Brexit

[ruffrecords]

Quote by Angus Dalgleish, professor of oncology at the University of London.

"I've no concerns about leaving the EU - in fact it will be a blessed relief for people in my field. Britain used to be one of the best places in the world to do clinical trials. But the EU CLinical Trials Directive of 2004 more or less killed off the trials industry, with onerous, over cautious new regulations which have stifled innovation. Thus, researchers are now barred from looking for exciting new uses for old drugs - I, for example, conducted trials with with a TB vaccine in cancer patients - practices that used to yield breakthroughs. As for the allocation of grant money, this - as my experience on an EU cancer commission taught me - is mainly "determined by lobbying, not by peer reviewed decisions". Leaving the EU will allow us to escape this "constipated culture" and return to a "freer, researcher led and much more creative approach to regulating medical studies and saving lives"

Cheers

Ian

 

[rob_gould]

Both interesting quotes Ian, from people who clearer have more than a basic level of knowledge and involvement about what Brexit means in their respective fields. 

We need to hear from them again in five years time though, not now.  Whether the oncologist's future will suddenly become drastically rosier I'm a bit skeptical about. 

The second quote makes me think that EU reform is (was?!) what's required, not a total exit.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

(quote by Dr Christopher Whelan, University of Oxford)

Cheers

Ian

I'm no Doctor, but it seems to me like a very narrow take on the issue, one that seems to promote the exploitation of workers in order to maximise profits; in fact it's just a continuation of the system that allowed most western European countries to enjoy a tremendous 30 years period, based on "importing" underpaid and under socially-protected foreign workers.
I'm no dreamer and I know I've been the benficiary of this policy, but I think we should at least give these people the fundamental right that we pretend our civilization is built upon, freedom. If they're good enough to work for us, they're good enough to live with us.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Quote by Angus Dalgleish, professor of oncology at the University of London.

"I've no concerns about leaving the EU - in fact it will be a blessed relief for people in my field. Britain used to be one of the best places in the world to do clinical trials. But the EU CLinical Trials Directive of 2004 more or less killed off the trials industry, with onerous, over cautious new regulations which have stifled innovation. Thus, researchers are now barred from looking for exciting new uses for old drugs - I, for example, conducted trials with with a TB vaccine in cancer patients - practices that used to yield breakthroughs. As for the allocation of grant money, this - as my experience on an EU cancer commission taught me - is mainly "determined by lobbying, not by peer reviewed decisions". Leaving the EU will allow us to escape this "constipated culture" and return to a "freer, researcher led and much more creative approach to regulating medical studies and saving lives"

Cheers

Ian

It's long known that British clinical evaluations have very different ethics than in Germany or France.
I read in this quote the expression of an impatient practician; some of the expressions are dead giveaways of a frustrated Nobel-would-be, "over cautious new regulations", "exciting new uses", "constipated culture".
The allusion to lobbying is ludicrous, imagine a lobby whose mission is to slow down the introduction of new drugs!  :
Anyone seen the movie "The constant gardener"?
I understand that a vast proportion of Brits have voted out, and I could probably understand why, but not with arguments of this paucity. Being a doctor or a professor is not an antidote to sillyness. I don't doubt there are people who have good reasons to have voted out, but I haven't yet seen one. The side benefits, such as devaluation of GBP resulting in increased export, cannot be the alpha and omega of Brexit, huh?

 

[rob_gould]

[quote author=abbey road d enfer]
I understand that a vast proportion of Brits have voted out...
[/quote]

Quite the opposite really!

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Quite the opposite really!

Well, I should have said "a vast proportion of those who were motivated to express their opinion"

 

[ruffrecords]

Well, I should have said "a vast proportion of those who were motivated to express their opinion"

That's the way democracy works.

Cheers

Ian

 

[Script]

Looking forward to 27 October when the first official estimate of how Brexit has affected the British economy over the last three months will be released. Probably most telling will be the effects on the service sector.

