Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 31
 
sabenapilot
Topic Author
Posts: 3713
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Thu Jan 28, 2021 6:21 pm

par13del wrote:
olle wrote:
It seems like UK will be forced to send back vaccines to EU;
-----------------------

Boris to cave to EU: No10 hints Britain could ship Covid jabs to Brussels bloc next month
BRITAIN could start shipping Covid jabs to the EU as early next month, the Prime Minister's official spokesman has hinted.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... er-jab-row

He must be delusional, still thinking that he is doing a good thing voluntarily when he is actually being forced. How much is the plant in the UK producing, sufficient to make up for the shortfall in the EU, is he taking jabs already delivered to the UK government or those from the factory?


Well, if the EU and its pharmaceutical hub country Belgium execute their threat, the UK is in deep shit, since not only A-Z and Pfizer have a plant here but also GSK and J-J who will start to deliver in the second half of the year, so I think he's knowing he better gives back the excess delivered vaccines, or he might face a massive supply shortage in a couple of weeks, while a whole lot of people were given their first jab already and must have a follow up dosis soon...
Last edited by sabenapilot on Thu Jan 28, 2021 6:49 pm, edited 3 times in total.
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Thu Jan 28, 2021 6:21 pm

EU could block millions of Covid vaccine doses from entering UK
European commission says new mechanism will give national regulators power to refuse exports

The European commission said a new authorisation mechanism would be established to give national regulators the power to refuse vaccine exports. The development will raise concerns over the continued flow of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, for which the UK has a 40m-dose order.

The British government’s decision to block the export of certain coronavirus medicines was cited by an EU official as a reason for Brussels to protect itself from acts of protectionism around the world.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... cine-plant
 
sabenapilot
Topic Author
Posts: 3713
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Thu Jan 28, 2021 8:41 pm

Seems Europe doesn't like big pharmaceuticals to try to fool it nor third countries to try to take benefit of its resources.

Belgium has this evening notified the EU’s executive arm of a draft law which would allow it to limit the exports of essential medicines and their active ingredients, according to people familiar with the matter. The wording of the law which will come into effect as from next week already may open the door for curbing vaccine exports from a country where key production facilities of Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GSK as well as Johnson&Johnson are based.
The notification cites the bloc’s urgency procedures, which allow crisis measures for the protection of human health, the people said. The draft law is currently being assessed by the commission, the people said.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ium-europe
 
steveinbc
Posts: 353
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 4:30 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Thu Jan 28, 2021 8:55 pm

I'm at a loss to determine how the vaccine supply issues are a Brexit discussion. The EU countries made a deliberate decision to have a centralized government body to administer the program. We all know that these programs are fraught with coordination problems and delays. That's the root of the problem on my view. The issue is now contractual rather a Brexit problem.
 
gkirk
Posts: 23456
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Thu Jan 28, 2021 9:46 pm

sabenapilot wrote:

Thnings need to be talked through, outside of the media attention and without any flag waving, because there are no British vaccines nor European vaccines: these are vaccines made by multinationals in different production sites throughout the continent of Europe, often with components delivered from sites in other countries: if we start with vaccine nationalism, none of us is going to get his or her vaccination this year.


This.

We are all fighting the same war, against Covid.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14846
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 6:36 am

@steveinbc : ask that to UK Brexiteers, the government, the tories, etc. They're the one touting their "vaccination success" and linking it to Brexit.

If, like Germany is saying, the AZ vaccine doesn't really work for old people, that success might not be touted much longer, though...
 
Arion640
Posts: 3262
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:26 am

EU vaccine plan failure confirmed by Germany:

https://order-order.com/2021/01/29/germ ... n-success/

We’ll ignore the fact trump gets credit, but for the UK it’s no doubt brexit has had a major positive effect on us being able to vaccinate. Israel have done a starling job too.

Also looks like Germans may be getting their Sputnik real soon!
 
sabenapilot
Topic Author
Posts: 3713
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:35 am

Meanwhle, after the intitial flag waving from some excited Brexiteers, it is beginning to dawn up the UK that the EU may have a very strong point and that they'll have to accept cuts coming to their vaccine delivery from A-Z too, or be at risk of being cut off completely from the supply of vaccines from the EU

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... rn-experts

David Greene, the president of the Law Society and a senior partner at Edwin Coe, where he litigates contracts, said: “If they [AZ] gave assurances that they made reasonable best efforts to supply the EU but were in fact diverting material from one place to another, that would on the face of it be a potential breach of obligations to use reasonable best efforts.” As Green noted: “The existence of that ‘best efforts’ provision may not be that helpful to AstraZeneca, if the correct construction of the contract is that it does not cover diverted capacity as opposed to lack of capacity.”
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12690
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:36 am

Arion640 wrote:
EU vaccine plan failure confirmed by Germany:

https://order-order.com/2021/01/29/germ ... n-success/

We’ll ignore the fact trump gets credit, but for the UK it’s no doubt brexit has had a major positive effect on us being able to vaccinate. Israel have done a starling job too.

Also looks like Germans may be getting their Sputnik real soon!


You claim this as a win for Brexit. Fine, Brexit has nothing to do with it, as it was mentioned many times before. EU countries took a sovereign decision to work together.

Sputnik why? It isn't mentioned in this "article". So speculation on your part?

Anyhow, I am curious what you think about all the other things mentioned here which actually have something to do with Brexit.
 
sabenapilot
Topic Author
Posts: 3713
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:55 am

Arion640 wrote:
for the UK it’s no doubt brexit has had a major positive effect on us being able to vaccinate.


In what way exactly has Brexit been a major positive contribution to the fight against Covid in the UK, if I may ask?

Because of the emergency authorisation used to start the vaccination campaign some 3 weeks earlier than the rest of the EU?
Britain could have done that as a EU member too, something which was highlighted by the head of the British medicine authority already.
In fact, it even did, since the UK was at that time still bound by the same rules as those 27 other EU member states at the moment it decided so start already on compassionate grounds because the situation was so dire in England.

Because the UK thought it had secured more vaccines than it should only have been entitled to based on the real production output thanks to the fact it took delivery first, when the production problems were not (fully) known yet?
Seems the EU is going to regulate all exports from the EU so that whatever excess quantity got delivered to the UK in Dec and Jan is deducted from the next shipments as from next week...
In that case, again: no gain whatsoever, only a 24 hour long rush of blood followed by bitter anger.
See the tabloid front covers of yesterday vs. today to see exactly this emotional rollercoaster.

