BS: Brexit & other UK political topics

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jun 21 - 06:57 PM

What you describe was the role of the right-wing tabloids (which is almost all of them), and, as you say, not the only cause of his demise. The other major factor was the role of his right-wing enemy within, the Ruth Smeeths, the John Manns, the Margaret Hodges, to name but a few, who would do and say anything, including throwing an election, to get rid of him and install one of their own. And look where that's got us. Starmer. We'd have been ten times better off leaving Jeremy in place. At least he would have got his teeth into Johnson. Well, unless you've got a better bloody idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 Jun 21 - 11:16 PM

Steve, my post was in response to Nigel’s assertion that the Tories, in particular the Right Wing, have no influence on who is the leader of the Labour Party. In the case of Corbyn, his political and personal assassination by the Right, ably assisted by their Propaganda-mouthpieces - the tabloids you mention - was most certainly a major factor in his demise, and therefore Nigel is clearly wrong, the Tory Right can, and do, influence the LP in its choice of leader.

That’s all. Nothing more.

I have no intention of getting involved in another discussion with you regarding the current situation within the LP - your intransigence renders such discussions fruitless and pointless. And I deplore the hypocrisy of those who, understandably, protest the undermining and back-stabbing of JC, but who are themselves busy now undermining and back-stabbing the current Leader.

You know my views - that the Party should always be put before Personality, and that LP members and MPs should be focussing on fighting the worst, most damaging, most divisive Tory government in our lifetimes, and achieving success at the next GE, rather than fighting each other. That was my view when JC was the leader - during which leadership I supported him, here and elsewhere, despite doubting his ability to lead the Party in to government (justified, in the event) - and it is still my view.

Despite my doubts, I voted for Corbyn’s version of Labour at the 2019 GE and, despite my doubts, I will vote for Starmer’s version of Labour (assuming he’s still the Leader, not necessarily a given) at the next GE. The people the Labour Party was formed to fight for - the weakest and most down-trodden in our society - and whom far too many Members seem to have forgotten about while they fight their seedy internal ideological battles, deserve nothing less.

That’s it, I’m done here. And, this time, I mean it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 06 Jun 21 - 02:03 AM

I think Labour's biggest problem is northern hussies who won't keep their mouth shut.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Jun 21 - 03:36 AM

Backwoodsman is in effect saying that he supports a party regardless of their policies.its the rhinoceros syndrome

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jun 21 - 04:35 AM

He is saying the exact opposite, Dick. He says that a party should be supported for its policies, not the character of its leader. I tend to disagree as the leader has a great role in steering those policies but if I am going to argue with him I will at least try to argue the correct points!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Jun 21 - 05:10 AM

You’re absolutely correct, Dave, and I believe that any Labour government, no matter who leads it, is preferable to this bunch of Tories who are busy mis-governing the country for their own benefit right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 21 - 06:16 AM

The backstabbing, etc., of Corbyn was predicated on a pack of lies about him. Criticism of Starmer (call it backstabbing if you must) is far more to do with his lack of charisma and inability to oppose the policies of the Tories. He's behind the curve at every juncture. The Tories have done so many disastrously wrong things, and killed tens of thousands of people thereby, in the last fifteen months, yet you'd still hardly think that we have an opposition at all. It isn't backstabbing to express frustration at this. A good, alert, aggressive Labour leader would have made mincemeat of Johnson months ago. I seriously want Starmer to do well, and wanting to give him a good kick up the 'arris, and saying it out loud, is not undermining him in my view. Shutting up about it and thereby permitting a cosy, complacent bunch of establishment New Labour-manqué middle-of-the-roaders to rule the roost is no way forward and will simply give Johnson a free pass next time around.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 06 Jun 21 - 12:00 PM

Backwoodsman:
Steve, my post was in response to Nigel’s assertion that the Tories, in particular the Right Wing, have no influence on who is the leader of the Labour Party. In the case of Corbyn, his political and personal assassination by the Right, ably assisted by their Propaganda-mouthpieces - the tabloids you mention - was most certainly a major factor in his demise, and therefore Nigel is clearly wrong, the Tory Right can, and do, influence the LP in its choice of leader.

