That petition...

lloyd

Drew_fx said:

lloyd;1127488" said:

octatonic said:



chrispy108 said:



Bucket said:We live in a WORLD, not just a country. Everyone, everywhere is more connected now than ever before. It seems like a step backwards to isolate ourselves from the rest of Europe and try to put up walls where there needn't be any.







Exactly, we live in a WORLD, not just a gang of 28 countries that make up half of one continent. I don't understand how being in that gang makes being in the WORLD any easier.

@octatonic Thanks for your post, and yes, I understand it creates lots of work, but I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. I see having control over our own regulations as a good thing, and it also gives us the option to not regulate against silly things (the fruit laws that got implemented and then overturned as one example).  We could also agree to pay for our share of the regulation that we want to be part of.

I can't see manufacturers (small/medium ones anyway) creating two versions, they'll just follow the strictest regulations, as happens often in the USA where California has stricter emission standards than the rest of the states.





You must not have much of an idea of the enormity of the task then.

We are talking about decades.The UK will be paying for this for decades.Regulatory folks are measuring these changes, as a best case scenario, in 3 parliaments- which is 15 years.

It isn't a matter of the strictest laws win out- you will find that one country does one thing and another country does another thing, so you have to make a product that does two things.

And if this is really all about setting 'our own regulations' how is having to build a product that adheres to the regulations of two entirely different countries actually setting 'our own regulations'?It isn't.What is likely to happen here is the UK, being a much, much smaller market for motorcycles than the rest of Europe, won't have its own regulations, they will likely just follow the Euro regulation, because manufacturers won't want to have to make two different products.If this is the case then there will be no 'setting our own regulations'.

You haven't commented on the drugs regulation bit of my post.Do you have any idea how much work that will be?Drug regulation jobs are very well paid.A drugs regulatory job at a pharma company can be a £100k pa job plus all the usual benefits.Many people in this area of pharma are amongst the best paid because it is highly specialised- certainly better paid than the PM.

And again, the UK as a much smaller market than the EU will likely have to adopt something very close to (or exactly like) the EU regulations in order to buy from or sell drugs into the EU.

Let's take Botox, which I know quite a bit about.Botox has recently become approved for chronic migraine (it isn't just a cosmetic product it has several clinical indications).

The approval of Botox would have gone through the EMA for this specific indication.Say we were already in the post Brexit world and Botox was going through regulation for this clinical indication.Under the old system we would just automatically adopt the EU rules for this drug.In the new system we might have to wait for the EU to complete its regulatory process and then adopt that otherwise we would have to go through our own process, which costs the maker of Botox money.This cost will then be passed onto the customer, which in this case will be the NHS (because it is a clinical indication, not a cosmetic use).

Drugs are relatively cheap here in Europe, compared to America.There are many reasons for this but one reason is because regulatory process is relatively easy and is spread across multiple countries.The UK standing alone becomes a much less attractive proposition for drug companies to go through approval processes.

There are dozens of countries where these sorts of products are never approved for certain clinical indications because there is no real financial benefit for drug companies to do the work.













Didn't have you down as vain mate.

You kidding? He looks like a Ken doll mate!

He's a beautiful man I'm not denying that, but (as I know) it is possible to be both bloody gorgeous and not vain, or immodest.

Garthy

Triumph already sell motocycles to various global markets.

chrispy108

Ok, we can set our own regulations, where we want to, where we don't, we can just de-facto follow the EU ones. Seems sensible to me. We don't need our own regulations for the sake of it, just to be different. For lots of things I'd be happy with no regulations, or global ones.

For the EMA issue, I see no reason we couldn't just contribute towards the running costs and still be part of it. Yes, it would take negotiating, but I'm assuming we put in lots of knowledge and money that would need replacing if we left, so there would be appetite for us to stay involved.

octatonic

Garthy said:

Triumph already sell motocycles to various global markets.

Yes, they do and they have to adhere to regulatory emissions & safety laws for each country.

They actually manufacture them in Thailand now for the Australian and asian market- the bikes are different depending on the market and are consequently more expensive.

