Crosswords0 min 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.
// ... the fact is we did roll out the vaccine quicker than the EU. Right? //
There's no causal link between the two. If, as in the video, you make the claim that Brexit "saved lives" -- the precise quote is:
"Has [Brexit] affected real lives? It's actually saved lives... there are people alive today who wouldn't be if we'd remained in the EU. Because if we had we would not have been able to produce, authorise, and roll out vaccines nearly as fast as we did..."
This is not true. It was refuted, as I say, at the time (see my links, and also the video at about 2:54).
There's no causal link between the two. If, as in the video, you make the claim that Brexit "saved lives" -- the precise quote is:
"Has [Brexit] affected real lives? It's actually saved lives... there are people alive today who wouldn't be if we'd remained in the EU. Because if we had we would not have been able to produce, authorise, and roll out vaccines nearly as fast as we did..."
This is not true. It was refuted, as I say, at the time (see my links, and also the video at about 2:54).
// You'll move heaven and earth to spin the inefficiency of your beloved EU. //
There's no spin here. It's simply a fact that our vaccine rollout was not made faster by Brexit. The two were independent.
I'm hardly arguing that "oh we didn't gain anything on the vaccine rollout so Brexit was a complete waste of time and we should undo it yesterday" or whatever. But you can, surely, see that there's a benefit to presenting the positive case for Brexit based on its actual positives, rather than its invented ones.
There's no spin here. It's simply a fact that our vaccine rollout was not made faster by Brexit. The two were independent.
I'm hardly arguing that "oh we didn't gain anything on the vaccine rollout so Brexit was a complete waste of time and we should undo it yesterday" or whatever. But you can, surely, see that there's a benefit to presenting the positive case for Brexit based on its actual positives, rather than its invented ones.
UK MHRA approved Astra Zeneca on th December 30 2021. I would refer you to Professor Sarah Gilbert's book VAXXERS, page 22. She was there and she is an expert ..... "The EU'S vaccination programme was going very slowly. "
You may recall there were shenanigans with the EU threatening to comandeer all the Pfizer vaccine from coming to UK, and Macron weighing in saying Astra-Zeneca was useless
You may recall there were shenanigans with the EU threatening to comandeer all the Pfizer vaccine from coming to UK, and Macron weighing in saying Astra-Zeneca was useless
1. The EU27 chose, by and large, to work together, and were slower.
2. The UK chose not to.
3. The UK would have been able to make that choice whether or not it had left.
This isn't about defending the EU. Indeed, to an extent the point I'm making is that membership of the EU would have had little to no effect on this either way. Brexit didn't make a difference, because being in the EU didn't make a difference.
2. The UK chose not to.
3. The UK would have been able to make that choice whether or not it had left.
This isn't about defending the EU. Indeed, to an extent the point I'm making is that membership of the EU would have had little to no effect on this either way. Brexit didn't make a difference, because being in the EU didn't make a difference.
//The UK would have been able to make that choice whether or not it had left. //
Apparently not. See Webbo's link.
//EU countries are not allowed to negotiate separate vaccine deals with pharmaceutical companies in parallel to the efforts of the European Union as a whole, the president of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen said on Friday.
“The only framework we are negotiating in is as 27. We do this together and no member state on this legal binding basis is allowed to negotiate in parallel or to have a contract in parallel,” von der Leyen told reporters in Brussels.//
Apparently not. See Webbo's link.
//EU countries are not allowed to negotiate separate vaccine deals with pharmaceutical companies in parallel to the efforts of the European Union as a whole, the president of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen said on Friday.
“The only framework we are negotiating in is as 27. We do this together and no member state on this legal binding basis is allowed to negotiate in parallel or to have a contract in parallel,” von der Leyen told reporters in Brussels.//
You're quite selective with which links you choose to cite, Naomi. I provided four, all of which indirectly address and anticipate the Reuters link above.
To be clear, once again: the EU27 chose in June 2020 to work together in terms of procurement and approval. That choice required approval of all member states. Once they had *chosen* to coordinate, it stands to reason that going against that choice would be problematic. But they were not obliged to make that choice. Meanwhile, if the UK had still been in the EU, we could at the very least have elected not to take part in the common scheme.
To be clear, once again: the EU27 chose in June 2020 to work together in terms of procurement and approval. That choice required approval of all member states. Once they had *chosen* to coordinate, it stands to reason that going against that choice would be problematic. But they were not obliged to make that choice. Meanwhile, if the UK had still been in the EU, we could at the very least have elected not to take part in the common scheme.
"We could have made the exact same decision, rolling out the vaccine at the exact same pace, while still in the EU."
Even if that is so, we wouldn't have, for exactly the same reasons the existing EU members didn't. So the point hasn't been missed, and this thread is created on a disingenuous claim; plus a false accusation of course.
Even if that is so, we wouldn't have, for exactly the same reasons the existing EU members didn't. So the point hasn't been missed, and this thread is created on a disingenuous claim; plus a false accusation of course.