Please don't deliberately misquote me just in order to continue your rant. I did not say "the Tories, in particular the Right Wing, have no influence on who is the leader of the Labour Party"
What I said was: It wasn't just the 'far right' who didn't like him. His own party (hardly 'far right') got rid of him.
The 'far right' have no control over who leads the Labour Party. Please accept responsibility for your own party's choices.

Through the tabloids the right may have some influence, but no control, of the Labour Party's election process. The Labour Party elected Corbyn as leader, the Labour Party replaced him as leader.
The Labour Party is so riven by internal factions that I doubt there is much agreement about which was the better idea, election or replacement.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 06 Jun 21 - 12:20 PM

Nigel - thanks for putting us straight on everything again..

I don't know what us confused simple minded lefties would do
without your absolutely authorative astute political truths and guidance...

I wish I had a friend like you to accompany me to elections
to stop me from habitually being silly voting for Labour.

You make it so obvious I should vote conservative.
But it just doesn't sink in.
Then I get all discombobulated inthe heat of the moment,
and vote labour again.. doh...!!!!!

You're doing a magnificent noble job, but here's no helping us, is there...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Vincent Jones
Date: 06 Jun 21 - 01:29 PM

DMcG, I am intrigued by your post.

"the way drugs are developed and tested is strongly focused on the their effects in isolation". Well yes (if we discount, for example, adjuvant and neoadjuvant trials). The purpose of a trial is to discover if a drug is (1) safe and (2) more effective than anything else currently on the market for that particular condition.

"You ultimately rely on an individual patient who is taking two or more drugs to report symptoms, that the doctor concerned notices a connection and reports that upwards until eventually that is assessed and recorded as an incompatibility". I don't think so. I think you are saying that "incompatibilities" - side effects? - are "ultimately" discovered at the micro - or individual - level? My experience is that adverse events are examined at a macro - or large dataset (not necessarily so-called big data) level, where the confidence intervals and statistical powers can be calculated and hypotheses tested (not by physicians, but by statisticians and/or epidemiologists - most physicians of my acquaintance delight in saying how frightened they are of statistics). These data are collected from anonymised GP records, hospital data or (in the case of, e.g., the US) medical insurance information. As a freelancer, every contract I have signed with a pharma client in the past twenty years has included an agreement to report - immediately - any adverse event occurring to someone taking one of their drugs (be it someone at a party telling me about their uncle, or even hearing an item on a radio programme) - information that is added to these data above. Also, I'm not sure that, even if you sign yourself out of GPDR, data concerning you that has been anonymised will be excluded from datasets created for the purpose of pharmacovigilance. If these data cannot be linked to you then they might not be considered personal data.

"Detecting of subtle relationships and whatnot is almost entirely in the commercial sector with things like Palantir". Drugs are mostly developed in the commercial sector, so unsurprisingly their long-term effects are also calculated almost entirely in the commercial sector, although this can be at the behest of the regulatory authorities as statutory requirements. This may not be the best way, but it's how things work at the moment. Universities and hospitals also do this kind of research, sometimes in partnership with pharma companies. There are plenty of statistical methods to detect interactions, relationships, correlations, clusters, etc., so I'm not sure why you mention Palantir. I'd never heard of it, but a quick search on t'inter tells me that it's a proprietary bit of software, and I can't see anything in their website blurb that I've not seen elsewhere - significantly, it says that it is being used by 'a' (i.e., one) top pharma company. I would put money on this meaning that their sales team have managed to get under the guard of one company and has given them a trial licence, possibly free of charge with a lot of analytical support, to try and get a toe-hold into an industry that already has plenty of tools for this purpose.