If you compare retail in Australia they are roughly equivalent but Australia only pays 10% VAT (actually called GST).

The bikes at wholesale are more expensive because they have to be made for the Australian market.

The point of cross-country regulation is it affords products to be made more cheaply as they can be sold in more places.

When the UK has its own regulations it will mean prices go up.

octatonic

chrispy108 said:

Ok, we can set our own regulations, where we want to, where we don't, we can just de-facto follow the EU ones. Seems sensible to me. We don't need our own regulations for the sake of it, just to be different. For lots of things I'd be happy with no regulations, or global ones.

For the EMA issue, I see no reason we couldn't just contribute towards the running costs and still be part of it. Yes, it would take negotiating, but I'm assuming we put in lots of knowledge and money that would need replacing if we left, so there would be appetite for us to stay involved.

You don't just follow the EU laws.

That isn't how laws are made.

Every bit of UK legislation will have to be reviewed and written into law.

This isn't simple process.

It is highly unlikely that we can leave the EU and be a part of the EMA.

No-one that I know at the EMA thinks that a) it will stay in the UK or b) Britain will be part of the EMA.

We voted to leave, so we will be leaving.

If we are just going to keep EU regulation then what exactly was the point of leaving the EU?

And even if we did then we would have left the EU but still be regulated by the EU but no longer have a seat at the table.

octatonic

Hey, I'm not being doom and gloom about it and I'm not rabble rousing, we voted out so we will be coming out.

But when people think this is going to be 'a bit of trouble and then we will pull through' they are seriously deluded.

I do have a fair bit of awareness of regulation in a couple of industries.

This is going to take a very long time and it is going to cost us.

lloyd

octatonic said:

Hey, I'm not being doom and gloom about it and I'm not rabble rousing, we voted out so we will be coming out.

But when people think this is going to be 'a bit of trouble and then we will pull through' are seriously deluded.

I do have a fair bit of awareness of regulation in a couple of industries.

This is going to take a very long time and it is going to cost us.

This is one of the reasons I wanted to stay, it's gonna cost a fortune to do this and many more things that day to day you just don't think of unless you work or have experience in that industry. The worst thing is that IMO the vast majority of the new rules and regulations will basically be exactly the same it's just that they'll be our own special rules, which is an expensive and strange way to "put the Great back in Britain"

octatonic

lloyd said:

octatonic said:

Hey, I'm not being doom and gloom about it and I'm not rabble rousing, we voted out so we will be coming out.

But when people think this is going to be 'a bit of trouble and then we will pull through' are seriously deluded.

I do have a fair bit of awareness of regulation in a couple of industries.

This is going to take a very long time and it is going to cost us.

This is one of the reasons I wanted to stay, it's gonna cost a fortune to do this and many more things that day to day you just don't think of unless you work or have experience in that industry. The worst thing is that IMO the vast majority of the new rules and regulations will basically be exactly the same it's just that they'll be our own special rules, which is an expensive and strange way to "put the Great back in Britain"

Yes, this is why I voted in too.

Because I understood how expensive it was going to be.

I'm fairly ambivalent about the EU- yes it is expensive, opaque and maddening but we would be mad to leave it too.

But we did.

So, we're doing it.

And we will be paying for it.

Bucket

chrispy108 said:

@Bucket Your us and them attitude and language are so divisive. I've pretty much stopped using Facebook and Twitter since Thursday due to exactly this. Remainers complain about the nasty right wing, but there is so much hatred coming from Remain at the moment.

You are absolutely saying that your generation are more important, however you want to word it, that is what you are saying.

By that logic, should we have only let babies under 1 vote? They'll deal with it for the longest after all.

I'm not intending to divide anyone, I'm sorry if that's how I'm coming across.

I could be wrong, but I see no hatred in what I've posted.

You can read it that way if you want, but I genuinely don't think my generation are more important. That very mindset is confusing to me. Why are you reading more into it than what I've already explained is what I actually think?

And stop being flippant, you know exactly what I mean. Of everyone of voting age, people from 18-24 are the generation who will have to live with whatever is about to happen for the longest. That's a fact, and I'm not ascribing any more importance to 18-24s because of it.