Or is it because of the A-Z vaccine itself, which was developed in the UK given to hundreds of thousands of elderly people in this 'much better country' as the health secretary emotionally said as if he was some TV evangelist?
That seems to have been a huge gamble and may turn out to only poorly protect.
The German medicine agency will not allow the A-Z vaccine to be used on people of 65 years and more based on very thin and rather disappointing data.
The A-Z vaccine is known to be the least effective of them all and may not meet expectations for elderly people even.
Curious to see what the EMA will officially recommend today, in their EU wide market approval.
If they follow the German advice, this will be a massive blow to A-Z, next to the legal problems it is already facing.
Last edited by sabenapilot on Fri Jan 29, 2021 9:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14690
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 9:01 am

Dutchy wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
EU vaccine plan failure confirmed by Germany:

https://order-order.com/2021/01/29/germ ... n-success/

We’ll ignore the fact trump gets credit, but for the UK it’s no doubt brexit has had a major positive effect on us being able to vaccinate. Israel have done a starling job too.

Also looks like Germans may be getting their Sputnik real soon!


You claim this as a win for Brexit. Fine, Brexit has nothing to do with it, as it was mentioned many times before. EU countries took a sovereign decision to work together.

Sputnik why? It isn't mentioned in this "article". So speculation on your part?

Anyhow, I am curious what you think about all the other things mentioned here which actually have something to do with Brexit.


The answer to the question "what did they do different" is: short circuiting approval, and for Israel: tiny population. Going forward it would appear everyone that wants to can get a shot by end of July, and not just with 70% AZ, but pretty much all with 90-95% vaccines.The headline in the link is from BILD, which is pretty much the German rage machine ala Express.

Image

scale is million dosis.

bet regards
Thomas
Last edited by tommy1808 on Fri Jan 29, 2021 9:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
sabenapilot
Topic Author
Posts: 3713
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 9:21 am

tommy1808 wrote:
The headline in the link is from BILD, which is pretty much the German rage machine ala Express.


Brexiteers live in an echo chamber, constantly being fed the same nationalistic nonsense.
And when they look outside of the UK, all they get to hear, read and see are almost ridiculous comments from what are in the rest Europe nothing but fringe groups and entertainment sources, while believing they are mainstream news feeds and respectable politicians as in the UK.

Best proof is how the A-Z issue has been reported in Europe vs the UK:
In the UK it got turned into a Brexit boosting subject almost right away, abused to prove how much better the UK is,
in the EU is was reported as a technical/legal issue with one pharmaceutical company possibily not playing by the book and being caught at it red handledly.
It also explains why the EU quickly solves its issues in a technical way (by an official inquiry on site, followed by legislation to prevent this bad faith from having any serious long term consequences, possibly followed by a crushing lawsuit against A-Z if they do not admit to the wrongdoing), while in the UK the next day the hysterical talk is about how the EU is now stealing 'our vaccines' and how they've been bullied.

Is there any rational thinking left on the British Isles, or is everything still centered on some religious belief in Brexit which must absolutely be kept pure at all cost?
I see government is having ever more problems convincing their subjects to keep the faith and not to lose their belief in brexit.

The leaders of Britain’s five largest business groups have warned the government that firms face “substantial difficulties” at UK ports since Brexit, with the prospect of a “significant loss of business” if the situation is allowed to continue. With hold-ups at UK ports worsening and many lorries making return journeys empty following difficulties obtaining customs certificates, the business groups said ministers needed to act quickly.
The letter was published after Gove appeared to play down the significance of the difficulties faced by businesses struggling to overcome customs barriers, and what they described as a lack of coherent advice from government departments

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... t-uk-ports

It's sure hard for government to make people keep the faith in the face of ever growing evidence of the contrary to what was promissed to them...
 
noviorbis77
Posts: 1164
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:23 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 10:43 am

Personally I would like the UK to work with our former European partners to get vaccines rolled out across Europe as quickly as possible. Given inter European travel and connections, it is in everyones interest to resolve things as quickly as possible.

Yes we may not be in the same political union anymore, but it is in everyones interest to resolve things to allow life to go back to normal.

Fighting and bickering helps no one.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1939
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 10:54 am

Aesma wrote:
I don't think it's only an A-Z thing. I don't really remember the timeline but I'm pretty sure we knew before last Friday that the UK had a lot of vaccines in stock, and I questioned on another thread how that was possible since in the EU there were shortages.

We knew because Scotland published the information.

So it seems to me the UK government knew what A-Z was doing and was involved in it.


I does fit with the whole "Brexit allows earlier vaccines" thing and pushing the "British", "Oxford" vaccine all the time in the news media etc...
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14846
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 11:08 am

noviorbis77 wrote:
Personally I would like the UK to work with our former European partners to get vaccines rolled out across Europe as quickly as possible. Given inter European travel and connections, it is in everyones interest to resolve things as quickly as possible.

Yes we may not be in the same political union anymore, but it is in everyones interest to resolve things to allow life to go back to normal.

Fighting and bickering helps no one.


Do note that when the UK got cut off at the end of December because of the variant raging, Brexiteers were infuriated.

We know with indsight (or not, personally I thought that right away) that the borders should have stayed shut much longer.
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 11:32 am

Dutchy wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
EU vaccine plan failure confirmed by Germany:

https://order-order.com/2021/01/29/germ ... n-success/

We’ll ignore the fact trump gets credit, but for the UK it’s no doubt brexit has had a major positive effect on us being able to vaccinate. Israel have done a starling job too.

Also looks like Germans may be getting their Sputnik real soon!


You claim this as a win for Brexit. Fine, Brexit has nothing to do with it, as it was mentioned many times before. EU countries took a sovereign decision to work together.

Sputnik why? It isn't mentioned in this "article". So speculation on your part?

Anyhow, I am curious what you think about all the other things mentioned here which actually have something to do with Brexit.


Actually Russia is working on a Sputnik acceptance in EU. If they do I do not see any problems with that.

The reason why AZ is delayed inside EU is failure in the testing and redoing the testing. UK has taken the decision to accept vaccines on emergency basis.

Now it seems like AZ will not be approved for the group 65+ because continuing problems with the testing.

EU has the policy accept it or not that full approval is needed. Accept it or not. As it seems AZ will not get accepted for general usage at least not in whole EU even after today's approval.

https://www.rt.com/russia/513075-europe ... -approval/
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 11:35 am

For me working in information security the whole situation is very interesting to follow. We have from a Swedish perspective been very conservative to use cloud services outside Sweden in case of major distaster we are worried about not getting service.