I'm not saying that you're wrong: I would be sincerely (and professionally) in your debt if you would bung down something that confirms what you say and corrects my misapprehensions.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Jun 21 - 01:39 PM

no.
he is not, he is saying that he votes labour despite the differing policies of corbyn and starmer, he votes labour regardlessof differing policies he voted labour despite his reservations about corbyn, he votes labour regardless of starmers leadership
he probably supported blair whose policies were apart from northern ireland...conservative policies, the man[blair.]who supported the bombing of iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jun 21 - 01:46 PM

He has already confirmed that my analysis was correct, Dick. Try a bit of comprehension instead of reading what you want to hear into the posts of others.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Jun 21 - 03:03 PM

Dave, you are correct in your analysis. I support the policies of the Labour Party, irrespective of who is the leader, on the basis that (as I said earlier) ANY Labour government is preferable to a Conservative one.

Thank you for your support, it’s much appreciated, but I recommend you to do as I’m doing - ignore the troll, he is once again playing his childish playground game of following me around and trying to provoke a fight.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: robomatic
Date: 06 Jun 21 - 03:10 PM

I've been noticing for some time now that in the States the rightists are going after Vice President Kamala Harris at every opportunity. They are attempting the same character assassination that they practised on Hilary Clinton. Is this going on in the U.K. on one or both locations of the political spectrum?
Has your politics become effectively a two-party system?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Jun 21 - 03:22 PM

to quote back woodsman, bugger off

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jun 21 - 04:09 PM

I had never seen such a character assassination as the one done on Jeremy Cornyn and hope to never see another. It was politics at its ugliest.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Jun 21 - 06:05 PM

Nothing to disagree with there, Dave. And I’ll bet my pension the Tories will start it up again leading up to the next GE - wonder who their next victim will be?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jun 21 - 06:39 PM

I sent Vincent Jones a PM because I was too busy to reply earlier, so I am repeating some of that here.

To some extent at least, I think any problem is down to phrasing myself badly. That is, I am afraid, not that rare. I should also say I am not talking from any expertise in the drug or medical industry (though I have some in statistics.)

When I said "You ultimately rely on an individual patient who is taking two or more drugs to report symptoms, that the doctor concerned notices a connection and reports that upwards until eventually that is assessed and recorded as an incompatibility" it was intended to be more or less equivalent to "every contract I have signed with a pharma client in the past twenty years has included an agreement to report - immediately - any adverse event occurring to someone taking one of their drugs": it is that base collection of data that drives the whole process.   Once you have that base data, it is indeed necessary to collect it into larger datasets and hit it with a lot of statistical analyses, confidence measures, multi-variant hypotheses testing and weird and wonderful mathematics to try to extract the most meaningful data, which will sometimes result in statements of the form "patients taking A and B might get side effect S (including how often, how severe and so on). That triggers a process that may ultimately end up in such things as warnings on the leaflets accompanying drugs A and B.

That the NHS England data is an extremely useful data set to analyse the interactions of drugs (especially those with no immediately obvious links) is certain. In particular, it can give us information, using my A and B example, to determine how many people do not have side effects (naturally, people do not report not having a side effect unless explicitly asked.) It can also determine that people who took A and B reported having S without realising it was a side effect at all. Or might even end up revealing the issue is not A and B at all, but A and something else, but the patient assumed it was B because they had recently changed medication.

So I do not under-value the potential benefits of the NHS data at all. Where my concerns arise is with who has got access to such a valuable commodity. The NHS England web site is definite that the data will not be made available to insurance companies, for example. But in truth all they can really say is there is no intention of doing so. In a few years, with another government, and new priorities who can really say? Added to that, we have to recognise everyone is fallible and not everyone is honest. There have been plenty of examples over the years of civil servants leaving secret documents/laptops on trains and such like. Mistakes will happen, because that is human nature. I pick on insurance companies because they would have an obvious interest, but there are many others.