 

[mattiasNYC]

I'm no Doctor, but it seems to me like a very narrow take on the issue, one that seems to promote the exploitation of workers in order to maximise profits; in fact it's just a continuation of the system that allowed most western European countries to enjoy a tremendous 30 years period, based on "importing" underpaid and under socially-protected foreign workers.
I'm no dreamer and I know I've been the benficiary of this policy, but I think we should at least give these people the fundamental right that we pretend our civilization is built upon, freedom. If they're good enough to work for us, they're good enough to live with us.

Well said I think....

It's long known that British clinical evaluations have very different ethics than in Germany or France.
I read in this quote the expression of an impatient practician; some of the expressions are dead giveaways of a frustrated Nobel-would-be, "over cautious new regulations", "exciting new uses", "constipated culture".
The allusion to lobbying is ludicrous, imagine a lobby whose mission is to slow down the introduction of new drugs!  :
Anyone seen the movie "The constant gardener"?
I understand that a vast proportion of Brits have voted out, and I could probably understand why, but not with arguments of this paucity. Being a doctor or a professor is not an antidote to sillyness.

Again I think I agree.

 

[Script]

Theresa May not giving Parliament a vote on Brexit (just a debate) could easily be interpreted as another weakening of democratic processes in the UK. Britain is a representative democracy after all. I assume a majority of representatives would have voted to leave -- in order to (a) not lose credibility with the public and (b) hold onto their chairs. I see this as another instance of democracy weakening. The 'democratic' way would have been to hold general elections after the referendum as quickly as possible and then, with fresh personell, bring the various topics revolving around Brexit back onto the table.

Anyway, coming from a family with parents who worked with politicians and as independent advisers to politicians (of different colours), I predict that Ms May will be laughed at should she quote a decades-old option (access to free market but not free movement of people) in her negotiations with the EU. As a politician, trying to turn back the clock is never a wise idea. She will have to come up with something new -- it doesn't have to 'be' new, but it has to 'look' new. And time is really of the essence here.

Also Ms May should and probably will (have to) try much harder to team up with Nicola Sturgeon and others from the Remain camp. Otherwise she risks splitting the UK along century-old seams. The Scottish are a very proud people (sth. that should not be underestimated) and they might claim back their 'stone' after all. Admittedly, this is only speculation at this point; however, it's a possible development and should be taken into consideration seriously.

True democracy is not about sticking blindly to one single Yes/No option. It's about looking at reality and making compromises (actually many compromises to the point of sickness -- this is where the reproach of 'remoteness' of politicians comes from) so that the majority of people living in one state benefit in the long run. (From that point of view, any attempt to protect the moribound domestic steel, sugar and fishing industries is a waste of time and ressources, a waste that few politicians have the guts to admit publicly.) It could very well be that the likes of Ms Sturgeon have very good and practicable ideas up their sleeves for negotiations with the EU. Ms May better listens to them.

Just a silly idea, maybe: expand on federalism with in the UK so that regions can decide whether they want 'more' or 'less' access to the free market (linked to EU conditions including free movement of people). This means protectionism for regions that would clearly benefit from it and continued globalisation for others. Pretty sure this won't go down well with the EU; it's hardly practicable within the UK and impossible to control from outside the UK (movement of goods with the UK), but it might be a start to actually point at serious faults within the EU, including the lack of cross-nation labour unions, to name just one. However, something like this could be very exciting and possibly even  beneficial for all people (both in the UK and the EU).

Anyway, not matter what Ms May does, she better did it quickly. And I wouldn't be surprised if she decided soon to change her democratic opinion and come up with a very different pair of flashy boots.

 

[DaveP]

As has been said before, I am a remainer, but I do understand the pressures on the UK to get control of its borders.

This short table gives you an idea of population/km sq.

Holland        410
Japan            336
UK                  268
Germany    230
Poland          123
France          118
USA                  33
Sweden          22

I went back to the UK for a week this month and stayed between Bristol and Bath, the difference was incredible.