In this development actually Belgium under the umbrella actually show that EU based on public health can take decisions on behalf of Sweden.

This is a dramatic development for the whole IT industry in EU.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12690
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 11:38 am

If the EMA approves Sputnik for use and thus it has proven to be safe and effective, I have no problem with that. I just wanted to know what Arion640 meant by it.
 
Boeing74741R
Posts: 1532
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:44 am

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 12:03 pm

scbriml wrote:
Aesma wrote:
There is a contradiction in your points. Or does "best efforts" means UK first, EU last ?


No contradiction.

UK signed a contract with fixed numbers and delivery schedule. EU apparently signed a contract stipulating “best efforts” on delivery. If true, sounds a bit sloppy on the EU side.


Indeed. The way I see it (and the same goes for a lot of contracts) is that unless there’s a firm date or timescale specifically mentioned in the contract, there isn’t a leg to stand on if there are delays in delivering the goods. Likewise if there’s nothing about imposing penalties for late deliveries.

If it is true that the Commission signed up to the contract with AstraZeneca without insisting on putting dates in (e.g. deliveries will commence within x weeks or y months of regulatory approval), then it’s a massive cock up on their part and no tough talk from certain politicians about restricting exports or “stealing” supplies intended for other customers/countries will cover that fact up. And when some politicians come out with such statements, it’s little wonder why some form the impression that some politicians will struggle to hold down jobs or pursue successful careers in the world outside of politics. If the UK does have a contract with AstraZeneca that specifically commits A-Z to firm delivery dates and timescales, then any shortfalls on that arising from the EU requisitioning supplies is also likely to trigger legal action from HMG, so potentially two legal cases for A-Z to contend with.

As Dutchy says, this is most likely going to come down to how lawyers (and possibly the courts) interpret the contracts.

I do think if it comes to the point where vaccine exports are reduced to the UK or supplies requisitioned from the UK to the EU, it’s not going to do UK-EU relations any good whatsoever. Everyone should be working together in the fight against COVID-19, not against each other. If I was Boris Johnson, I’d be keeping quiet and focus on vaccination efforts in the UK until such a time arises where that program is actually threatened by the spat between the Commission and A-Z, though in the background maybe get civil servants to double-check the wording of contracts very closely.

olle wrote:
AZ will soon have a new CEO?


That will be for the AstraZeneca board to decide, and if it transpires they haven’t been fulfilling obligations to the contrary of public statements and interviews. I suspect Soriot wouldn’t have gone on TV or give interviews to newspapers saying what he has said if any of it was untrue or if there was any doubts over the robustness of the A-Z position (only politicians can get away with that it seems). If it was me, I’d certainly ensure all my ducks were in a row before speaking out.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1939
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 12:20 pm

Boeing74741R wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Aesma wrote:
There is a contradiction in your points. Or does "best efforts" means UK first, EU last ?


No contradiction.

UK signed a contract with fixed numbers and delivery schedule. EU apparently signed a contract stipulating “best efforts” on delivery. If true, sounds a bit sloppy on the EU side.


Indeed. The way I see it (and the same goes for a lot of contracts) is that unless there’s a firm date or timescale specifically mentioned in the contract, there isn’t a leg to stand on if there are delays in delivering the goods. Likewise if there’s nothing about imposing penalties for late deliveries.


The BBC report I just read implies that there *are* delivery timescale and conditions, and the "best effort" clause was only included to cover issues in developing and industrialising the vaccine. The EU is arguing that the effectiveness of the vaccine, and the fact it can be manufactured, are not in doubt - so to me mentioning "best effort" is to spread FUD in the reporting.

Of course, the comments on that story completely failed to notice the point and go all FUD on the EU... :roll:
 
Olddog
Posts: 1649
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 12:24 pm

I am sorry to say that people here is have missed the fact that best efforts are not just a common language sentence but has a legal meaning in the Belgium laws.
Last edited by Olddog on Fri Jan 29, 2021 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10993
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 12:29 pm

steveinbc wrote:
I'm at a loss to determine how the vaccine supply issues are a Brexit discussion. The EU countries made a deliberate decision to have a centralized government body to administer the program. We all know that these programs are fraught with coordination problems and delays. That's the root of the problem on my view. The issue is now contractual rather a Brexit problem.

Well the UK is now a third country and the EU is threating to "nationalize" the vaccine in similar fashion to what Trump did during the lockdown with PPE supplies etc. and ban exports to third countries in defiance of signed contracts, so far mostly a threat but in some respects it validates some of the Brexiters claims about the EU.
As I said in an earlier post, its every man for themselves and the EU is no different.
 
Olddog
Posts: 1649
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 12:37 pm

The only thing they may get validated is don't play greed and dumb with the EU, you will be crushed.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10993
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 2:46 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
par13del wrote:
steveinbc wrote:
I'm at a loss to determine how the vaccine supply issues are a Brexit discussion. The EU countries made a deliberate decision to have a centralized government body to administer the program. We all know that these programs are fraught with coordination problems and delays. That's the root of the problem on my view. The issue is now contractual rather a Brexit problem.

Well the UK is now a third country and the EU is threating to "nationalize" the vaccine in similar fashion to what Trump did during the lockdown with PPE supplies etc. and ban exports to third countries in defiance of signed contracts, so far mostly a threat but in some respects it validates some of the Brexiters claims about the EU.
As I said in an earlier post, its every man for themselves and the EU is no different.


Fun times, a company, after taking hundreds of million Euro in pre-payments, tries to weasel out of contractual obligations by simply withholding deliveries, seemingly does nothing wrong, their customer going "just wait a minute, you understand we can stop you from shipping our orders to somebody else" is evil nationalist....
I'd rather say what AZ was trying to pull off is fraud....

Best regards
Thomas

If that is all that you see that's fine.
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 3:01 pm

 
tommy1808
Posts: 14690
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 3:12 pm

par13del wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
par13del wrote:
Well the UK is now a third country and the EU is threating to "nationalize" the vaccine in similar fashion to what Trump did during the lockdown with PPE supplies etc. and ban exports to third countries in defiance of signed contracts, so far mostly a threat but in some respects it validates some of the Brexiters claims about the EU.
As I said in an earlier post, its every man for themselves and the EU is no different.