I make the assumption that company C1 has an near-perfect understanding of its own products, but a much more limited knowledge of those of company C2, and vice versa. If there is a company that is especially adept at analysing the data - A1 - then if C1 can form an exclusive relationship with A1 it could significantly alter the market to disadvantage C2. This is why, in my mind, A1 should not be a commercial body, and if it must be it should certainly not be in a monopolistic position.

Now, there is always a level of trust in these systems. If I choose to opt out, I assume that sets a flag on my data. With human fallibility some coder will at some time accidentally fail to check the flag when they extract data for processing. There is nothing I can do about that. All I can do is choose where to draw the boundaries of where I have to take things on trust and I have to do so recognising that if enough people choose not to share their data, it reduces the potential benefits of the data.

It is, as I said, not an especially easy decision to decide whether to opt out or not. Other people's thoughts are welcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Jos
Date: 07 Jun 21 - 02:10 AM

I can't help wondering whether opting out will label me as unco-operative, and result in my being regarded as less important if there is limited availability of a treatment I need in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Jun 21 - 03:04 AM

One thing I mentioned before that I did not cover on my second attempt is that while the system of testing is focused on side effects of a drug (and closely related ones), when it gets out of the lab and into the real world the number of possible interacting drugs rapidly increases. It is not rare for people to be taking, for example, a drug for depression, one for a heart problem, a blood thinner, something for osteoarthritis and the occasional aspirin or paracetamol. Another person might be taking statins, something for low or high blood pressure and some herbal compound which was not prescribed but has an active components. People mainly take combinations of drugs, not a single drug.

With the best testing in the world, and every good intention, it is simply not feasible to address all possible combinations of all possible drugs. The pharma companies will certainly test the more obvious possible sources of issues, but it is not practical to cover everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Vincent Jones
Date: 07 Jun 21 - 06:52 AM

But DMcG, it doesn't work like that, mate. Don't want to give clients' secrets away, or turn this into a statistics symposium, but I'd say that a drug company that starts with the wonderful intention of considering every possible drug combination and tests for adverse events for each and every one, using the best testing in the world, has gone arse over tit. No, you rake together all the data you can grab on how the drug's used in the real world and look for adverse events. Then, for each such event, look for predictors, including drug combos. All standard practice as taught to baby epidemiologists once they're allowed solid food.

Your original concern (if I'm right) is whether your refusal to allow your personal data to be used will affect how long term effects are found. I don't think so. My understanding is that all such events, and the circumstances in which they occur, are reported (anonymised) to the pharma company by the general practice or hospital as a matter of course, and as a legal requirement - the only way an individual can stop the data being passed on is by avoiding all health care professionals.

Now I just need to work out how to get to the DMs.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Jun 21 - 07:02 AM

New techniques because of the invention of CRISPR has changed the old pharma status quo. Thats how rna vaccines took only one year to get into arms..

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Jun 21 - 07:05 AM

No, you rake together all the data you can grab on how the drug's used in the real world and look for adverse events

Yes, but I was mainly thinking about the trials before it goes into general use when I was talking about testing for interactions with other drugs. At that stage, you are primarily concentrating on a (relatively) small set of other drugs where you suspect possible interactions surely? Once it goes into wider use, yes, you are gathering what real world data you can. Which is exactly why the NHS England data is so valuable.

Thank you for your comments so far. It is always useful to hear from someone with more experience of a subject than I have!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Jun 21 - 07:09 AM

And by opting out I was referring to the NHS Digital 'opt-out' of data sharing

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 07 Jun 21 - 10:00 AM

Big corporations rely on the fact that opting out is a pain in the arse for most ordinary citizens,
already too busy dealing with problems..

So right now I've got to find time and motivation to opt-out of this this
New medical scheme..

Amazon Prime's new Echo neighborhood broadband sharing scheme..

.. and any other opt-outs I've already forgotten about..

Chances are like most folk I'll just just put off thinking about this until it's too late...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Jun 21 - 11:28 AM

Vincent Jones
To get to your DMs just scroll to the top of this page and (below "The Mudcat Cafe") click on "personal page"

Cheers

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Vincent Jones
Date: 08 Jun 21 - 08:18 AM

This has been really informative to me.

