Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 09:04 PM

Oo look, another good article on medicines,

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36599417

and a whole discussion including research, regulations, new medicines, and new medical devices

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-43118667/chris-morris-explores-how-brexit-could-affect-medicines-and-medical-research

Other BBC bits and pieces on these topics

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45727317

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 09:07 PM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45958713

And another one.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 01:50 AM

I was talking about this yesterday with my nephew's fiancee, who is a nurse. Her experience is that such shortages are not rare but are, in most cases, connected with the renegotiation of contracts with the drug companies. Acting in the interests of their shareholders, the companies usually try to increase the price or at least maintain them, whereas the NHS is usually keen to reduce it, especially on drugs where the development cost have already be compensated for. So you get a stand off during which the drug supply is halted. She has experienced this many times.

Brexit is a factor because it impacts the exchange rate and hence the cost of any drug prices in euros or dollars. It is also a factor because drug companies for entirely sensible business reasons are wondering when the most profitable time to sign a new contract will be: now or in a few months time. And this works at other levels: the companies that supply the raw materials to make drugs go through a similar process.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 02:47 AM

" from John McDonnell, on the disgraceful racist, sexist campaign of attacks on Diane Abbott..."
Not quite, Baccie

SHE'S NOT THE ONLY ONE, OF COURSE
THat's what happens when you make racism a major issue of British politics

A COUNTRY UNITED BY BREXIT

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 02:47 AM

" from John McDonnell, on the disgraceful racist, sexist campaign of attacks on Diane Abbott..."
Not quite, Baccie

SHE'S NOT THE ONLY ONE, OF COURSE
THat's what happens when you make racism a major issue of British politics

A COUNTRY UNITED BY BREXIT

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 03:46 AM

It'll be Jeremy Corbyn's fault. Just you see.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 04:43 AM

A little reality:
Six in ten UK hospital pharmacists encounter medicines shortages daily, finds survey, including responses from nearly 300 UK hospital pharmacists.

The survey, the results of which were published in a report on 7 November 2018, asked a total of 1,666 hospital pharmacists in 38 countries about their experiences with medicines shortages.

It found that 36% of hospital pharmacists experience shortages on a daily basis across the EU.

However, the survey revealed the shortages are experienced at nearly twice that rate in the UK, with 60% of hospital pharmacists reporting daily medicines shortages.
From another report:
January 25, 2018

Last year was one of the worst years for medicines shortages for NHS patients, and the situation is unlikely to improve, a senior health service figure has said.

The Medicines for Europe conference heard that shortages of previously abundant generic drugs is an issue throughout the continent.

A perfect storm of pricing pressures, increasing costs, and procurement policy is causing issues across the EU, with countries such as Portugal, Romania and Estonia the worst hit.

Maggie Dolan, regional pharmacy procurement specialist at NHS Commercial Solutions, said the UK issues had been caused by an industry-led legal challenge to the health service’s procurement of drugs.

The shortages are affecting products such as analgesics, anaesthetics and antibiotics which have been available for years.

Participants included 291 pharmacists working in UK hospitals, just under 30% of whom said they experience medicines shortages on a weekly basis — nearly 10% less than those working in the EU (39%).

The EAHP, which represents more than 22,000 hospital pharmacists in 35 European countries, said in its report that the supply issues “have become more problematic” since its last survey in 2014, with 92% of respondents in 2018 reporting that the shortages are a problem compared with 86% in 2014.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 05:03 AM

It is pretty self evident that any shortages that are present in existing drug supplies are going to be exacerbated by crashing out of the EU, the customs union and the single market.

