Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on the location of the new HQ of the European Medicine

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited November 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on the location of the new HQ of the European Medicines Agency

Today we get to see an early dividend of Brexit when the EU27 have a vote to choose the new host city for the headquarters of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to replace London.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,736
    Why is betting on Valletta "suspended"? Does that indicate the possibility of something dodgy?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,570
    edited November 2017
    Silver medal! I’m sure all the doctors and scientists would just love to move from London to Bratislava.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,306
    I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
    No one has heard of these two organisations.

    What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
    Or factories closing down.
  • rkrkrk said:

    I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
    No one has heard of these two organisations.

    What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
    Or factories closing down.

    George Osborne's Evening Standard will make hay with London losing two international HQs with the jobs, tax revenue and Soft Power that goes with them. We knew they were going but having other cities named as the new hosts and recipients of the jobs and tax revenues gives legs to the story. I can't see a polling shift from it myself. But it'll get coverage and it's another story about how stupid Brexit is. Not one that will persuade any Leavers but it may firm up the Remain vote.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,570

    rkrkrk said:

    I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
    No one has heard of these two organisations.

    What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
    Or factories closing down.

    George Osborne's Evening Standard will make hay with London losing two international HQs with the jobs, tax revenue and Soft Power that goes with them. We knew they were going but having other cities named as the new hosts and recipients of the jobs and tax revenues gives legs to the story. I can't see a polling shift from it myself. But it'll get coverage and it's another story about how stupid Brexit is. Not one that will persuade any Leavers but it may firm up the Remain vote.
    Do employees of the EU based in the UK actually pay British income tax? I thought not, rather they pay “Community Income Tax” back to the EU itself.
    http://www.brusselstimes.com/magazine2/5828/myths-and-truths-about-the-salaries-and-taxes-of-eu-officials
  • The Ladbrokes web site is down for maintenance, it says.
  • rkrkrk said:

    I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
    No one has heard of these two organisations.

    What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
    Or factories closing down.

    Eurocrats who don't pay taxes in the UK.....I doubt there will be many tears shed.

    Of course today would be a good day to announce the setting up of the 'British Medicines Agency'.....headquartered, oh, I dunno....Canary Wharf?
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 598
    edited November 2017

    rkrkrk said:

    I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
    No one has heard of these two organisations.

    What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
    Or factories closing down.

    George Osborne's Evening Standard will make hay with London losing two international HQs with the jobs, tax revenue and Soft Power that goes with them. We knew they were going but having other cities named as the new hosts and recipients of the jobs and tax revenues gives legs to the story. I can't see a polling shift from it myself. But it'll get coverage and it's another story about how stupid Brexit is. Not one that will persuade any Leavers but it may firm up the Remain vote.
    What tax revenue?

    The headline news today, overshadowing the move of these 2 agencies, will surely be that 2 noxious long-time leaders of their respective countries, whose surnames begin with M, now seem to be toast.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,570

    rkrkrk said:

    I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
    No one has heard of these two organisations.

    What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
    Or factories closing down.

    Eurocrats who don't pay taxes in the UK.....I doubt there will be many tears shed.

    Of course today would be a good day to announce the setting up of the 'British Medicines Agency'.....headquartered, oh, I dunno....Canary Wharf?
    Like! There will be plenty of highly qualified people who won’t want to leave London, let’s set up our own medicines agency to employ them if they wish.

    Who thinks we’d be better spending money on setting up our own regulatory and research authorities, rather than sending a large cheque to the EU for the right to sit around the table and discuss trade?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,570
    German election. Scores still level after extra time, so is there provision for a penalty shootout or do we move to a replay?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,851
    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
    No one has heard of these two organisations.

    What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
    Or factories closing down.

    George Osborne's Evening Standard will make hay with London losing two international HQs with the jobs, tax revenue and Soft Power that goes with them. We knew they were going but having other cities named as the new hosts and recipients of the jobs and tax revenues gives legs to the story. I can't see a polling shift from it myself. But it'll get coverage and it's another story about how stupid Brexit is. Not one that will persuade any Leavers but it may firm up the Remain vote.
    Do employees of the EU based in the UK actually pay British income tax? I thought not, rather they pay “Community Income Tax” back to the EU itself.
    http://www.brusselstimes.com/magazine2/5828/myths-and-truths-about-the-salaries-and-taxes-of-eu-officials
    VAT receipts must add up to a few hundred thousand?... titters
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,570
    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
    No one has heard of these two organisations.

    What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
    Or factories closing down.

    George Osborne's Evening Standard will make hay with London losing two international HQs with the jobs, tax revenue and Soft Power that goes with them. We knew they were going but having other cities named as the new hosts and recipients of the jobs and tax revenues gives legs to the story. I can't see a polling shift from it myself. But it'll get coverage and it's another story about how stupid Brexit is. Not one that will persuade any Leavers but it may firm up the Remain vote.
    Do employees of the EU based in the UK actually pay British income tax? I thought not, rather they pay “Community Income Tax” back to the EU itself.
    http://www.brusselstimes.com/magazine2/5828/myths-and-truths-about-the-salaries-and-taxes-of-eu-officials
    VAT receipts must add up to a few hundred thousand?... titters
    I’m sure the luxury car dealers of Bratislava are eagerly awaiting the move.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,976
    edited November 2017

    rkrkrk said:

    I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
    No one has heard of these two organisations.

    What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
    Or factories closing down.

    Eurocrats who don't pay taxes in the UK.....I doubt there will be many tears shed.

    Of course today would be a good day to announce the setting up of the 'British Medicines Agency'.....headquartered, oh, I dunno....Canary Wharf?
    We have an organisation already. It's called the MHRA. But renaming and expanding its remit would be a logical part of any good Brexit plan. The good day to announce the setting up of the British Medicines Agency would have been about 5 years before Brexit. It would need that long to organise an orderly withdrawal from the EMA. In the long run it will cost more to duplicate what is currently done by the EMA. But the real loss is the networking that goes with it. The first big order my business got was as a direct result of a contact I made at a meeting at the EMA. Make no mistake, this is a major blow to the UK. The cost to the country will be a lot greater than the payments involved in the so called divorce bill. If you are getting hot under the collar about those while not taking an interest in the EMA you simply haven't understood the situation.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
    No one has heard of these two organisations.

    What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
    Or factories closing down.

    Eurocrats who don't pay taxes in the UK.....I doubt there will be many tears shed.

    Of course today would be a good day to announce the setting up of the 'British Medicines Agency'.....headquartered, oh, I dunno....Canary Wharf?
    Like! There will be plenty of highly qualified people who won’t want to leave London, let’s set up our own medicines agency to employ them if they wish.

    Who thinks we’d be better spending money on setting up our own regulatory and research authorities, rather than sending a large cheque to the EU for the right to sit around the table and discuss trade?
    However, taking back control has its own costs. To approve a new medicine costs the same amount of money [ in research , testing etc. ] whether it is done for 28 countries or 1 country.

    I still think we should be part of the EMA even after Brexit. If it was good enough for so many years, it should be good enough in the future. Of course, we will have to pay a sub but that would be substantially less than the cost of setting up an entirely new agency and costs of running.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,976
    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
    No one has heard of these two organisations.

    What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
    Or factories closing down.

    Eurocrats who don't pay taxes in the UK.....I doubt there will be many tears shed.

    Of course today would be a good day to announce the setting up of the 'British Medicines Agency'.....headquartered, oh, I dunno....Canary Wharf?
    Like! There will be plenty of highly qualified people who won’t want to leave London, let’s set up our own medicines agency to employ them if they wish.

    Who thinks we’d be better spending money on setting up our own regulatory and research authorities, rather than sending a large cheque to the EU for the right to sit around the table and discuss trade?
    The answer to your question is nobody who understands what the EMA actually does.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,976
    I won't be betting on this. It's a bit too serious for my money. But I'd say Stockholm has to be the favourite.
  • @Sandpit Don't be pathetic. As if the only taxes people pay are Income taxes. Or that the only money the EMA spends in London is salaries. Or that the only economic activity driven in London by the EMA's presence is it's own direct spend.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,828

    @Sandpit Don't be pathetic. As if the only taxes people pay are Income taxes. Or that the only money the EMA spends in London is salaries. Or that the only economic activity driven in London by the EMA's presence is it's own direct spend.

    You're really telling us that you knew they didn't pay income tax?
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,976
    surbiton said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
    No one has heard of these two organisations.

    What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
    Or factories closing down.

    Eurocrats who don't pay taxes in the UK.....I doubt there will be many tears shed.

    Of course today would be a good day to announce the setting up of the 'British Medicines Agency'.....headquartered, oh, I dunno....Canary Wharf?
    Like! There will be plenty of highly qualified people who won’t want to leave London, let’s set up our own medicines agency to employ them if they wish.

    Who thinks we’d be better spending money on setting up our own regulatory and research authorities, rather than sending a large cheque to the EU for the right to sit around the table and discuss trade?
    However, taking back control has its own costs. To approve a new medicine costs the same amount of money [ in research , testing etc. ] whether it is done for 28 countries or 1 country.

    I still think we should be part of the EMA even after Brexit. If it was good enough for so many years, it should be good enough in the future. Of course, we will have to pay a sub but that would be substantially less than the cost of setting up an entirely new agency and costs of running.
    I am pretty sure that is what is going to happen. It is mutually beneficial to work together on this. It will be a great case study of how leaving the EU is a complete waste of everybody's time and money.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,996

    rkrkrk said:

    I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
    No one has heard of these two organisations.

    What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
    Or factories closing down.

    Eurocrats who don't pay taxes in the UK.....I doubt there will be many tears shed.

    Of course today would be a good day to announce the setting up of the 'British Medicines Agency'.....headquartered, oh, I dunno....Canary Wharf?
    We have an organisation already. It's called the MHRA. But renaming and expanding its remit would be a logical part of any good Brexit plan. The good day to announce the setting up of the British Medicines Agency would have been about 5 years before Brexit. It would need that long to organise an orderly withdrawal from the EMA. In the long run it will cost more to duplicate what is currently done by the EMA. But the real loss is the networking that goes with it. The first big order my business got was as a direct result of a contact I made at a meeting at the EMA. Make no mistake, this is a major blow to the UK. The cost to the country will be a lot greater than the payments involved in the so called divorce bill. If you are getting hot under the collar about those while not taking an interest in the EMA you simply haven't understood the situation.
    Where is this good and logical plan??
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,976
    IanB2 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
    No one has heard of these two organisations.

    What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
    Or factories closing down.

    Eurocrats who don't pay taxes in the UK.....I doubt there will be many tears shed.

    Of course today would be a good day to announce the setting up of the 'British Medicines Agency'.....headquartered, oh, I dunno....Canary Wharf?
    We have an organisation already. It's called the MHRA. But renaming and expanding its remit would be a logical part of any good Brexit plan. The good day to announce the setting up of the British Medicines Agency would have been about 5 years before Brexit. It would need that long to organise an orderly withdrawal from the EMA. In the long run it will cost more to duplicate what is currently done by the EMA. But the real loss is the networking that goes with it. The first big order my business got was as a direct result of a contact I made at a meeting at the EMA. Make no mistake, this is a major blow to the UK. The cost to the country will be a lot greater than the payments involved in the so called divorce bill. If you are getting hot under the collar about those while not taking an interest in the EMA you simply haven't understood the situation.
    Where is this good and logical plan??
    In the alternative universe where the people campaigning for Brexit actually thought through what they were doing.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,996
    Worth a read: "The future is digital, our children are analogue. We’re betraying a generation"

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/20/future-digital-children-analogue-betraying-generation-michael-gove
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    surbiton said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
    No one has heard of these two organisations.

    What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
    Or factories closing down.

    Eurocrats who don't pay taxes in the UK.....I doubt there will be many tears shed.

    Of course today would be a good day to announce the setting up of the 'British Medicines Agency'.....headquartered, oh, I dunno....Canary Wharf?
    Like! There will be plenty of highly qualified people who won’t want to leave London, let’s set up our own medicines agency to employ them if they wish.

    Who thinks we’d be better spending money on setting up our own regulatory and research authorities, rather than sending a large cheque to the EU for the right to sit around the table and discuss trade?
    However, taking back control has its own costs. To approve a new medicine costs the same amount of money [ in research , testing etc. ] whether it is done for 28 countries or 1 country.

    I still think we should be part of the EMA even after Brexit. If it was good enough for so many years, it should be good enough in the future. Of course, we will have to pay a sub but that would be substantially less than the cost of setting up an entirely new agency and costs of running.
    We could just rubber stamp EMA decisions to keep costs down, and quality of assessment up.

    Take back control...
  • IanB2 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
    No one has heard of these two organisations.

    What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
    Or factories closing down.

    Eurocrats who don't pay taxes in the UK.....I doubt there will be many tears shed.

    Of course today would be a good day to announce the setting up of the 'British Medicines Agency'.....headquartered, oh, I dunno....Canary Wharf?
    We have an organisation already. It's called the MHRA. But renaming and expanding its remit would be a logical part of any good Brexit plan. The good day to announce the setting up of the British Medicines Agency would have been about 5 years before Brexit. It would need that long to organise an orderly withdrawal from the EMA. In the long run it will cost more to duplicate what is currently done by the EMA. But the real loss is the networking that goes with it. The first big order my business got was as a direct result of a contact I made at a meeting at the EMA. Make no mistake, this is a major blow to the UK. The cost to the country will be a lot greater than the payments involved in the so called divorce bill. If you are getting hot under the collar about those while not taking an interest in the EMA you simply haven't understood the situation.
    Where is this good and logical plan??
    In the alternative universe where the people campaigning for Brexit actually thought through what they were doing.
    Or where the government triggering Article 50 paused to develop an actual plan?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,820
    surbiton said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
    No one has heard of these two organisations.

    What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
    Or factories closing down.

    Eurocrats who don't pay taxes in the UK.....I doubt there will be many tears shed.

    Of course today would be a good day to announce the setting up of the 'British Medicines Agency'.....headquartered, oh, I dunno....Canary Wharf?
    Like! There will be plenty of highly qualified people who won’t want to leave London, let’s set up our own medicines agency to employ them if they wish.

    Who thinks we’d be better spending money on setting up our own regulatory and research authorities, rather than sending a large cheque to the EU for the right to sit around the table and discuss trade?
    However, taking back control has its own costs. To approve a new medicine costs the same amount of money [ in research , testing etc. ] whether it is done for 28 countries or 1 country.

    I still think we should be part of the EMA even after Brexit. If it was good enough for so many years, it should be good enough in the future. Of course, we will have to pay a sub but that would be substantially less than the cost of setting up an entirely new agency and costs of running.
    In a rational world that would be the logical outcome
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,976

    IanB2 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I think it very unlikely this will have much polling impact.
    No one has heard of these two organisations.

    What may cut through is if a big name company people know move away.
    Or factories closing down.

    Eurocrats who don't pay taxes in the UK.....I doubt there will be many tears shed.

    Of course today would be a good day to announce the setting up of the 'British Medicines Agency'.....headquartered, oh, I dunno....Canary Wharf?
    We have an organisation already. It's called the MHRA. But renaming and expanding its remit would be a logical part of any good Brexit plan. The good day to announce the setting up of the British Medicines Agency would have been about 5 years before Brexit. It would need that long to organise an orderly withdrawal from the EMA. In the long run it will cost more to duplicate what is currently done by the EMA. But the real loss is the networking that goes with it. The first big order my business got was as a direct result of a contact I made at a meeting at the EMA. Make no mistake, this is a major blow to the UK. The cost to the country will be a lot greater than the payments involved in the so called divorce bill. If you are getting hot under the collar about those while not taking an interest in the EMA you simply haven't understood the situation.
    Where is this good and logical plan??
    In the alternative universe where the people campaigning for Brexit actually thought through what they were doing.
    Or where the government triggering Article 50 paused to develop an actual plan?
    I'll take it. Where do I sign?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,570

    @Sandpit Don't be pathetic. As if the only taxes people pay are Income taxes. Or that the only money the EMA spends in London is salaries. Or that the only economic activity driven in London by the EMA's presence is it's own direct spend.

    You’re right, they’ve also got a long lease on their really expensive prime London Office that they’re desperately trying to get out of, because it didn’t have a Brexit break clause in it.
  • @Surbiton Quite right. Which is why anyone following this story knows Greg Clark and Jeremy Hunt have been desperately lobbying to keep us under the EMA remit. Because they know the amount of research activity that will leave the UK if they have to choose between operating under a UK only regulator or the EMA regime. In any ordinary circumstances it would be a no brainer to stay post Brexit. But as the thread header alludes to May's ECJ nonsense



  • tlg86 said:

    @Sandpit Don't be pathetic. As if the only taxes people pay are Income taxes. Or that the only money the EMA spends in London is salaries. Or that the only economic activity driven in London by the EMA's presence is it's own direct spend.

    You're really telling us that you knew they didn't pay income tax?
    Yes I am actually.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,828
    @TheScreamingEagles - Could you give us a cryptic clue as to how we should bet in the other market? I'm thinking something similar to the Spanish fruit polls.
  • IanB2 said:

    Worth a read: "The future is digital, our children are analogue. We’re betraying a generation"

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/20/future-digital-children-analogue-betraying-generation-michael-gove

    We can't simply conjure thousands of teachers up out of nowhere then? One issue the Guardian and most of those confounded experts ignore is that IT-literacy and computer science are different things. All children should be taught the first -- how to type, use word processors, spreadsheets and, yes, social media. Not everyone needs to know how to code or whether P equals NP.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    IanB2 said:

    Worth a read: "The future is digital, our children are analogue. We’re betraying a generation"

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/20/future-digital-children-analogue-betraying-generation-michael-gove

    My son is doing computing at National 5 (roughly standard grade) at the moment. They are learning programing in python and a lot of basic technology. He says it is one of his hardest classes but he is doing it instead of a language because (a) he doesn't like languages and (b) he thinks it will be more useful.

    At this stage, 3rd year at secondary, there are only 10 doing the course and the majority are boys. 4 of them, including my son, are miles ahead of the curriculum and on the programing side are now doing work roughly equivalent to A level.

