The EU v UK vaccine tussle

[RedWhiteMonkey]

Teddy Lop said:

if you'd followed the thread its been stated several times, but I'll outline it again for you.

Vindication. For those of us who, after a quantity of conscientious and considered thought, and with the best will, voted for brexit, and for the last 4 years have been subject to maelstrom of spite by an indignant minority who, despite being in many cases intelligent and compassionate people, hold themselves to this daft PC monocultural doctrine that precludes independent thought, and the heresy "we" committed in voting brexit has made us the target for the kind of spite and vile behaviour that were they able to look in the mirror and appreciate the depth they've sunk to they'd be disgusted. At least, for their sakes, I sincerely hope they would. Unable to counter the many genuine reasons to vote out of the eu we've been smeared and sneered at with "stupid" and "racist" being the only "allowable explanations" and in many cases, as the cultural and media elites are largely taken by this gospel and have continued to excrete this constant anti-brexit propaganda, and despite being a majority have been made to hide as if in shame. "They" tell me because I'm a straight white male that I can't emphasise with the struggles of gays or blacks etc - "they" might want to really look at the orgy of hate and hostility they've indulged in while exploiting their powerbase of culture and media influence. Isn't the "woke" definition of racism/oppression now "discrimination plus power?

And now, brexit has happened. now we have what one might call one of the first great challenges of the two administrations, a subject the eu and its fans were stating as fact that Britain had to join the eu program or it would surely suffer terribly, too incompetent to mangage by itself they said, again they revelled in the besmirching of the UK, we would be killing our grandmothers if we didn't subject ourselves to the supremacy and compassion of the eu's program they said.

And the day of truth comes... And the eu has shown a full gamut of just how appalling it is, we have its utter incompetence, its complete failure in its duty to its 300M peoples health and life, we have its response which is to immediately resort to utterly dictatorial behaviour, undermining the market freedom and the trust in law and due process that binds a democracy together, we have, instead of attempting to "mend" the situation, an eu that has been more preoccupied with trying to mask its incompetence, blaming everyone but itself, even tampering with the NI border and risking the wrath of terrorists to try to deflect from its inadequatness. That alone should frighten even the most zealous, starry flagged eu fanboys.

Meanwhile, rather inconveniently and lets be honest, probably against even most of team-brexits most optimistic predictions, Boris has torn a hole in the back of the net and for good measure knocked out a passing traffic warden. I don't know how he did it, I'm not sure he does, but it's properly fking hilarious.

So let us enjoy this vindication. I hope the countries of europe sort their st out and wish for the least amount of death and suffering on its peoples. And that can be entirely selfish - Like it or not the health of Britain is dependant in every way on a Europe that's healthy too. Life is not a zero sum game.

Blimey, I hope your blood pressure is ok, that's quite a rant. It's also rather unrelated to me. You've only commented on the last paragraph of my entire post. I am not an EU apologist, they have many faults and I am not a big fan (that way clearly stated in my first paragraph). Apparent Brexit blindness is causing some to not see that Brexit and the pandemic are separate things. EU member states are free to pursue their own vaccination purchasing and strategy, they are not obliged to follow the EU. The EU seems to have messed up the speed of vaccination through undue bureaucracy but no matter what you may think it is in the world's interest to get this sorted. I'm sure you'll accept that there are fervent remainers and brexiteers throughout pistonheads (I know which way I voted but have never questioned the result, the people spoke), some do appear to be rather graceless.

Edited by RedWhiteMonkey on Saturday 6th March 15:08

[SlimJim16v]

youngsyr said:

I heard on BBC radio a couple of weeks ago that just being present in the UK qualifies you for the vaccine if you're in an age group that is being vaccinated.

No need to be a British citizen, or even there legally.

Good luck!

You need your NHS number to book it.

