Road rules5 mins ago
Boris On Trial.
Johnson.. to be grilled next week for two days at the Covid inquiry that he set up when he was PM. (Oh dear). Get the popcorn out, if you have a fridge big enough to accomodate him make sure it is firmly locked ,and have a lie detector handy.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by gulliver1. 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.
"So it is a lie to say that the UK was able to roll out the vaccine program faster that had we been members of the EU."
No it isn’t. And to understand that you have to understand how the EU works, and, reading your analogy @ 10:15 today, clearly you don’t. As well as having a legal stranglehold over its members in many areas, the EU has what it calls “expectations” of them. These expectations do not fit the normal dictionary definition of the word. Normally an expectation would be accompanied by something like “We expect you to do that, but respect your right not to do so if you choose.”
When we were discussing this (what seems like) a hundred years ago, I provided texts from Mrs Von der Leyen’s speeches on the matter. I’m not going to trawl to dig them out again, but it was quite clear what those expectations meant. Whilst no legal sanctions could have been applied to dissident members, it was made quite clear that life would become more difficult for rogue nations (and remember, this was a very difficult time for everybody). So, to all intents and purposes, whilst it was technically possible it would have been highly ill-advised. You may also recall that when the UK did make its own arrangements, even though it was no longer an EU member, the EU still attempted to make it difficult for the UK to proceed to the point of trying to prevent that procurement being fulfilled (and again, you can look back at what happened if you wish). That would have happened whether we were members or not. So when Mr Johnson suggests it would have been impossible for us to press ahead with our own vaccine rollout, practically speaking he is perfectly correct.
You can keep on and on with this point until the cows come home. But unless you accept the reality of EU membership and continue instead to confine yourself to the narrow legal point, you will not see it how it actually was, only the way it was alleged to be. Your YouTube clip @11:21 merely serves to reinforce that point.
“ However, if a suitable COVID-19 vaccine candidate, with strong supporting evidence of safety,…etc.etc”
Quite so, Corby. And I am not disputing that. But none of the remaining 27 EU members took advantage of that clause. So why do you think that was? To find out, you need to look back at what was actually said at the time. I emphasised then that it was not what the “rules” allowed or prohibited, it was what the EU’s panjandrums wanted of their apparatchiks which would determine what happened. And so it was.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that had the UK still been an EU member, it would have been heavily leaned on to comply with the EU’s collective approach to the vaccine rollout. Deals would have been done in agreeable surroundings to ensure this was so, and the Prime Minister would have appeared on the telly to tell everybody how it was “in the country’s best interests” to become entangled with the EU’s sclerotic rollout. If he’d done that, he really would have been a liar.
-- answer removed --
Hymie: Your little cartoon put up at 11:21 does not "explain the facts that demonstrate any claim of a vaccine roll out benefit to the UK gained through Brexit to be a compete lie." & contains no substantiated hard facts.
I suspect it was ordered by Macron, who was incandescent at the fact that Britain had the vaccines before France. You must have short memory not to remember how he was touting his scare-mongering & dog-in the manger opinion as to how the Astra Zeneca vaccine caused blood-clots.
Can not believe what this Covid inquiry is going to cost the tax payer in the end ,if ever it does end. Govt depts are hiring leading law firms on multimillion-pound contracts, alongside specialist firms tasked with sifting through millions of sensitive documents and emails .The dept of health and social care have hired Pinsent and Mason on a £2,2m contract The Cabinet office has hired the same firm on a £7m Contract It has also hired Burgess Salmon another law firm on a £9.8m contract Wonder who the Tory MPs are going to turn up to be related or to have shares in these firms.Gosh there is going to be a heck of a lot of Tory Trousering done with this one.
“Well, you’ve got me hoping Boris does make the claim (that the UK’s roll-out of the vaccine program was faster because of Brexit) – the inquiry would then have to definitely examine this claim.”
I wouldn’t count on it. Mr Gove raised the issue of the origin of the virus, suggesting (as many epidemiologists do) that it was manufactured in a lab in Wuhan. His question was struck out as being outside the enquiry’s terms of reference. This was probably one of the most important questions that needs answering, but far better to investigate why Dominic Cummings drove to Durham to test his eyes out.
Still, you never know. It will be interesting to hear the enquiry's findings if the question is addressed, but I don't think I can be bothered that much because by the time Baroness Hallett's report is published most people will have forgotten was Covid was. Hopefully she will live ling enough to see the fruits of her labours but since she will be approaching 80 by then you cannot be sure. Still Mr Johnson's appearance will give the telly and the papers something to draw their attention away from Gaza for a day or two.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
Body & Soul22 mins ago
Is What I Experienced Called...
Body & Soul23 mins ago