Arguing that current shortages under the existing system mean that additional shortages caused by leaving it can be disregarded is analogous to climate change deniers who argue that, if natural processes are a factor in causing climate change, there is no point in reducing human activities that contribute to these changes. Essentially, don't worry about adding fuel to an existing fire.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 05:13 AM

Of course Ms. Abbott isn't the only one, Jim, but she's the one that's targeted repeatedly on this forum. And she's the one referred to in recent days as 'Abbacus' and, elsewhere, as 'Abbopotamus'. Hence my specific points in her defence.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 05:43 AM

"but she's the one that's targeted repeatedly on this forum"
Quite true, that's what happens what you get stuck with one of those on your forum, isn't it?
He'll be telling us next that proven sexual predator, Sir Philip Greene was unjustly accused because of a legal technicality - nah - he'd never go that far !!
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 05:54 AM

The backward man, our resident Coprolaliac, is a fine one to talk about insults:

A few gems off this thread alone:

From: Backwoodsman - PM
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 12:00 PM BrexShiteers

From: Backwoodsman - PM
Date: 19 Aug 18 - 04:02 AM ...... the turd-polishing job that Jacob ("Call me Jake") Rich-Mong and his bunch of rich, self-serving Brexit Crazies are doing on their Hard-Brexit plan.
From: Backwoodsman - PM
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 03:56 AM Unfortunately, the Brexiteer Brain seems to allow propaganda, slogans, and sound bites to over-ride truth and common sense.
From: Backwoodsman - PM
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 12:14 PM ..... but you must remember that the Brexiteers are 'taking are cuntry back',
From: Backwoodsman - PM
Date: 24 Aug 18 - 05:41 AM That would be better than nowt, but best of all would be to abandon what is, and has been from day one, an utter debacle and an impending disaster. The Brexiteer Bumpkins will 'get over it' or, if they don't, they know where the door is....
From: Backwoodsman - PM
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 07:40 AM The Brexiteer Dumbfucks should hang their heads in shame that their gullibility, stupidity, and xenophobia has dumped this pile of crap on, not only our senior politicians, but also the entire population of the UK, the vast majority of whom did not express a desire to leave the EU in that ludicrously flawed referendum.
From: Backwoodsman - PM
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 04:15 PM how we will be 'taking are cuntry back', and many lies and exaggerations. And, not long after the referendum, I recall one particular Tory Brexiteer-dumbfuck announcing that the Exit Agreement would be 'the easiest Agreement ever' to negotiate.

All this, for no other reason than to ensure that the likes of Rees-Mogg, the Rothermeres, Rupert Murdoch, et al can continue their dodgy tax-avoidance/evasion schemes, while the plebs pay for the entire debacle.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 06:02 AM

Yes we should have consideration for Diane Abbott being type 2 Diabetic, but we can be totally abusive of Theresa May who, I think, has type 1 Diabetes.

Ignorance or hypocrisy?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 06:14 AM

But any abuse aimed at Theresa May is not based in racism, whereas much of that directed at Diane Abbott is inherently racist in nature. That's the difference.

Politicians have always been regarded as 'fair game' for lampooning and mickey-taking - it goes with the job - but racist abuse, for instance comparing a black female politician to a very large, black, semi-aquatic mammal, is completely out of order.

Not clever, not funny.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 06:27 AM

"The backward man"
Welcome to the club Baccie - must be feeling the cold he's been left out in
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 06:32 AM

But any abuse aimed at Theresa May is not based in racism, whereas much of that directed at Diane Abbott is inherently racist in nature. That's the difference.

Good to see idiocy is alive and well. Care to illustrate with an example of inherent racism.

It always helps to be accurate:
Hippopotamidae: The animals' upper parts are purplish-gray to blue-black, while the under parts and areas around the eyes and ears can be brownish-pink.

Cetaceans:Most whales tend to be various shades of light to dark grey, blue and black, which may lighten or darken as the whale ages.

Some whale species may also appear to be a brownish color while the beluga whale is born white.

If you include toothed whales such as the amazon river dolphin (all species of dolphin belong to the toothed whale family) then the color palette may also include yellow and pink.