    This seems to me a classic Gove. Spot on analysis, real imagination but an inability to deliver implementation against a profession who like things the way they have been and resistant to change and who have in any event not been given sufficient additional resources to bring that change about. If he had stayed at education it might have been different.

    My son is lucky in that he has teachers of real ability in this area. Most schools will struggle to find teachers who know as much as the kids.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    On topic the idea that we would remain the host of EU institutions having left the EU is so absurd that I refuse to believe that anyone entertained it after a moment's thought. That said, there have been persistent rumours that the staff in both institutions don't want to leave.

    The question of what we do next is one of the issues to be considered in the Brexit talks. On the financial side this is tied up with the single passport. If we can negotiate continued equivalence between our financial regulation and the EU then there may be some advantage in paying a subscription to remain a member and having an input on new regulation.

    On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,986
    TMerkel now trying to overtake TMay on the road to the history books
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    DavidL said:

    On topic the idea that we would remain the host of EU institutions having left the EU is so absurd that I refuse to believe that anyone entertained it after a moment's thought. That said, there have been persistent rumours that the staff in both institutions don't want to leave.

    The question of what we do next is one of the issues to be considered in the Brexit talks. On the financial side this is tied up with the single passport. If we can negotiate continued equivalence between our financial regulation and the EU then there may be some advantage in paying a subscription to remain a member and having an input on new regulation.

    On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

    Well, yes. It would have been sensible to remain part of both agencies and have a say in the rules and regulations across the EU and EEA. The voters of Boston and Stoke thought otherwise.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,570
    edited November 2017

    IanB2 said:

    Worth a read: "The future is digital, our children are analogue. We’re betraying a generation"

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/20/future-digital-children-analogue-betraying-generation-michael-gove

    We can't simply conjure thousands of teachers up out of nowhere then? One issue the Guardian and most of those confounded experts ignore is that IT-literacy and computer science are different things. All children should be taught the first -- how to type, use word processors, spreadsheets and, yes, social media. Not everyone needs to know how to code or whether P equals NP.
    Of course P equals NP, how could anyone think otherwise? ;)

    But aeriously, there’s a difference between computing and software using skills, which everyone needs; and skills in computer science and systems administration which are well paying STEM careers that we should be encouraging.

    Edit: @DavidL makes a good point, that finding good teachers for subjects which pay big salaries in industry and research can be quite difficult.
  • I'm not betting on this market, it looks like a good one for shadsy. If forced, I'd bet on Bratislava, the favourite.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,986

    DavidL said:

    On topic the idea that we would remain the host of EU institutions having left the EU is so absurd that I refuse to believe that anyone entertained it after a moment's thought. That said, there have been persistent rumours that the staff in both institutions don't want to leave.

    The question of what we do next is one of the issues to be considered in the Brexit talks. On the financial side this is tied up with the single passport. If we can negotiate continued equivalence between our financial regulation and the EU then there may be some advantage in paying a subscription to remain a member and having an input on new regulation.

    On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

    Well, yes. It would have been sensible to remain part of both agencies and have a say in the rules and regulations across the EU and EEA. The voters of Boston and Stoke thought otherwise.
    maybe they should have based it in Stoke and given them a stake in the EU
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812

    TMerkel now trying to overtake TMay on the road to the history books

    The Jamaica coalition always seemed a slightly absurd idea, parties who shared almost no common beliefs were inevitably going to struggle. The problem for Merkel is that the FDP who have walked away are a much, much better fit for her own party than the Greens who would surely be happier with the SPD.

    I would have thought that a minority government that could probably rely on the AfD for tacit support on many issues was the obvious way forward but there may be a reluctance to give the AfD that kind of influence.

    It all shows that while FPTP has serious drawbacks so does proportional systems which do not have a clear winners bonus allowing strong government.
  • We have been teaching Computing rather than IT for several years now thanks to a dedicated and passionate HoD, but Harris is right that recruiting good teachers is particularly difficult for this subject: worse even than Physics.

    Some subjects (History springs to mind) have a large pool of graduates for whom the only way to carry on with a subject they love is to become a teacher. Others (and computing is probably an extreme example even here) have lots of much better paid jobs available. Not only that but most good programmers are probably not that keen on working with children.

    The only real solution I can think of involves paying teachers of shortage subjects (like Physics) significantly more than those in subject which are easier to recruit for. I may have a bit of a conflict of interest here though.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    DavidL said:

    On topic the idea that we would remain the host of EU institutions having left the EU is so absurd that I refuse to believe that anyone entertained it after a moment's thought. That said, there have been persistent rumours that the staff in both institutions don't want to leave.

    The question of what we do next is one of the issues to be considered in the Brexit talks. On the financial side this is tied up with the single passport. If we can negotiate continued equivalence between our financial regulation and the EU then there may be some advantage in paying a subscription to remain a member and having an input on new regulation.

    On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

    Well, yes. It would have been sensible to remain part of both agencies and have a say in the rules and regulations across the EU and EEA. The voters of Boston and Stoke thought otherwise.
    maybe they should have based it in Stoke and given them a stake in the EU
    We could base our new Medicines agency in Stoke and reap that Brexit dividend.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,976
    DavidL said:



    On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

    I am pretty sure that is what is going to happen, but it is obviously an EU institution and it is up to them whether or not they let us join. Assuming they do, we'll effectively be accepting EU regulation of our drugs industry. That makes the whole Brexit idea of taking back control pretty nonsensical doesn't it.
  • DavidL said:



    On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

    I am pretty sure that is what is going to happen, but it is obviously an EU institution and it is up to them whether or not they let us join. Assuming they do, we'll effectively be accepting EU regulation of our drugs industry. That makes the whole Brexit idea of taking back control pretty nonsensical doesn't it.
    What do the Swiss do?
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,976

    DavidL said:

    On topic the idea that we would remain the host of EU institutions having left the EU is so absurd that I refuse to believe that anyone entertained it after a moment's thought. That said, there have been persistent rumours that the staff in both institutions don't want to leave.

    The question of what we do next is one of the issues to be considered in the Brexit talks. On the financial side this is tied up with the single passport. If we can negotiate continued equivalence between our financial regulation and the EU then there may be some advantage in paying a subscription to remain a member and having an input on new regulation.

    On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

    Well, yes. It would have been sensible to remain part of both agencies and have a say in the rules and regulations across the EU and EEA. The voters of Boston and Stoke thought otherwise.
    maybe they should have based it in Stoke and given them a stake in the EU
    We could base our new Medicines agency in Stoke and reap that Brexit dividend.
    Yes that would be a good idea. Finally a Brexit benefit.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,613

    The only real solution I can think of involves paying teachers of shortage subjects (like Physics) significantly more than those in subject which are easier to recruit for. I may have a bit of a conflict of interest here though.

    Speaking as a History teacher, I've never understood why that isn't national pay policy anyway. It seems such an obvious thing to do.

    And as History teachers are naturally awesome and rise to the top of the tree (with higher pay) just by turning up, that corrects itself later on anyway.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    I'm not betting on this market, it looks like a good one for shadsy. If forced, I'd bet on Bratislava, the favourite.

    Anyone understand the voting system for the choice? or why Bratislava is the favourite?

    Of the cities mentioned, I would choose Copenhagen, Stockholm, Amsterdam or Vienna. All lovely cities to live and work in.

  • DavidL said:

    On topic the idea that we would remain the host of EU institutions having left the EU is so absurd that I refuse to believe that anyone entertained it after a moment's thought. That said, there have been persistent rumours that the staff in both institutions don't want to leave.

    The question of what we do next is one of the issues to be considered in the Brexit talks. On the financial side this is tied up with the single passport. If we can negotiate continued equivalence between our financial regulation and the EU then there may be some advantage in paying a subscription to remain a member and having an input on new regulation.

    On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

    Well, yes. It would have been sensible to remain part of both agencies and have a say in the rules and regulations across the EU and EEA. The voters of Boston and Stoke thought otherwise.
    maybe they should have based it in Stoke and given them a stake in the EU
    We could base our new Medicines agency in Stoke and reap that Brexit dividend.
    Yes that would be a good idea. Finally a Brexit benefit.
    You'd have to feel for the bureaucrats: Bratislava or Burslem. Recruitment might be more challenging all round for the regulators.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,613

    I'm not betting on this market, it looks like a good one for shadsy. If forced, I'd bet on Bratislava, the favourite.

    Anyone understand the voting system for the choice? or why Bratislava is the favourite?

    Of the cities mentioned, I would choose Copenhagen, Stockholm, Amsterdam or Vienna. All lovely cities to live and work in.