You put that NHS Englad data (from which you have chosen to opt-out) "is an extremely useful data set to analyse the interactions of drugs (especially those with no immediately obvious links) is certain."

This has led me to look at the NHS England data (something I should have done a long time ago), but I can't find any aspect of it that will enable such analysis. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places. Where did you get this information, DMcG? I've looked over the NHS England lists of data and it looks perfect for resourcing but extremely light on drug analysis.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Jun 21 - 09:33 AM

I’m rather more concerned that our data is to be farmed as part of a ‘Due Diligence’ exercise being carried out prior to the sale of some, perhaps most, maybe even all, of the NHS to US private health-care companies.

We’ve opted out.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Jun 21 - 09:39 AM

And of course, I meant ‘harvested’, not ‘farmed’. It’s all being kept dark and hush-hush by this government of ours that would sell its kids for tuppence, and it’s reminiscent of the kind of manœvres that, as a Management and Financial Accountant, I was involved in with regard to company disposals and acquisitions during my working life.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 08 Jun 21 - 10:17 AM

That puts some warm glow in my sense of moral superiority...

Walking away from a career in accountancy when I was 18 was a splendid act of defiant idealistic bravado..

It was also one of the most stupid life decisions I ever made,
seeing as I've been so skint ever since...

It was only years afterwards that I realised so many of my anti-capitalist hippie and punk counterculture influencers,
were public school educated and supported by very comfortably well off families..

Garrett...!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 08 Jun 21 - 10:22 AM

Garrett.. who the f*** is Garrett.. !!!???

I typed "Grrrrrr"..

Or at least I thought I did..

Bloody tiny mobile phone Type pads and screens...

Grrrrrrrrrrr.....

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Jun 21 - 01:18 PM

Roll out of NHS England data sharing postponed until September

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 08 Jun 21 - 01:37 PM

Also turns out the impending Amazon neighbourhood broadband sharing opt out deadline is USA only...

.. not UK.. for now...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Jun 21 - 06:13 PM

I hadn't answered Vincent's question about what data is going to be available and whether is geared for.resources rather than analysis of specific medicines. I gather that the current data is more resources oriented (except for very specific research work) but the replacement system.will be much broader. &ere is an extract from the NHS information on the system, talking about how it is based round records of individuals:
We take our responsibility to safeguard patient data extremely seriously. Data shared by NHS Digital is subject to strict rules around privacy, security and confidentiality and the new service has been designed to the highest standards. 

We do not collect patients’ names or exactly where they live. Any other data that could directly identify someone, for example their NHS number, full postcode and date of birth, is pseudonymised before it leaves their GP practice. This means that this data is replaced with unique codes so patients cannot be directly identified in the data which is shared with us. The data is also securely encrypted.

We would only ever re-identify the data if there was a lawful reason to do so and it would need to be compliant with data protection law. For example, a patient may have agreed to take part in a research project or clinical trial and has already provided consent to their data being shared with the researchers for this purpose. 

So while it will need suitable approvals, it always possible to 're-identify' the data - ie trace it back to an individual. That means we are not just talking about aggregated data - "there were 27 cases of broken shoulders this month" - but are listing all 27 cases, with anonomised ids. The link I gave says almost the entire medical history will be accessible, including all the individual medicines, treatments, etc. The NHS Digital site says it collects

data about diagnoses, symptoms, observations, test results, medications, allergies, immunisations, referrals, recalls and appointments, including information about physical, mental and sexual health

data on sex, ethnicity and sexual orientation

data about staff who have treated patients
It is not entirely clear to me that all these are related to the same anonymised id, though that seems most likely to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Jun 21 - 03:12 AM

the uk government should be building new schools and new hospitals that are designed to cope with viruses.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 09 Jun 21 - 05:41 AM

Now the the UK passport is no longer recognised as a document that allows freedom of movement across 28 countries, why are the leeches at the passport office still charging £75.50 for a renewal when it is only worth £2.70?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 09 Jun 21 - 06:48 AM

Forget travel..
a British passport is valid photo ID when dealing with local petty bureaucrats, while confined in our own nation..

