No Deal and supply of medicines

All decisions about safety of medicines etc taken by the agency were based in London - UK will need to set up its own agency to ensure the safety of drugs as it will not be covered by the European one after March if we leave with no agreement. There will of course be a loss of jobs and/or well qualified people going with the Agency.

I think the fact that the Head Office of the drug company is in Britain does not necessarily mean that the drugs are manufactured here. (not sure, just a thought)

So what are the implications of that, Welshwife?
Not being aggressive, just puzzled, a bit slow.
And I'm not arguing pro-Brexit, just trying to think of ways to cope with the probable ensuing problems.

The MEPs today sign off the agreement to move the European Medicines Agency from London to Amsterdam.

Hopefully insulin could still be imported from the USA.
Assuming a trade deal has been agreed.

Insulin is mainly imported - one of the most critical ones.

ps Vagifem - made by Novonordisk in Denmark. But it is also made by a company in the USA since last year.

I was wondering how many of our most commonly used medicaments etc are made in the UK. Looked on the packet of my main 3:
Simvastatin - Relonchem, Widnes, Cheshire.
Amlodipine - Accord Healthcare, Harrow.
Atenolol - Wockhardt , Wrexham.
Although I realise many others have to be imported.

Regulations coming into force as part of the Falsified Medicines Directive will not apply to the UK if it leaves the EU without a deal, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has announced.

www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/news-and-analysis/news/fmd-regulations-wont-apply-after-no-deal-brexit-says-mhra/20205559.article

What 'should work' Jalima?

The IRISH in NI are saying that a border in any other format other than what they have now (i.e a 'fudge', which will not be satisfactory as a border between the EU and the UK) is likely to lead to a recurrence of violence in NI. I really think that they are the ones who are most likely to know will work and what won't work.

Just because 'it works' for other countries it doesn't follow that it will work for NI.

And, sorry, I've just picked up on this

During the recent Conservative Party conference, he said: "It's absolutely ludicrous, there's never been a hard border in Ireland.

What is this nonsense about 'never been a hard border in Ireland'? What was all those buildings and soldiers with guns all about then?

There are plenty of countries in the EU where one country is in the EU and another country is not... And they don't shoot each other."

Yes - because he is saying it could and should work.

If you're referring to Johsnon seniors comment oldbatty, in it's correct or incorrect form here on GN then no, not really IMO.

Blood was shed and lives were lost which should never be taken or referred to lightly. My dear friend's husband had a breakdown 2 years ago and was diagnosed with PTS due to his time in Ireland when he was in the army.

He didn't just lose friends, he saw some of them die. Neither his wife or us had any idea how traumatised he'd been all these years.

He's told her things that she hasn't repeated but there is much that he still can't bring himself to tell her and probably never will.

It matters little in the current situation what any one person has said. In this Brexit debacle, it is what any one person or group of persons may do that should now be the apex of debate, especially among the Brexitiers.

The Good Friday Agreement very much drew on the European Union charter which guarantees of free movement in goods, services and people within the union and in that removed all restrictions betweenNorthern Ireland and the Irish Republic. With the coming of Brexit, those borders will have to be once again put in place dividing the island into two clear sectors with all the restrictions to trade and personal movement that may incur.

The above will without doubt incense those with Nationalist views throughout Ireland and in that the "troubles" may once more come about. Therefore, It is for each and every person who believes that Britain should leave the EU to ask themselves "am I prepared to see the war in Ireland recommence to have Britain withdraw from the European Union, is that a price worth paying."

In asking that question of themselves leave voters should remember that the "Civil War" that erupted in Northern Ireland in the nineteen sixties was not contained there, but spread also to the mainland taking many lives and maiming others.

There is also the fact that as the United Kingdom attempts to reshape and rebuild its economy following Brexit, who would wish to invest in a country where such underlying instability will exist.

It has been stated in this thread that there are many countries with open borders where the populations do not shoot each other. In that, Ireland has a history where divided communities have a history of murdering each other, and the underlying reasons for that situation coming about still exist

no it's get a nasty, sarcastic dig in first and then repeat the process.

Who cares oldbatty!
Stanley Johnson is not an MP, just a British citizen who is entitled to his ideas and thoughts just as you are.

Never mind unspoken words, if they aren’t spoken MaizieD then you are assuming or infering intention that could well be quite wrong.
Exactly Petra you certainly wouldn’t want some posters on a jury if we were in the dock.
Often on GN it’s shriek first and check their facts later.

During the recent Conservative Party conference, he said: "It's absolutely ludicrous, there's never been a hard border in Ireland. I'm sure there won't be a hard border. There are plenty of countries in the EU where one country is in the EU and another country is not... And they don't shoot each other."

So now we can stop bickering about who said what and read for ourselves a word perfect quotation.

Do we feel this was a thoughtful, wise, helpful comment?