Theresa May is in a very difficult position, she has a very small majority and she can't afford to have a remain vote in parliament which would just cause insurmountable problems.  The population (knowing what they know now) have probably changed their mind and it would  be 52:48 to remain if there was a re-run today, but unfortunately what's done is done and we will have to live with the consequences.

The banks will probably relocate to Dublin which will be a windfall for them, but a big loss to the UK economy.  I don't think Scotland will hold another referendum for the simple reason that the EU will not let them in as a separate country, Spain will see to that.  The price of oil is too volatile to base their economy upon so their viability is very doubtful.

DaveP

 

[ruffrecords]

I'm no Doctor, but it seems to me like a very narrow take on the issue, one that seems to promote the exploitation of workers in order to maximise profits; in fact it's just a continuation of the system that allowed most western European countries to enjoy a tremendous 30 years period, based on "importing" underpaid and under socially-protected foreign workers.
I'm no dreamer and I know I've been the benficiary of this policy, but I think we should at least give these people the fundamental right that we pretend our civilization is built upon, freedom. If they're good enough to work for us, they're good enough to live with us.

Tell that to the  hard working fishermen of the UK who have seen their livelihood decimated by EU quotas and other EU countries fishing in our waters.

Cheers

Ian

 

[Script]

Not sure I'm repeating myself, but the fishing industry in the UK is and has been moribound -- both IN or OUT. Better tell fishermen to sell their boats and start learning about fish farming.
---------------------
The population figure per square kilometre in Japan is deceptive as more than 60% of the country is inhabitable mountains with forests. Half of Japan's population lives cramped into two massive metropolitan areas.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Tell that to the  hard working fishermen of the UK who have seen their livelihood decimated by EU quotas

What does this have to do with free circulation?

and other EU countries fishing in our waters. 

Now, what does "other EU countries fishing in our waters" mean? Do you mean illegal fishing? Is that a EU consequence? What waters? The 12 miles line?
The fishing legislation is the result of UN negociations leading to the Montego Bay convention, not EU, although most EU nations have signed, including UK.
And do you think fishermen from Brittany or Gascogne fare better? The problem is the depletion of fish caused by overexploitation; the notion of quota in this context is almost ludicrous since the reality of most fishermen today is an empty boat. It's like accusing the EU for a poor harvest caused by disastrous weather.

 

[madswitcher]

Theresa May not giving Parliament a vote on Brexit (just a debate) could easily be interpreted as another weakening of democratic processes in the UK. Britain is a representative democracy after all. I assume a majority of representatives would have voted to leave -- in order to (a) not lose credibility with the public and (b) hold onto their chairs. I see this as another instance of democracy weakening. The 'democratic' way would have been to hold general elections after the referendum as quickly as possible and then, with fresh personell, bring the various topics revolving around Brexit back onto the table.

Anyway, coming from a family with parents who worked with politicians and as independent advisers to politicians (of different colours), I predict that Ms May will be laughed at should she quote a decades-old option (access to free market but not free movement of people) in her negotiations with the EU. As a politician, trying to turn back the clock is never a wise idea. She will have to come up with something new -- it doesn't have to 'be' new, but it has to 'look' new. And time is really of the essence here.

Also Ms May should and probably will (have to) try much harder to team up with Nicola Sturgeon and others from the Remain camp. Otherwise she risks splitting the UK along century-old seams. The Scottish are a very proud people (sth. that should not be underestimated) and they might claim back their 'stone' after all. Admittedly, this is only speculation at this point; however, it's a possible development and should be taken into consideration seriously.

True democracy is not about sticking blindly to one single Yes/No option. It's about looking at reality and making compromises (actually many compromises to the point of sickness -- this is where the reproach of 'remoteness' of politicians comes from) so that the majority of people living in one state benefit in the long run. (From that point of view, any attempt to protect the moribound domestic steel, sugar and fishing industries is a waste of time and ressources, a waste that few politicians have the guts to admit publicly.) It could very well be that the likes of Ms Sturgeon have very good and practicable ideas up their sleeves for negotiations with the EU. Ms May better listens to them.

