While I'm willing to acknowledge that EU tax policy isn't great, and that on occasions member states' hands can be tied in a way that doesn't help, I'm yet to be convinced that the small freedoms we're taking advantage of are worth the enormous cost in lost trade, and the massive loss in rights, protections and democratic participation we've suffered. Certain things being fractionally more expensive feels like a small price to pay for what we gained as members, and I feel like some of the absolutely tiny gains of Brexit are very scant compensation for what we've lost.
This debate is at last onto sensible territory.
Which side of the fence you are on as to the benefits and constraints membership brings and how you weight them decides your vote.
I always have prized the ability of the UK system to provide a secure majority to a government and allow it to act on it, without being constrained by a written constitution.
Yes it carries risks, but it also means that major, even revolutionary change can be made rapidly and democratically, preventing pressures building up and turning into a powderkeg ending in voilent revolution, as has happened so often in mainland Europe and may yet happen in the US where the checks and balances enshrined in the US constitution and enforced by the constitutional (Supreme) court prevent any meaningful reform of anything.
Had the powers of the House of Lords been enshrined in a constitution, preventing Lloyd George passing the parliament act, we in the UK would 112 years ago be where the USA is now.
Your post relates to supply of vaccines. The post of mine you quoted relates to approval. If you choose to quote me, please have the courtesy to reply to the point I actually made.
Your original post was posted in a discussion on supply of vaccines and said:
"Every EU member state has the authority to approve medicines for emergency use within its own country without waiting for EU-wide approval - and indeed we were still under EU rules when that happened."
And then went on to say:
"So the UK could have started vaccinating in exactly the same way if we'd still been a member."
Which relates to supply as well as approval.
So it seems to me reasonable that my post quoting yours does reply to the point made.