[Teddy Lop]

RedWhiteMonkey said:

Blimey, I hope your blood pressure is ok, that's quite a rant. It's also rather unrelated to me. You've only commented on the last paragraph of my entire post. I am not an EU apologist, they have many faults and I am not a big fan (that way clearly stated in my first paragraph). Apparent Brexit blindness is causing some to not see that Brexit and the pandemic are separate things. EU member states are free to pursue their own vaccination purchasing and strategy, they are not obliged to follow the EU. The EU seems to have messed up the speed of vaccination through undue bureaucracy but no matter what you may think it is in the world's interest to get this sorted. I'm sure you'll accept that there are fervent remainers and brexiteers throughout pistonheads (I know which way I voted but have never questioned the result, the people spoke), some do appear to be rather graceless.

Edited by RedWhiteMonkey on Saturday 6th March 15:08

I'm alright thanks for the concern

Yes, they are very different topics, but vaccine procurement being such an important issue and becoming relevant so soon after the brexit date makes comparison somewhat unavoidable.

Your last paragraph "I don't get the delight" was the pertinent point I was trying to address, delight may seem poor taste but this has rightly or wrongly served as a release valve for some of the frustration and annoyance at the demonisation of brexit and the undermining of our national identity* - of course as ever there are nut-jobs on both sides (while most normal people congregate around the center and have more in common with each other than with either extreme regardless of how they identify) - but one side has had, and has certainly used, its power to malign the other.

• i don't even consider myself much of a nationalist per se so much as in pragmatic terms its the one I have and it's an immutable characteristic, so F*k you to anyone who wants to drag it down, I'm going down defending it.

[loafer123]

Just bumped into a friend who, alongside his wife, is volunteering at the local drive in vaccination centre.

He said that, at the start, 700 was a big day, now it’s normal.

I said I would bring him some more biscuits when I came for mine and he said everyone has been very generous with supplies to keep them warm and motivated.

[NRS]

RedWhiteMonkey said:

Apparent Brexit blindness is causing some to not see that Brexit and the pandemic are separate things. EU member states are free to pursue their own vaccination purchasing and strategy, they are not obliged to follow the EU. The EU seems to have messed up the speed of vaccination through undue bureaucracy but no matter what you may think it is in the world's interest to get this sorted. I'm sure you'll accept that there are fervent remainers and brexiteers throughout pistonheads (I know which way I voted but have never questioned the result, the people spoke), some do appear to be rather graceless.

The pandemic response is a (small) part of Brexit though, and presumably the type of thing Brexiteers wanted to change to benefit us. The EU states could do their own thing technically, but in reality there is a lot of soft power pushing them into joining the larger EU unity project. Just look at the criticism Austria and Hungary have got for wanting to do their own thing in the future now. They could have done their own things, but there will be a lot of pressure to not do it. There's likely also the impact of political risk of doing your own thing when offered to be part of the EU response to problems... if you do it with the EU and screw up - the EU can be blamed. If you do it on your own and you screw up - you'll lose a lot of votes because you didn't follow the EU/successful version. So it's skewed politically towards joining the crowd for the decision makers.

I'm not a Brexiteer or a Remainer (one of the few!) as I can see that Remain would benefit me, but for a large part of society the globalisation aspect of being in the EU is probably a bad thing (means businesses can take advantage of workers due to free movement - hence the lack of real wage rises and inflation despite all the QE). Plus of course there is huge issues in the EU such as Greece now being unable to improve as a country, as if they leave there is a massive capital flight, but by staying in their cannot create growth and so are pretty doomed. The UK also has big problems and issues in politics - but in the UK I have more of a voice to change things - even if it's limited due to the 2 party system.

One of the issues I have is not just the slow roll out, but the response to it to shift blame, which has involved doing the stuff they told others not to do - Article 16, the ban on exports to other countries etc. And worst of all undermining the vaccines, which has resulted in many not taking it. Although it's done in a more polite wording, that is the type of thing Trump would have done.