Evilmags

leading US investor's view

http://www.garynorth.com/public/15368.cfm

Heartfeltdawn

chrispy108 said: @Bucket Your us and them attitude and language are so divisive. I've pretty much stopped using Facebook and Twitter since Thursday due to exactly this. Remainers complain about the nasty right wing, but there is so much hatred coming from Remain at the moment.

The kid of 20 who is now pissy on Facebook because we're out of Europe is doing nothing more than they've seen their elders do. Newspaper and television smears. Elections like the London mayor this year. A loudmouth Yank insulting countless people before ending up with a shot at the top job. The rabble that is Prime Minister's Questions. 

The difference is that the kids now have the technology to shout as loud as some of the newspapers, politicians, and television programmes. 

starwarsnosebleed

Shall we have a 'best out of three'?

octatonic

Evilmags said:

leading crackpot Biblically-influenced "radically libertarian" US investor's view

http://www.garynorth.com/public/15368.cfm

FTFY.

Quoting Gary North is one step away from quoting David Avocado Wolfe.

Drew_TNBD

I quite like avocado.

octatonic

Drew_fx said:

I quite like avocado.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcWL5O3UcAAjqli.jpg

Drew_TNBD

)

Heartfeltdawn

octatonic said:FTFY. Quoting Gary North is one step away from quoting David Avocado Wolfe.

Thumbs up there. 

DaevidJ

octatonic said:

Drew_fx said:

I quite like avocado.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcWL5O3UcAAjqli.jpg

Best Avocado quote yet Oh... Anyone checked Bojo's article this evening?

UnclePsychosis

Evilmags;1127577" said:

leading US investor's view

http://www.garynorth.com/public/15368.cfm

I Googled Gary North.

"The article [ in the New York Times ] also described North as "the leading proponent of 'Christian economics,' which applies biblical principles to economic issues and the free market." North supports the abolition of the fractional-reserve banking system and a return to the gold standard. According to the Times, North believes that the Bible forbids inflation, welfare programs, and also writes that "God would prefer gold money to paper""

" North favors capital punishment for a range of offenders; including women who lie about their virginity, blasphemers, nonbelievers, children who curse their parents,[24][25] male homosexuals, and other people who commit acts deemed capital offenses in the Old Testament.[26] North also favors capital punishment for women who have abortions.[3][27] North stated that the biblical admonition to kill homosexuals in Leviticus is God's "law and its morally appropriate sanction", arguing that "God is indeed a homophobe" who "hates the practice [of homosexuality] and those who practice it" and "hates the sin and hates the sinner."[28]

North has said that capital punishment should be carried out by stoning, because it is the biblically approved method of execution and it is cheap due to the plentiful and convenient supply of stones."

*Definitely* sounds like a sensible guy and not a loon.

littlegreenman

UnclePsychosis said:

Evilmags;1127577" said:

leading US investor's view

http://www.garynorth.com/public/15368.cfm

I Googled Gary North.

"The article [ in the New York Times ] also described North as "the leading proponent of 'Christian economics,' which applies biblical principles to economic issues and the free market." North supports the abolition of the fractional-reserve banking system and a return to the gold standard. According to the Times, North believes that the Bible forbids inflation, welfare programs, and also writes that "God would prefer gold money to paper""

" North favors capital punishment for a range of offenders; including women who lie about their virginity, blasphemers, nonbelievers, children who curse their parents,[24][25] male homosexuals, and other people who commit acts deemed capital offenses in the Old Testament.[26] North also favors capital punishment for women who have abortions.[3][27] North stated that the biblical admonition to kill homosexuals in Leviticus is God's "law and its morally appropriate sanction", arguing that "God is indeed a homophobe" who "hates the practice [of homosexuality] and those who practice it" and "hates the sin and hates the sinner."[28]

North has said that capital punishment should be carried out by stoning, because it is the biblically approved method of execution and it is cheap due to the plentiful and convenient supply of stones."

*Definitely* sounds like a sensible guy and not a loon.

Yep, elect him over here asap!