Didn't bother with the NI one. No need. anyone who thinks the NI situation isn't a massive downside needs help.
I posted that in response to another post, it is quite old, but a clear explanation.
But the 2nd one. Not unbalanced. But overtaken by events.
Almost a month out of date.
I'm going to keep returning to the massive differences between vaccine responses. The 3rd lockdown in Mainland Europe. The massive further hit to their economies. The tens of thousands of people who are not going to die here, as opposed to Europe.
There is no argument that our response has been far superior, but leaving the EU has not helped in any way.
Anyone who thinks that Covid vaccination is not a massive upside to Brexit is just as deluded as people ignoring Northern Ireland.
There have been many articles pointing to the fact that we could have responded in exactly the same way as we have, while still being members of the EU.
What action do you think we could have taken that we couldnt have taken while still members of the EU?
People are still in their bunkers, lobbing rocks at their opponents. While steadfastly ignoring the major downsides in their own position.
Many peoples opinion will be affected by the side they are on. Although others will take a balanced view.
There is no doubt that the EU have made a pigs ear of their vaccines programme.
Although here are some facts.
The EU is 60 million doses short of the contracted amount of AZ vaccine in the first quarter. UK supplies from AZ remain on target for the same period. The Indian Government have also withheld supplies of AZ from the UK.
They are facts.
The EU may feel that their shortfall may have been caused by an intervention from the UK Government, they may have proof of this. Although I am not aware of any. In a move that they may well see as tit for tat, they have merely threatened to interfere with the UK supply. The Indians definitely have done this. Boris has not condemned the Indians, but poured scorn on the EU. How is it possible for AZ to be completely on target with UK supplies, and 60 million short of the EU contract?
Facts can be used to try and say most things.
1. The EU is 60 million doses short of the contracted amount of AZ vaccine in the first quarter.
People keep clinging to this as if this is the answer. The population of the EU is 448 million. roughly 10% of them have been vaccinated. So-c.45 million. The population of the Uk is roughly 67 million. And 25-30 million have been vaccinated. Over 50% of the adult population. The EU has 7 times our population. Add that whole 60 million to the current 45 million. And you will see that the vaccination rate would still be half that of the UK.
2. UK supplies from AZ remain on target for the same period.
Who can imagine why? Just as examples:-
(1) We have provided £billions in investment. As opposed to £0 (2) We haven't tried to say (without medical regulator backing) that they are sh1t (3) We came to an agreement while the EU were sitting on their hands (4) We opened UK plants in good time. Teething troubles in UK plants could be overcome without shortfall (5) We don't go running around saying their rivals are better than them
3. The Indian Government have also withheld supplies of AZ from the UK.
I suspect that was all pre-arranged. But even if not, nice and easy to wait a month when you are a month ahead of schedule. Perhaps, just perhaps, we don't pour scorn on people we need going forward. As opposed to the monumentally stupid alternative. Because that is the right thing to do for your country. And shows Boris in a much better light than other world leaders.
Those "lots of articles" you mention. All written by Remoaners. And all ignoring the fact that, if that were so easy, why did the Germans, the French, the Italians, not do it? There can only be 2 reasons, as I mentioned before. That Boris is better than all Western Europe leaders. Or Brexit. And you appear to be making a case for the former.
Is this an attempt at humour? He obviously didnt have AZ in mind.
'Don't go down this path': Vaccine war escalates as Boris Johnson prepares to call EU leaders demanding they respect legal contracts for exports amid fears UK rollout will be delayed by MONTHS
Boris Johnson will urge the bloc to respect legal contracts for supplies after Ursula von der Leyen delivered an extraordinary threat to hold hostage more than 19 million AstraZeneca doses due to be shipped to the UK over the coming weeks. The European Commission president ramped up the rhetoric this weekend amid shambolic progress on the continent, warning the EU has the power to 'forbid' exports, adding: 'That is the message to AstraZeneca.' The sabre-rattling reflects growing frustration on the continent that the EU has not been able to bully the British-Swedish manufacturer into giving it priority - even tough Britain signed deals for supplies far earlier. As tension rose again today, UK sources warned that the bloc is on the verge of going down a 'terrible path', pointing out that the UK invested millions in the Oxford University research and the vaccine is being provided to the world at cost. Ministers stressed the EU has previously vowed it will not 'block companies from fulfilling their contractual obligations'. 'We expect the EU to stand by their commitments,' said care minister Helen Whately.
Didn't bother with the NI one. No need. anyone who thinks the NI situation isn't a massive downside needs help.
I posted that in response to another post, it is quite old, but a clear explanation.
But the 2nd one. Not unbalanced. But overtaken by events.
Almost a month out of date.
I'm going to keep returning to the massive differences between vaccine responses. The 3rd lockdown in Mainland Europe. The massive further hit to their economies. The tens of thousands of people who are not going to die here, as opposed to Europe.
There is no argument that our response has been far superior, but leaving the EU has not helped in any way.
Anyone who thinks that Covid vaccination is not a massive upside to Brexit is just as deluded as people ignoring Northern Ireland.
There have been many articles pointing to the fact that we could have responded in exactly the same way as we have, while still being members of the EU.
What action do you think we could have taken that we couldnt have taken while still members of the EU?
People are still in their bunkers, lobbing rocks at their opponents. While steadfastly ignoring the major downsides in their own position.
Many peoples opinion will be affected by the side they are on. Although others will take a balanced view.
There is no doubt that the EU have made a pigs ear of their vaccines programme.
Although here are some facts.
The EU is 60 million doses short of the contracted amount of AZ vaccine in the first quarter. UK supplies from AZ remain on target for the same period. The Indian Government have also withheld supplies of AZ from the UK.