That's the only reason I renewed mine a few years ago

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 09 Jun 21 - 06:58 AM

Though it's bloody expensive,
and applying for one is a bureaucratic pain in the arse in itself..

How much would any future proposed UK National Identity card likely be...???

Mind you, the post office passport photo machine
has made me look very white..

The colour balance must have been set by a brexiteer engineer...!!!???

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Jun 21 - 07:20 AM

It is expensive in some ways, but very similar to the price I paid for my Irish passport. Holding both is more symbolic than practical, as my wife only holds a British passport, and sitting in the cafe while she is stuck in a queue is not worth the potential earache.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 09 Jun 21 - 08:34 AM

They are not fit for purpose. They do not work at e-gates in other European countries. If my partner and I decide to travel together to another European country when Covid restrictions are behind us we would need to stand in different passports queues and be subject to different passport regulations rather than being free to travel as a couple, that makes us officially sub-human.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Jun 21 - 09:08 AM

President Biden, who is more teetering than your Queen, today visits Boris Johnson, your latter day Winston Churchhill, :roll eyes:
Perhaps you will believe there is a complete US return to Democracy and NATO but not even Japan is buying it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Jun 21 - 02:50 AM

Had to laugh at the phrasing of this!

"Boris Johnson’s guests are set to enjoy buttered rum, an indoor rainforest and a beach barbecue with local sea shanties"

Local sea shanties, eh? That's an interesting concept.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Jun 21 - 03:01 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: SPB-Cooperator - PM
Date: 09 Jun 21 - 05:41 AM

Now the the UK passport is no longer recognised as a document that allows freedom of movement across 28 countries, why are the leeches at the passport office still charging £75.50 for a renewal when it is only worth £2.70?
not quite true ireland is an exception, but otherwise i take your point

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Jun 21 - 03:21 AM

Now the the UK passport is no longer recognised as a document that allows freedom of movement across 28 countries

Just to head off Nigel, that is not what the passport does or did. As far as the countries of Europe are concerned, the UK passport has not changed significantly since before the EU existed, and for countries outside the EU it is entirely unchanged.

You can travel as freely to the countries now (leaving the covid-19 stuff aside) as you could while we were in the EU, apart from joining a different queue at the border, and you many need something like the US ESTA eventually.

"Freedom of movement" has always been, in my view, a poor choice of words. It is more like "freedom of employment" really. That has been lost, but the ability to visit has not.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Jun 21 - 03:59 AM

the leechesat the pass port office are in the business of exploting the stuation, just like the pharma companies, politics seems to be about quick fix

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 11 Jun 21 - 06:23 AM

DMcG - freedom of movement also means freedom to enter into a relationship with someone from another country that has the same freedoms. Now if you want to enter into a relationship and live together, it has to be with someone is suitable in the eyes of the government, while if you want a relationship with a British dug dealer or child abuses - no problem as far as priti vacant is concerned.

There have already been cases where people from EU countries have been denied entry because they 'might' illegally work during the 90 days that they are entitled to visit for, and before the A8 acquisition, it was fairly routine for young people to immediately be sent back home IN CASE they overstay.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 11 Jun 21 - 06:33 AM

also freedom to stay for more than 90 days in any 180 period has been lost. In my eyes, the value of my passport has gone down and the price should reflect this, and not the cost of processing applications.
what is the point of having a biometric passport if they do not work on e-passport gates?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Jun 21 - 06:38 AM

I agree, SPB-Cooperator. it is not really possible to completely summarise FoM in a few words - it always includes either too much or too little. I just wanted to be clear that it is not really about the right to enter a country on holiday, for example. FoM is more significant than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jun 21 - 07:33 AM

1399...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Jun 21 - 08:29 AM

1400! ;-)