Fun times, a company, after taking hundreds of million Euro in pre-payments, tries to weasel out of contractual obligations by simply withholding deliveries, seemingly does nothing wrong, their customer going "just wait a minute, you understand we can stop you from shipping our orders to somebody else" is evil nationalist....
I'd rather say what AZ was trying to pull off is fraud....

Best regards
Thomas

If that is all that you see that's fine.


That is all there is to see. AZ isn't the only company announcing delays, those where accepted by the EU as a customer, grudgingly, but accepted, it's that AZ fulfilled other orders in full while trying to shaft the EU.

Best regards
Thomas
 
sabenapilot
Topic Author
Posts: 3713
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 3:20 pm

par13del wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
par13del wrote:
Well the UK is now a third country and the EU is threating to "nationalize" the vaccine in similar fashion to what Trump did during the lockdown with PPE supplies etc. and ban exports to third countries in defiance of signed contracts, so far mostly a threat but in some respects it validates some of the Brexiters claims about the EU.
As I said in an earlier post, its every man for themselves and the EU is no different.


Fun times, a company, after taking hundreds of million Euro in pre-payments, tries to weasel out of contractual obligations by simply withholding deliveries, seemingly does nothing wrong, their customer going "just wait a minute, you understand we can stop you from shipping our orders to somebody else" is evil nationalist....
I'd rather say what AZ was trying to pull off is fraud....

Best regards
Thomas

If that is all that you see that's fine.


Well what do you see then?

There has been a perquisition conducted at the A-Z factory in Belgium to see exactly when they were faling behind on production and why they kept quiet for so long about this (while happily sending out whatever doses they could produce to the UK).

The reason being that the EU will obivously not just tolerate the way in which A-Z knowingly kept diverting doses it knew it was going to be short off soon to supply the EU with, in order to keep supplying the UK with.

Especially not since A-Z subsequently refuses to do the same in the other direction, contrary to what is clearly stipulated in the contract as has meanwhile been discovered, as if to add insult over injury.

Production shortfalls are an unpleasant surprise for sure, but they are accepted if they have a good reason, are announced as soon as they are becoming clear and if the consequences of it are equally spread out amongst the contractants. What is not accepted is the opposite behaviour demonstrated by A-Z, which can not give a clear explanation as to why they have this massive shortfall in output only now, inform about it less than a week before they are supposed to deliver millions of doses (which should thus have been under production for some time already) and refuses to mitigate the impact by drawing from other factories of theirs (as was explicitly forseen in the contract).

There's clearly willfull misconduct at play here, and this is obviously not something the EU is going to let pass.
Would you want it any other way then?

I'd be interested to see what's in the UK contract with A-Z in fact, because it seems there must be some very weird clauses in there which make A-Z (as the manufacturer of the 'oxford' vaccine) do things no other multinational (Pfizer, Moderna, ....) is willing to do.
It would also explain why the UK is so reluctant to be open about the contract, while the EU has published it and clearly A-Z does not oppose to it either, or why the UK Government is suddenly very willing to cooperate with the EU to solve the matter amicably...
Scared of the fall out if it is discovered there's some extreme British vaccine nationalism baked into the deal which A-Z thought would never matter, until it fell behind on production and it got caught between its quite normal obligations in the EU contract (which mirror that of the other deals published so far) and the rather unique one the UK might have signed with them?
In view of the wish of the UK to negotiate the to them all-important access for the British financial sector to the SM, such a discovery would be devastating indeed not to mention the fact that the UK is -despite the "Oxford vaccine" - heavily reliant on other vaccines supplied by the EU, making any British vaccine nationalism in its contract with A-Z very much misplaced indeed.
 
sabenapilot
Topic Author
Posts: 3713
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 3:46 pm

And it's done: the EU has just put in place full export controls on all vaccines produced in the EU.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55860540

Announcing the export controls, EU Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides said the measures were being introduced to ensure that all EU citizens had access to vaccines, and make sure all parties played by the rules.
"This new approach is built on trust, transparency and responsibility," she said.
"Commitments need to be kept and agreements are binding. Advance purchase agreements need to be respected.
"Today, we have developed a system which will allow us to know whether vaccines are being exported from the EU. This increased transparency will also come with a responsibility for the EU to authorise, with our members states, these vaccine exports."
 
Reinhardt
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:05 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 3:48 pm

From the contract pdf


WHEREAS, to combat the current COVID-19 global pandemic (the "COVID Pandemic"), AstraZeneca has partnered with Oxford University to rapidly clinically evaluate and scale-up global manufacturing of the Vaccine.
WHEREAS, AstraZeneca has accelerated its manufacturing scale-up concurrently with its conduct of global clinical trials to ensure the broadest possible availability of the Vaccine, as quickly as possible.


WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below) to build capacity to manufacture 300 million Doses of the Vaccine, at no profit and no loss to AstraZeneca, at the total cost currently estimated to be
Euros for distribution within the EU XXXXX (the "Initial Europe Doses"), with an option for the Commission, acting on behalf of the Participating Member States, to order an additional 100 million Doses (the "Optional Doses").


WHEREAS, AstraZeneca will supply the Initial Europe Doses to the Participating Member States according to the terms of this Agreement.


WHEREAS, each Participating Member State must execute and deliver an Order Form in the form of Exhibit A (an "Order Form") with the information relevant to such member state filled in.



Best reasonable efforts means:
(a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and
(b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world.


Order form:
(a) Attached as Exhibit A to this Agreement is an Order Form which has been negotiated on behalf of the Member States by the Commission. In order to maintain the right to purchases Doses of Vaccine as contemplated by this Agreement, an EU Member State must execute and deliver an Order Form in the form of Exhibit A with the information relevant to such member state filled in.
(b) The Parties acknowledge and agree that the Order Form is an essential and important part of this Agreement and AstraZeneca has entered into this Agreement in reliance on Member States executing such Order Forms as contemplated hereby. Such Order Forms have to be entered into by each of the Participating Member States within 10 working days following the delivery by the Commission of the Binding Allocation according to Section 8.3 (a). If an EU Member State does not execute and deliver an Order Form within such deadline, such Member State shall not be eligible to receive any portion of the Initial Europe Doses, the Optional Doses and the Additional Doses under this Agreement and shall not be entitled to any benefit of this Agreement.


Manufacturing and supply
AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses within the EU for distribution, and to deliver to
the Distribution Hubs, following EU market authorization, as set forth more Section 7.1, Approximately XXXXX, and (iii) the remainder of the Initial Europe Doses by the end of XXXXX




XXXXX = Blacked out.