They are facts.
The EU may feel that their shortfall may have been caused by an intervention from the UK Government, they may have proof of this. Although I am not aware of any. In a move that they may well see as tit for tat, they have merely threatened to interfere with the UK supply. The Indians definitely have done this. Boris has not condemned the Indians, but poured scorn on the EU. How is it possible for AZ to be completely on target with UK supplies, and 60 million short of the EU contract?
Facts can be used to try and say most things.
1. The EU is 60 million doses short of the contracted amount of AZ vaccine in the first quarter.
People keep clinging to this as if this is the answer. The population of the EU is 448 million. roughly 10% of them have been vaccinated. So-c.45 million. The population of the Uk is roughly 67 million. And 25-30 million have been vaccinated. Over 50% of the adult population. The EU has 7 times our population. Add that whole 60 million to the current 45 million. And you will see that the vaccination rate would still be half that of the UK.
2. UK supplies from AZ remain on target for the same period.
Who can imagine why? Just as examples:-
(1) We have provided £billions in investment. As opposed to £0 (2) We haven't tried to say (without medical regulator backing) that they are sh1t (3) We came to an agreement while the EU were sitting on their hands (4) We opened UK plants in good time. Teething troubles in UK plants could be overcome without shortfall (5) We don't go running around saying their rivals are better than them
3. The Indian Government have also withheld supplies of AZ from the UK.
I suspect that was all pre-arranged. But even if not, nice and easy to wait a month when you are a month ahead of schedule. Perhaps, just perhaps, we don't pour scorn on people we need going forward. As opposed to the monumentally stupid alternative. Because that is the right thing to do for your country. And shows Boris in a much better light than other world leaders.
Those "lots of articles" you mention. All written by Remoaners. And all ignoring the fact that, if that were so easy, why did the Germans, the French, the Italians, not do it? There can only be 2 reasons, as I mentioned before. That Boris is better than all Western Europe leaders. Or Brexit. And you appear to be making a case for the former.
EU rebuffs UK calls to ship AstraZeneca COVID vaccines from Europe
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Union is rebuffing British government calls to ship AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines produced in a factory in the Netherlands, an EU official said on Sunday.
"The Brits are insisting that the Halix plant in the Netherlands must deliver the drug substance produced there to them. That doesn't work," the official told Reuters.
The Leiden-based plant which is run by sub-contractor Halix is listed as a supplier of vaccines in both the contracts that AstraZeneca has signed with Britain and with the European Union.
"What is produced in Halix has to go to the EU," the official added.
Britain has insisted that contracts must be respected.
Two factories in Britain run by Oxford Biomedica and Cobra Biologics are also listed as suppliers to the EU in the contract with AstraZeneca, but no vaccine has so far been shipped from Britain to the EU, despite Brussels' earlier requests.
An incredible reply. You seem to come from the Donald Trump school of alternative facts. A fact used to be undeniable because it was true.
Haysie. You seem to think that you will win an argument by ignoring my arguments and throwing your hands up in horror at the mere suggestion that you may not be 100% right every time.
Let's try looking at what you have said. And see if it stacks up.
"An incredible reply". So-unbelievable. No point in trying to argue stuff. Just use insults. That will work.
"You seem to come from the Donald Trump school of alternative facts." Says the man who doesn't realise that facts can, and are, used in a variety of ways. While trying to maintain my facts are "fake news", while yours are the only 1 that matters. If you say so, Donald.
"A fact used to be undeniable because it was true." Did you really say this? Which other facts do you think might be undeniable? How about:-
(1) The EU has ordered 2 billion vaccines. You believe that the reason they are about 150 million vaccines behind is because 60 million (3%) are late. (2) It is miles behind in producing the Pfizer vaccine. The USA is only just behind us. But BionTech have never mass-produced anything. And it shows. No facts about how many millions they are behind schedule. But I expect it is more thgan 60 million. And America has vaccinated far greater numbers than anywhere else (3) The Moderna vaccine. Supposed to be produced in Italy in large numbers. But it's all gone Pete Tong
All facts. All undeniable.
"The EU population etc, is completely irrelevant in regards to their AZ contract. I dont think that the EU are disputing the numbers of those that have been vaccinated. You would have to be completely blind not to see that production delays that have caused a two thirds shortage to the EU supply, but leaves the UK supply uninterrupted, is pathetic excuse, and one that would be unlikely to stand up in court."
No, of course it isn't irrelevant. Unless of course you are so in love with the EU that you believe the sole reason for the 150 million shortfall is purely relating to 60 million vaccines being delayed. You would have to be totally blind not to see that the EU is failing on all fronts, and choosing just to pick on the Anglo-Swedish Company. With numbers that are embarrassing.
And Court? Don't make me laugh. You can spend 5 years going through the Courts. Safe in the knowledge that the main results will be:-
(1) Massive increase in deaths (2) Politicians removed by electorate (3) Next time the EU needs Big Pharma, payback
"Your claim that the EU did not invest in AZ, is untrue, or maybe an alternative fact. The article below detailing the EU investment is dated August last year."
The EU had a choice. To back the American Pfizer vaccine, with the German junior partner, or AZ-the UK/Swedish firm.
It chose Germany over Sweden. No surprise there. It always chooses Germany.
While I'm in a ranty mood, let's look at the EU rules for buying vaccines.
It is not, as has been widely misreported, as simple as choosing to use the EU purchasing vehicle.
There are, as 1 would expect, various rules as part of that deal. The most important 1 is that any member state is not allowed to enter it's own separate deal with 1 who has a deal with the EU. So-no deals with Pfizer/AZ/Moderna. To ensure no conflicts of interest.
All the states have been let down by the EU. Various have gone to Russia/China for vaccines. 26 of the 27 have not been caught breaking the rules.
The exception, of course, is Germany. Placed a separate 30 million Pfizer order. And that is going to cause massive ructions within the EU.
Not with the EU Commission, of course. They've waved it through. But other nations are starting to see that there are different rules for bigger countries.
While I'm in a ranty mood, let's look at the EU rules for buying vaccines.
It is not, as has been widely misreported, as simple as choosing to use the EU purchasing vehicle.
There are, as 1 would expect, various rules as part of that deal. The most important 1 is that any member state is not allowed to enter it's own separate deal with 1 who has a deal with the EU. So-no deals with Pfizer/AZ/Moderna. To ensure no conflicts of interest.
All the states have been let down by the EU. Various have gone to Russia/China for vaccines. 26 of the 27 have not been caught breaking the rules.
The exception, of course, is Germany. Placed a separate 30 million Pfizer order. And that is going to cause massive ructions within the EU.
Not with the EU Commission, of course. They've waved it through. But other nations are starting to see that there are different rules for bigger countries.
We were still members when we made our vaccine arrangements.
While I'm in a ranty mood, let's look at the EU rules for buying vaccines.
It is not, as has been widely misreported, as simple as choosing to use the EU purchasing vehicle.
There are, as 1 would expect, various rules as part of that deal. The most important 1 is that any member state is not allowed to enter it's own separate deal with 1 who has a deal with the EU. So-no deals with Pfizer/AZ/Moderna. To ensure no conflicts of interest.
All the states have been let down by the EU. Various have gone to Russia/China for vaccines. 26 of the 27 have not been caught breaking the rules.
The exception, of course, is Germany. Placed a separate 30 million Pfizer order. And that is going to cause massive ructions within the EU.
Not with the EU Commission, of course. They've waved it through. But other nations are starting to see that there are different rules for bigger countries.
We were still members when we made our vaccine arrangements.
True.
Every nation in the EU, in theory, had a free choice to go it alone or use the EU vaccine arrangements. As I set out above.
The UK chose to go it alone. The 27 (current) EU members did not. (With the possible exception of Germany breaking the rules while forcing everyone else in the EU to follow those rules. And have presumably jumped the queue and are holding 30 million vaccines that should be shared out with the EU).
It goes back to what I was saying earlier. We chose to go it alone for various reasons, but 1 of them was undoubtedly that we did not want to have our hands tied as to vaccine deals going forward.
IF you think that was the main reason, or a general distrust of the EU, then Brexit on this 1 point has been a godsend.
The only other logical reason could be that our PM was much wiser than the 27 other heads of state.
Unless you can think of a 3rd reason. But I can't. And no-one else has.
While I'm in a ranty mood, let's look at the EU rules for buying vaccines.
It is not, as has been widely misreported, as simple as choosing to use the EU purchasing vehicle.
There are, as 1 would expect, various rules as part of that deal. The most important 1 is that any member state is not allowed to enter it's own separate deal with 1 who has a deal with the EU. So-no deals with Pfizer/AZ/Moderna. To ensure no conflicts of interest.
All the states have been let down by the EU. Various have gone to Russia/China for vaccines. 26 of the 27 have not been caught breaking the rules.
The exception, of course, is Germany. Placed a separate 30 million Pfizer order. And that is going to cause massive ructions within the EU.
Not with the EU Commission, of course. They've waved it through. But other nations are starting to see that there are different rules for bigger countries.
I thought the debate was about why the EU, is annoyed with the UK over vaccine supplies. You seem to want to move the goalposts.
COVID-19: Three reasons why the EU is so angry with AstraZeneca The EU is furious about AstraZeneca's vaccine delays - not least as there's currently no similar threat hanging over UK supplies.
Vaccines are the key to the end of this crisis. But they have also become the catalyst for a huge swirl of acrimony.
The European Union has accused AstraZeneca of breaking its contract by not supplying enough vaccine doses.
The company blames production delays.
The EU is not satisfied with the answer, not least because there is currently no similar threat hanging over the supply of vaccines to the UK.
So why is the EU so angry?
Well, it comes down to three main reasons.
Firstly, the European Union maintains it provided money up-front to AstraZeneca so the company could beef up its production capacity, precisely to avoid these sorts of problems.
Secondly, it is furious about the idea that the UK is getting preferential treatment.
And then finally, the EU is angry for the simple reason that all this plays into the idea that Europe's approach to vaccination has been stuttering and sluggish, particularly in contrast to the UK.
On the first point, you claimed that the EU have invested nothing in AZ, which is clearly not true.
On the second it is impossible to argue otherwise. The EU is 60 million AZ doses short, and the UK arent. The EU have sent us 10 million doses in the last 2 weeks, AZ have sent them none. Production delays that only affected the EU supply, is a tough one to explain. The EU threat of retaliation, unless things change, appears quite reasonable.
I fully accept the third point and have made no attempt to argue otherwise.
While I'm in a ranty mood, let's look at the EU rules for buying vaccines.
It is not, as has been widely misreported, as simple as choosing to use the EU purchasing vehicle.
There are, as 1 would expect, various rules as part of that deal. The most important 1 is that any member state is not allowed to enter it's own separate deal with 1 who has a deal with the EU. So-no deals with Pfizer/AZ/Moderna. To ensure no conflicts of interest.
All the states have been let down by the EU. Various have gone to Russia/China for vaccines. 26 of the 27 have not been caught breaking the rules.
The exception, of course, is Germany. Placed a separate 30 million Pfizer order. And that is going to cause massive ructions within the EU.
Not with the EU Commission, of course. They've waved it through. But other nations are starting to see that there are different rules for bigger countries.
We were still members when we made our vaccine arrangements.
True.
Every nation in the EU, in theory, had a free choice to go it alone or use the EU vaccine arrangements. As I set out above.
The UK chose to go it alone. The 27 (current) EU members did not. (With the possible exception of Germany breaking the rules while forcing everyone else in the EU to follow those rules. And have presumably jumped the queue and are holding 30 million vaccines that should be shared out with the EU).
It goes back to what I was saying earlier. We chose to go it alone for various reasons, but 1 of them was undoubtedly that we did not want to have our hands tied as to vaccine deals going forward.
IF you think that was the main reason, or a general distrust of the EU, then Brexit on this 1 point has been a godsend.
The only other logical reason could be that our PM was much wiser than the 27 other heads of state.
Unless you can think of a 3rd reason. But I can't. And no-one else has.
If we did what we did while still being members then it cant possibly be a Brexit benefit.
While I'm in a ranty mood, let's look at the EU rules for buying vaccines.
I thought the debate was about why the EU, is annoyed with the UK over vaccine supplies. You seem to want to move the goalposts.
COVID-19: Three reasons why the EU is so angry with AstraZeneca The EU is furious about AstraZeneca's vaccine delays - not least as there's currently no similar threat hanging over UK supplies.
Vaccines are the key to the end of this crisis. But they have also become the catalyst for a huge swirl of acrimony.
The European Union has accused AstraZeneca of breaking its contract by not supplying enough vaccine doses.
The company blames production delays.
The EU is not satisfied with the answer, not least because there is currently no similar threat hanging over the supply of vaccines to the UK.
So why is the EU so angry?
Well, it comes down to three main reasons.
Firstly, the European Union maintains it provided money up-front to AstraZeneca so the company could beef up its production capacity, precisely to avoid these sorts of problems.
Secondly, it is furious about the idea that the UK is getting preferential treatment.
And then finally, the EU is angry for the simple reason that all this plays into the idea that Europe's approach to vaccination has been stuttering and sluggish, particularly in contrast to the UK.
On the first point, you claimed that the EU have invested nothing in AZ, which is clearly not true.
On the second it is impossible to argue otherwise. The EU is 60 million AZ doses short, and the UK arent. The EU have sent us 10 million doses in the last 2 weeks, AZ have sent them none. Production delays that only affected the EU supply, is a tough one to explain. The EU threat of retaliation, unless things change, appears quite reasonable.
I fully accept the third point and have made no attempt to argue otherwise.
No. The debate is "Effects of Brexit." Clue is in the title. Your title. Your goalposts.
The EU is seeking to blame an Anglo-Swedish Company for all its ills. While conveniently ignoring the American/German and American/Italian ones.
It's almost as though they are looking to scapegoat the British for failings in Europe. As usual.
I don't know all the ins and outs of the EU's dispute with AZ. I do know that is is only a small part of the problem. I also know that AZ's plants in the EU have not worked well. And that there is not a shred of evidence that the Uk have any liability.
But that is a matter for the EU and AZ. Not the same as keeping AZ's European product in the manner threatened. That is modern day piracy.
You believe my arguments don't hold water.
Whereas I think I'm miles ahead. And I spent 40 years arguing 1 side of a case for a living. Trust me. I know when I'm ahead.
AstraZeneca provided 'outdated' information from its US vaccine trial in bid to get FDA approval when it claimed the shot was 79% effective, US NIAID says
British-Swedish pharmaceutical firm AstraZeneca has been accused by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of providing 'outdated' information on their COVID vaccine.
No. The debate is "Effects of Brexit." Clue is in the title. Your title. Your goalposts.
You may not have noticed, but the debate over the last couple of pages, has been about the EU/UK vaccine dispute.
The EU is seeking to blame an Anglo-Swedish Company for all its ills. While conveniently ignoring the American/German and American/Italian ones.
It seemed to me that they were making the point that they merely wanted AZ to supply the contracted number of vaccine doses, and that priority given to UK supplies was unfair. How on earth could it be possible for production delays to affect one contract, but not the other?
It's almost as though they are looking to scapegoat the British for failings in Europe. As usual.
Or they just want to be treated fairly. We are receiving vaccines from them, but they are receiving nothing from us at the moment, and only one third of what was supposed to have been delivered in the first quarter.
I don't know all the ins and outs of the EU's dispute with AZ. I do know that is is only a small part of the problem. I also know that AZ's plants in the EU have not worked well. And that there is not a shred of evidence that the Uk have any liability.
AZ is supplying the UK, but are sending the EU a fraction of what they have ordered. Production from the AZ/UK plants was included in the EU contract.
But that is a matter for the EU and AZ. Not the same as keeping AZ's European product in the manner threatened. That is modern day piracy.
Or just tit for tat, and so far it is just a threat It is silly to expect anyone to place any trust in Boris Johnson, when he has a record of breaking International Law, and going back on agreements he has signed, at the drop of a hat.
You believe my arguments don't hold water.
You have clearly stated things that are untrue.
Whereas I think I'm miles ahead. And I spent 40 years arguing 1 side of a case for a living. Trust me. I know when I'm ahead.
I don't believe you are a liar or a hypocrite. A little sad that you don't accord me the same courtesy.
I recall how angry you got with someone that refused to answer your questions a while back. Now, I am sure that you have not deliberately avoided answering various questions I have put.
So I am going to make this nice and simple. These are the questions that you have not answered, together with a few supplemental questions that would have followed the answers.