Andy 308GTB said:

"The EU and the US are both major producers of vaccines and we have a strong interest in working together, for the good functioning of global supply chains" von der Leyen said in a statement after the call.

This is the key phrase. I suspect the americans understanding is 'Global' (i.e. not simply putting the EU in front of everyone else).

To be followed in future by Von der Leyen getting grumpy at the US as she thought there was a deal that the EU would get priority, whereas the US thought it was actually what was said.

[Muddle238]

NRS said:

The pandemic response is a (small) part of Brexit though, and presumably the type of thing Brexiteers wanted to change to benefit us. The EU states could do their own thing technically, but in reality there is a lot of soft power pushing them into joining the larger EU unity project. Just look at the criticism Austria and Hungary have got for wanting to do their own thing in the future now. They could have done their own things, but there will be a lot of pressure to not do it. There's likely also the impact of political risk of doing your own thing when offered to be part of the EU response to problems... if you do it with the EU and screw up - the EU can be blamed. If you do it on your own and you screw up - you'll lose a lot of votes because you didn't follow the EU/successful version. So it's skewed politically towards joining the crowd for the decision makers.

Quite. IIRC, before the EU procurement programme, France, Italy, NL and Germany I believe we’re all in line with the UK trying to establish early talks with the vaccine companies. However, Brussels stuck their oar in and demanded that they hold off and let Brussels do the talking on behalf of the whole EU, in a show of power, masqueraded as a show of unity.

The EU very visibly shut down any nation showing initiative, applying much pressure to join their procurement scheme. We’ve always been told it wasn’t mandatory, but look at how many countries opted out. That speaks volumes about how “mandatory” it was.

Once the EU has the big boys (FR, DE) onboard, it’s then politically difficult for smaller countries to say no, due to the aforementioned blame culture. It’s known as “risky shift”, whereby a group will likely accept a riskier decision when involved with others, rather than a less risky decision had they acted alone.

Brexit timing was ideal, it meant we were under no illusions about EU procurement and the EU was happy for us to go it alone, so they could make an example of us. Well, we’ve certainly set an example, and I see no problems with Austria, Hungry, Poland etc., also going it alone. Each nation must put its own citizens first, not the EU.

[Digga]

Muddle238 said:

NRS said:

The pandemic response is a (small) part of Brexit though, and presumably the type of thing Brexiteers wanted to change to benefit us. The EU states could do their own thing technically, but in reality there is a lot of soft power pushing them into joining the larger EU unity project. Just look at the criticism Austria and Hungary have got for wanting to do their own thing in the future now. They could have done their own things, but there will be a lot of pressure to not do it. There's likely also the impact of political risk of doing your own thing when offered to be part of the EU response to problems... if you do it with the EU and screw up - the EU can be blamed. If you do it on your own and you screw up - you'll lose a lot of votes because you didn't follow the EU/successful version. So it's skewed politically towards joining the crowd for the decision makers.

Quite. IIRC, before the EU procurement programme, France, Italy, NL and Germany I believe we’re all in line with the UK trying to establish early talks with the vaccine companies. However, Brussels stuck their oar in and demanded that they hold off and let Brussels do the talking on behalf of the whole EU, in a show of power, masqueraded as a show of unity.

The EU very visibly shut down any nation showing initiative, applying much pressure to join their procurement scheme. We’ve always been told it wasn’t mandatory, but look at how many countries opted out. That speaks volumes about how “mandatory” it was.

Once the EU has the big boys (FR, DE) onboard, it’s then politically difficult for smaller countries to say no, due to the aforementioned blame culture. It’s known as “risky shift”, whereby a group will likely accept a riskier decision when involved with others, rather than a less risky decision had they acted alone.

Brexit timing was ideal, it meant we were under no illusions about EU procurement and the EU was happy for us to go it alone, so they could make an example of us. Well, we’ve certainly set an example, and I see no problems with Austria, Hungry, Poland etc., also going it alone. Each nation must put its own citizens first, not the EU.