If the EU is relying on the "best reasonable efforts", then legally it's one of those funny, actually stupid to you and me clauses. It clearly says AZ should use it's best reasonable efforts bearing in mind this is a global pandemic and considering the size of AZ should be able to manage it, AND it says that best reasonable efforts should be made to make the initial doses within the EU for distribution.

Best efforts in legal terms is actually very strong. It's effectively, you need to do everything you can possible do without bankrupting yourselves or causing long term financial difficulty to comply.

Best reasonable efforts however is rather less strong, and this means .. "substantial efforts be exerted in the process, but that a party would not ultimately be required to take any actions that would be commercially unreason- able under the circumstances."

The question is, what did AZ sign with the UK. If it's "best efforts", then AZ screwed themselves because any significant delay in production would mean they would not be unable to fulfill the other contract AND they should have made the EU aware that the UK contract took priority. If that's not the case and they are equal language then really AZ should have stockpilled supply for the EU (until it was authorised) whilst it was supplying the UK or reduced shipments to the UK to ensure it could fulfill enough of the EU contract as well.

But 13.1 e says:

it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any person or third party in respect of the intitial Europe doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this agreement or that would impede the complete fufilment of it's obligtations under this agreement


Which really voids my comment above, as this clearly states they have no contract that conflicts with this EU contract.



As others have said, really though this should be above legal language. Europe as a landmass should be working together as it's in everyones interest to get vaccines. It should not be a UK vs EU thing, but it could well be the case that AZ didn't help themselves with the contracts.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14690
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 4:26 pm

Reinhardt wrote:
As others have said, really though this should be above legal language. Europe as a landmass should be working together as it's in everyones interest to get vaccines. It should not be a UK vs EU thing, but it could well be the case that AZ didn't help themselves with the contracts.


Which was the spirit under which the EU operated with regards to AZ. They didn't even ask AZ if shipments to the UK might get in the way of supply for the EU, or seriously contemplated limiting exports since there was a contract, and they figured it would be faithfully executed. But then:

EU: "Good news, we likely going to approve your vaccine next Friday!"
AZ: "Um, well... we know the contract said we should inform you if we run into a pickle, but um.... we have a production shortfall. Just in! Nobody knew.... "
EU: "Wait what?"
AZ: "let me get back to you on that, we are busy shipping to the UK!".

Best regards
Thomas
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 4:35 pm

Reinhardt wrote:
From the contract pdf


WHEREAS, to combat the current COVID-19 global pandemic (the "COVID Pandemic"), AstraZeneca has partnered with Oxford University to rapidly clinically evaluate and scale-up global manufacturing of the Vaccine.
WHEREAS, AstraZeneca has accelerated its manufacturing scale-up concurrently with its conduct of global clinical trials to ensure the broadest possible availability of the Vaccine, as quickly as possible.


WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below) to build capacity to manufacture 300 million Doses of the Vaccine, at no profit and no loss to AstraZeneca, at the total cost currently estimated to be
Euros for distribution within the EU XXXXX (the "Initial Europe Doses"), with an option for the Commission, acting on behalf of the Participating Member States, to order an additional 100 million Doses (the "Optional Doses").


WHEREAS, AstraZeneca will supply the Initial Europe Doses to the Participating Member States according to the terms of this Agreement.


WHEREAS, each Participating Member State must execute and deliver an Order Form in the form of Exhibit A (an "Order Form") with the information relevant to such member state filled in.



Best reasonable efforts means:
(a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and
(b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world.


Order form:
(a) Attached as Exhibit A to this Agreement is an Order Form which has been negotiated on behalf of the Member States by the Commission. In order to maintain the right to purchases Doses of Vaccine as contemplated by this Agreement, an EU Member State must execute and deliver an Order Form in the form of Exhibit A with the information relevant to such member state filled in.
(b) The Parties acknowledge and agree that the Order Form is an essential and important part of this Agreement and AstraZeneca has entered into this Agreement in reliance on Member States executing such Order Forms as contemplated hereby. Such Order Forms have to be entered into by each of the Participating Member States within 10 working days following the delivery by the Commission of the Binding Allocation according to Section 8.3 (a). If an EU Member State does not execute and deliver an Order Form within such deadline, such Member State shall not be eligible to receive any portion of the Initial Europe Doses, the Optional Doses and the Additional Doses under this Agreement and shall not be entitled to any benefit of this Agreement.


Manufacturing and supply
AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses within the EU for distribution, and to deliver to
the Distribution Hubs, following EU market authorization, as set forth more Section 7.1, Approximately XXXXX, and (iii) the remainder of the Initial Europe Doses by the end of XXXXX




XXXXX = Blacked out.

If the EU is relying on the "best reasonable efforts", then legally it's one of those funny, actually stupid to you and me clauses. It clearly says AZ should use it's best reasonable efforts bearing in mind this is a global pandemic and considering the size of AZ should be able to manage it, AND it says that best reasonable efforts should be made to make the initial doses within the EU for distribution.

Best efforts in legal terms is actually very strong. It's effectively, you need to do everything you can possible do without bankrupting yourselves or causing long term financial difficulty to comply.

Best reasonable efforts however is rather less strong, and this means .. "substantial efforts be exerted in the process, but that a party would not ultimately be required to take any actions that would be commercially unreason- able under the circumstances."

The question is, what did AZ sign with the UK. If it's "best efforts", then AZ screwed themselves because any significant delay in production would mean they would not be unable to fulfill the other contract AND they should have made the EU aware that the UK contract took priority. If that's not the case and they are equal language then really AZ should have stockpilled supply for the EU (until it was authorised) whilst it was supplying the UK or reduced shipments to the UK to ensure it could fulfill enough of the EU contract as well.

But 13.1 e says:

it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any person or third party in respect of the intitial Europe doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this agreement or that would impede the complete fufilment of it's obligtations under this agreement


Which really voids my comment above, as this clearly states they have no contract that conflicts with this EU contract.



As others have said, really though this should be above legal language. Europe as a landmass should be working together as it's in everyones interest to get vaccines. It should not be a UK vs EU thing, but it could well be the case that AZ didn't help themselves with the contracts.


EU thought "Europe as a landmass" + other customer depending on EU production capacity was working together until AZ messed it up. Now I think that EU protecting its citizen in a balanced way.

As I mentioned thanks to AZ EU came much closer to a federal state.

It suddenly shows what it means to be under pax EU and third party.
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 4:53 pm

It seems like there is a list of countries that EU will export to but UK is not on that list;

So in my view this suddenly becomes very Brexit related while this seems to be a major breakdown in diplomatic relations.

