement with the UK (there are plenty of instances, 2 of which I have cited in my previous post)- the EU sees it's current relationship with the UK as a series of tactical moves with little sense of where this course of action ultimately leads. I suppose some of this may be driven by existential concerns- the familiar Brexiter line about punishing the UK to dissuade other leavers- but as in the case of NIP, it's obvious that the bloc digging itself into a hole by pursuing hollow short term tactical victories. Ultimately this may all be linked to the lack of democratic accountability at the heart of EU institutions- to use the NIP example, the fate of the protocol or the hardship it causes to the NI population is of little electoral consequence to those in positions of power in the EU. As for the EU being a 'rules based' organisation, brazen flouting of the rule of law and ECJ judgements by the likes of Hungary and Poland has revealed that to be a farce too.
  5. The EU was not party to the GFA so it's contribution to the peace process was marginal at best. If, as you state in a previous post, the NI issue was only of peripheral interest to 26 member states (with the exception of Ireland presumably) and viewed only as a minor distraction then is it not conceivable that the protocol as it exists today does not fully reflect the ground realities in NI or account for the grievance and suffering it could potentially engender? Would you concede that the EU, if not cynical, was being slightly ignorant in the way it went about negotiating the protocol? BTW, I don't believe the EU is trying to break up the UK but its actions in the past 12 months- for instance it's refusal to grant similar terms to the City that it offers to the US and even Brazil or, as in the case of NI, equivalence in food standards that's included in FTAs with Canada and NZ- do reveal a degree of unfriendliness if not frank hostility.
  6. As @thecrashingisles has already pointed out, NIP and the CTA are two separate treaties and the annulment of one doesn't necessarily have to lead to abrogation of the other. Besides any remedies/mitigations introduced under the protocol have to be proportionate and limited in their scope to the NIP itself. The NI Chamber of Commerce has today launched legal action against NIP and once it is rejected by the population too, the EU would arguably be left with a bigger mess to sort out.
  7. So you accept the EU cynically weaponised the Irish issue during Brexit negotiations?
  8. What the EU doesn't realise is that it's in its own (and Ireland's) interest to seek a compromise with the UK on NIP. The UK could easily string this out through the courts and unilateral action in the hope that public opinion on the NIP in NI, already split 50:50 along sectarian lines, would swing decisively against it by the time it's put to the vote in 3 1/2 years.
  9. UK is well within its rights to invoke Art 16 unilaterally if conditions are deemed to be met hence the government's opinion is all that matters
  10. Please read the 'command paper' published today- it's on the gov.uk website. It sets out, in detail, circumstances that justify triggering Art 16 and why, in the government's opinion, these are already met
  11. There is a temporal link between vaccination and occurrence of the condition that merits investigation-which is why it is being investigated. For a fit and well 30 year old male in the UK, the risk of dying from CoviD is 1:125000 so 1:20000 risk of developing myocarditis from vaccination may not be one worth taking
  12. So would I and I speak as someone who had both Pfizer shots at the beginning of the year. But I wonder what Europe's response to this would be considering the risks here are much higher than with AZ for the under 30 cohort and that too with a vaccine that costs 10x Edit: As for it being a non serious event, I'd much rather a one off thrombotic event than myocarditis with potential long term consequences for cardiac function
  13. Truism that doesn't quite apply in this case. The risk of death or serious injury from CoviD in 18-30/40 y.o. is very low, far lower than the 1 in 20000 risk of myocarditis from the vaccine.
  14. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9513123/Israel-investigates-Pfizer-vaccine-recipients-reported-inflammation-heart-62-cases.html#article-9513123 Worth pointing out Israel is the only country to have vaccinated the young in enough numbers to pick up this safety signal. It would be interesting to see if this is replicated in the US now that vaccination has been extended to all over 16s. 1 in 20000 in 18-30s is a far higher risk than that for CSVT associated with AZ. Looking forward to the clamour among EU countries to ban Pfizer on the back of this...
  15. No.The EU is threatening to block exports of Pfizer, not AZ vaccines- and the proposed restrictions cover quite a few countries in addition to the UK, for instance Canada and Oz which are expecting deliveries of Pfizer vaccines from its Belgium plant. I don't believe the UK has demanded that AZ divert their EU stock to the UK and, contrary to EU claims, no evidence has emerged to suggest this has happened till date.
  16. The UK will be within its rights to do so if it's part of its contract with AZ- which is what the UK (and AZ's CEO) have claimed. All this really needs to be put in front of a court to pass judgement after studying both contracts. This however does not give the EU the right to interfere with a totally unrelated contract and commandeer Pfizer doses destined for the UK unless EU's own contract with Pfizer gave it first refusal on EU production (not even the EU has claimed this is the case) This is the key difference between the UK's and EU's position on this matter.
  17. The article contains quotes attributed to EU officials mooting such a ban. There are also several references to Pfizer in this context. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-29/eu-sets-vaccine-export-controls-risking-global-battle-for-doses This Bloomberg article says much the same. No one's is saying a ban has been introduced but that is the direction of travel- the EU couldn't make it's intentions any clearer. You are clearly a clever guy so if you still claim I'm peddling 'fake news', we'll have to leave it at that and move on.
  18. That may well be part of AZ's contract with the UK- the French CEO of AZ has said as much. The proper course of action would be for the EU to go to court, demand disclosure of the AZ-UK contract and hold AZ to its commitments. What the EU doing instead is turning this into a confrontation with the UK and threatening to block exports by Pfizer, which has nothing to do with this dispute. The UK's and EU's actions are not really comparable- doing so represents the basic flaw in the Europhile arguement around this issue
  19. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/28/belgium-launches-investigation-of-astrazeneca-vaccine-plant Please read the article in its entirety.
  20. I was agreeing with Dug's assertion that this is a commercial dispute between the EU and AZ. It's the EU that appears to have escalated this into a UK-EU standoff.. Don't think Gove has said anything to create this impression
  21. I'm not a contract law expert but unless you present evidence to the contrary, it'd be inclined to believe that contracts would be protected in most circumstances (unless there are grave public health or national security implications) As for Gove's comments, he may be quoting from the UK-AZ contract- who knows. Once again, this should be decided via a proper judicial process rather than through hostile, disproportionate and asymmetrical actions.
  22. German official sources have briefed the media along these lines on several occasions in the past few days- just google it. The EU has been very clear that the purpose of the export transparency mechanism is to secure it's own supplies. It has also issued an export exemption list which excludes many anglophone countries including Australia. The fact that Australia has raised a grievance with the WHO around this would suggest to me that it feels it's order for primarily Pfizer shots is threatened.
  23. Apples and oranges. If the EU prevents Pfizer from exporting it's vaccine to the UK under the terms of an existing commercial contract and demands that the company sells the vaccine to the EU instead, it does constitute confiscation of commercial property. This is how communist autocracies (like Venezuela under Chavismo) operate. The export bans you cite as a lame defence of EU's actions would most likely apply prospectively- I'm sure existing contracts will be protected in such scenarios.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.