    So is Bratislava by all accounts, and I'm guessing it will be a lot cheaper. Quite a consideration if some muppet failed to put a break clause in the Canary Wharf lease?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    edited November 2017
    I went to a talk by an ex-head of what is now the MHRA a couple of weeks ago. He made several points. One is that because the EMA is situated in London much of the work our MHRA does is for the EMA, and the close proximity of the two organisations is, if not vital, very important. There’s a lot of money flowing both ways, and while some of this will continue, there will be barriers. Also, especially with medicines for rarer diseases, we benefit from pan-European studies; if/when we leave the EMA we may well not be part of the studies. There is of course sharing of scientific data but will the designs of such studies continue to allow direct comparisons. Probably, of course, but neither necessarity nor invariably.
    We would also lose access to the wider EU scientific budget, where because of our experience we’re ‘pulling up’, in particulkar the Eastern countries and generally, as a result we get more than we put in.
    As far as the siting is concerned, very few of the present staff wanted, when a survery was done, to move to Bratislava. We could, in worst case, be looking at a logjam situation in medicines regulation.
    He also made the point that the three most sophisticated medidicines regulatory systems are the European, the US, and the Japanese. As a direct result of Brexit the European one is going to have to be rebuilt, at least staff-wise and there will a be a fourth, smaller than either of the other three (Japan’s population is about twice ours) so either our medicines regulation will have to link to one of the big three or we will move further down the queue when it comes to companies licensing new products.

    In short, he was very, very concerned about the practical effects of Brexit on medicine safety in Europe as a whole, and in UK, and on the supply of medicines in UK.

    Never mind, we’ll have blue passports.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,986
    DavidL said:

    TMerkel now trying to overtake TMay on the road to the history books

    The Jamaica coalition always seemed a slightly absurd idea, parties who shared almost no common beliefs were inevitably going to struggle. The problem for Merkel is that the FDP who have walked away are a much, much better fit for her own party than the Greens who would surely be happier with the SPD.

    I would have thought that a minority government that could probably rely on the AfD for tacit support on many issues was the obvious way forward but there may be a reluctance to give the AfD that kind of influence.

    It all shows that while FPTP has serious drawbacks so does proportional systems which do not have a clear winners bonus allowing strong government.
    what it shows is Merkel is no longer the power in Germany and by extension Europe

    on balance Id say a weak Merkel is good for the UK - cue remainers telling me Im mad - as it will make the economics of Brexit more important than the politics.

    The politics has now been overtaken in Germany by the need to survive and who is lining up as successor for Angela ( currently there isnt one ). Im still hoping it will be David Macallister but he has lost a lot of ground recently

    So TMay may yet prove to be in a stronger position than TMerkel - two desperate women clinging to power and needing a deal to keep them there.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812

    We have been teaching Computing rather than IT for several years now thanks to a dedicated and passionate HoD, but Harris is right that recruiting good teachers is particularly difficult for this subject: worse even than Physics.

    Some subjects (History springs to mind) have a large pool of graduates for whom the only way to carry on with a subject they love is to become a teacher. Others (and computing is probably an extreme example even here) have lots of much better paid jobs available. Not only that but most good programmers are probably not that keen on working with children.

    The only real solution I can think of involves paying teachers of shortage subjects (like Physics) significantly more than those in subject which are easier to recruit for. I may have a bit of a conflict of interest here though.
    Just maybe...

    That said the fact that programmers are in such high demand suggests that more kids should indeed be studying it. The risk is what you get taught gets superseded. My eldest daughter did some programing in a language that seems to have fallen out of favour and stuff in Information Systems that no one would bother teaching anymore. Similarly, the pressure on staff to keep up with a curriculum which has changed out of all recognition in the last decade is considerable.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,613

    DavidL said:

    On topic the idea that we would remain the host of EU institutions having left the EU is so absurd that I refuse to believe that anyone entertained it after a moment's thought. That said, there have been persistent rumours that the staff in both institutions don't want to leave.

    The question of what we do next is one of the issues to be considered in the Brexit talks. On the financial side this is tied up with the single passport. If we can negotiate continued equivalence between our financial regulation and the EU then there may be some advantage in paying a subscription to remain a member and having an input on new regulation.

    On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

    Well, yes. It would have been sensible to remain part of both agencies and have a say in the rules and regulations across the EU and EEA. The voters of Boston and Stoke thought otherwise.
    maybe they should have based it in Stoke and given them a stake in the EU
    We could base our new Medicines agency in Stoke and reap that Brexit dividend.
    Yes that would be a good idea. Finally a Brexit benefit.
    You'd have to feel for the bureaucrats: Bratislava or Burslem. Recruitment might be more challenging all round for the regulators.
    Steele and Keay used to build very fine musical instruments in Burslem.

    So they're used to having massive organs about the place and the Eurocrats should fit right in! :smiley:
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,986

    DavidL said:

    On topic the idea that we would remain the host of EU institutions having left the EU is so absurd that I refuse to believe that anyone entertained it after a moment's thought. That said, there have been persistent rumours that the staff in both institutions don't want to leave.

    The question of what we do next is one of the issues to be considered in the Brexit talks. On the financial side this is tied up with the single passport. If we can negotiate continued equivalence between our financial regulation and the EU then there may be some advantage in paying a subscription to remain a member and having an input on new regulation.

    On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

    Well, yes. It would have been sensible to remain part of both agencies and have a say in the rules and regulations across the EU and EEA. The voters of Boston and Stoke thought otherwise.
    maybe they should have based it in Stoke and given them a stake in the EU
    We could base our new Medicines agency in Stoke and reap that Brexit dividend.
    seems fair, Id also move the law courts out too.

    Stoke twinned with Karlsruhe
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,015
    I'm looking forward the creative response to Hammond being pictured today in the passenger seat of a driverless car, a metaphor for this failing government.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,265

    I went to a talk by an ex-head of what is now the MHRA a couple of weeks ago. He made several points. One is that because the EMA is situated in London much of the work our MHRA does is for the EMA, and the close proximity of the two organisations is, if not vital, very important. There’s a lot of money flowing both ways, and while some of this will continue, there will be barriers. Also, especially with medicines for rarer diseases, we benefit from pan-European studies; if/when we leave the EMA we may well not be part of the studies. There is of course sharing of scientific data but will the designs of such studies continue to allow direct comparisons. Probably, of course, but neither necessarity nor invariably.
    We would also lose access to the wider EU scientific budget, where because of our experience we’re ‘pulling up’, in particulkar the Eastern countries and generally, as a result we get more than we put in.
    As far as the siting is concerned, very few of the present staff wanted, when a survery was done, to move to Bratislava. We could, in worst case, be looking at a logjam situation in medicines regulation.
    He also made the point that the three most sophisticated medidicines regulatory systems are the European, the US, and the Japanese. As a direct result of Brexit the European one is going to have to be rebuilt, at least staff-wise and there will a be a fourth, smaller than either of the other three (Japan’s population is about twice ours) so either our medicines regulation will have to link to one of the big three or we will move further down the queue when it comes to companies licensing new products.

    In short, he was very, very concerned about the practical effects of Brexit on medicine safety in Europe as a whole, and in UK, and on the supply of medicines in UK.

    Never mind, we’ll have blue passports.

    I want my burgundy passport, damnit!
  • ydoethur said:

    The only real solution I can think of involves paying teachers of shortage subjects (like Physics) significantly more than those in subject which are easier to recruit for. I may have a bit of a conflict of interest here though.

    Speaking as a History teacher, I've never understood why that isn't national pay policy anyway. It seems such an obvious thing to do.

    And as History teachers are naturally awesome and rise to the top of the tree (with higher pay) just by turning up, that corrects itself later on anyway.
    I know you are joking (slightly at least) with your last comment, but good historians are good storytellers and really should make good teachers.

    My favourite teacher (from my own schooldays, not now) was an historian. I didn’t do History at A-level because I was not great at essays and double maths, Physics and Chemistry seemed like a doddle; if I were able to chose again I would swap History for Chemistry in a heartbeat.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812

    DavidL said:



    On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

    I am pretty sure that is what is going to happen, but it is obviously an EU institution and it is up to them whether or not they let us join. Assuming they do, we'll effectively be accepting EU regulation of our drugs industry. That makes the whole Brexit idea of taking back control pretty nonsensical doesn't it.
    Only if you are some sort of fanatic. Otherwise you would recognise that it would then be up to us as to whether or not we wanted to remain members, whether we wanted to restrict or extend its role and how we wanted to implement any necessary regulation in our domestic law.

    The UK is a large market. If we are not allowed to remain members there will be more trial work going on in the UK, not less, as manufacturers seek approvals in the market with the biggest unitary purchaser of drugs in Europe.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364

    DavidL said:

    TMerkel now trying to overtake TMay on the road to the history books

    The Jamaica coalition always seemed a slightly absurd idea, parties who shared almost no common beliefs were inevitably going to struggle. The problem for Merkel is that the FDP who have walked away are a much, much better fit for her own party than the Greens who would surely be happier with the SPD.

    I would have thought that a minority government that could probably rely on the AfD for tacit support on many issues was the obvious way forward but there may be a reluctance to give the AfD that kind of influence.

    It all shows that while FPTP has serious drawbacks so does proportional systems which do not have a clear winners bonus allowing strong government.
    what it shows is Merkel is no longer the power in Germany and by extension Europe

    on balance Id say a weak Merkel is good for the UK - cue remainers telling me Im mad - as it will make the economics of Brexit more important than the politics.

    The politics has now been overtaken in Germany by the need to survive and who is lining up as successor for Angela ( currently there isnt one ). Im still hoping it will be David Macallister but he has lost a lot of ground recently

    So TMay may yet prove to be in a stronger position than TMerkel - two desperate women clinging to power and needing a deal to keep them there.