All I know is I wouldn't want either one of them on a jury if I was in the dock. They seem to have a problem with what was actually said.

POGS many valid points in your post.

Maizie d / Grandad

" As a bunch of pearl clutchers who can read 'insult' into the most innocuous of statements I think there is a measure of hypocrisy evident in this concerted attack on jura (which isn't just confined to one thread, either)"

" What particularly appalls me about this 'spat' is that no-one seems to object to what Johnson snr. said. Had a Gnetter said that in a post I think they would have been (rightly) jumped on from a great height."
--

Sorry you find posters ' pearl clutchers' engaged in a ' spat' and perversely then go on to do the exact same ' twist' and 'distort' what Johnsnson implied by saying:-

" I have read the supposedly accurate ('supposedly' because those who posted them assert that they are accurate and I have no reason to disbelieve them) transcripts of Johnson senior's words and the message I take from them is this:

1) The Irish are going to shoot each other whatever happens
2) In which case it doesn't matter what the border is like."
----

1). There is nothing " supposed" in what Stanley Johnson said. Even juras link stated what Johnson said and there is visible evidence by watching the video. He was answering a question as to what another person might have but even if it was Johnsons thought what he said is not as you both and jura imply. He said this :-

' She would have said ‘look if the Irish want to shoot each other they will shoot each other whether there’s a hard border or whether there is a soft border, that is something the Irish will do if they want to’.”

2). You said ' The Irish are going to shoot each other whatever happens'

He did not say nor imply ' The Irish are ' going to ' shoot each other whatever happens_' and you have just done the exact same as jura ' twisted' , ' distorted' what he said.

He clearly meant whether a Hard/Soft Border it will not stop an act of terrorism, if somebody wants to shoot a gun a border will not stop them. He is correct in that .

That is not the same as saying the Irish ' are going to ' shoot each other .

There is a big difference in a person giving a scenario of somebody saying ' if they want to ' to distorting their words into ' 'going to ' as a factual act of violence inevitably taking place.

I think it must come down to individual posters expectations of how / what we post and nothing to do with ' pearl clutching' . It is the case some posters expect if a poster uses quotes/makes a statement the facts are not distorted which generates either fake news/misinformation and / or at best shifts the ' context' of what was said.

We all see things differently I suppose.

Stanley Johnson came up with those dreadful words- they were his, and his alone. Talk about misinterpretation of Mrs Thatcher's- He used her stature to put what he wanted to say across- in the most insensitive and wicked way.

As for the supply of medicines, if the man in charge is having sleepless nights - then I think we are right to be concerned- and being told it is 'crazed mitherings' and that we should 'chill' is insulting in the extreme- not to me, but to those at high risk- some of whom are our closest and dearest.

Well reading the last couple of pages here I'm not surprised many posters are afraid to dip their toes into the politics threads, it's like the inquisition. What happened to the OP about supply of medicines?

Well said MaizieD. Right on the the knuckle with the above post.

As a bunch of pearl clutchers who can read 'insult' into the most innocuous of statements I think there is a measure of hypocrisy evident in this concerted attack on jura (which isn't just confined to one thread, either)

I have read the supposedly accurate ('supposedly' because those who posted them assert that they are accurate and I have no reason to disbelieve them) transcripts of Johnson senior's words and the message I take from them is this:

1) The Irish are going to shoot each other whatever happens
2) In which case it doesn't matter what the border is like

The unspoken message this conveys to me is that we should just impose whatever border we like, wherever we like, without bothering about feelings and possible reactions of the Irish.

Which is not a million miles from jura's initial interpretation.

What particularly appalls me about this 'spat' is that no-one seems to object to what Johnson snr. said. Had a Gnetter said that in a post I think they would have been (rightly) jumped on from a great height.

jura

I think you are digging a bigger hole for yourself and you have a cheek to ' misquote ' or tell a fabricated version of what a person says to either pursue your own agenda or to be malicious towards another by twisting their words.

You have a bare faced front to say:-

" But HE clearly CHOSE to put those words in her mouth- he was not quoting. He said it, because if you watch the video, it was clearly what HE was thinking."

Irony or what? You CHOSE to put those words into Stanley Johnsons mouth as it was clearly what YOU were thinking. It was an untruth.

As for :-

" Makes no difference whatsoever- putting those words in Mrs T's mouth was inexcusable and very offensive."

That is exactly the point posters are making of your actions when you ' twisted' , ' distorted ' and shifted the context of what Stanley Johnson ' actually' said.

I did watch the video and it only confirms your link and post of Tues 21.02 did not report factually what he said. He did not say as you stated " Or are you like Johnson Senior, and say as he did today, that the Irish and the Unionists can start shooting each other again- if they so wish- and we should ignore it. ".

I hold no truck for fake news or manipulating what people say and I apologise to nobody for pointing it out.

I asked, I did not state.