Yes, in unison. QMV was developed and agreed by the member states who recognized that it was a better process than the one which had previously allowed minor disagreements to block members as a whole from achieving mutual benefits. The UK was in favour at the time.

This is not the place for a big argument over the EU, but since you have raised issues of incorrect thinking, it is appropriate to take note if the following facts ....

The EU's primary mission is to create the political and socio-economic conditions that minimize the risk of war between European nations, specifically between member states. It does this by (1) rejecting bilateralism in favour of multi-lateralism and harmonization, (2) providing forums of continuous dialog between nations, and (3) proving a Single Market with a level playing field which benefits all members, increases its attractiveness to non-EU members in trade deals, and creates interactions and inter-dependencies which inhibit moves towards armed conflict.

As such, the EU is not primarily intended as a mechanism to address medical emergencies. For this pandemic, what has been needed is people who can take quick decisions about spending many billions to protect people. That is what national governments can do, and is what our government has done, but it is not something the EU is set up for because the EU is not a government and it can only act after agreements have been reached between governments.

The EU's annual budget is about 150 billion euros. That's one fifth of the UK government's annual budget, and the EU budget is applied across 27 member states with a population of about eight times larger than the UK. And the EU budget is paid for by the member states, who control what it is spent on. What does this mean? It means that the member states call the tune.

The EU is not an empire, and its actions during the crisis have demonstrsted that clearly. Leavers now need to adjust their thinking to accept that long standing reality.

In your own worfs "All the effective responses have been at national level". Why? Because the member states are in charge in the EU, always have been and always will be, and they chose to act without getting the EU bureauscrats involved.

Some member states did choose to use the EU facilitation service to come to agreement about medical purchases. Nothing wrong with that.

One of the scheme's advantages is that it offers protection against price hikes by unscrupulous manufacturers. How much overpricing has the UK accepted?

Boris is responsible for assessing the reliability of advice given to him. On your argument, he failed to do that on PHE.

Senior officers of PHE appear in the No.20 press conferences. That would suggest that the government has no major complaint about PHE.

The EU never has bern an empire, it has always been a service provider.

If our fishermen have a grumble, they should grumble about our governments, because it was our governments who freely agreed to the treaties in which fishing rights were determined.

If our farmers have a grumble, why are they so keen on EU subsidies, and on ensuring that the UK government provide equivalent subsidies? And why are they now so worried about losing an export market?

The acquis communataire consists of the agreements made between the member states over the years. Some of the agreements are called :directives", some are just called "EU laws". They have all been agreed freely by the member states. Indeed, QMV is something that member states have freely agreed to adopt in some limited circumstances.

The EU is careful rather than sclerotic. That's usually regarded as good. There is no evidence - and your assertion is not evidence - that its political structure impedes the interests of its members or citizens.

The principle of free movement would suggest that it would be to member states' advantage if they could agree on basic public healthcare services that each would guarantee to provide.

Such basic services should include services that ensure that any pathogen can be quickly identified and dealt with in any member state before it can find its way into another member state.

Public pressure will likely act to harmonize services seen by the users. When that happens, member states may indeed find new advantages in harmonizing aspects of the processes by which those services are delivered

No one can be sure they won't get the virus. But everyone can minimize the chances of that happening by following the government advice on this.

Yes, the EU isn't an empire. It responds to instructions received by member states in unison. People need to get over that. It means that the UK has made a serious mistake in choosing to leave.

The primary service consists of the facilitation of the development of international agreements between member states, in accordance with the instructions received from the member states.

A key concept in this is "agreement". That means that member states agree together. It does not mean that the EU bureaucrats can decide to obey instructions from a single member state. It "failed" Itsly in the sense that the EU bureaucrats failed to facilitate member states to come to agreement about helping Italy in good time.

The Guardian is snother of these apparent europhile bodies who actually do believe the false idea that the EU should act like an empire. It isn't an empire, and the response to Coronavirus has provided ample evidence that it isn't.

No, EMT asked me how I was doing. I answered, that's all.

Coronavirus obviously affects transition. The economic damage that it inflicts could obviously be used as cover for the economic damage that the politicians will choose to inflict if they do not delay the end of transition. The damage will be proportionately greater for the UK, because the UK is five times smaller than the EU27.

It's also helpful to remind ourselves what the Brexiteers have achieved so far. First, their actions have meant that we are no longer a rule-maker, but a rule-taker. We have left the rule-making bodies of the EU (the Councils and the Parliament) but we remain subject to the rules. Second, we can talk openly with potential trade partners outside the EU, but Coronavirus means that most are not interested now, and anyway, no trade agreements can be implemented while we remain in transition.

But this is probably not the place to have those arguments. This is about Hancock and his excellent performance so far. Perhaps CH will provide some space for debates about transition at later dates. A key question will be how the PM and party might approach the task of remaining popular while extending it. One obvious way forward might be to bring the opposition into the Coronavirus decision making processes.

You asked, I answered.