brexit truth. | Page 7 | Vital Football

brexit truth.

It's over 80% now apparently

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55274833

Can't work out the figures though - England is 89% and 80%, but none of the regions are that high?

I was referring to our August vaccinated numbers which the last time I looked in August was just under 70% for double jabbed people. Van der Leyen used the term "fully vaccinated" which I assumed meant double jabbed where applicable. I think Gills58 is refering to the time when we had 25% of people jabbed and the EU had 25 people jabbed.
 
Marks & Spencer to close the eleven stand alone stores in France, losing over a thousand French jobs due to Eu restrictions of trade.
 
Dare say that some of the new subs will be built in Barrow.

It would be nice Lancs but I doubt it. The Australians will likely want the work to go to Australian yards and the money feed back into the Australian economy through jobs.

I'm interested to see what submarine class this turns out to be. US based design, UK based design or a brand new design for Australia.

I hope that the UK is involved as its good for our economy to. The value for us is likely to be technology transfer and design support.
 
There was very little triumphalism in the first place.

Not really a subject for national point scoring.

I'm sure I've heard Bozo point it out more than once. His usual attack on starmer being the UK is (was) so far advanced as we had left the EU medicines deal (or something like that) and Starmer was in favour of us being part of it.

I agree with your last point. I always found Bozos triumphalism over it in poor taste
 
Von der Leyen announced the formation of a European military force this morning including subsidies of zero vat for European arms manufacturers.
Also a European cyber hub for military purposes.
Quite a long way from the common market that our parents voted for.


An evolution rather than revolution in my view. There is already so much cross country collaboration both in design/manufacture and Operationally. Panavia, Eurofighter, Eurocopter, Airbus etc. etc.

Maybe NATO should cover the Operational aspect but I can see no harm in a more centralised European force

UK/EU forces work together all the time. This is an evolutionary next step for the continent of Europe. The UK won't be involved as we've moved away from closer European ties politically (and arguably in other ways as well as a consequence). Looks like our attention is now focused on the Indo/Pacific relationships as highlighted with AUKUS as an example.

There is the potential for instability in the world with the US less likely to be want to the Worlds Police. I can see why the European Countries are looking at the benefits of working closer together for their common protection (deterrent)
 
An evolution rather than revolution in my view. There is already so much cross country collaboration both in design/manufacture and Operationally. Panavia, Eurofighter, Eurocopter, Airbus etc. etc.

The difference is that Von der Leyen and others wants the decisions to be made in the EU parliament as to whether or not the members states commit their military forces in conflicts whereas currently the independant countries get to choose if they wish to take part in things and to what level.
 
An evolution rather than revolution in my view. There is already so much cross country collaboration both in design/manufacture and Operationally. Panavia, Eurofighter, Eurocopter, Airbus etc. etc.

Maybe NATO should cover the Operational aspect but I can see no harm in a more centralised European force

UK/EU forces work together all the time. This is an evolutionary next step for the continent of Europe. The UK won't be involved as we've moved away from closer European ties politically (and arguably in other ways as well as a consequence). Looks like our attention is now focused on the Indo/Pacific relationships as highlighted with AUKUS as an example.

There is the potential for instability in the world with the US less likely to be want to the Worlds Police. I can see why the European Countries are looking at the benefits of working closer together for their common protection (deterrent)
I’d have to correct that Mark.
The U.K. work with European individual countries on security and military cooperation but not with the institution of the Eu.
At least they never did previously.
Brussels is like a sieve.
Any confidential information could never be passed to the Eu.
As you are aware, very few countries in rich Europe live up to their Nato financial commitments.
They are happy to suckle off the teat of the USA and U.K. and then have the temerity to complain.
In a nutshell, the continent of Europe is mainly protected by non Eu countries.
If they paid their subs, they would be safer.
 
The difference is that Von der Leyen and others wants the decisions to be made in the EU parliament as to whether or not the members states commit their military forces in conflicts whereas currently the independant countries get to choose if they wish to take part in things and to what level.
Again, another correction.
Nothing is decided by the Eu Parliament.
The decisions are made by the Commission.
The purpose of the Parliament is to debate and then agree.
 
The difference is that Von der Leyen and others wants the decisions to be made in the EU parliament as to whether or not the members states commit their military forces in conflicts whereas currently the independant countries get to choose if they wish to take part in things and to what level.

Agreed but that's what parliaments do. That's what the UK parliament does for UK forces.

I'm not arguing that closer political alignment is not for everyone - that was one of the reasons for brext.

Shotshy is right that wasn't what the common market started out as. I'm just saying the move to a European military force is an evolutionary progression.

I get why so many are against it. Personally I'm not.

I could argue that closer parliamentary scrutiny before making the decision to send our troops to war would be no bad thing.
 
I’d have to correct that Mark.
The U.K. work with European individual countries on security and military cooperation but not with the institution of the Eu.
At least they never did previously.
Brussels is like a sieve.
Any confidential information could never be passed to the Eu.
As you are aware, very few countries in rich Europe live up to their Nato financial commitments.
They are happy to suckle off the teat of the USA and U.K. and then have the temerity to complain.
In a nutshell, the continent of Europe is mainly protected by non Eu countries.
If they paid their subs, they would be safer.

Technically you are correct. I'm choosing to look at closer alignment (politically, economically and possibly militarily) more holistically. There are already combined French German units.

Other countries may baulk at it as well and further splinter the EU
 
I'm sure I've heard Bozo point it out more than once. His usual attack on starmer being the UK is (was) so far advanced as we had left the EU medicines deal (or something like that) and Starmer was in favour of us being part of it.