--------------

The European Commission announced new controls on drug makers that want to send doses of Covid jabs abroad. Manufacturers will have to provide detailed information to eurocrats if they plan to sell abroad. Bitter eurocrats refused to include Britain on a 92-strong list of countries that European pharmaceutical firms will still be allowed to ship Covid jabs to.


https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... ine-latest
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14690
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 5:14 pm

olle wrote:
It seems like there is a list of countries that EU will export to but UK is not on that list;

So in my view this suddenly becomes very Brexit related while this seems to be a major breakdown in diplomatic relations.

--------------

The European Commission announced new controls on drug makers that want to send doses of Covid jabs abroad. Manufacturers will have to provide detailed information to eurocrats if they plan to sell abroad. Bitter eurocrats refused to include Britain on a 92-strong list of countries that European pharmaceutical firms will still be allowed to ship Covid jabs to.


https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... ine-latest


Well, the EU loves reciprocity...

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-coro ... s-johnson/

Best regards
Thomas
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 6:56 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
olle wrote:
It seems like there is a list of countries that EU will export to but UK is not on that list;

So in my view this suddenly becomes very Brexit related while this seems to be a major breakdown in diplomatic relations.

--------------

The European Commission announced new controls on drug makers that want to send doses of Covid jabs abroad. Manufacturers will have to provide detailed information to eurocrats if they plan to sell abroad. Bitter eurocrats refused to include Britain on a 92-strong list of countries that European pharmaceutical firms will still be allowed to ship Covid jabs to.


https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... ine-latest


Well, the EU loves reciprocity...

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-coro ... s-johnson/

Best regards
Thomas


It only confirms that Brexit UK and EU has a major breakdown in relations.

This cover from diplomatic row over ambassador status, nationalist behavior in business in more and more industries that will only escalate, security matters like health that we have seen in this case etc.
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 543
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 7:46 pm

olle wrote:
It seems like there is a list of countries that EU will export to but UK is not on that list


Don't worry, the EU ambassador will be summoned in n10 to clear this issue.

Oh, wait.....
 
sabenapilot
Topic Author
Posts: 3713
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:43 pm

Reinhardt wrote:
13.1 e says:
it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any person or third party in respect of the intitial Europe doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this agreement or that would impede the complete fufilment of it's obligtations under this agreement

this clearly states they have no contract that conflicts with this EU contract.
As others have said, (...) It should not be a UK vs EU thing, but it could well be the case that AZ didn't help themselves with the contracts.


The interesting question is:
"why did A-Z sign up to a contract with the EU in which it explicitly guarantees there are no previous claims on any of the initial doses the EU contracts, whereas in fact it now emerges there were?"

Is it just a very clumsy oversight by their entire legal department which has now put them in the eye of this diplomatic storm for having effectively sold the same vaccines twice?
Or did they knowingly sign up to this lie because they would otherwise have indirectly reveiled a highly confidential clause from their previous deal with the UK in which Britain may very well have asked the very unusual guarantee for priority access to that is -wrongfully btw- seen by the UK as "its" vaccine, even if also produced abroad???

It would definitely explain not just why A-Z made this flagrantly false guarantee in writing, but also why they've struggeled to come up with a logical explanation and even tried to avoid having to reply to hard questions first, or why the UK goverment does not want to release its contract with A-Z, despite the EU happily doing so and A-Z not objecting to that release....

Could it possibly be that the UK government has indeed engaged in some narrow minded vaccine nationalism already in April when they first signed up for 'their' Oxford vaccine, while at the same time talk up transnational cooperation when it came to the other vaccines, because it knew those were all going to be produced abroad and it didn't want to face a reciprocal vaccine nationalism from the EU where all of its other vaccines will have to come from (Pfizer, GSK and J&J all have production sites in Belgium which are earmarked as production sites for UK vaccines).

It increasingly seems the UK engaged in some weaselish nationalistic dealing with A-Z, and the pharmaceutical company thought they'd be okay with all of those new and very odd political questions from Brexit Britain and that it would just be some flagwaving at best for the boys in Westminster, until they found out they couldn't deliver all the doses contracted to both the UK and the EU and then they suddenly found themselves caught between 2 legal guarantees which are in conflict to eachother, not knowing how to fix the matter.

If so, then the UK now reaps what it sowed.
The EU has fixed the problem for them today and cleared yet another Brexit delusion out of the way while doing so.
 
sabenapilot
Topic Author
Posts: 3713
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 9:11 pm

Politico ran a full analysis of the contract released today:

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-astr ... t-dispute/

The European Commission and AstraZeneca published Friday a heavily redacted version of their contract for up to 400 million doses of coronavirus vaccine - with many contract provisions blackened out, the partial text did clear up some issues.

It confirmed that the EU has some justification for insisting that production wasn't contractually limited to a factory in Belgium where AstraZeneca claims to have suffered difficulties. It also clarifies that Brussels could rightly expect some deliveries would come from plants in the U.K., and it confirms that the EU agreed to a prepayment of up to €336 million for the manufacture of doses to be ready the very moment the jab was granted regulatory approval.

An EU official on Friday lamented the fact that AstraZeneca had demanded so many redactions, about "95 percent," and that the EU’s case was further supported by the hidden text. The Commission had requested the redaction of just 2 single items to safeguard two other ongoing contract negotiations, with Novavax and Valneva, the official noted.

Overall, the Commission seemed to have the upper hand in its insistence that AstraZeneca should be using additional manufacturing sites to fulfill the EU’s orders. The contract explicitly states in one section (5.4) that the it envisions the use of two factories located in the U.K. Even without knowing the terms of AstraZeneca’s contract with the U.K., it was clear that the company’s obligations to Brn should not affect its deal with the bloc, the EU official said.


So if the Brits want the EU to row back, OA260 maybe it should clarify if indeed
1- it has resorted to pure vaccine nationalism in its own contract with A-Z, while as a hypocrite insist on open and fair sharing of all the other vaccines.
2- it accepts the A-Z plants in the UK to produce vaccines for the SM too, exactly as A-Z has committed to despite clearly having agreed to the opposite in its contract with the UK gov.
It's really simple: will Boris accept he's caught redhanded and play fair, or does he want a full blown vaccine war with the EU, where more than 2/3rds of the UK vaccines need to come from still?
Last edited by sabenapilot on Fri Jan 29, 2021 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11533
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 9:20 pm

sabenapilot wrote:
The interesting question is:
"why did A-Z sign up to a contract with the EU in which it explicitly guarantees there are no previous claims on any of the initial doses the EU contracts, whereas in fact it now emerges there were?"