IIRC there were five nations - Portugal may have been the other - who were a matter of a weeks behind the UK’s vaccine initiative. Given there were five, I think they’d done a pretty decent job of reacting.

This brings out the prime weakness of collective representation without absolute sovereignty - it’s not fast or decisive and does not tend to deliver optimal results in dynamic, unpredictable and unprecedented situations.

That the EU’s hamfisted intervention push roughly a month’s delay out to about three to four is a disgrace. Not only have they let those five nations down, or even the rest of the EU, but the whole world that needs or wishes to deal with and travel to and from the EU. tts. There should be repercussions.

[JNW1]

Muddle238 said:

NRS said:

The pandemic response is a (small) part of Brexit though, and presumably the type of thing Brexiteers wanted to change to benefit us. The EU states could do their own thing technically, but in reality there is a lot of soft power pushing them into joining the larger EU unity project. Just look at the criticism Austria and Hungary have got for wanting to do their own thing in the future now. They could have done their own things, but there will be a lot of pressure to not do it. There's likely also the impact of political risk of doing your own thing when offered to be part of the EU response to problems... if you do it with the EU and screw up - the EU can be blamed. If you do it on your own and you screw up - you'll lose a lot of votes because you didn't follow the EU/successful version. So it's skewed politically towards joining the crowd for the decision makers.

Quite. IIRC, before the EU procurement programme, France, Italy, NL and Germany I believe we’re all in line with the UK trying to establish early talks with the vaccine companies. However, Brussels stuck their oar in and demanded that they hold off and let Brussels do the talking on behalf of the whole EU, in a show of power, masqueraded as a show of unity.

The EU very visibly shut down any nation showing initiative, applying much pressure to join their procurement scheme. We’ve always been told it wasn’t mandatory, but look at how many countries opted out. That speaks volumes about how “mandatory” it was.

Once the EU has the big boys (FR, DE) onboard, it’s then politically difficult for smaller countries to say no, due to the aforementioned blame culture. It’s known as “risky shift”, whereby a group will likely accept a riskier decision when involved with others, rather than a less risky decision had they acted alone.

Brexit timing was ideal, it meant we were under no illusions about EU procurement and the EU was happy for us to go it alone, so they could make an example of us. Well, we’ve certainly set an example, and I see no problems with Austria, Hungry, Poland etc., also going it alone. Each nation must put its own citizens first, not the EU.

I think you're right. I've seen the comment made numerous times to the effect we could have done the same as we did on vaccine procurement even if we'd still been members of the EU; however, while that's correct in theory I just don't see it would have worked like that in practice. Yes there were occasions when as a member we ploughed our own furrow - and refused to follow the path the majority wanted to take - but none of those scenarios involved putting UK lives ahead of those of other member states and that's how us acting unilaterally on vaccine procurement would have been seen.

It's obviously not something we'll ever be able to prove one way or the other by if we'd still been a member personally I don't think we'd be in the position we are now on vaccine roll-out....

[Andy 308GTB]

100%
Had we still been in the EU, we would have toe'd the line.

This is why we left the EU - it was too easy for politicians to let Brussels make the decisions for them. They could never be held responsible.

[i4got]

JNW1 said:

I think you're right. I've seen the comment made numerous times to the effect we could have done the same as we did on vaccine procurement even if we'd still been members of the EU; however, while that's correct in theory I just don't see it would have worked like that in practice. Yes there were occasions when as a member we ploughed our own furrow - and refused to follow the path the majority wanted to take - but none of those scenarios involved putting UK lives ahead of those of other member states and that's how us acting unilaterally on vaccine procurement would have been seen.

It's obviously not something we'll ever be able to prove one way or the other by if we'd still been a member personally I don't think we'd be in the position we are now on vaccine roll-out....

Just look at the outcry when the UK decided to go its own way when we were in the process of exiting the EU. Then imagine how much worse that outcry would have been if we were doing all that as a member. I have no doubt that the decision would have been reversed and we would have rejoined the EU vaccine effort if it were not for Brexit.

Curiously it is the ones who complained loudest at the time, who now seem to propose that we could have done our own thing from within the EU.

[Mrr T]

Andy 308GTB said:

100%
Had we still been in the EU, we would have toe'd the line.

Was that why the UK joined the euro and Schengen?

[JNW1]

Mrr T said:

Andy 308GTB said:

100%
Had we still been in the EU, we would have toe'd the line.

Was that why the UK joined the euro and Schengen?

Decisions like that didn't involve prioritising UK lives over those of other EU member states (which is how going our own way on vaccine procurement would have been seen and portrayed had we still been in the club).

[768]

Mrr T said:

Andy 308GTB said:

100%
Had we still been in the EU, we would have toe'd the line.

Was that why the UK joined the euro and Schengen?

6 EU countries didn't join Schengen. 8 didn't join the Euro.

Zero didn't join the vaccination programme. Arguably not joining schemes like the Euro contributed to the UK leaving.

[Oilchange]

It's through experience that these assumptions are made. They're not invented out of the blue!

We did toe the line on numerous EU rules and regs, more so than most. It's fair to say we would have on the vaccine process too.

Comments on Schengen and Euro are nonsense.

[Mrr T]

768 said:

6 EU countries didn't join Schengen. 8 didn't join the Euro.

Only 2 countries eligible to join Schengen did not join. The UK and Ireland. Only 2 countries eligible to join the euro did not join the UK and Sweden.

No I do not think the UK would have been part of the EU vaccine programme or the covid recovery fund if the UK had remained in the EU.

[FiF]

Digga said:

Muddle238 said:

NRS said:

The pandemic response is a (small) part of Brexit though, and presumably the type of thing Brexiteers wanted to change to benefit us. The EU states could do their own thing technically, but in reality there is a lot of soft power pushing them into joining the larger EU unity project. Just look at the criticism Austria and Hungary have got for wanting to do their own thing in the future now. They could have done their own things, but there will be a lot of pressure to not do it. There's likely also the impact of political risk of doing your own thing when offered to be part of the EU response to problems... if you do it with the EU and screw up - the EU can be blamed. If you do it on your own and you screw up - you'll lose a lot of votes because you didn't follow the EU/successful version. So it's skewed politically towards joining the crowd for the decision makers.

Quite. IIRC, before the EU procurement programme, France, Italy, NL and Germany I believe we’re all in line with the UK trying to establish early talks with the vaccine companies. However, Brussels stuck their oar in and demanded that they hold off and let Brussels do the talking on behalf of the whole EU, in a show of power, masqueraded as a show of unity.

The EU very visibly shut down any nation showing initiative, applying much pressure to join their procurement scheme. We’ve always been told it wasn’t mandatory, but look at how many countries opted out. That speaks volumes about how “mandatory” it was.

Once the EU has the big boys (FR, DE) onboard, it’s then politically difficult for smaller countries to say no, due to the aforementioned blame culture. It’s known as “risky shift”, whereby a group will likely accept a riskier decision when involved with others, rather than a less risky decision had they acted alone.

Brexit timing was ideal, it meant we were under no illusions about EU procurement and the EU was happy for us to go it alone, so they could make an example of us. Well, we’ve certainly set an example, and I see no problems with Austria, Hungry, Poland etc., also going it alone. Each nation must put its own citizens first, not the EU.

IIRC there were five nations - Portugal may have been the other - who were a matter of a weeks behind the UK’s vaccine initiative. Given there were five, I think they’d done a pretty decent job of reacting.

This brings out the prime weakness of collective representation without absolute sovereignty - it’s not fast or decisive and does not tend to deliver optimal results in dynamic, unpredictable and unprecedented situations.