Just a silly idea, maybe: expand on federalism with in the UK so that regions can decide whether they want 'more' or 'less' access to the free market (linked to EU conditions including free movement of people). This means protectionism for regions that would clearly benefit from it and continued globalisation for others. Pretty sure this won't go down well with the EU; it's hardly practicable within the UK and impossible to control from outside the UK (movement of goods with the UK), but it might be a start to actually point at serious faults within the EU, including the lack of cross-nation labour unions, to name just one. However, something like this could be very exciting and possibly even  beneficial for all people (both in the UK and the EU).

Anyway, not matter what Ms May does, she better did it quickly. And I wouldn't be surprised if she decided soon to change her democratic opinion and come up with a very different pair of flashy boots.

I get the impression that you are trying to make a case for a 'Grey' area here, where it is plainly black or white: the country (actually, I can't remember how Scotland voted in the EU referendum) has decided that it wants out of the EU for a plethora of reasons. 

Also, going back to Ian's point about the parliamentary elitists thinking that 'they know better', Parliament has no say in if we stay in or out.  Should Parliament try to reverse that decision, we could be in for a constitutional crisis or worse, since they are plainly going against the wishes of the people who put them there. 

With regards to the Scots, I have to admit that I have never quite got the bottom of why they want out of the UK.  It was one of them who constitutionally joined them together in the first place (James I).  Their referendum on devolution again said 'No' and Sturgeon is trying to go against that decision - She thinks she knows better, or it is just for her own political gain? . 

Also I think that the EU will not permit Scotland to go alone as part of the EU as it will set a dangerous  precedence.  Spain for one will block it for their own internal reasons so I think Sturgeon has a bluffing hand here.

regards

Mike

 

[abbey road d enfer]

  I don't think Scotland will hold another referendum for the simple reason that the EU will not let them in as a separate country,

Do you think so? I would think some of the countries would be too happy to revenge for the slap Boris gave them (e.g. France  8).

Spain will see to that.

Do you mean because of the bad example it would make re. Catalunya? I believe that, in the event of Scotland's "independence" (which is not unthinkable, see how Eire has made it a viable paradigm), many EU countries would welcome them, on the basis that " if Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, ..., all separated countries, are members, how could we reject Scotland?"


 

The price of oil is too volatile to base their economy upon so their viability is very doubtful.

Most of the separatist politicians don't let reality interfere with their concepts; if proof was needed, Brexit clearly did.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

I get the impression that you are trying to make a case for a 'Grey' area here, where it is plainly black or white: the country (actually, I can't remember how Scotland voted in the EU referendum) has decided that it wants out of the EU for a plethora of reasons.

Is the Beeb lying?  http://www.bbc.com/news/politics/eu_referendum/results
or I misunderstand your statement...

With regards to the Scots, I have to admit that I have never quite got the bottom of why they want out of the UK.  It was one of them who constitutionally joined them together in the first place (James I).

Apparently, a lot of things have changed since 1437...
In fact, the subject seems so hot that it inhibits sense of humour in many
http://thinkofengland.blogspot.fr/2005/04/why-scottish-hate-english.html

 

[DaveP]

The UK Parliament would probably vote remain if they were left to their own devices, they have been out of step with their voters for years, this is probably why May won't allow another vote, only a debate.  But they obviously can't debate every angle in public because it will ruin what little negotiating power they have left.

Yes, Spain would not want Catalonia to be independent and Belgium would probably have problems with Wallonia too.  Scotland gets more money per capita from the UK government under the Barnet formula, so they would need the EU to make up the difference when they left.

As to why the Scots want to leave the UK, I blame Mel Gibson and Braveheart, it all started from then   He hates the English.

DaveP

 

[abbey road d enfer]

As to why the Scots want to leave the UK, I blame Mel Gibson and Braveheart, it all started from then  

It seems as plausible an explanation as those to Catalonia separatism ???

 

[ruffrecords]

What does this have to do with free circulation?

Nothing at all. I was responding to your reply about the exploitation of workers which was in reply to my post about drug trials.

Cheers

Ian