I don't see anything regarding "no previous claims on any of the initial doses the EU contracts"?

If there is something on that (that isn't in the quoted contract bits) what are considered "initial doses"? Is there any clear statement that they will be setting aside something from the moment the contract is signed? Or does the contract for doses go into effect upon approval of the vaccine and the first request for distribution?

Tugg
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14690
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 9:21 pm

sabenapilot wrote:
Reinhardt wrote:
13.1 e says:
it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any person or third party in respect of the intitial Europe doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this agreement or that would impede the complete fufilment of it's obligtations under this agreement

this clearly states they have no contract that conflicts with this EU contract.
As others have said, (...) It should not be a UK vs EU thing, but it could well be the case that AZ didn't help themselves with the contracts.

or why the UK goverment does not want to release its contract with A-Z, despite the EU happily doing so and A-Z not objecting to that release.... .


It would seem the EU would have been fine to make the contract available in full, but AZ wasn't. Curious how AZ didn't allow the delivery schedule at the end of the contract to be clear ...
But someone at the EU forgot, by honest error I am sure, to black out everything correctly, and hence it was readable via mouse over. The text at "additional dosage" says the the *additional* 100 million doses have to be delivered before July 1st, implying the whole 400 million doses would be due until then at the latest.

Best regards
Thomas
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14690
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 9:26 pm

Tugger wrote:
sabenapilot wrote:
The interesting question is:
"why did A-Z sign up to a contract with the EU in which it explicitly guarantees there are no previous claims on any of the initial doses the EU contracts, whereas in fact it now emerges there were?"

I don't see anything regarding "no previous claims on any of the initial doses the EU contracts"?

If there is something on that (that isn't in the quoted contract bits) what are considered "initial doses"? Is there any clear statement that they will be setting aside something from the moment the contract is signed? Or does the contract for doses go into effect upon approval of the vaccine and the first request for distribution?

Tugg


There is a delivery schedule at the end of the contract that AZ didn't release from confidentiality. That kinda does imply that the table would not make them look good.

Best regards
Thomas
 
sabenapilot
Topic Author
Posts: 3713
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 9:28 pm

Tugger wrote:
sabenapilot wrote:
The interesting question is:
"why did A-Z sign up to a contract with the EU in which it explicitly guarantees there are no previous claims on any of the initial doses the EU contracts, whereas in fact it now emerges there were?"

I don't see anything regarding "no previous claims on any of the initial doses the EU contracts"?

If there is something on that (that isn't in the quoted contract bits) what are considered "initial doses"? Is there any clear statement that they will be setting aside something from the moment the contract is signed? Or does the contract for doses go into effect upon approval of the vaccine and the first request for distribution?

Tugg


Question answered meanwhile by myself as well as tommy1808.
so the question remains:
did A-Z accidentally mess up in their contractual obligations with 2 parties, OR
did they sign up to this, because they could not reveil a 'britain first' clause in the previous contract signed with the UK because of a confidentiality clause?

A-Z are no amateurs, so the bet in Brussels is on the second option, which would nicely fit the mindset of the UK government to look out for and if needed even fabricate 'Brexit successes', while the confidentiality of all of this was obviously needed to safeguard deliveries it needed to flow freely from the EU at the same time...
 
sabenapilot
Topic Author
Posts: 3713
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 9:35 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
It would seem the EU would have been fine to make the contract available in full, but AZ wasn't. Curious how AZ didn't allow the delivery schedule at the end of the contract to be clear ...
But someone at the EU forgot, by honest error I am sure, to black out everything correctly, and hence it was readable via mouse over. The text at "additional dosage" says the the *additional* 100 million doses have to be delivered before July 1st, implying the whole 400 million doses would be due until then at the latest.


What an unfortunate fact to have this IT issue accidentally reveil the delivery schedule and thus the fact that indeed A-Z is lying.
Is it incompetence, or are they just forced because of contractual -yet confidential- obligations with the UK?
British vaccine nationalism seems to have been an integral part of the deal with A-Z for 'their' oxford vaccine, even though the UK government knew it would be counter productive it it was discovered, given the massive need for deliveries of vaccines from the EU.
But they just couldn't resist it, could they....
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 543
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 9:47 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
But someone at the EU forgot, by honest error I am sure, to black out everything

Yup, masterclass move.

Three bands
- "Hey whole world, have a look by yourself"
- "Hey AZ, I hold you under control" I know how to play dirty
- Boris, stay away please. Unless you don't mind showing your contract too.
 
sabenapilot
Topic Author
Posts: 3713
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 9:57 pm

Grizzly410 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
But someone at the EU forgot, by honest error I am sure, to black out everything

Yup, masterclass move.

Three bands
- "Hey whole world, have a look by yourself"
- "Hey AZ, I hold you under control" I know how to play dirty
- Boris, stay away please. Unless you don't mind showing your contract too.


You got to give it to them, the 'eurocrats' as they're affectively called by the British tabloids are easily outsmarting the Sir Humphrey's of this world.
It's got to be a gift of nature.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14690
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 10:38 pm

sabenapilot wrote:
Tugger wrote:
sabenapilot wrote:
The interesting question is:
"why did A-Z sign up to a contract with the EU in which it explicitly guarantees there are no previous claims on any of the initial doses the EU contracts, whereas in fact it now emerges there were?"

I don't see anything regarding "no previous claims on any of the initial doses the EU contracts"?

If there is something on that (that isn't in the quoted contract bits) what are considered "initial doses"? Is there any clear statement that they will be setting aside something from the moment the contract is signed? Or does the contract for doses go into effect upon approval of the vaccine and the first request for distribution?

Tugg


Question answered meanwhile by myself as well as tommy1808.
so the question remains:
did A-Z accidentally mess up in their contractual obligations with 2 parties, OR
did they sign up to this, because they could not reveil a 'britain first' clause in the previous contract signed with the UK because of a confidentiality clause?

A-Z are no amateurs, so the bet in Brussels is on the second option, which would nicely fit the mindset of the UK government to look out for and if needed even fabricate 'Brexit successes', while the confidentiality of all of this was obviously needed to safeguard deliveries it needed to flow freely from the EU at the same time...


A more innocent explanation would be that they overestimated ramp up, decided they can turn the excess into gold, and then ran into serious ramp up problems ...