I am sure that you will at some stage want to give long, windy answers to various points. But humour me. Just answer the questions with a simple yes/no in your next post. And then feel free to answer your own posts in more detail after that.
1. Do you believe that there has been a shortfall in production/supply in Europe of the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines? Yes/no 2. Do you find it incongruous that there are precise numbers on shortfalls of AZ, and nothing on Pfizer/Moderna? Yes/no 3. Do you find it strange that the EU can bang on about the UK being ahead of the EU by massive amounts, yet ignore the fact that the US (the makers of the other vaccines) is also ahead by some 300%? Yes/no 4. Do you think it is in the nature of politicians, when they have made a massive error, to try and blame someone else? Yes/no 5. A non-member of the EU (the UK) has, deliberately or otherwise, gained a clear advantage. And Germany has clearly done so deliberately, and in clear breach of the rules of the club it belongs to. Do you think that it is right that the EU Commission has found no problem with this, while continuing to accuse the UK without proof? Yes/no 6. The EU is about 150 million vaccines behind the UK. If we use that figure, and also say that they are 60 million AZ vaccines short, do you believe that the other 90 million shortfall is due either to 1 above, and/or EU incompetence? Yes/no 7. Countries such as Hungary and Malta have vaccinated large numbers via deals with Russia/Israel, etc. Given that some 150 million people in the EU appear to have an increased risk of dying, do you think the EU is right to keep pointing fingers at AZ, rather than getting vaccines that are freely available elsewhere? Yes/no 8. It has been widely reported that 40-50% of AZ vaccine is going unused in EU countries. Do you believe that EU leaders statements have contributed to this? Yes/no 9. Do you believe that Brexit has contributed to our improved position in relation to vaccines? Yes/no 10. Do you believe that the EU's apparent failure to safeguard its members adequately in relation to vaccines means that the EU is less likely to survive in the medium term than 6 months ago? Yes/no
I don't believe you are a liar or a hypocrite. A little sad that you don't accord me the same courtesy.
I recall how angry you got with someone that refused to answer your questions a while back. Now, I am sure that you have not deliberately avoided answering various questions I have put.
So I am going to make this nice and simple. These are the questions that you have not answered, together with a few supplemental questions that would have followed the answers.
I am sure that you will at some stage want to give long, windy answers to various points. But humour me. Just answer the questions with a simple yes/no in your next post. And then feel free to answer your own posts in more detail after that.
1. Do you believe that there has been a shortfall in production/supply in Europe of the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines? Yes/no 2. Do you find it incongruous that there are precise numbers on shortfalls of AZ, and nothing on Pfizer/Moderna? Yes/no 3. Do you find it strange that the EU can bang on about the UK being ahead of the EU by massive amounts, yet ignore the fact that the US (the makers of the other vaccines) is also ahead by some 300%? Yes/no 4. Do you think it is in the nature of politicians, when they have made a massive error, to try and blame someone else? Yes/no 5. A non-member of the EU (the UK) has, deliberately or otherwise, gained a clear advantage. And Germany has clearly done so deliberately, and in clear breach of the rules of the club it belongs to. Do you think that it is right that the EU Commission has found no problem with this, while continuing to accuse the UK without proof? Yes/no 6. The EU is about 150 million vaccines behind the UK. If we use that figure, and also say that they are 60 million AZ vaccines short, do you believe that the other 90 million shortfall is due either to 1 above, and/or EU incompetence? Yes/no 7. Countries such as Hungary and Malta have vaccinated large numbers via deals with Russia/Israel, etc. Given that some 150 million people in the EU appear to have an increased risk of dying, do you think the EU is right to keep pointing fingers at AZ, rather than getting vaccines that are freely available elsewhere? Yes/no 8. It has been widely reported that 40-50% of AZ vaccine is going unused in EU countries. Do you believe that EU leaders statements have contributed to this? Yes/no 9. Do you believe that Brexit has contributed to our improved position in relation to vaccines? Yes/no 10. Do you believe that the EU's apparent failure to safeguard its members adequately in relation to vaccines means that the EU is less likely to survive in the medium term than 6 months ago? Yes/no
I look forward to your 1 word responses.
PS-well done in the Main last night.
Thanks. I dont regard you as a liar or a hypocrite. I merely said that you have stated a number of things that are clearly untrue. Firstly you put forward the case that the UK was more entitled to AZ vaccine because or their investment in AZ, and that the EU had invested nothing. This is clearly untrue Secondly you claimed that Brexit was an advantage to our vaccine rollout. This is completely untrue as we were still members when we entered into the vaccine contracts, and other members could have chosen the same course of action. Therefore this claim is also clearly untrue.
As far as I am concerned the Sky News article that I posted earlier was extremely clear in highlighting the major points of the dispute. You seem to be wanting to widen the scope of the argument which are not relevant to the UK/EU dispute, and ignore the points that are relevant. I suspect that this is because the UK is in an indefensible position.
Maybe you could just stick to those points?
COVID-19: Three reasons why the EU is so angry with AstraZeneca The EU is furious about AstraZeneca's vaccine delays - not least as there's currently no similar threat hanging over UK supplies.
Vaccines are the key to the end of this crisis. But they have also become the catalyst for a huge swirl of acrimony.
The European Union has accused AstraZeneca of breaking its contract by not supplying enough vaccine doses.
The company blames production delays.
The EU is not satisfied with the answer, not least because there is currently no similar threat hanging over the supply of vaccines to the UK.
So why is the EU so angry?
Well, it comes down to three main reasons.
Firstly, the European Union maintains it provided money up-front to AstraZeneca so the company could beef up its production capacity, precisely to avoid these sorts of problems.
