U.K. Politics: Boris Johnson referred to police (AGAIN) over potential Covid rule breaches

[aRat]

... and people wonder why we left. The EU is nothing but a self serving dictatorship.

Oh the irony is way too much...

I mean didn't this whole situation happen because the UK was lobbying for and hoarding a huge chunk of the limited vaccines so european countries aren't able to get their share of doses they were gonna get?

Your blind nationalism always shines through, darling.

[Wayne]

The EU changed their mind very quickly last night and reversed the decision when they realised what a stupid decision it was.

[Thriller]

Getting a bit nasty now isn’t it. Is it jealousy that the UK has managed to get ahead with ordering and administering the vaccines or what?

[IDreamed]

Getting a bit nasty now isn’t it. Is it jealousy that the UK has managed to get ahead with ordering and administering the vaccines or what?

They were on about this this morning on the BBC, because we are doing extremely well(probably the only thing this government has got right) and the EU is struggling to get the vaccine out to many areas.

The thing is, will they control what goes to other countries that's poor? African countries that doesn't have the money?

[jio]

Oh the irony is way too much...

I mean didn't this whole situation happen because the UK was lobbying for and hoarding a huge chunk of the limited vaccines so european countries aren't able to get their share of doses they were gonna get?

No

[Artoo]

Oh the irony is way too much...

I mean didn't this whole situation happen because the UK was lobbying for and hoarding a huge chunk of the limited vaccines so european countries aren't able to get their share of doses they were gonna get?

Your blind nationalism always shines through, darling.

The UK placed vaccination orders 3 months before the EU did, and now the EU are annoyed they aren’t at the front of the distribution queue, and enraged there is a delay in delivering what they did order. It is nothing but a mess of their own doing.

Plus the UK is manufacturing the majority of its own approved vaccines - the bulk of our vaccines is the Oxford one Germany said not to give to people over 65 (which is madness, but their right).

Just to add - any union the size of the EU that has multiple member states to consider, is never going to be able to move as quickly as an independent nation.

[Artoo]

The thing is, will they control what goes to other countries that's poor? African countries that doesn't have the money?

My understanding is the Oxford vaccine is being sold to poorer countries at manufacturing cost, so there’s no profit in those orders.

[IDreamed]

My understanding is the Oxford vaccine is being sold to poorer countries at manufacturing cost, so there’s no profit in those orders.

I mean the EU!

Just before Christmas, the German Health minister was on TV. He didn't like the idea about the US and UK having the vaccine before Germany because it was made by a German Company.

It really does show there's some sort of jealousy there.

[Parkelife]

Germany has to go with the rest of the European Union, they have no other choice!
They can't dictate to other countries that's not in the bloc anymore.

[jio]

The UK placed vaccination orders 3 months before the EU did, and now the EU are annoyed they aren’t at the front of the distribution queue, and enraged there is a delay in delivering what they did order. It is nothing but a mess of their own doing.

Plus the UK is manufacturing the majority of its own approved vaccines - the bulk of our vaccines is the Oxford one Germany said not to give to people over 65 (which is madness, but their right).

Just to add - any union the size of the EU that has multiple member states to consider, is never going to be able to move as quickly as an independent nation.

This has nothing to with the logistics of getting the vaccines delivered in specific countries so it is not about size. It's about negotiating incompetence and that is the result of many institutions involved with different priorities and not sufficient political oversight

In the UK you had clearly set prompt vaccine delivery as a political priority and the government acted with that in mind bringing the whole thing to a satisfactory conclusion.

In the EU, you had EMA setting vaccine safety and efficiency as a priority, thus favoring a longer process of approval, governments setting vaccine delivery as a priority thus favoring shorter approval process (just like in the UK) and a bureaucratic organ, the European Commission negotiating with private companies for delivery of a product that was neither produced, nor licensed in huge quantities. In other words byzantine procedures with no clearly set goals and no single oversight.

While the European Commission was left alone to set new standards of incompetency in the contracts it signed with companies, the UK moved with fast vaccine approvals, that created political backlash in Europe which led to governments pressuring EMA and EMA making discounts on safety and efficiency everytime by approving every vaccine shortly after the UK did, i.e. a process lasting longer than in the UK with no clear benefit to the consumer and no transparency and legal predictability whatsoever.

When the incompetency of the whole system and especially the Commission resulted in one more time lives being put to danger unnecessarily, the Commission responded in the worst possible way by sending investigators over to Astrazeneca's factories looking for a legal way to blame someone other than themselves for it and demanding fast delivery of vaccines (as if there is a legal way that can force a company to work day and night to produce vaccines that are not there yet). That and the ill-advised short-lived ban of vaccine exports are just efforts to hide incompetency on the Commission level and nothing else.

Hungary is now making its own vaccine imports and frankly, I don't blame them.

[Artoo]

This has nothing to with the logistics of getting the vaccines delivered in specific countries so it is not about size

I agree, which is why I wasn’t talking about that.