Lardass may superficially resemble a whale of hippo but a comparison on colour just does not hack it, and luckily nakedness is another attribute she does not share.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 06:39 AM

Let him fester, lads. No more responding.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 06:44 AM

It's schoolyard stuff Steve. I left school fifty-five years ago.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 07:13 AM

Think we get the message Steve - best ignore im completely
Hes's getting somewhat desperate - he's quite likely to be claiming that the Salisbury poisoning was all an MI5 plot next - Putin must be just about ready to demand he earn his crust and come up with the goods - bi of a long shot to somebody incapable of putting up links that don't open
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 07:18 AM

Schtumm! ;-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 07:52 AM

bi of a long shot to somebody incapable of putting up links that don't open.

A double negative there. Is that what you meant?

A step ahead of shaw though. He boasts he cannot construct links-yet also claims to be a well educated scientist!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 07:55 AM

"Schtumm! ;-)"
Sorry Baccie - no point in going to the circus if you can't laugh at the clowns
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 08:26 AM

Oh Dear! Labour supporters are flocking away from clot corbyn in order to to seek pastures anew.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6611965/Labour-membership-plunges-150-000-amid-backlash-Corbyns-handling-Brexit.html

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 08:27 AM

Jim Jim Jim Jim JIM!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 08:36 AM

Jim Jim Jim Jim JIM!
Why not just pm one another?
The rest of us are not interested in the puerile games of the usual gang.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 08:48 AM

From our blogger somewhere in France:


https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2019/01/20/the-sunday-essay-how-uk-media-censorship-is-dictating-the-second-referendums-outcome/

Seems Macron the banker is a bit of a failure and the indefatigable Mr Farage has been proved to be right all along.

I do enjoy being able to post without the gang's usual asinine comments. It is a breath of fresh air!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 09:32 AM

"Jim Jim Jim Jim JIM!"
Did you call ?
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 11:00 AM

TuQuoque: A type of ad hominem argument in which a person turns a charge back on his or her accuser: a logical fallacy. Also called the "you too," the "two wrongs," or the "look who's talking" fallacy.

A type of argument that we should all be ashamed of when we deploy it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 01:47 PM

Liam Fox lying bare-faced again on Marr this morning - claimed that "The British public want Brexit to happen" which, of course is untrue.

What is true is that a very small majority of those that voted in 2016 - which, at 17 million is a small minority of 'the British public', who number 65 million - expressed a wish to leave at that time. What is also true is that nobody knows what 'the British public', or even the small majority of voters who voted Leave back then, want now, because they haven't been asked.

It's not accidental that Fox and his ilk use expressions like "The British public want...", even though they know that it's untrue - they use deliberate exaggerations of that kind in an attempt to lend legitimacy and weight to the Leave At All Costs argument they put forward. More of the dishonesty and deceit they employed during the Referendum campaign of course.

So far during the appalling donkey's breakfast that May and her bunch of incompetents have made of the BrexShit process, I've been very much against delaying A50 and having a 'People's Vote' but, with Parliament deadlocked, and May paralysed and in meltdown, I'm beginning to think it's the only way forward.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 03:07 PM

i resigned myself from this debate 2/3 months ago but i have been following it on here. i have had to come off facebook (etc) because it's so depressing. i'm failing to do my duty as a union rep in standing up to racism and bullying as i am intimidated by the every day aggressive nonsense of the UKIP, 'sovereignty!' types at work. my boss posts 'albion action' and 'british patriot' type shit. whistleblowers are , of course, heroic, but don't tend to stay in their job very long.

ironically the last senior politician to try to stand up to this racist, tory extremist, sub-fascist, daily mail fear and hatred of foreigners stuff was john major. they have been tolerated, indulged and encouraged by the media to bring us to the current state our country is in. i feel the difference every day, it's horrible to witness the decline of manners and common decency - people seem proud of their bullish, racist, ignorance. 'f..k off with your elitist facts!')

i had hoped that mudcat could have moved on from tolerating this kind of attitude but no, and of course i am not allowed to get so angry with people. i need to make it clear that i do not so much blame the thugs on our streets here - who i see as victims of the vicious and greedy tories (liam fox ffs! JRM!) and the 30 years of anti-eu drivel from the media.

rant over, back to my jigsaw

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 04:49 PM

The stuff about "respecting the people's will", while resisting any attempt to ascertain what that actually is at this time, is of course a smokescreen. The reality is that what actually drives Brexiters who talk in those terms is that they see any fresh vote as threatening to indicate that there is no longer support for leaving the EU.