If your suspicion turns out to be true and the UK government didn't immediately go "wait a moment, we didn't mean it like that and all parties need to absorb the hit from the problem" UK EU relations will be pretty poisoned until the people to talk to are new.

Best regards
Thomas
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Fri Jan 29, 2021 10:52 pm

Grizzly410 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
But someone at the EU forgot, by honest error I am sure, to black out everything

Yup, masterclass move.

Three bands
- "Hey whole world, have a look by yourself"
- "Hey AZ, I hold you under control" I know how to play dirty
- Boris, stay away please. Unless you don't mind showing your contract too.


So there is quantities connected with dates.

There is connection that all AZ production sites shall be used.

I am pretty sure that evidence was found in the production sites in Belgium and Holland proving that production has been sent to UK if EU makes the moves to block exports.

EU exports more vaccine to UK then UK exports to EU. Bad move.

Brexiteers have finally starting to care about GFA ;-) EU backed down before the export control started at midnight.
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 2383
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: European Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Sat Jan 30, 2021 8:46 am

The ongoing discussion about vaccination and especially the AstraZeneca discussion in the Brexit Thread has been moved into this thread.

A discussion if the European Commission has messed their vaccination strategy compared to other countries does not belong into the Brexit thread. The recent events with respect to Northern Ireland have not been moved into this thread.

So far the understanding is the AstraZeneca is a contractual issue and only if we learn that AstraZeneca was indeed preferring the UK because of Brexit should be discussed there.

Link to Brexit thread:

Brexit part XI: 2021
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit part XI: 2021

Sat Jan 30, 2021 9:31 am

Boeing74741R wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Aesma wrote:
There is a contradiction in your points. Or does "best efforts" means UK first, EU last ?


No contradiction.

UK signed a contract with fixed numbers and delivery schedule. EU apparently signed a contract stipulating “best efforts” on delivery. If true, sounds a bit sloppy on the EU side.


Indeed. The way I see it (and the same goes for a lot of contracts) is that unless there’s a firm date or timescale specifically mentioned in the contract, there isn’t a leg to stand on if there are delays in delivering the goods. Likewise if there’s nothing about imposing penalties for late deliveries.

If it is true that the Commission signed up to the contract with AstraZeneca without insisting on putting dates in (e.g. deliveries will commence within x weeks or y months of regulatory approval), then it’s a massive cock up on their part and no tough talk from certain politicians about restricting exports or “stealing” supplies intended for other customers/countries will cover that fact up. And when some politicians come out with such statements, it’s little wonder why some form the impression that some politicians will struggle to hold down jobs or pursue successful careers in the world outside of politics. If the UK does have a contract with AstraZeneca that specifically commits A-Z to firm delivery dates and timescales, then any shortfalls on that arising from the EU requisitioning supplies is also likely to trigger legal action from HMG, so potentially two legal cases for A-Z to contend with.

As Dutchy says, this is most likely going to come down to how lawyers (and possibly the courts) interpret the contracts.

I do think if it comes to the point where vaccine exports are reduced to the UK or supplies requisitioned from the UK to the EU, it’s not going to do UK-EU relations any good whatsoever. Everyone should be working together in the fight against COVID-19, not against each other. If I was Boris Johnson, I’d be keeping quiet and focus on vaccination efforts in the UK until such a time arises where that program is actually threatened by the spat between the Commission and A-Z, though in the background maybe get civil servants to double-check the wording of contracts very closely.

olle wrote:
AZ will soon have a new CEO?


That will be for the AstraZeneca board to decide, and if it transpires they haven’t been fulfilling obligations to the contrary of public statements and interviews. I suspect Soriot wouldn’t have gone on TV or give interviews to newspapers saying what he has said if any of it was untrue or if there was any doubts over the robustness of the A-Z position (only politicians can get away with that it seems). If it was me, I’d certainly ensure all my ducks were in a row before speaking out.


it seems like there is dates in the contract. Dates has been erased in the published agreement but by "accidently" shows a date for the second batch considered to be delivered summer 2021.

Then we can probably assume that the first batch has a date as well.

I have a feeling that this date is approaching and the AZ information to EU last week about not be able to deliver to EU but still deliver to UK must be connected to this.
 
sbworcs
Posts: 845
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:19 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Sat Jan 30, 2021 9:35 am

It is interesting that whilst not related to Brexit posters appear to come down on based on their Brexit views:

Pro-Brexit - EU = Bad. AZ = working to contract
Anti-Brexit - EU = Protecting citizens. AZ = breaking contract all over the place.

Regardless of the legal wording of contract BOTH sides need to work on this together. After all the health of EVERYONE is important for global economic recovery (especially around tourism).

My main concern regarding the Pfizer vaccine is that many, like me and most of my immediate close family, have received 1st doses (either as being over 70 or working for the NHS) - if there are going to be export bans I think this needs to exclude any second dose requirements. And that goes both ways and applies to AZ exporting to the EU. Vaccines for the clinical vulnerable, elderly and front-line works somehow needs to be taken out of any battles
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12690
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Sat Jan 30, 2021 10:35 am

sbworcs wrote:
It is interesting that whilst not related to Brexit posters appear to come down on based on their Brexit views:

Pro-Brexit - EU = Bad. AZ = working to contract
Anti-Brexit - EU = Protecting citizens. AZ = breaking contract all over the place.

Regardless of the legal wording of contract BOTH sides need to work on this together. After all the health of EVERYONE is important for global economic recovery (especially around tourism).

My main concern regarding the Pfizer vaccine is that many, like me and most of my immediate close family, have received 1st doses (either as being over 70 or working for the NHS) - if there are going to be export bans I think this needs to exclude any second dose requirements. And that goes both ways and applies to AZ exporting to the EU. Vaccines for the clinical vulnerable, elderly and front-line works somehow needs to be taken out of any battles


Countries should work together, they are dependent on each other as is shown in this crisis. The Covid-19 virus doesn't discriminate, as we have seen it is mutating all over the place. We need to vaccinate as many people as soon as possible.
Unfortunately, Great Britain chooses a different path and is treated as a 3rd country, as they chose to be.

As for AZ, I am anti-Brexit and pro-EU. But in this case, I would say, let the lawyers figure out which side is right, or better solve whatever the problem is. I haven't read the contract, and even if I did - I am not a barrister with a specialism on international law for pharmaceutical supplies - I cannot say anything intelligent about it.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 31

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dutchy, NIKV69 and 29 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos