Will Anyone Notice A Difference?
News8 mins ago
The Brexiteers Are Continuing To Lie About The Vaccine Roll-Out
70 Answers
Just how many times do they have to be told that they are lying about the vaccine roll-out?
When will the Brexiteers stop telling lies in support of their failed pet project?
There are even ABers who believe these Brexiteer lies.
When will the Brexiteers stop telling lies in support of their failed pet project?
There are even ABers who believe these Brexiteer lies.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hymie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's based on the claim (made by Matt Hancock, and subsequently propagated) that vaccine approval was faster precisely because of Brexit. This is, however, not correct.
https:/
https:/
https:/
In particular, it was refuted by the Government at the time:
https:/
https:/
https:/
https:/
In particular, it was refuted by the Government at the time:
https:/
But the Astra-Zeneca vaccine was the first to be administered in the UK, while the EU were still arguing about it, and before Pfizer was rolled out. If I remember correctly, Pfizer was the preferred option of the EU, and they were still arguing about the terms of its distribution when UK started using Astra- Zeneca
// But the Astra-Zeneca vaccine was the first to be administered in the UK, while the EU were still arguing about it, and before Pfizer was rolled out. If I remember correctly, Pfizer was the preferred option of the EU, and they were still arguing about the terms of its distribution when UK started using Astra- Zeneca. //
Some of this may be true, but it was a political choice for EU members to coordinate, rather than a necessity. The UK could have taken the same path it did independent of Brexit -- perhaps pointing to, for example, its non-membership of Schengen, its status as an island and so not part of mainland Europe, etc.
It's true, in other words, that the UK was faster than the EU to roll out a vaccine -- and I'm glad that they did -- but that was not linked in itself to Brexit.
Some of this may be true, but it was a political choice for EU members to coordinate, rather than a necessity. The UK could have taken the same path it did independent of Brexit -- perhaps pointing to, for example, its non-membership of Schengen, its status as an island and so not part of mainland Europe, etc.
It's true, in other words, that the UK was faster than the EU to roll out a vaccine -- and I'm glad that they did -- but that was not linked in itself to Brexit.
From my first link above (lightly reformatted):
// ... none of these [vaccine-related] successes can be chalked up to Brexit:
1. As the chief executive of the MHRA swiftly pointed out, Mr Hancock was wrong to say that the UK could approve the vaccine early because it was no longer subject to EU rules.
2. The MHRA’s decision was taken in accordance with the relevant EU legislation, which allows member states to grant temporary authorisation for a medicinal product in response to the spread of infectious diseases (among others).
3. This legislation still applies to the UK until the end of the transition period [ie 31 December 2020].
4. Any EU member state could have used the same provision of the legislation to approve the vaccine. They decided not to for political and technical reasons, not legal ones.
5. Similarly, the member states were in no way obliged to take part in the EU’s joint vaccine procurement scheme. The EU has very limited competences for public health under its founding treaties: it can take action only to “support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States”.
6. The EU member states in this case voluntarily decided to opt into the joint procurement scheme. //
// ... none of these [vaccine-related] successes can be chalked up to Brexit:
1. As the chief executive of the MHRA swiftly pointed out, Mr Hancock was wrong to say that the UK could approve the vaccine early because it was no longer subject to EU rules.
2. The MHRA’s decision was taken in accordance with the relevant EU legislation, which allows member states to grant temporary authorisation for a medicinal product in response to the spread of infectious diseases (among others).
3. This legislation still applies to the UK until the end of the transition period [ie 31 December 2020].
4. Any EU member state could have used the same provision of the legislation to approve the vaccine. They decided not to for political and technical reasons, not legal ones.
5. Similarly, the member states were in no way obliged to take part in the EU’s joint vaccine procurement scheme. The EU has very limited competences for public health under its founding treaties: it can take action only to “support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States”.
6. The EU member states in this case voluntarily decided to opt into the joint procurement scheme. //
Latest Posts
Gaming15 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles25 mins ago
Film, Media & TV30 mins ago
Crosswords55 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.