That's a very reasonable basis for opposing a fresh vote. It's got nothing to do with "democracy", but it a fair enough expression of realpolitik. Holding on to your winnings rather than risk them is not a completely dishonourable thing, even if it is shaky morality. But pretending to be acting out of principle when doing that is pretty shabby.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 09:24 PM

"From: Nigel Parsons - PM
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 09:36 PM

Perhaps it's not just Steve being a twat (although that is possible).
In The Guardian report on abuse of Diane Abbott on Question Time Here The Guardian states: Question Time and other BBC current affairs programmes have become a lightning rod for claims of media bias against Labour, with the corporation repeatedly forced to defend aspects of its presentation of political topics.
The Momentum campaign group launched a petition demanding the BBC apologise after Bruce backed claims that Labour was behind in the opinion polls.
The Momentum petition referred to an exchange where panellist Isabel Oakeshott said that Labour were "way behind in the polls" and Abbott replied that "we are kind of level-pegging" before Bruce said that Labour were "definitely" behind. But recent polling has found the two parties roughly neck and neck.
But the included link is to poll results in November 2018 Here

It seems that The Guardian can make statements about the current situation, but is unable to link to suitably supporting data. Just like Steve Shaw.....

....No, you didn't mention The Guardian, just "most recent polls".
I'm not going to do an internet search to try to identify what it is that you are basing your arguments on. If you can't provide the details then I'll guess that you are plucking figures out of thin air. "

Some Nigellisms from last week there. Perhaps, Nigel, after slurring me over those recent polls, you would like to take note that the BBC has now acknowledged that they got it wrong on Question Time and that Diane was correct. Don't bother apologising, Nigel. Just try to not do it again, old chap. Nothing like taking the trouble to check your facts, is there?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 03:37 AM

Do as I say,not as I do! A normal shouty lefty ruse!

I'm not going to do an internet search to try to identify what it is that you are basing your arguments on.

Why not? You expect everyone else to with your postings!
(Never having provided a link in your entire mudcat career and expecting the rest of us to separate your facts from fiction, or even whimsy)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 03:46 AM

Funny how wrong people can get it if they have not bothered to follow the argument init, Steve. :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 04:10 AM

If the laddie cannot construct quote fields or italics one must assume he is making his own statement. If this is not the case, then it merely highlights that his shortcomings extend beyond an inability to construct links.

Thank you for drawing my attention to it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 05:24 AM

Heheh!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 06:02 AM

Stop feeding the troll
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 06:08 AM

No one is, Jim. There is a huge difference between talking about and talking to. As you have just demonstrated :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 06:41 AM

Good to see the usual gang totally off topic. You should pay heed to your little mate Raggy's opening post!
I have just been reading through the "For fucks sake thread". I am surprised the mods let it run as long as it did. It rather shows the pack for what they are, especially the pinched goblin.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 06:47 AM

"There is a huge difference between talking about and talking to. "
I thought so too until I was reprimanded a few postings ago for taking the piss out of our resident troll - which I was enjoying immensely, as I always do
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 06:52 AM

Devastating argument from Policy Exchange this morning. Sir Stephen Laws QC – who was until 2012 the Government’s most senior lawyer on legislative and constitutional matters – says don’t assume that MPs could engineer a change to the law to postpone or cancel Brexit without persuading Government to acquiesce and participate in securing the change.





https://order-order.com/2019/01/21/government-entitled-ask-queen-not-give-assent-brexit-wreckers-bills/

up to the minute news from trusty guido!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 06:53 AM

Be afraid. He very afraid.