The larger the political body, the more red tape and hoops there are to jump through in order to achieve anything. It’s just the way things are. The UK, as an independent nation, was able to just do what needed to be done and got on with it. In comparison, the EU placed their orders 3 months later.

This has nothing to do with vaccine safety - it was about buying them and having them on order. The EU did not act fast enough in securing their order, delayed in approving the vaccine and are now unhappy that a vaccine created and manufactured within the EU is being exported to the only country to have ever left it’s union.

Politically speaking, it’s an embarrassment and the EU knows it. Then they have the nerve to announce their intentions to create an ‘Irish border’, something it argued strongly against during Brexit just weeks ago. Clearly they have had pressure put on them to reverse their decision (presumably by both member states and their legal team).

So instead of accepting they are in a mess of their own making (regarding the vaccine) they created an international dispute by attempting to block exports to the UK (less than a month after the Brexit transition period ended) and embarrassing themselves further.

[jio]

Yes, I agree. I also agree it was not about safety, it was more about pretending caring more than the others about safety. EMA did want to focus on safety and take the longer approach but politicians intervened and in the end we just got a longer process with no added benefit on safety. Imagine that we had EMA reviewing the submissions on safety and efficiency while the Commission was ordering medicinal product irrespective of the process in EMA and politicians publicly saying to EMA to approve them. We also had repeatedly public outcries against EMA everytime the UK was approving a vaccine. As a result EMA's independence and professionalism was completely buried as it was effectively called upon to rubber stump political decisions. I am not saying a pandemic doesn't justify discounts on the normal process of approving medicinal products but that had to be done without the pretense that European decisions are based on so much more scrutiny than other developed countries because, let's be honest, they were completely identical to the decisions taken by others so it's clearly not the case.

I also agree about everything you said about the irish border thing. Actually it is something I can't quite grasp ever since the beginning of the Brexit thing. The EU is treating a country that until yesterday was a member and we were (supposedly) campaigning for it to remain one as enemy #1 right now. If that doesn't make a mockery of the whole EU solidarity thing I don't know what is - edit, I do know, selling weapons to countries openly threatening other EU countries with war...

[Artoo]

Yes, I agree. I also agree it was not about safety, it was more about pretending caring more than the others about safety.

You either don’t understand or you deliberately are twisting your view to point score. I don’t play those type of games.

[jio]

You either don’t understand or you deliberately are twisting your view to point score. I don’t play those type of games.

I don't, and I am not sure what you misunderstood so I can answer. ???.

My view was different than yours in that it was incompetence involved and not simply unavoidable red tape (which also exists but in a pandemic could have been dealt with). I thought you were referring to logistics which I misunderstood and you cleared that out.

I said that EMA cared about safety and efficiency and I do believe that. But EMA was not the one who made the decisions in the end of the day, politicians were. So yes, I agree that as a whole the delays were not connected to any concern about safety, because simply EMA was not left to do its job.

Does that make it more clear for you?

[Wayne]

UK applying to join Asia-Pacific free trade pact CPTPP

The UK is applying to join a free trade area made up of 11 Asia and Pacific nations, under its post-Brexit plans.

The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership - or CPTPP - includes Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand.

In total, it covers a market of around 500 million people, generating more than 13% of the world's income.

International Trade Secretary Liz Truss will make the request on Monday, with negotiations expected in the spring.

There are 11 countries in the CPTPP trade agreement formed in 2018: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

The US was originally in talks to be part of the CPTPP, but former President Donald Trump pulled out when he took office.

The main purpose of the deal is to cut trade tariffs - a form of tax, like a border tax - between member countries.

It includes a promise to eliminate or reduce 95% of import charges - although some of these charges are kept to protect some home-made products, for example Japan's rice and Canada's dairy industry.

In return, countries must cooperate on regulations, such as food standards. However, these standards and regulations do not have to be identical, and member countries can strike their own trade deals.

The UK is the first non-founding country to apply and, if successful, would be its second biggest economy after Japan.

It already has trade deals with most of the CPTPP countries that rolled over from its EU membership - and it is negotiating with Australia and New Zealand.

In total, CPTPP nations accounted for 8.4% of UK exports in 2019.

The government said it was announcing the deal as the UK marks one year since it left the EU.

It said if the UK joined the CPTPP, tariffs would be cut for UK industries including food and drink, and cars. For example, there would be no tariffs to export whisky to Malaysia and cars to Canada.

There would also be the potential for faster and cheaper visas for business people, it added.

"One year after our departure from the EU we are forging new partnerships that will bring enormous economic benefits for the people of Britain," said Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

"Applying to be the first new country to join the CPTPP demonstrates our ambition to do business on the best terms with our friends and partners all over the world and be an enthusiastic champion of global free trade."

Ms Truss added: "It will mean lower tariffs for car manufacturers and whisky producers, and better access for our brilliant services providers, delivering quality jobs and greater prosperity for people here at home.