    Doesn’t the success of David Macallister and Leo Varadkar, and indeed Sajid Javid and Sadiq Khan suggest strogly that many European countries are becoming more inclined to look at ability first, rather than origin.
  • Staff response to the candidate cities:

    http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2017/09/WC500235516.pdf

    Scroll to the last page....
  • DavidL said:

    TMerkel now trying to overtake TMay on the road to the history books

    The Jamaica coalition always seemed a slightly absurd idea, parties who shared almost no common beliefs were inevitably going to struggle. The problem for Merkel is that the FDP who have walked away are a much, much better fit for her own party than the Greens who would surely be happier with the SPD.

    I would have thought that a minority government that could probably rely on the AfD for tacit support on many issues was the obvious way forward but there may be a reluctance to give the AfD that kind of influence.

    It all shows that while FPTP has serious drawbacks so does proportional systems which do not have a clear winners bonus allowing strong government.
    what it shows is Merkel is no longer the power in Germany and by extension Europe

    on balance Id say a weak Merkel is good for the UK - cue remainers telling me Im mad - as it will make the economics of Brexit more important than the politics.

    The politics has now been overtaken in Germany by the need to survive and who is lining up as successor for Angela ( currently there isnt one ). Im still hoping it will be David Macallister but he has lost a lot of ground recently

    So TMay may yet prove to be in a stronger position than TMerkel - two desperate women clinging to power and needing a deal to keep them there.

    Whenever I feel afraid
    I hold my head erect
    And whistle a happy tune
    So no one will suspect
    I'm afraid
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,613

    ydoethur said:

    The only real solution I can think of involves paying teachers of shortage subjects (like Physics) significantly more than those in subject which are easier to recruit for. I may have a bit of a conflict of interest here though.

    Speaking as a History teacher, I've never understood why that isn't national pay policy anyway. It seems such an obvious thing to do.

    And as History teachers are naturally awesome and rise to the top of the tree (with higher pay) just by turning up, that corrects itself later on anyway.
    I know you are joking (slightly at least) with your last comment, but good historians are good storytellers and really should make good teachers.

    My favourite teacher (from my own schooldays, not now) was an historian. I didn’t do History at A-level because I was not great at essays and double maths, Physics and Chemistry seemed like a doddle; if I were able to chose again I would swap History for Chemistry in a heartbeat.
    Well, I was putting it jokily. But it is true in my purely anecdotal experience that History and English graduates are disproportionately represented on SLT.

    I think that's most likely because these are subjects where due to oversupply you can pick and choose the ablest :naughty: so they have a tendency to go further. But also as a result of these very essay writing skills you mention we tend to make good administrators.

    Oh, and of course there are a lot of us so it's easier to bodge a timetable around other commitments.

    But that does also mean science graduates should be paid a premium simply due to laws of supply and demand.
  • DavidL said:

    TMerkel now trying to overtake TMay on the road to the history books

    The Jamaica coalition always seemed a slightly absurd idea, parties who shared almost no common beliefs were inevitably going to struggle. The problem for Merkel is that the FDP who have walked away are a much, much better fit for her own party than the Greens who would surely be happier with the SPD.

    I would have thought that a minority government that could probably rely on the AfD for tacit support on many issues was the obvious way forward but there may be a reluctance to give the AfD that kind of influence.

    It all shows that while FPTP has serious drawbacks so does proportional systems which do not have a clear winners bonus allowing strong government.
    I see that debate on whether Syrian refugees could bring their families over to join them in Germany was a key stumbling block in the talks.

    Given the political temperature in Germany, and the election results, it's extraordinary that was even being discussed as an option.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:



    On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

    I am pretty sure that is what is going to happen, but it is obviously an EU institution and it is up to them whether or not they let us join. Assuming they do, we'll effectively be accepting EU regulation of our drugs industry. That makes the whole Brexit idea of taking back control pretty nonsensical doesn't it.
    Only if you are some sort of fanatic. Otherwise you would recognise that it would then be up to us as to whether or not we wanted to remain members, whether we wanted to restrict or extend its role and how we wanted to implement any necessary regulation in our domestic law.

    The UK is a large market. If we are not allowed to remain members there will be more trial work going on in the UK, not less, as manufacturers seek approvals in the market with the biggest unitary purchaser of drugs in Europe.
    We are indeed a large market, and we are going to stay that way, but we are going to be fourth as far as manufacturers are concerned...... and incidentally, many are, apparently wondering whether they should have major establishments geographically close to the EMA. The speaker I listened was of the opinion that because we were no longer doing much of the EMA’s work, then there would be less work for British Universities (etc). There is, of course, also an issue about recruitment of staff. There is, apparently a devloping problem at such places as the Francis Crick Institute.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,996
    DavidL said:

    TMerkel now trying to overtake TMay on the road to the history books

    The Jamaica coalition always seemed a slightly absurd idea, parties who shared almost no common beliefs were inevitably going to struggle. The problem for Merkel is that the FDP who have walked away are a much, much better fit for her own party than the Greens who would surely be happier with the SPD.

    I would have thought that a minority government that could probably rely on the AfD for tacit support on many issues was the obvious way forward but there may be a reluctance to give the AfD that kind of influence.

    It all shows that while FPTP has serious drawbacks so does proportional systems which do not have a clear winners bonus allowing strong government.
    Lol. The only strong government many younger UK voters have known was a coalition!
  • DavidL said:

    We have been teaching Computing rather than IT for several years now thanks to a dedicated and passionate HoD, but Harris is right that recruiting good teachers is particularly difficult for this subject: worse even than Physics.

    Some subjects (History springs to mind) have a large pool of graduates for whom the only way to carry on with a subject they love is to become a teacher. Others (and computing is probably an extreme example even here) have lots of much better paid jobs available. Not only that but most good programmers are probably not that keen on working with children.

    The only real solution I can think of involves paying teachers of shortage subjects (like Physics) significantly more than those in subject which are easier to recruit for. I may have a bit of a conflict of interest here though.
    Just maybe...

    That said the fact that programmers are in such high demand suggests that more kids should indeed be studying it. The risk is what you get taught gets superseded. My eldest daughter did some programing in a language that seems to have fallen out of favour and stuff in Information Systems that no one would bother teaching anymore. Similarly, the pressure on staff to keep up with a curriculum which has changed out of all recognition in the last decade is considerable.
    Whilst that's true, a lot of the logic on designing programme structure and subroutines carries over.

    I learnt BBC Basic (followed by Q-Basic) with a dash of Pascal. I haven't forgotten those lessons, and I still find the principles useful.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,986

    DavidL said:

    TMerkel now trying to overtake TMay on the road to the history books

    The Jamaica coalition always seemed a slightly absurd idea, parties who shared almost no common beliefs were inevitably going to struggle. The problem for Merkel is that the FDP who have walked away are a much, much better fit for her own party than the Greens who would surely be happier with the SPD.

    I would have thought that a minority government that could probably rely on the AfD for tacit support on many issues was the obvious way forward but there may be a reluctance to give the AfD that kind of influence.

    It all shows that while FPTP has serious drawbacks so does proportional systems which do not have a clear winners bonus allowing strong government.
    what it shows is Merkel is no longer the power in Germany and by extension Europe

    on balance Id say a weak Merkel is good for the UK - cue remainers telling me Im mad - as it will make the economics of Brexit more important than the politics.

    The politics has now been overtaken in Germany by the need to survive and who is lining up as successor for Angela ( currently there isnt one ). Im still hoping it will be David Macallister but he has lost a lot of ground recently

    So TMay may yet prove to be in a stronger position than TMerkel - two desperate women clinging to power and needing a deal to keep them there.

    Doesn’t the success of David Macallister and Leo Varadkar, and indeed Sajid Javid and Sadiq Khan suggest strogly that many European countries are becoming more inclined to look at ability first, rather than origin.
    I suspect you are right, though I suspect poor Leo is in a tizzy now as he hasnt anyone in Berlin to tell him what to do
  • Pathetic from David Davis.

    David Davis fell out with his most senior civil servant after he blocked him from using a private RAF plane to travel around Europe for Brexit negotiations.

    Mr Davis demanded the right to avoid commercial flights for foreign travel shortly after he was appointed. He had to appeal to No 10 after Oliver Robbins, his permanent secretary and the government’s chief Brexit negotiator, kept blocking his flight requests.

    Mr Davis appealed to Mrs May’s chief of staff, who approved the expense after he said he would not do the trips unless he got his way. Since then he has repeatedly used RAF transport, which costs up to five times as much.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/david-davis-request-for-raf-flight-was-blocked-t6fd97msc
  • Staff response to the candidate cities:

    http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2017/09/WC500235516.pdf

    Scroll to the last page....


    The European Medicines Agency has revealed a list of five cities that are preferred as its new location by staff after Brexit, following warnings of a public health disaster if EU leaders pick the wrong location later this year.

