Tag Archives: Brexit

patience and the political process around UK exit

While folks have been quick to jump on the results of the referendum as evidence of democracy at work, (and perhaps that is partly true), a few days later we see the consequences. Economic challenges anew, social discontent in the UK (racism and xenophobia legitimated by the exit vote) and political meltdown in the UK’s parliament.

I want to focus on process. The Commission president wants the article 50 triggered essentially now. Of course, Juncker’s call is just more evidence of his fundamental autocratic ways; he did say he dislikes referenda as do I, but I suspect for him it betrays a disregard for democratic process in favour of bureaucratic expediency. Tusk says that the UK is the one that must act and the rest of the EU must wait. This shows a much more nuanced understanding of democracy and is only right.

Until the UK signals otherwise, it is still a full member of the EU within the meaning of Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union. The UK’s Commissioner was hasty in his departure, and today’s display at the European Parliament unbecoming but feeds the egos of MEPs who tear down more often than they build up.

But process matters. The UK’s Parliament must receive formally the advice it sought from the referendum, which is non-binding. Few countries would dignify the results of a referendum of this magnitude with a simple majority, but require perhaps 75% with some turnout requirement (even compulsory voting for that matter). The UK prime minister is not the government; the UK Parliament is what is sovereign, so it must actually pass a bill in Parliament and that is what can only trigger Article 50 (it may help to read the Lisbon wording).

In the UK, no parliament can bind a successor parliament; therefore, a general election would in effect return a new parliament which can simply ignore the referendum results. Indeed, such a general election would likely be fought over the terms of departure and that isi probably the right thing to do. Converting the referendum votes into constituency votes would likely lead to a minority of MPs being elected that would have supported a Leave position anyway. Given the chaos we see coupled with voter regret, it is unlikely a Leave position would be politically successful.

Furthermore, Parliament must be satisfied that the referendum actually is the will of the people. Given what has been a shambolic campaign, we now see the Leave campaign rowing back from their pledges, while much of the evidence presented by the Remain campaign is coming true. In the end the result is suspect. Granted the vote revealed underlying divisions within UK society, but that is not what the referendum was asking. Parsing the vote in those terms is disingenuous.

It is clearly not in the EU’s interests to see the UK leave, despite what appears to be the fond wishes of some authoritarians in the Commission. Indeed, the leave vote may in fact trigger the sorts of EU reform that was not possible before; nothing like having the chickens come home to roost! It would be a tragedy for the EU to lose the UK just when it would be implementing reforms that would not just reassure the UK, but also deal with the more widespread Euroskepticism and nationalist threats to European unity itself. And of course, it would be a Pyrrhic victory for the UK.

The EU needs to help the UK government chart its way through the process, to understand the process that must be followed and not hasten the UK’s demise within the EU through impatience or intemperate comments. Restraint at the political level across the EU will do more to support the UK find its way out of this mess.

The EU and UK need the outcome to be a win:win. A UK exit is not that.

 

 

UK out of the EU: access to medicines and medical device technologies

I’m continuing the theme of the previous post, by looking at life sciences, healthcare implications for the UK exiting the EU.

  1. The NHS, the UK’s public healthcare system, procures medicines in many cases through the benefits of the single market. While it is not clear what impact an exit will have on pricing itself, failure to ensure access to that single market will inevitably lead to the increase in drug costs. I’d hazard a guess of 10%. Given the difficult financing circumstances of healthcare expenditure in the UK, an increase of this magnitude, will have a knock-on effect on patients and their care.
  2. Apart from the price impact, UK patients may find access to medicines and medical devices restricted as the UK exits the wider European market overseen by the European Medicines Agency. The UK is not every companies’ first choice of a market to launch a new medicine or device, but with an exit, it clearly will drop further down the queue. Excluded from products launched in the rest of the EU, the UK can only wait for companies to ‘get around’ to including the UK.
  3. And apart from the loss of a degree of certainty of access to medicines and devices within the EU, a UK exit, the UK will need to introduce a separate regulatory scheme to replace the European Medicines Agency approach, adding costs and an additional regulatory hurdle for companies. The UK can, of course, try to harmonise itself with EMA, but in the end, departing EMA will reduce patient access to medicines.
  4. Is the UK market big enough to make a difference? Perhaps for some, but I suspect the economics coupled with the overall difficulty new products face contesting the UK market points to a general decline in product availability. At least with the EU, access to medicines and devices could be compared to other EU states; with an exit, the UK stands alone and does not look particularly welcoming.
  5. Of course, the NHS could have a rethink as is slowly underway and move to ensure access to new medicines and technologies. But that may require a different assessment whether the current way of financing the NHS itself is sustainable and that has really little to do with leaving the EU, although the EU does offer a safety value for patients denied care by the NHS. All this is now in jeopardy.
  6. The European Medicines Agency will need to leave the UK, and with it will go not just those jobs, but a whole domain of expertise. That expertise with EMA made the UK within the EU, one of two global centres of excellence in medicines regulation, along with the US FDA, Few people outside this area will appreciate the consequences of EMA departing, but it will be felt within pharmaceutical who maintain many high-paid and knowledgeable staff focused on medicines regulation. All this expertise goes and with it a capability within the UK that can never be regained. Whoever gets the agency, Sweden, Denmark, elsewhere, will be a net gainer of  talent from which to build tremendous domestic capabilities.