I want to reiterate that I'm not arguing that Brexit made the situation with regards to vaccination approval and procurement worse. Instead, it had little to no effect. Turning that around, we also would have gained nothing from being inside the EU at the time.
But if you are specifically arguing that Brexit "saved lives" when it came to the Covid vaccine, that's not true. This is a quite narrow point ultimately, and it's neither here nor there in terms of Brexit in general, but it's clearly preferable to be accurate rather than fanciful.
But if you are specifically arguing that Brexit "saved lives" when it came to the Covid vaccine, that's not true. This is a quite narrow point ultimately, and it's neither here nor there in terms of Brexit in general, but it's clearly preferable to be accurate rather than fanciful.
//You're quite selective with which links you choose to cite, Naomi. I provided four, all of which indirectly address and anticipate the Reuters link above. //
None of your links said this though.
//EU countries are not allowed to negotiate separate vaccine deals with pharmaceutical companies in parallel to the efforts of the European Union as a whole, the president of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen said on Friday. //
Who's selective?
None of your links said this though.
//EU countries are not allowed to negotiate separate vaccine deals with pharmaceutical companies in parallel to the efforts of the European Union as a whole, the president of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen said on Friday. //
Who's selective?
I haven’t the time (or the inclination) to read all of ClaireTGOld’s links. But here’s a passage from one of them::
“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”. The EU member states in this case voluntarily decided to opt into the joint procurement scheme. If one or more of them had decided to follow the UK’s path and procure its own vaccines, no one would have stopped them.”
Here's an answer I prepared earlier. It is the last response to this question:
https:/
“As an aside, if the UK was able to make its own approval, no other EU country did so unilaterally and that’s because the EU made it clear that the vaccine development, authorisation and rollout would be on an EU wide basis. So it is fairly plain that, had we still been EU members, we would have been sucked into that edict whether we had the powers to opt out or not.”
And on to a little snippet from the European Medicines Agency (EMA):
https:/
“EMA has recommended granting a conditional marketing authorisation for the vaccine Comirnaty, developed by BioNTech and Pfizer, to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in people from 16 years of age. EMA’s scientific opinion paves the way for the first marketing authorisation of a COVID-19 vaccine in the EU by the European Commission, with all the safeguards, controls and obligations this entails.”
“The safety and effectiveness of the vaccine will continue to be monitored as it is used across the Member States, through the EU pharmacovigilance system and additional studies by the company and by European authorities.”
It is quite clear from the above (and what was said by EU politicians at the time) that nobody could be in much doubt that the EU was going to control the approval process and rollout. They made it quite clear that no country would be allowed to steal a march on another in either approval or rollout. They tried to extend their reach to the UK, even threatening to close the Irish border to prevent early supplies being shipped to the UK. So please don’t insult my intelligence by suggesting that, had the UK still been an EU member, it would have been permitted to go it alone with a vaccine programme.
//We could have made the exact same decision, rolling out the vaccine at the exact same pace, while still in the EU.//
I could say “utter cobblers” but I’m far too polite.
“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”. The EU member states in this case voluntarily decided to opt into the joint procurement scheme. If one or more of them had decided to follow the UK’s path and procure its own vaccines, no one would have stopped them.”
Here's an answer I prepared earlier. It is the last response to this question:
https:/
“As an aside, if the UK was able to make its own approval, no other EU country did so unilaterally and that’s because the EU made it clear that the vaccine development, authorisation and rollout would be on an EU wide basis. So it is fairly plain that, had we still been EU members, we would have been sucked into that edict whether we had the powers to opt out or not.”
And on to a little snippet from the European Medicines Agency (EMA):
https:/
“EMA has recommended granting a conditional marketing authorisation for the vaccine Comirnaty, developed by BioNTech and Pfizer, to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in people from 16 years of age. EMA’s scientific opinion paves the way for the first marketing authorisation of a COVID-19 vaccine in the EU by the European Commission, with all the safeguards, controls and obligations this entails.”
“The safety and effectiveness of the vaccine will continue to be monitored as it is used across the Member States, through the EU pharmacovigilance system and additional studies by the company and by European authorities.”
It is quite clear from the above (and what was said by EU politicians at the time) that nobody could be in much doubt that the EU was going to control the approval process and rollout. They made it quite clear that no country would be allowed to steal a march on another in either approval or rollout. They tried to extend their reach to the UK, even threatening to close the Irish border to prevent early supplies being shipped to the UK. So please don’t insult my intelligence by suggesting that, had the UK still been an EU member, it would have been permitted to go it alone with a vaccine programme.
//We could have made the exact same decision, rolling out the vaccine at the exact same pace, while still in the EU.//
I could say “utter cobblers” but I’m far too polite.
Latest Posts
Science5 mins ago
You've Gotta Admire The Creativity Of...
News7 mins ago
ChatterBank10 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.