    Amsterdam, Barcelona, Copenhagen, Milan, or Vienna came top of the staff survey, while the agency warned that it could lose more than 70% of its staff if politicians decide to relocate to Athens, Bratislava, Bucharest, Helskinki, Malta, Sofia, Warsaw or Zagreb in a vote in November.


    https://pharmaphorum.com/news/european-medicines-agency-reveals-favoured-hq-locations/
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812

    DavidL said:

    TMerkel now trying to overtake TMay on the road to the history books

    The Jamaica coalition always seemed a slightly absurd idea, parties who shared almost no common beliefs were inevitably going to struggle. The problem for Merkel is that the FDP who have walked away are a much, much better fit for her own party than the Greens who would surely be happier with the SPD.

    I would have thought that a minority government that could probably rely on the AfD for tacit support on many issues was the obvious way forward but there may be a reluctance to give the AfD that kind of influence.

    It all shows that while FPTP has serious drawbacks so does proportional systems which do not have a clear winners bonus allowing strong government.
    what it shows is Merkel is no longer the power in Germany and by extension Europe

    on balance Id say a weak Merkel is good for the UK - cue remainers telling me Im mad - as it will make the economics of Brexit more important than the politics.

    The politics has now been overtaken in Germany by the need to survive and who is lining up as successor for Angela ( currently there isnt one ). Im still hoping it will be David Macallister but he has lost a lot of ground recently

    So TMay may yet prove to be in a stronger position than TMerkel - two desperate women clinging to power and needing a deal to keep them there.

    Not sure about that. I think it increases the risk of the EU simply being incapable of agreeing a deal that is in their own (and our) interests. If there is no one left that can say yes we have a problem.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:



    On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

    I am pretty sure that is what is going to happen, but it is obviously an EU institution and it is up to them whether or not they let us join. Assuming they do, we'll effectively be accepting EU regulation of our drugs industry. That makes the whole Brexit idea of taking back control pretty nonsensical doesn't it.
    Only if you are some sort of fanatic. Otherwise you would recognise that it would then be up to us as to whether or not we wanted to remain members, whether we wanted to restrict or extend its role and how we wanted to implement any necessary regulation in our domestic law.

    The UK is a large market. If we are not allowed to remain members there will be more trial work going on in the UK, not less, as manufacturers seek approvals in the market with the biggest unitary purchaser of drugs in Europe.
    The UK has two further obstacles to new medicines. Even when licensed, new drugs have to go through NICE for appproval on the NHS, then the NHS drives a hard bargain on price as it is a monopoly purchaser. As such there is an extra delay and lower profit for pharmaceutical companies in the UK compared to other European countries.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,986

    DavidL said:

    TMerkel now trying to overtake TMay on the road to the history books

    The Jamaica coalition always seemed a slightly absurd idea, parties who shared almost no common beliefs were inevitably going to struggle. The problem for Merkel is that the FDP who have walked away are a much, much better fit for her own party than the Greens who would surely be happier with the SPD.

    I would have thought that a minority government that could probably rely on the AfD for tacit support on many issues was the obvious way forward but there may be a reluctance to give the AfD that kind of influence.

    It all shows that while FPTP has serious drawbacks so does proportional systems which do not have a clear winners bonus allowing strong government.
    what it shows is Merkel is no longer the power in Germany and by extension Europe

    on balance Id say a weak Merkel is good for the UK - cue remainers telling me Im mad - as it will make the economics of Brexit more important than the politics.

    The politics has now been overtaken in Germany by the need to survive and who is lining up as successor for Angela ( currently there isnt one ). Im still hoping it will be David Macallister but he has lost a lot of ground recently

    So TMay may yet prove to be in a stronger position than TMerkel - two desperate women clinging to power and needing a deal to keep them there.

    Whenever I feel afraid
    I hold my head erect
    And whistle a happy tune
    So no one will suspect
    I'm afraid
    chortle

    youre nothing but predictable
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    The only real solution I can think of involves paying teachers of shortage subjects (like Physics) significantly more than those in subject which are easier to recruit for. I may have a bit of a conflict of interest here though.

    Speaking as a History teacher, I've never understood why that isn't national pay policy anyway. It seems such an obvious thing to do.

    And as History teachers are naturally awesome and rise to the top of the tree (with higher pay) just by turning up, that corrects itself later on anyway.
    I know you are joking (slightly at least) with your last comment, but good historians are good storytellers and really should make good teachers.

    My favourite teacher (from my own schooldays, not now) was an historian. I didn’t do History at A-level because I was not great at essays and double maths, Physics and Chemistry seemed like a doddle; if I were able to chose again I would swap History for Chemistry in a heartbeat.
    Well, I was putting it jokily. But it is true in my purely anecdotal experience that History and English graduates are disproportionately represented on SLT.

    I think that's most likely because these are subjects where due to oversupply you can pick and choose the ablest :naughty: so they have a tendency to go further. But also as a result of these very essay writing skills you mention we tend to make good administrators.

    Oh, and of course there are a lot of us so it's easier to bodge a timetable around other commitments.

    But that does also mean science graduates should be paid a premium simply due to laws of supply and demand.
    Some years we have had a huge problem finding suitable English teachers, but generally Physics and Chemistry tend to be the hardest.

    One big problem is that a lot of the PGCE courses are for “Science”: very few Physicists want to go anywhere near Biology if they can avoid it and so at put off teaching from the start. To put this in context, it’s like assuming all MFL teachers are happy teaching Spanish, or all Historians can teach Geography and RE (they are all Humanities after all).
  • DavidL said:

    On topic the idea that we would remain the host of EU institutions having left the EU is so absurd that I refuse to believe that anyone entertained it after a moment's thought. That said, there have been persistent rumours that the staff in both institutions don't want to leave.

    The question of what we do next is one of the issues to be considered in the Brexit talks. On the financial side this is tied up with the single passport. If we can negotiate continued equivalence between our financial regulation and the EU then there may be some advantage in paying a subscription to remain a member and having an input on new regulation.

    On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

    Well, yes. It would have been sensible to remain part of both agencies and have a say in the rules and regulations across the EU and EEA. The voters of Boston and Stoke thought otherwise.
    maybe they should have based it in Stoke and given them a stake in the EU
    We could base our new Medicines agency in Stoke and reap that Brexit dividend.
    seems fair, Id also move the law courts out too.

    Stoke twinned with Karlsruhe
    Stoke should twin themselves with Nürnberg.
  • Staff response to the candidate cities:

    http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2017/09/WC500235516.pdf

    Scroll to the last page....


    The European Medicines Agency has revealed a list of five cities that are preferred as its new location by staff after Brexit, following warnings of a public health disaster if EU leaders pick the wrong location later this year.

    Amsterdam, Barcelona, Copenhagen, Milan, or Vienna came top of the staff survey, while the agency warned that it could lose more than 70% of its staff if politicians decide to relocate to Athens, Bratislava, Bucharest, Helskinki, Malta, Sofia, Warsaw or Zagreb in a vote in November.


    https://pharmaphorum.com/news/european-medicines-agency-reveals-favoured-hq-locations/
    Barcelona can be ruled out, I think. Can't see the Eurocrats risking a move to a city that might also be leaving the EU soon.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,986
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    TMerkel now trying to overtake TMay on the road to the history books

    The Jamaica coalition always seemed a slightly absurd idea, parties who shared almost no common beliefs were inevitably going to struggle. The problem for Merkel is that the FDP who have walked away are a much, much better fit for her own party than the Greens who would surely be happier with the SPD.

    I would have thought that a minority government that could probably rely on the AfD for tacit support on many issues was the obvious way forward but there may be a reluctance to give the AfD that kind of influence.

    It all shows that while FPTP has serious drawbacks so does proportional systems which do not have a clear winners bonus allowing strong government.
    what it shows is Merkel is no longer the power in Germany and by extension Europe

    on balance Id say a weak Merkel is good for the UK - cue remainers telling me Im mad - as it will make the economics of Brexit more important than the politics.

    The politics has now been overtaken in Germany by the need to survive and who is lining up as successor for Angela ( currently there isnt one ). Im still hoping it will be David Macallister but he has lost a lot of ground recently

    So TMay may yet prove to be in a stronger position than TMerkel - two desperate women clinging to power and needing a deal to keep them there.

    Not sure about that. I think it increases the risk of the EU simply being incapable of agreeing a deal that is in their own (and our) interests. If there is no one left that can say yes we have a problem.
    Merkel as the observers have said will do us no favours she will drive a hard bargain in Germanys interest, since she now cant determine what that interest is imo protecting the economy has just moved up several notches in priority
  • ydoethur said:

    The only real solution I can think of involves paying teachers of shortage subjects (like Physics) significantly more than those in subject which are easier to recruit for. I may have a bit of a conflict of interest here though.

    Speaking as a History teacher, I've never understood why that isn't national pay policy anyway. It seems such an obvious thing to do.

    And as History teachers are naturally awesome and rise to the top of the tree (with higher pay) just by turning up, that corrects itself later on anyway.
    There was a time I wanted to teach history.

    I’m so proud of my A in A Level in history, when A Levels were difficult.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    DavidL said:

    On topic the idea that we would remain the host of EU institutions having left the EU is so absurd that I refuse to believe that anyone entertained it after a moment's thought. That said, there have been persistent rumours that the staff in both institutions don't want to leave.

    The question of what we do next is one of the issues to be considered in the Brexit talks. On the financial side this is tied up with the single passport. If we can negotiate continued equivalence between our financial regulation and the EU then there may be some advantage in paying a subscription to remain a member and having an input on new regulation.

    On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

    Well, yes. It would have been sensible to remain part of both agencies and have a say in the rules and regulations across the EU and EEA. The voters of Boston and Stoke thought otherwise.
    maybe they should have based it in Stoke and given them a stake in the EU
    We could base our new Medicines agency in Stoke and reap that Brexit dividend.
    seems fair, Id also move the law courts out too.

    Stoke twinned with Karlsruhe
    Stoke should twin themselves with Nürnberg.
    Dresden may be better, or Meissen. As well as porcelain the cities could be convivial on the subject of ethnic nationalism.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,986

    DavidL said:

    On topic the idea that we would remain the host of EU institutions having left the EU is so absurd that I refuse to believe that anyone entertained it after a moment's thought. That said, there have been persistent rumours that the staff in both institutions don't want to leave.

    The question of what we do next is one of the issues to be considered in the Brexit talks. On the financial side this is tied up with the single passport. If we can negotiate continued equivalence between our financial regulation and the EU then there may be some advantage in paying a subscription to remain a member and having an input on new regulation.

    On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

    Well, yes. It would have been sensible to remain part of both agencies and have a say in the rules and regulations across the EU and EEA. The voters of Boston and Stoke thought otherwise.
    maybe they should have based it in Stoke and given them a stake in the EU
    We could base our new Medicines agency in Stoke and reap that Brexit dividend.
    seems fair, Id also move the law courts out too.

    Stoke twinned with Karlsruhe
    Stoke should twin themselves with Nürnberg.
    Are you suggesting we try Leavers there in a series of show trials ?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:



    On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

    I am pretty sure that is what is going to happen, but it is obviously an EU institution and it is up to them whether or not they let us join. Assuming they do, we'll effectively be accepting EU regulation of our drugs industry. That makes the whole Brexit idea of taking back control pretty nonsensical doesn't it.
    Only if you are some sort of fanatic. Otherwise you would recognise that it would then be up to us as to whether or not we wanted to remain members, whether we wanted to restrict or extend its role and how we wanted to implement any necessary regulation in our domestic law.

    The UK is a large market. If we are not allowed to remain members there will be more trial work going on in the UK, not less, as manufacturers seek approvals in the market with the biggest unitary purchaser of drugs in Europe.
    The UK has two further obstacles to new medicines. Even when licensed, new drugs have to go through NICE for appproval on the NHS, then the NHS drives a hard bargain on price as it is a monopoly purchaser. As such there is an extra delay and lower profit for pharmaceutical companies in the UK compared to other European countries.
    Still very worthwhile though. And there are many other benefits of working with the NHS, especially for epidemiological longitudinal studies where considerable costs can be saved. But I agree continued membership is probably in our interests.
  • DavidL said:

    On topic the idea that we would remain the host of EU institutions having left the EU is so absurd that I refuse to believe that anyone entertained it after a moment's thought. That said, there have been persistent rumours that the staff in both institutions don't want to leave.

    The question of what we do next is one of the issues to be considered in the Brexit talks. On the financial side this is tied up with the single passport. If we can negotiate continued equivalence between our financial regulation and the EU then there may be some advantage in paying a subscription to remain a member and having an input on new regulation.

    On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

    Well, yes. It would have been sensible to remain part of both agencies and have a say in the rules and regulations across the EU and EEA. The voters of Boston and Stoke thought otherwise.
    maybe they should have based it in Stoke and given them a stake in the EU
    We could base our new Medicines agency in Stoke and reap that Brexit dividend.
    seems fair, Id also move the law courts out too.

    Stoke twinned with Karlsruhe
    Stoke should twin themselves with Nürnberg.
    Are you suggesting we try Leavers there in a series of show trials ?
    Yup. Once Brexit turns out to be disaster.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812

    DavidL said:

    On topic the idea that we would remain the host of EU institutions having left the EU is so absurd that I refuse to believe that anyone entertained it after a moment's thought. That said, there have been persistent rumours that the staff in both institutions don't want to leave.

    The question of what we do next is one of the issues to be considered in the Brexit talks. On the financial side this is tied up with the single passport. If we can negotiate continued equivalence between our financial regulation and the EU then there may be some advantage in paying a subscription to remain a member and having an input on new regulation.

    On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

    Well, yes. It would have been sensible to remain part of both agencies and have a say in the rules and regulations across the EU and EEA. The voters of Boston and Stoke thought otherwise.
    maybe they should have based it in Stoke and given them a stake in the EU
    We could base our new Medicines agency in Stoke and reap that Brexit dividend.
    seems fair, Id also move the law courts out too.

    Stoke twinned with Karlsruhe
    Stoke should twin themselves with Nürnberg.
    Are you suggesting we try Leavers there in a series of show trials ?
    Yup. Once Brexit turns out to be disaster.
    Surely trials are just more of that EU/ECHR human rights crap that we want to get rid of? Just get on to the executions.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,613

    ydoethur said:

    The only real solution I can think of involves paying teachers of shortage subjects (like Physics) significantly more than those in subject which are easier to recruit for. I may have a bit of a conflict of interest here though.

    Speaking as a History teacher, I've never understood why that isn't national pay policy anyway. It seems such an obvious thing to do.

    And as History teachers are naturally awesome and rise to the top of the tree (with higher pay) just by turning up, that corrects itself later on anyway.
    There was a time I wanted to teach history.

    I’m so proud of my A in A Level in history, when A Levels were difficult.
    I once got 100% in an A-level history exam.

    I still have no idea how!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077

    DavidL said:

    On topic the idea that we would remain the host of EU institutions having left the EU is so absurd that I refuse to believe that anyone entertained it after a moment's thought. That said, there have been persistent rumours that the staff in both institutions don't want to leave.

    The question of what we do next is one of the issues to be considered in the Brexit talks. On the financial side this is tied up with the single passport. If we can negotiate continued equivalence between our financial regulation and the EU then there may be some advantage in paying a subscription to remain a member and having an input on new regulation.

    On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

    Well, yes. It would have been sensible to remain part of both agencies and have a say in the rules and regulations across the EU and EEA. The voters of Boston and Stoke thought otherwise.
    maybe they should have based it in Stoke and given them a stake in the EU
    We could base our new Medicines agency in Stoke and reap that Brexit dividend.
    seems fair, Id also move the law courts out too.

    Stoke twinned with Karlsruhe
    Stoke should twin themselves with Nürnberg.
    Dresden may be better, or Meissen. As well as porcelain the cities could be convivial on the subject of ethnic nationalism.
    Coventry is Dresden's twin
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,613

    Staff response to the candidate cities:

    http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2017/09/WC500235516.pdf

    Scroll to the last page....


    The European Medicines Agency has revealed a list of five cities that are preferred as its new location by staff after Brexit, following warnings of a public health disaster if EU leaders pick the wrong location later this year.

    Amsterdam, Barcelona, Copenhagen, Milan, or Vienna came top of the staff survey, while the agency warned that it could lose more than 70% of its staff if politicians decide to relocate to Athens, Bratislava, Bucharest, Helskinki, Malta, Sofia, Warsaw or Zagreb in a vote in November.


    https://pharmaphorum.com/news/european-medicines-agency-reveals-favoured-hq-locations/
    Barcelona can be ruled out, I think. Can't see the Eurocrats risking a move to a city that might also be leaving the EU soon.
    I don't know. With their level of hubris and incompetence I should have thought that made it favourite!

    I find myself channeling the late Jim Hacker more and more these days on Europe.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,986

    DavidL said:

    On topic the idea that we would remain the host of EU institutions having left the EU is so absurd that I refuse to believe that anyone entertained it after a moment's thought. That said, there have been persistent rumours that the staff in both institutions don't want to leave.

    The question of what we do next is one of the issues to be considered in the Brexit talks. On the financial side this is tied up with the single passport. If we can negotiate continued equivalence between our financial regulation and the EU then there may be some advantage in paying a subscription to remain a member and having an input on new regulation.

    On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

    Well, yes. It would have been sensible to remain part of both agencies and have a say in the rules and regulations across the EU and EEA. The voters of Boston and Stoke thought otherwise.
    maybe they should have based it in Stoke and given them a stake in the EU
    We could base our new Medicines agency in Stoke and reap that Brexit dividend.
    seems fair, Id also move the law courts out too.

    Stoke twinned with Karlsruhe
    Stoke should twin themselves with Nürnberg.
    Are you suggesting we try Leavers there in a series of show trials ?
    Yup. Once Brexit turns out to be disaster.
    Ok, but only on the condition that if it's a success we can make all the remainers live in Cumbernauld
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,265

    DavidL said:

    We have been teaching Computing rather than IT for several years now thanks to a dedicated and passionate HoD, but Harris is right that recruiting good teachers is particularly difficult for this subject: worse even than Physics.

    Some subjects (History springs to mind) have a large pool of graduates for whom the only way to carry on with a subject they love is to become a teacher. Others (and computing is probably an extreme example even here) have lots of much better paid jobs available. Not only that but most good programmers are probably not that keen on working with children.

    The only real solution I can think of involves paying teachers of shortage subjects (like Physics) significantly more than those in subject which are easier to recruit for. I may have a bit of a conflict of interest here though.
    Just maybe...

    That said the fact that programmers are in such high demand suggests that more kids should indeed be studying it. The risk is what you get taught gets superseded. My eldest daughter did some programing in a language that seems to have fallen out of favour and stuff in Information Systems that no one would bother teaching anymore. Similarly, the pressure on staff to keep up with a curriculum which has changed out of all recognition in the last decade is considerable.
    Whilst that's true, a lot of the logic on designing programme structure and subroutines carries over.

    I learnt BBC Basic (followed by Q-Basic) with a dash of Pascal. I haven't forgotten those lessons, and I still find the principles useful.
    Computer languages are the relatively unimportant fluff, and are generally fairly transferable, especially within families - if you know C, Java isn't that difficult to learn.

    What matters much more IMO, and is rarely taught well, is process. How do you specify the problem to be solved, how do you come up with the right solution, how do you implement, and how do you test? How do you work with others in a group concurrently on the same code base? How do you document the code? How do you make the user interface suitable for the end-user rather the coder?

    These, and more, are the difference between a professional programmer and an amateur or hacker. They also contain skills that are applicable in wider life as well.

    Too many people think that producing reams of code is what is needed. It isn't. It's people who can engineer code as part of a team working on a specific task.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812

    DavidL said:

    .
    Just maybe...

    That said the fact that programmers are in such high demand suggests that more kids should indeed be studying it. The risk is what you get taught gets superseded. My eldest daughter did some programing in a language that seems to have fallen out of favour and stuff in Information Systems that no one would bother teaching anymore. Similarly, the pressure on staff to keep up with a curriculum which has changed out of all recognition in the last decade is considerable.
    Whilst that's true, a lot of the logic on designing programme structure and subroutines carries over.

    I learnt BBC Basic (followed by Q-Basic) with a dash of Pascal. I haven't forgotten those lessons, and I still find the principles useful.
    Computer languages are the relatively unimportant fluff, and are generally fairly transferable, especially within families - if you know C, Java isn't that difficult to learn.

    What matters much more IMO, and is rarely taught well, is process. How do you specify the problem to be solved, how do you come up with the right solution, how do you implement, and how do you test? How do you work with others in a group concurrently on the same code base? How do you document the code? How do you make the user interface suitable for the end-user rather the coder?

    These, and more, are the difference between a professional programmer and an amateur or hacker. They also contain skills that are applicable in wider life as well.

    Too many people think that producing reams of code is what is needed. It isn't. It's people who can engineer code as part of a team working on a specific task.
    Interesting insight. I will draw it to master L's attention.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic the idea that we would remain the host of EU institutions having left the EU is so absurd that I refuse to believe that anyone entertained it after a moment's thought. That said, there have been persistent rumours that the staff in both institutions don't want to leave.

    The question of what we do next is one of the issues to be considered in the Brexit talks. On the financial side this is tied up with the single passport. If we can negotiate continued equivalence between our financial regulation and the EU then there may be some advantage in paying a subscription to remain a member and having an input on new regulation.

    On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

    Well, yes. It would have been sensible to remain part of both agencies and have a say in the rules and regulations across the EU and EEA. The voters of Boston and Stoke thought otherwise.
    maybe they should have based it in Stoke and given them a stake in the EU
    We could base our new Medicines agency in Stoke and reap that Brexit dividend.
    seems fair, Id also move the law courts out too.

    Stoke twinned with Karlsruhe
    Stoke should twin themselves with Nürnberg.
    Are you suggesting we try Leavers there in a series of show trials ?
    Yup. Once Brexit turns out to be disaster.
    Surely trials are just more of that EU/ECHR human rights crap that we want to get rid of? Just get on to the executions.
    Nah, I’m not in favour of the death penalty.

    Make Leavers like Gove and Johnson live in places like Stoke, Sunderland, and Barnsley for the rest of their lives.
  • Good morning, everyone.

    It's ironic. The EU are desperate to move their agencies out, but very keen to keep people in the UK subject to the ECJ.
  • ydoethur said:

    The only real solution I can think of involves paying teachers of shortage subjects (like Physics) significantly more than those in subject which are easier to recruit for. I may have a bit of a conflict of interest here though.

    Speaking as a History teacher, I've never understood why that isn't national pay policy anyway. It seems such an obvious thing to do.

    And as History teachers are naturally awesome and rise to the top of the tree (with higher pay) just by turning up, that corrects itself later on anyway.
    There was a time I wanted to teach history.

    I’m so proud of my A in A Level in history, when A Levels were difficult.
    You are older than I thought you were then.

    Must go: lessons to teach and pb is blocked at school.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,986

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic the idea that we would remain the host of EU institutions having left the EU is so absurd that I refuse to believe that anyone entertained it after a moment's thought. That said, there have been persistent rumours that the staff in both institutions don't want to leave.

    The question of what we do next is one of the issues to be considered in the Brexit talks. On the financial side this is tied up with the single passport. If we can negotiate continued equivalence between our financial regulation and the EU then there may be some advantage in paying a subscription to remain a member and having an input on new regulation.

    On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

    Well, yes. It would have been sensible to remain part of both agencies and have a say in the rules and regulations across the EU and EEA. The voters of Boston and Stoke thought otherwise.
    maybe they should have based it in Stoke and given them a stake in the EU
    We could base our new Medicines agency in Stoke and reap that Brexit dividend.
    seems fair, Id also move the law courts out too.

    Stoke twinned with Karlsruhe
    Stoke should twin themselves with Nürnberg.
    Are you suggesting we try Leavers there in a series of show trials ?
    Yup. Once Brexit turns out to be disaster.
    Surely trials are just more of that EU/ECHR human rights crap that we want to get rid of? Just get on to the executions.
    Nah, I’m not in favour of the death penalty.

    Make Leavers like Gove and Johnson live in places like Stoke, Sunderland, and Barnsley for the rest of their lives.
    err isnt it Osborne and Cameron and Starmer who should live there ?
  • ydoethur said:

    The only real solution I can think of involves paying teachers of shortage subjects (like Physics) significantly more than those in subject which are easier to recruit for. I may have a bit of a conflict of interest here though.

    Speaking as a History teacher, I've never understood why that isn't national pay policy anyway. It seems such an obvious thing to do.

    And as History teachers are naturally awesome and rise to the top of the tree (with higher pay) just by turning up, that corrects itself later on anyway.
    There was a time I wanted to teach history.

    I’m so proud of my A in A Level in history, when A Levels were difficult.
    You are older than I thought you were then.

    Must go: lessons to teach and pb is blocked at school.
    I did my A Levels 20/21 years ago.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,306

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:



    On the medicine side I would also see an attraction to either equivalence or subscription membership so that trials in the UK give access to the EU market and vice versa. But that would be a matter for the negotiations and the post departure relationship the EU seem so reluctant to talk about.

    I am pretty sure that is what is going to happen, but it is obviously an EU institution and it is up to them whether or not they let us join. Assuming they do, we'll effectively be accepting EU regulation of our drugs industry. That makes the whole Brexit idea of taking back control pretty nonsensical doesn't it.
    Only if you are some sort of fanatic. Otherwise you would recognise that it would then be up to us as to whether or not we wanted to remain members, whether we wanted to restrict or extend its role and how we wanted to implement any necessary regulation in our domestic law.

    The UK is a large market. If we are not allowed to remain members there will be more trial work going on in the UK, not less, as manufacturers seek approvals in the market with the biggest unitary purchaser of drugs in Europe.
    The UK has two further obstacles to new medicines. Even when licensed, new drugs have to go through NICE for appproval on the NHS, then the NHS drives a hard bargain on price as it is a monopoly purchaser. As such there is an extra delay and lower profit for pharmaceutical companies in the UK compared to other European countries.
    I think it’s very debatable whether the NHS does drive a hard bargain on drugs prices.
    On orphan drugs I think it’s clear we are getting ripped off in many cases.
  • Staff response to the candidate cities:

    http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2017/09/WC500235516.pdf

    Scroll to the last page....


    The European Medicines Agency has revealed a list of five cities that are preferred as its new location by staff after Brexit, following warnings of a public health disaster if EU leaders pick the wrong location later this year.

    Amsterdam, Barcelona, Copenhagen, Milan, or Vienna came top of the staff survey, while the agency warned that it could lose more than 70% of its staff if politicians decide to relocate to Athens, Bratislava, Bucharest, Helskinki, Malta, Sofia, Warsaw or Zagreb in a vote in November.


    https://pharmaphorum.com/news/european-medicines-agency-reveals-favoured-hq-locations/
    Barcelona can be ruled out, I think. Can't see the Eurocrats risking a move to a city that might also be leaving the EU soon.
    And the survey was carried out before the recent alarums and excursions......
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,508
    Wondering what odds you might have got in June saying that May would outlast Merkel and Mugabe.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,976

    Staff response to the candidate cities:

    http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2017/09/WC500235516.pdf

    Scroll to the last page....

    I did so but couldn't see the point you might be making?
This discussion has been closed.