If we had remained in the EU then under the banner of solidarity with our EU partners we would have signed up to the EU Medicines deal. And had we done so then all those vaccines we got from our own deal with AstraZeneca would have instead been distributed around the EU. And if the vaccines were distributed around the EU then the UK would have had less vaccines to vaccinate its own people.

From memory from when Boris was making such a point, we had approved the vaccine while the EU's equivalent Drug Safety department was still discussing if it was safe or not. If we were still part of the EU then our own rollout of vaccinations would have also been delayed.

Simply look at the figures of % of people vaccinated at different points in time to see that the UK did a hell of a better job than the EU at the start of the vaccination programmes and a lot of it was that Brexit meant that we didn't need to make decisions in the name of solidarity with our EU partners.

And anyway, wasn't the point only being made by the government in response to questions from pro-EU supporters who were critisising the decision not to sign up to the various EU vaccination and ventilator programmes?
 
Again, another correction.
Nothing is decided by the Eu Parliament.
The decisions are made by the Commission.
The purpose of the Parliament is to debate and then agree.

Parliament? Commission? Pffft. Semantics. I was simply saying that the EU decision makers will decide. What department of the institution decides was less important to the point.

p.s. I thought the point of the parliament was to agree with the commission?
 
If we had remained in the EU then under the banner of solidarity with our EU partners we would have signed up to the EU Medicines deal. And had we done so then all those vaccines we got from our own deal with AstraZeneca would have instead been distributed around the EU. And if the vaccines were distributed around the EU then the UK would have had less vaccines to vaccinate its own people.

From memory from when Boris was making such a point, we had approved the vaccine while the EU's equivalent Drug Safety department was still discussing if it was safe or not. If we were still part of the EU then our own rollout of vaccinations would have also been delayed.

Simply look at the figures of % of people vaccinated at different points in time to see that the UK did a hell of a better job than the EU at the start of the vaccination programmes and a lot of it was that Brexit meant that we didn't need to make decisions in the name of solidarity with our EU partners.

And anyway, wasn't the point only being made by the government in response to questions from pro-EU supporters who were critisising the decision not to sign up to the various EU vaccination and ventilator programmes?

Not arguing that we were faster out of the blocks.

I was just pointing out that there was triumphalism from bozo
 
Agreed but that's what parliaments do. That's what the UK parliament does for UK forces.

I'm not arguing that closer political alignment is not for everyone - that was one of the reasons for brext.

Shotshy is right that wasn't what the common market started out as. I'm just saying the move to a European military force is an evolutionary progression.

I get why so many are against it. Personally I'm not.

I could argue that closer parliamentary scrutiny before making the decision to send our troops to war would be no bad thing.
Of course "scrutiny" is a good thing.
But the EU Parliament has limited powers of decision-making.
(Some might say that its powers are similar to our House of Lords.)

The House of Commons can (and occasionally does) vote against Government policy.....
A HoC vote can have legislative effect (including the occasional non-whipped or not)
 
It would be nice Lancs but I doubt it. The Australians will likely want the work to go to Australian yards and the money feed back into the Australian economy through jobs.

I'm interested to see what submarine class this turns out to be. US based design, UK based design or a brand new design for Australia.

I hope that the UK is involved as its good for our economy to. The value for us is likely to be technology transfer and design support.


That`s a shame for Barrow - I guess our "shallow" politicians were bluffed into letting the Aussies build the submarines after hearing they have more experience down under......... ;)
 
An evolution rather than revolution in my view. There is already so much cross country collaboration both in design/manufacture and Operationally. Panavia, Eurofighter, Eurocopter, Airbus etc. etc.

Maybe NATO should cover the Operational aspect but I can see no harm in a more centralised European force

UK/EU forces work together all the time. This is an evolutionary next step for the continent of Europe. The UK won't be involved as we've moved away from closer European ties politically (and arguably in other ways as well as a consequence). Looks like our attention is now focused on the Indo/Pacific relationships as highlighted with AUKUS as an example.

There is the potential for instability in the world with the US less likely to be want to the Worlds Police. I can see why the European Countries are looking at the benefits of working closer together for their common protection (deterrent)
"working together" has never been a problem.

The "harm" in an EU directed military is if it is legally entitled to give orders to the military of a member state.

NATO has a well-established set of protocols -
(...which allow for multi-national chains of command.....)
- including a small number of units and a fleet on permanent standby.

But other than that, elected National Governments remain in charge.

I may be mistaken, but I believe that a NATO member can opt out of military actions outside Europe. (e.g Afghanistan)
 
Josep Borell the Eu foreign policy chief complains that he wasn’t consulted about a tri lateral agreement between three non Eu countries.
Wtf ? 😂
 
I was just pointing out that there was triumphalism from bozo

I suspect people who voted for Brexit would see the government's answers to journalist's questions as simply citing facts based upon the statistics.

I suspect people who voted to Remain would see the government's answers to journalist's questions as politically motivated smugness.
 
Not arguing that we were faster out of the blocks.
I was just pointing out that there was triumphalism from bozo

Bozza doesn't count. He claims the credit for everything from England reaching the Euro Final, to all the Olympic medal winners, to Emma Radacanu.

Getting a bit of a well deserved kicking for the NI rise though, and it has now been observed that the related £86k cap for social care will adversely affect his recently gained Northern Red Wall seats more than the Southern areas as that will still be a higher percentage of the value of their homes (think that may have been mentioned on here already, but worth mentioning again). Reverting to type, I hope the northern voters now realise.