Nigel Farage makes comeback

Hopefully most will see him for the charlatan he is but given some of the postings on here, some people can be fooled all of the time :-(

One thing made me laugh though.

And he warned: “This time there will be no more Mr Nice Guy. "

WTF?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:08 AM

The question I keep asking myself, Dave is, "If the referendum result had been the exact reverse - a tiny majority voting in favour of Remain - how would the Leavers be behaving now? Would they have graciously accepted the result, and all be going around patting Remain voters warmly on the back and cheerfully remarking, "Well done chaps, the people have spoken, you won, and we're happy to accept that we're going to remain with our good chums in the EU", or would they be kicking and screaming under the continued leadership of Farridge, Bozo, and The Slithy Gove, demanding a re-run of the Referendum 'because people could have changed their minds'?"

I think we know the answer, don't we?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:09 AM

Does that mean he plans to be openly racist as opposed to just stirring the proverbial with innuendo?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:34 AM

Nigel Farage specifically said while waiting for the referendum result, at a time he was expecting it to be a victory for remain, that the struggle to overturn that would continue. For once he was saying something no fair minded person should disagree with.

After any election it is reasonable to expect the losers to work to overturn the result next time, and to press for it to be next time as soon as they think they have a chance of winning. GThere is nothing sacred about a referendum as opposed to any other election. It's just that rather than having individual constituencies, the whole country is treated as if it were one big constituency. Elections are fundamental to any form of elective democracy.

Seeking to avoid an election is not an expression of democratic principles, as is now being claimed by opponents of a fresh referendum, it is the opposite.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:35 AM

"Does that mean he plans to be openly racist as opposed to just stirring the proverbial with innuendo?"
I take it that was an ironic comment ?
I watched an old 'Have I Got News For you' last night, where, at the time of the Wind-rush racist cock-up, Home Secretary, Theresa May was claiming there was racism towards Immigrants who spoke perfect English and that they should "Adopt West Indian accents" - that was the published Government advice at the time
You really couldn't make this ***** nonsense up
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:39 AM

Does that mean he plans to be openly racist as opposed to just stirring the proverbial with innuendo?

If he was openly racist he would lose support and be liable to prosecution.(and rightly so)

Why the weasel word "openly"? Racism is racism! However as it is a term loosely slung around on this forum by leftards, one is forced to assume they have no understanding of the meaning of the word. Otherwise they would be more circumspect in it's application and usage.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:51 AM

I'm trying to guess what he means by "no more Mr Nice Guy". I agree he should have been prosecuted over his publicity stunts and his radio interviews - remember his 'living next door to Romanians'? He uses innuendo to stir racism and prejudice.
The biggest problem is that the media gives him a platform to do it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:52 AM

"Nigel Farage specifically said while waiting for the referendum result, at a time he was expecting it to be a victory for remain, that the struggle to overturn that would continue. For once he was saying something no fair minded person should disagree with.

After any election it is reasonable to expect the losers to work to overturn the result next time, and to press for it to be next time as soon as they think they have a chance of winning. GThere is nothing sacred about a referendum as opposed to any other election. It's just that rather than having individual constituencies, the whole country is treated as if it were one big constituency. Elections are fundamental to any form of elective democracy.

Seeking to avoid an election is not an expression of democratic principles, as is now being claimed by opponents of a fresh referendum, it is the opposite."

Absolutely bang-on the button, Kevin, and that's precisely what I was driving at.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:55 AM

Before either of our Extreme-Right-Wing nitpickers start up, I intended the quotation to be in italics, but fouled up on the HTML that the archaic system this forum runs under obliges us to mess about with.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:59 AM

Another Leaver liar on Politics Live at the moment, just claimed that Leave voters in the referendum "Voted to leave with no deal". A bare-faced lie - the referendum asked one question, Leave or Remain, no mention of anything else.