Brexit beliefs confirmed by EU’s behaviour over vaccines

THE sole reason for the vaccines “row” is that Britain was prompt about ordering its vaccines and subsequent approval of them, whilst the EU dragged its feet and was on the back foot (The Yorkshire Post, March 30).

Motivated by jealousy at the speed and success of Britain’s vaccine roll-out, Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, and others, have responded with thinly veiled threats to embargo the export of vaccines to the UK in order to force manufacturers to service their own market.

Under the circumstances, I think the Prime Minister has conducted himself with commendable dignity and restraint.

Of course a resolution must be found to the situation, but we cannot put up with a threatened (or actual) embargo on the export of vaccines which we ordered – and paid for – first. One of the first rules of business is “first come, first served”. It has to be so because it is the only fair way to treat customers.

I was a Brexiteer (and still am) because I thought Britain’s interests were best served by not being in a protectionist racket. Nothing that’s happened since we left the EU has persuaded me that I was anything but right.

In fact, Remainer friends have shared with me how abominably they think the EU has behaved since we left, first over Northern Ireland and now over vaccines.

Finally, I don’t want to see Sir Keir Starmer, or any of his cronies on the Oppostion benches, anywhere near the premiership anytime soon.

Whilst it would probably have been a softer Brexit, I don’t think Labour could have negotiated a better deal, certainly not one that was in Britain’s national interest.

From: Christine McDade, Morton on Swale.

I’M sure the whole English population is looking forward to the next lockdown relaxation on April 12, allowing pubs to serve outdoors, before full opening on May 17.

However, I watched a TV news programme visiting a pub which had erected outdoor facilities. These consisted of two large, narrow marquees, completely contained with two rows of tables for four people with a narrow corridor for service.

It appeared to me that the arrangement was tighter than being indoors in the pub building. Surely, this makes a mockery of the regulation?

Let common sense prevail and allow pubs to open completely in line with shops etc.