To wonder what people mean when they say "Oh, I wish they'd just get ON with Brexit!"

[BertrandRussell]

Because I have no idea how they would do that.

What a surprise, 4 pages of whining by sooth sayers. Typical.

It means what so many others have put so succinctly... and that they don't give a fuck about the north of Ireland.
Every time some fool says "will of the people" I ask "what about the will of the people who voted by a huge majority for the GFA?"

I take it to mean they want to government to stop bickering (debate yes, childish tantrums and not offering solutions to the problems they’re pointing out is no good to anyone) and get a plan in place and get negotiating with the EU.

I don’t want Brexit, I never did, but I’m bloody sick of the likes of Boris Johnson throwing strops and disrupting government’s attempt at cleaning up his mess. We’ve had a farce of a general election, ministers quitting, contradictory “red lines”, Tory infighting and temper tantrums. What we need is to actually decide what we want and what we can realistically get and actually negotiate with the EU. Because no deal is not anyone’s ideal scenario.

Whining soothsayers = I'm uncomfortable with people telling the truth.

Has the penny dropped yet with people? This will not be pretty for anyone really, and IMV so unnecessary because all we will be left with is a mirror of what went before without the contribution.

And lots of new contracts/issues to be negotiated and problems along the way. Ah well that's democracy.

Surely we deserve better than this.

to immediately trigger Article 50, if vote went Leave. A lot of the disaster-scenarios were based on this assumption.

Only thing that would have brought us certainty & security was a resounding Remain vote. If you didn't want this saga to go on for years & decades then should have voted Remain.

Agree that embracing Norway model, at least as a starting position, was always one of the very few decent options.

So. Brexit. How will it happen?

I'm a remainer, but I recognise that we are where we are. I am a politically aware, highly educated, ex senior civil servant. And I haven't got a bloody clue how we could make Brexit work. If I was advising my Minister now, I would have no idea what to say.

Norway model involves Free Movement. Not a runner for a UK exit I would safely suggest.

I think I predicted somewhere on MN boards, years ago, that we would end up with something that looks hugely like the Norway model. This was the best case scenario. Movement from half-in to half-out.

In fact if we had wanted to, we could simply have just used any drugs authorised by the EU without paying for the medicines to be checked ourselves - it would be our choice, and no more risky than present

Really. And can you not think of any risks that might arise from having medicines labelled in Greek or Finnish?

BertrandRussell

Why not just say we'll just have the same relationship as Canada did to the EU in 2010, and start there.

It's really not that difficult if we just chose to do that.

I don't see a problem with well educated Canadians visiting and working in Europe or the UK, nor having any significant problems with medicines or aeroplanes etc. And yet, they also did not need to share any institutions and never needed to change their laws or accept EU courts to then strike a trade deal.

It’s a shit show and we’re sick of hearing about it and listening to people moan about it.

WiseUpJanetWeiss

I assume that really is a joke comment

Testing of medicines has nothing to do with the packaging. If the UK law indicates that all medicines in the UK must have English, then. that will be the case just as it is now. The UK did have medicine prior to 1972, and always had strong standards.

In the rare case we are talking about a product with no English, in general products can be repackaged - but especially with medicines, pharmacies provide the instructions in any case.

The UK is very good at big pharma. We would have no problem with medicines, and could import easily from outside the EU

Medicines shortages are a very real problem now. How will this improve after Brexit? Are any medicines manufacturers supporting your view?

Norway model has an emergency brake option on immigration.
However the ability to use it has to be negotiated I believe and given we didn't actually apply the options already available to us...

We're not as good at big pharma as you think. We're quite a small player really.

It's also going to cost a lot.

www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-15/drugmaker-glaxo-sees-up-to-100-million-in-initial-brexit-costs

No, it’s a comment from someone who does actually know a bit about the practicalities of medicines licensing, manufacture and imports from within and outside the EEA.

Things have changed since 1972. We’re not talking about penicillin and aspirin any more.

WiseUpJanetWeiss

To be clear, you are indicating within the EU framework there are medicine shortages. To also be clear the government has very limited power under EU state aid rules to intervene, whilst as an independent country the UK could (like the US and Canada) instruct by law and subside creation of drugs even if under license if they so wished.

I'm glad we've cleared up that the EU system that we cannot change by ourselves is at fault.

No. I’m talking about world shortages of active ingredients and global manufacturing problems.

You sound knowledgeable- what's the issue with medicines? I take quite a few so worried about it. Is it that we'd have to pay more? I can't imagine the EU will refuse to export?

They will have no choice over certain cancer and cardiac medicines. They are radioactive and so have to follow international rules on movement of nuclear materials. The UK will no longer be part of Euratom and has done nothing to replicate its role as recognised regulator and until it does we cannot import these medicines. We can't stockpile them either as they only have a shelf life of a few days. (We also have no capacity to produce them ourselves in case you're wondering.)

The fact we have reduced our capacity its to9. create isotopes despite developing an early nuclear power station and notably being one of the main nuclear material processing facilities is too the very point of the argument.

The UK, US and Australia could easily reach agreement in this area if required. You will appreciate nobody could stop this transfer of material.

As indicated previously, we should have spent all this time preparing our International agencies rather than playing the EU games.

In return the UK could also refuse all banking services to the EU - it might focus some minds.

There are global problems all over the place - this is irrelevant in general. However, state aid does mean an inability to decide to change that outside of what business believes necessary.

Shortages generally mean efficient plants and high prices. Only government policies can force a change.

Genuinely curious about jow that banking thing would work given they are not government agencies and beholdent to shareholders.

How do you think laws normally work, alongside banking regulators? If they deal with an EU legal entity, the bank and individuals are prosecuted.

The USA stops its financial institutions from dealing with several countries - and people go to prison if they break the rules.

The UK carries around 45% of all forex deals in the world. If the UK and US coordinated their efforts on trade through restricting access to NY and LON,, the EU banking system would collapse overnight.

I’m genuinely curious as to what Blink’s experience is in medicines licensing and procurement.

I’m not an expert but what she’s saying sounds questionable at best.