That the EU’s hamfisted intervention push roughly a month’s delay out to about three to four is a disgrace. Not only have they let those five nations down, or even the rest of the EU, but the whole world that needs or wishes to deal with and travel to and from the EU. tts. There should be repercussions.

Also not to forget that the country which has the highest stock of unused vaccines, and the lowest rate of administering said vaccine, is the one nation that initiated the ban on exports of vaccine to Australia, using the sysytem that was declared simply to be a monitoring system.

Then you have Thierry Breton bragging that not a single dose has been sent from AX Netherlands to UK since the bloc put in place rules about export. Maybe there were none planned but this sort of behaviour is not how responsible organisations and individuals should behave as it merely stokes up resentment, whether justifies or not. Either way any result from such is going to be negative.

[don'tbesilly]

Digga said:

IRC there were five nations - Portugal may have been the other - who were a matter of a weeks behind the UK’s vaccine initiative. Given there were five, I think they’d done a pretty decent job of reacting.

This brings out the prime weakness of collective representation without absolute sovereignty - it’s not fast or decisive and does not tend to deliver optimal results in dynamic, unpredictable and unprecedented situations.

That the EU’s hamfisted intervention push roughly a month’s delay out to about three to four is a disgrace. Not only have they let those five nations down, or even the rest of the EU, but the whole world that needs or wishes to deal with and travel to and from the EU. tts. There should be repercussions.

Just 4 - Germany, France, the Netherlands and Italy.

June 3rd



Germany, France, the Netherlands and Italy Wednesday announced the formation of a vaccine alliance aimed at ensuring that a possible future coronavirus vaccine is available and affordable for Europeans.

The four countries have come together under the “Inclusive Vaccine Alliance,” which will look to make sure that Europe not only gets a vaccine at a good price from pharmaceutical companies, but that European production capabilities are prioritized.

In a statement, the Dutch health ministry says the alliance intends to work with the European Commission and is already in talks with various pharmaceutical companies. It is also offering other EU member countries the opportunity to take part in any initiatives arising from the collaboration.

https://www.politico.eu/article/four-eu-states-for...

June 16th saw this:

https://www.politico.eu/article/vaccine-alliance-c...

[NRS]

Mrr T said:

768 said:

6 EU countries didn't join Schengen. 8 didn't join the Euro.

Only 2 countries eligible to join Schengen did not join. The UK and Ireland. Only 2 countries eligible to join the euro did not join the UK and Sweden.

No I do not think the UK would have been part of the EU vaccine programme or the covid recovery fund if the UK had remained in the EU.

It presumably would depend which party was in power. Labour said we should have. The SNP of course would have been EU (current times at least). Conservatives under someone like Cameron would have likely joined.

The reason we likely wouldn't have joined now is because of the publicly seen opposition to the EU as the result of Brexit, and then BoJo doing his (IMO) populist stuff to show the UK doing it's own thing.

I think normally we'd have joined. The Euro and Schengen are quite different decisions - for example the UK was part of the financial crisis recovery funds etc, and the new rules and so on there. Much more comparable to a corona recovery situation. Even here in Norway we joined the EU corona virus stuff via Sweden.

[768]

Mrr T said:

768 said:

6 EU countries didn't join Schengen. 8 didn't join the Euro.

Only 2 countries eligible to join Schengen did not join. The UK and Ireland. Only 2 countries eligible to join the euro did not join the UK and Sweden.

No I do not think the UK would have been part of the EU vaccine programme or the covid recovery fund if the UK had remained in the EU.

Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia and Cyprus have joined Schengen?

Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Sweden use the Euro?

[egomeister]

768 said:

Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia and Cyprus have joined Schengen?

Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Sweden use the Euro?

I don't know about Schengen, but as far as I'm aware all new EU states (ie, those in the Eastern Eurpean expansion) are obliged to join the Euro although there isn't a fixed timeframe and some there are specific conditions that must be met before adopting it.