Colonel Panic wrote:The likes of johnm may despair at the result, but I despair at the way many on here seem incapable to seeing the benefits of both side of the debate.
I'm desperately trying to see both sides of the debate. I think as a natural remainer, it's easy to see what the status quo will look like, and I'd need to be convinced with convincing evidence that a major change would be better. It's really difficult to see through the smoke & mirrors of what the politicians a spout and see benefits that negate (or preferably outweigh) the risks. There are some on the telly as I type.... spouting away.
Some birds have already flown. The UK was one of the European leaders with respect to medicines safety. The EU medicines regulator (EMA) was based in London and worked extremely closely with their UK counterparts at the MHRA. That has gone. The EMA has relocated to Amsterdam. Now, we'll be reliant on Big Pharma submitting their data to the MHRA to obtain the necessary licences. They *may* for commercial reasons choose to launch in Europe first, delaying the launch of new medicines here. Thet *may* use us as a guinea pig.... we just don't know.
There's also something called the falsified medicines directive (FMD) which is an EU initiative to prevent "fake" medicines entering the legitimate supply chain (this has already happened)! UK pharma manufacturers will have to comply with EU rules on this if they want to sell to the EU, but from a purchasing perspective, we will almost certainly lose access to the central data hub. (That's what it's looking like at the moment.)