"We're at the front of the queue and look forward to starting formal negotiations in the coming months."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55871373

You couldn't make it up could you.

We leave one group to regain our independence and apply to join another group straight after to lose a lot of that independence.

On a serious note, the EU will not like this - if the UK does join (and indeed, the US follows - as Biden has hinted), that creates an almighty global trading rival to the EU that could collaborate to nullify many of the financial benefits that come with being part of the EU.

[Artoo]

It lost me at ‘must cooperate on regulations, such as food standards’. Didn’t we leave the EU because Boris didn’t like them telling us how curvy our bananas had to be?

I see no disadvantages of joining and assume our membership has already been informally approved behind closed doors. The EU are not going to enjoy seeing us succeed - I genuinely think it’s only a matter of time before someone else leaves.

[Wayne]

Unbelievable...

[jio]

The EU is far more than a trading block though... there is no comparison really... and yes, the UK should not succeed because its success would be a major reason for other countries to exit the EU, primarily but not only Ireland. Many many countries are hugely disappointed with the way the EU is handling things so they are watching closely how the UK experiment will be unfolding.

[Artoo]

The EU is far more than a trading block though... there is no comparison really... and yes, the UK should not succeed because its success would be a major reason for other countries to exit the EU, primarily but not only Ireland. Many many countries are hugely disappointed with the way the EU is handling things so they are watching closely how the UK experiment will be unfolding.

I can see Italy or Poland leaving next.

[jio]

I can see Italy or Poland leaving next.

Mmm, it's far more difficult with Euro countries with big debts. So I don't see Italy leaving soon (although it is better positioned than the other Med countries to do so). I see Ireland as the biggest candidate because, despite being a euro country, it has an economy closely connected to that of the UK so it's only natural to follow the UK eventually, if the UK exit proves a success.

Poland maybe but the visengrad countries' economies are in tune with that of Germany so they are generally benefiting by their EU membership (up to the point when they don't become too rich) and as long as they don't join the euro, they can always fight back any effort of subverting their will (as the recent case of Poland and Hungary clearly shows).

[Thriller]

Unbelievable...

Classic for this country though, let’s forget 1000 unforgivable decisions because of one good (so far) one. Keir needs to step up soon though, his opposition is weak and his party is still broken. I’m hoping he will once COVID is under control.

[Wayne]

A couple of days old but worth posting nonetheless - shocking but not shocking.

COVID-19: Government's failure to publish COVID contracts details was unlawful, High Court rules

A judge says the Department of Health failed to comply with a public procurement law to publish contract awards within 30 days.

The government unlawfully failed to publish details of coronavirus-related contracts worth billions, the High Court has ruled.

The Good Law Project launched a judicial review against the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) over its "wholesale failure" to disclose details of the COVID-19-related contracts.

Under law, the government has to publish a "contract award notice" within 30 days of the award of any contracts for public goods or services worth more than £120,000.

The campaign group - which was backed by Labour MP Debbie Abrahams, Green Party MP Caroline Lucas and Liberal Democrat MP Layla Moran - argued the department displayed a "dismal" failure to comply with this.

A judge at the High Court has now said that Health Secretary Matt Hancock failed to comply with a public procurement law that requires ministers to publish contract awards within 30 days.

"There is now no dispute that, in a substantial number of cases, the secretary of state breached his legal obligation to publish contract award notices within 30 days of the award of contracts," Mr Justice Chamberlain said.

"There is also no dispute that the secretary of state failed to publish redacted contracts in accordance with the transparency policy."

The judge said the obligation was a "vital public function" which was "no less important during a pandemic".

He added: "The secretary of state spent vast quantities of public money on pandemic-related procurements during 2020.

"The public were entitled to see who this money was going to, what it was being spent on and how the relevant contracts were awarded.

"This was important not only so that competitors of those awarded contracts could understand whether the obligations ... had been breached, but also so that oversight bodies such as the National Audit Office, as well as Parliament and the public, could scrutinise and ask questions about this expenditure."

More: https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...rules-12222826

[Thriller]

And the consequences are...? Nothing.

[SholasBoy]

Well Andrew Marr gave him a bit of a hard time on his show this morning, but his answer was that during the early stages of the pandemic it was more important that his team worked hard to obtain the PPE as quickly as possible, at the detriment of completing the relevant paperwork on time, which came about 2 weeks later than it was supposed to. I could care less tbh, even though the sight of the guys smug face winds me up something chronic. What is more worrying is the amount of public money spent on this court case.

[Wayne]

What is more worrying is the amount of public money spent on this court case.

That's nothing compared to the amount of money the government have spent on these contracts though - I mean Nasa sent a spacecraft to Mars for 1/10th the cost of the government spending on things like Test & Trace...they have squandered an astounding amount of money on these contracts and a lot of them were awarded without any due diligence.

I'm glad they are being exposed, when it does eventually come time for re-election, I hope all of this comes back out and damages the Tory re-election chances.