UK out of EU: healthcare implications

The British public in the Referendum on the EU has voted for the UK to relinguish membership in the EU. This, in time, will be seen as a mistake for various reasons and of course it will take some time to come to pass.

While I have been from time to time critical of the EU, I think it has brought significant benefits to everyone in the healthcare arena, restrictions on competencies notwithstanding.

The Referendum choice is not without consequences for the UK. I for one do not expect the UK to be given an easy time by its former EU partners, but the risk is that in the end, a congenial arrangement will be needed, if nothing else, to offset the risk of isolationism in the UK, which would do no one any good. While it may be seen as an example of democracy at work, the Referendum ended up really being a political punching match amongst the political parties and not really about the EU membership itself. The Prime Minister Cameron failed to act in the country’s best interests by trying to ensure the focus was on membership issues and not political infighting but he had by mid-campaign lost any influence as jingoist sloganeering took over from reasoned discourse. It is not wonder that the public voted as they did, and made the referendum a vote of non-confidence in the government instead. As they say, now repent at leisure.

That said, there are a few areas to reflect on which a strict exit would involve and which we should really try to protect.

  1. The ability of UK citizens to have access to healthcare services when travelling in the EU, through the EHIC arrangement will at some point end. It may be protected should the UK decide to accept free movement of people. It is not a good situation for countries so close and where people move so easily across borders not to have a mutual arrangement for healthcare. This must be protected in some form, as there could be public health risks on the one hand, and avoidable suffering for people who become ill. Absent that, UK citizens will require some sort of medical travel insurance which is never a good deal at the best of times. I doubt anyone really thought of that.
  2. Reciprocal arrangements for providing access to a country’s social security/healthcare system (the S1/A1 forms) will also in time cease. This will impact people retiring, but also people working, even temporarily, in an EU state. I doubt anyone running a workshop in another state worries about whether they’re carrying the EHIC, S1/A1 or their social security cards, but for the British, where no cards are required, this will present a new requirement and added business costs if nothing else. As many European countries do offer considerable lifestyle benefits, Brits will still likely wish to retire in an EU state, whereever family or friends are or where their heart is. While it is sensible to have controls in place to ensure proper system funding, it should really be a matter of priority to ensure that retirees at least enjoy some measure of security. There are comparable arrangements worth looking where similar circumstances exist (e.g. Canadian “snowbirds” and Florida).
  3. UK research is, at least according to the domestic crowd, pretty good, and does stand up to international scrutiny with many UK universities in the top tier. But much of the research funding comes from EU sources and has supported academics, departments and much intra-EU research collaborations. Life sciences research in particular benefits and it is unlikely the UK government will in any form be able to replace the lost funding. The implications are on the order of fewer institutions actually do the high standard of work, simply because there is less money, some universities will for forced to scale down their research, becoming smaller and perhaps marginalised or just focus on teaching. But the UK university system is research driven and universities that do little research are low rated anyway. I do really worry that universities and research will suffer in the UK and hope that the UK continues to be an active participant, even if at arm’s length.
  4. We heard a lot about immigration during the Referendum, but more of the xenophobic sort without actually grappling with the value to the UK that immigrants bring. Past the rhetoric, the UK has been a good destination for people to build their careers. Many have come to work in the UK’s National Health Service (about 4% of the NHS workforce is from the wider EU). Will this stop or shrink? The UK does not have the educational production capacity to replace the loss of immigrants with skills for healthcare, such as doctors, or nurses. With the exit likely having a profound impact on public finances, it is unlikely either that the UK will be able to afford to build the necessary capacity to make up for the loss. This will further reduce the standards of care as staff shortages bite even harder. Of course this might change, but the NHS has had staffing shortages for decades, and manifestly under-produced graduates in healthcare professions, so it is not clear why they would suddenly find the money that wasn’t there before. The UK will likely either opt back into the single market / free movement of the Norway sort, or go its own way with some point-based system to control immigration. The latter will only lead to tit-for-tat retaliation by the EU, which is to no-one’s benefit.
  5. Without listing them all, the UK is part of so many networks in healthcare areas, from research communities, to health technology assessment, to rare diseases and public health surveillance and so on. One must assume that these will scale down unless efforts are made to ensure they are protected in some form. In the end, though, the UK will be the loser as will the EU. A brain-drain toward the EU is not unimaginable and indeed for many people likely. The US will clearly beckon and the EU member states should also consider the implications. The UK will not like this, but this may be a good example of the consequences of the referendum decision. A brain-drain, while asset-stripping the UK, will require I suspect some reform of domestic employment systems, but with high unemployment in some EU countries, why would they want to give jobs to “foreigners”. Of course, EU institutions might change their own employment policies to make it easier to employ folks from the UK and many would likely gladly move. I know I would.

That’s a short list of a few things, on this day of days I would have wished were otherwise.