Secondly, it is furious about the idea that the UK is getting preferential treatment.
And then finally, the EU is angry for the simple reason that all this plays into the idea that Europe's approach to vaccination has been stuttering and sluggish, particularly in contrast to the UK.
On the first point, you claimed that the EU have invested nothing in AZ, which is clearly not true.
On the second it is impossible to argue otherwise. The EU is 60 million AZ doses short, and the UK arent. The EU have sent us 10 million doses in the last 2 weeks, AZ have sent them none. Production delays that only affected the EU supply, is a tough one to explain. The EU threat of retaliation, unless things change, appears quite reasonable.
I fully accept the third point and have made no attempt to argue otherwise.
I don't believe you are a liar or a hypocrite. A little sad that you don't accord me the same courtesy.
I recall how angry you got with someone that refused to answer your questions a while back. Now, I am sure that you have not deliberately avoided answering various questions I have put.
So I am going to make this nice and simple. These are the questions that you have not answered, together with a few supplemental questions that would have followed the answers.
I am sure that you will at some stage want to give long, windy answers to various points. But humour me. Just answer the questions with a simple yes/no in your next post. And then feel free to answer your own posts in more detail after that.
1. Do you believe that there has been a shortfall in production/supply in Europe of the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines? Yes/no 2. Do you find it incongruous that there are precise numbers on shortfalls of AZ, and nothing on Pfizer/Moderna? Yes/no 3. Do you find it strange that the EU can bang on about the UK being ahead of the EU by massive amounts, yet ignore the fact that the US (the makers of the other vaccines) is also ahead by some 300%? Yes/no 4. Do you think it is in the nature of politicians, when they have made a massive error, to try and blame someone else? Yes/no 5. A non-member of the EU (the UK) has, deliberately or otherwise, gained a clear advantage. And Germany has clearly done so deliberately, and in clear breach of the rules of the club it belongs to. Do you think that it is right that the EU Commission has found no problem with this, while continuing to accuse the UK without proof? Yes/no 6. The EU is about 150 million vaccines behind the UK. If we use that figure, and also say that they are 60 million AZ vaccines short, do you believe that the other 90 million shortfall is due either to 1 above, and/or EU incompetence? Yes/no 7. Countries such as Hungary and Malta have vaccinated large numbers via deals with Russia/Israel, etc. Given that some 150 million people in the EU appear to have an increased risk of dying, do you think the EU is right to keep pointing fingers at AZ, rather than getting vaccines that are freely available elsewhere? Yes/no 8. It has been widely reported that 40-50% of AZ vaccine is going unused in EU countries. Do you believe that EU leaders statements have contributed to this? Yes/no 9. Do you believe that Brexit has contributed to our improved position in relation to vaccines? Yes/no 10. Do you believe that the EU's apparent failure to safeguard its members adequately in relation to vaccines means that the EU is less likely to survive in the medium term than 6 months ago? Yes/no
I look forward to your 1 word responses.
PS-well done in the Main last night.
Thanks. I dont regard you as a liar or a hypocrite. I merely said that you have stated a number of things that are clearly untrue. Firstly you put forward the case that the UK was more entitled to AZ vaccine because or their investment in AZ, and that the EU had invested nothing. This is clearly untrue Secondly you claimed that Brexit was an advantage to our vaccine rollout. This is completely untrue as we were still members when we entered into the vaccine contracts, and other members could have chosen the same course of action. Therefore this claim is also clearly untrue.
As far as I am concerned the Sky News article that I posted earlier was extremely clear in highlighting the major points of the interview. You seem to be wanting to widen the scope of the dispute which are not relevant to the UK/EU argument, and ignore the points that are relevant. I suspect that this is because the UK is in an indefensible position.
Maybe you could just stick to those points?
COVID-19: Three reasons why the EU is so angry with AstraZeneca The EU is furious about AstraZeneca's vaccine delays - not least as there's currently no similar threat hanging over UK supplies.
Vaccines are the key to the end of this crisis. But they have also become the catalyst for a huge swirl of acrimony.
The European Union has accused AstraZeneca of breaking its contract by not supplying enough vaccine doses.
The company blames production delays.
The EU is not satisfied with the answer, not least because there is currently no similar threat hanging over the supply of vaccines to the UK.
So why is the EU so angry?
Well, it comes down to three main reasons.
Firstly, the European Union maintains it provided money up-front to AstraZeneca so the company could beef up its production capacity, precisely to avoid these sorts of problems.
Secondly, it is furious about the idea that the UK is getting preferential treatment.
And then finally, the EU is angry for the simple reason that all this plays into the idea that Europe's approach to vaccination has been stuttering and sluggish, particularly in contrast to the UK.
On the first point, you claimed that the EU have invested nothing in AZ, which is clearly not true.
On the second it is impossible to argue otherwise. The EU is 60 million AZ doses short, and the UK arent. The EU have sent us 10 million doses in the last 2 weeks, AZ have sent them none. Production delays that only affected the EU supply, is a tough one to explain. The EU threat of retaliation, unless things change, appears quite reasonable.
I fully accept the third point and have made no attempt to argue otherwise.
10 questions. All self-evident. Requiring 1-word answers. All attempting to show, as in most of life, there are 2 sides to every story. And why, like most things in life, decisions have both good and bad consequences. And why the EU has a lot of faults, which is trying to hide.
0 answers.
Do you work for the EU?
If you are going to refuse to answer, that is your right.
But instead of being a debate, it is just you throwing rocks. And ignoring the other side. Much like the EU. And I have better things to do than try and debate stuff with someone who refuses to debate.
I don't believe you are a liar or a hypocrite. A little sad that you don't accord me the same courtesy.
I recall how angry you got with someone that refused to answer your questions a while back. Now, I am sure that you have not deliberately avoided answering various questions I have put.
So I am going to make this nice and simple. These are the questions that you have not answered, together with a few supplemental questions that would have followed the answers.
I am sure that you will at some stage want to give long, windy answers to various points. But humour me. Just answer the questions with a simple yes/no in your next post. And then feel free to answer your own posts in more detail after that.
1. Do you believe that there has been a shortfall in production/supply in Europe of the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines? Yes/no 2. Do you find it incongruous that there are precise numbers on shortfalls of AZ, and nothing on Pfizer/Moderna? Yes/no 3. Do you find it strange that the EU can bang on about the UK being ahead of the EU by massive amounts, yet ignore the fact that the US (the makers of the other vaccines) is also ahead by some 300%? Yes/no 4. Do you think it is in the nature of politicians, when they have made a massive error, to try and blame someone else? Yes/no 5. A non-member of the EU (the UK) has, deliberately or otherwise, gained a clear advantage. And Germany has clearly done so deliberately, and in clear breach of the rules of the club it belongs to. Do you think that it is right that the EU Commission has found no problem with this, while continuing to accuse the UK without proof? Yes/no 6. The EU is about 150 million vaccines behind the UK. If we use that figure, and also say that they are 60 million AZ vaccines short, do you believe that the other 90 million shortfall is due either to 1 above, and/or EU incompetence? Yes/no 7. Countries such as Hungary and Malta have vaccinated large numbers via deals with Russia/Israel, etc. Given that some 150 million people in the EU appear to have an increased risk of dying, do you think the EU is right to keep pointing fingers at AZ, rather than getting vaccines that are freely available elsewhere? Yes/no 8. It has been widely reported that 40-50% of AZ vaccine is going unused in EU countries. Do you believe that EU leaders statements have contributed to this? Yes/no 9. Do you believe that Brexit has contributed to our improved position in relation to vaccines? Yes/no 10. Do you believe that the EU's apparent failure to safeguard its members adequately in relation to vaccines means that the EU is less likely to survive in the medium term than 6 months ago? Yes/no
I look forward to your 1 word responses.
PS-well done in the Main last night.
Thanks. I dont regard you as a liar or a hypocrite. I merely said that you have stated a number of things that are clearly untrue. Firstly you put forward the case that the UK was more entitled to AZ vaccine because or their investment in AZ, and that the EU had invested nothing. This is clearly untrue Secondly you claimed that Brexit was an advantage to our vaccine rollout. This is completely untrue as we were still members when we entered into the vaccine contracts, and other members could have chosen the same course of action. Therefore this claim is also clearly untrue.
As far as I am concerned the Sky News article that I posted earlier was extremely clear in highlighting the major points of the interview. You seem to be wanting to widen the scope of the dispute which are not relevant to the UK/EU argument, and ignore the points that are relevant. I suspect that this is because the UK is in an indefensible position.
Maybe you could just stick to those points?
COVID-19: Three reasons why the EU is so angry with AstraZeneca The EU is furious about AstraZeneca's vaccine delays - not least as there's currently no similar threat hanging over UK supplies.
Vaccines are the key to the end of this crisis. But they have also become the catalyst for a huge swirl of acrimony.
The European Union has accused AstraZeneca of breaking its contract by not supplying enough vaccine doses.
The company blames production delays.
The EU is not satisfied with the answer, not least because there is currently no similar threat hanging over the supply of vaccines to the UK.
So why is the EU so angry?
Well, it comes down to three main reasons.
Firstly, the European Union maintains it provided money up-front to AstraZeneca so the company could beef up its production capacity, precisely to avoid these sorts of problems.
Secondly, it is furious about the idea that the UK is getting preferential treatment.
And then finally, the EU is angry for the simple reason that all this plays into the idea that Europe's approach to vaccination has been stuttering and sluggish, particularly in contrast to the UK.
On the first point, you claimed that the EU have invested nothing in AZ, which is clearly not true.
On the second it is impossible to argue otherwise. The EU is 60 million AZ doses short, and the UK arent. The EU have sent us 10 million doses in the last 2 weeks, AZ have sent them none. Production delays that only affected the EU supply, is a tough one to explain. The EU threat of retaliation, unless things change, appears quite reasonable.
I fully accept the third point and have made no attempt to argue otherwise.
10 questions. All self-evident. Requiring 1-word answers. All attempting to show, as in most of life, there are 2 sides to every story. And why, like most things in life, decisions have both good and bad consequences. And why the EU has a lot of faults, which is trying to hide.
0 answers.
Do you work for the EU?
If you are going to refuse to answer, that is your right.
But instead of being a debate, it is just you throwing rocks. And ignoring the other side. Much like the EU. And I have better things to do than try and debate stuff with someone who refuses to debate.
Have a good day. Thread is all yours now.
I am surprised by this.
You could have included some questions on Eurovision, and the Champions League, and they would have been equally irrelevant.
The dispute is obvious and very clear. I am not sure if you cant, or dont want to see it.
You are painting me as the villain in this, yet it is you that is posting stuff that is not true.
The dispute concerns the EU/UK, AND AZ.
A valid question to ask is what would have to happen to end the dispute?
I think if AZ said they would make up the EU shortfall over the next month, I think they would be happy.
I think that if AZ said that production delays were affecting the EU and the UK, they would feel much better.
I think if AZ said that all their European, and UK vaccine stocks would be split proportionally between the EU, and UK, they would be over the moon.
While the EU deliver millions of doses to us, and AZ deliver nothing to them, they wont just wear it.
I listed the obvious stuff that this dispute relates to above, and you seem to have no answer to that. It was Sky news that made this clear, rather than me.
Neither the UK or EU are complaining about supplies from Pfizer.
You have a good day too.
Please come back when you have a reasonable explanation of how production delays can only affect the EU contract and leave the UK contract unaffected.
Brexit was often described as a 'Divorce' between a married couple,it is now playing out to be more closer to the truth than first thought,with the EU being the 'Wife' and U.K. the 'Husband'. The 'Divorce' was ambling along with the odd disagreement here and there but then the 'Husband' done something that the 'Wife' didn't agree with (building a new relationship). That's when the 'Wife' started making threats,not for the best outcome but purely out of spite,as although 'Wifey' accepted that the marriage was over,she couldn't bear the thought that her once dependable ally was now striding out on his own and making new relationships with others. As with most 'Divorces' after time the two parties often realise and accept their differences and return to an amicable relationship though this 'Divorce' may take longer than most. That hereby ends today's analogy .
Brexit was often described as a 'Divorce' between a married couple,it is now playing out to be more closer to the truth than first thought,with the EU being the 'Wife' and U.K. the 'Husband'. The 'Divorce' was ambling along with the odd disagreement here and there but then the 'Husband' done something that the 'Wife' didn't agree with (building a new relationship). That's when the 'Wife' started making threats,not for the best outcome but purely out of spite,as although 'Wifey' accepted that the marriage was over,she couldn't bear the thought that her once dependable ally was now striding out on his own and making new relationships with others. As with most 'Divorces' after time the two parties often realise and accept their differences and return to an amicable relationship though this 'Divorce' may take longer than most. That hereby ends today's analogy .
It may not be over yet. There are whispers that no deal may be back on the cards. The EU have delayed ratification of the deal. Perhaps they wont ratify it, the way Boris is carrying on. There is no fat lady singing yet.
While I'm in a ranty mood, let's look at the EU rules for buying vaccines.
It is not, as has been widely misreported, as simple as choosing to use the EU purchasing vehicle.
There are, as 1 would expect, various rules as part of that deal. The most important 1 is that any member state is not allowed to enter it's own separate deal with 1 who has a deal with the EU. So-no deals with Pfizer/AZ/Moderna. To ensure no conflicts of interest.
All the states have been let down by the EU. Various have gone to Russia/China for vaccines. 26 of the 27 have not been caught breaking the rules.
The exception, of course, is Germany. Placed a separate 30 million Pfizer order. And that is going to cause massive ructions within the EU.
Not with the EU Commission, of course. They've waved it through. But other nations are starting to see that there are different rules for bigger countries.
'It's because of greed, my friends': Boris Johnson says UK left EU trailing in its wake over Covid vaccines through self-interest... but later apologises and insists he 'regrets' remark
Boris Johnson risked inflaming the EU after telling a private meeting of the 1922 Committee: 'The reason we have the vaccine success is because of capitalism, because of greed.'
Comments
He obviously didnt have AZ in mind.
'Don't go down this path': Vaccine war escalates as Boris Johnson prepares to call EU leaders demanding they respect legal contracts for exports amid fears UK rollout will be delayed by MONTHS
Boris Johnson will urge the bloc to respect legal contracts for supplies after Ursula von der Leyen delivered an extraordinary threat to hold hostage more than 19 million AstraZeneca doses due to be shipped to the UK over the coming weeks. The European Commission president ramped up the rhetoric this weekend amid shambolic progress on the continent, warning the EU has the power to 'forbid' exports, adding: 'That is the message to AstraZeneca.' The sabre-rattling reflects growing frustration on the continent that the EU has not been able to bully the British-Swedish manufacturer into giving it priority - even tough Britain signed deals for supplies far earlier. As tension rose again today, UK sources warned that the bloc is on the verge of going down a 'terrible path', pointing out that the UK invested millions in the Oxford University research and the vaccine is being provided to the world at cost. Ministers stressed the EU has previously vowed it will not 'block companies from fulfilling their contractual obligations'. 'We expect the EU to stand by their commitments,' said care minister Helen Whately.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9387989/Boris-Johnson-call-EU-leaders-defuse-threats-blocking-Covid-vaccines.html
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Union is rebuffing British government calls to ship AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines produced in a factory in the Netherlands, an EU official said on Sunday.
"The Brits are insisting that the Halix plant in the Netherlands must deliver the drug substance produced there to them. That doesn't work," the official told Reuters.
The Leiden-based plant which is run by sub-contractor Halix is listed as a supplier of vaccines in both the contracts that AstraZeneca has signed with Britain and with the European Union.
"What is produced in Halix has to go to the EU," the official added.
Britain has insisted that contracts must be respected.
Two factories in Britain run by Oxford Biomedica and Cobra Biologics are also listed as suppliers to the EU in the contract with AstraZeneca, but no vaccine has so far been shipped from Britain to the EU, despite Brussels' earlier requests.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/eu-rebuffs-uk-calls-ship-210243298.html
You seem to come from the Donald Trump school of alternative facts.
A fact used to be undeniable because it was true.
Haysie. You seem to think that you will win an argument by ignoring my arguments and throwing your hands up in horror at the mere suggestion that you may not be 100% right every time.
Let's try looking at what you have said. And see if it stacks up.
"An incredible reply". So-unbelievable. No point in trying to argue stuff. Just use insults. That will work.
"You seem to come from the Donald Trump school of alternative facts." Says the man who doesn't realise that facts can, and are, used in a variety of ways. While trying to maintain my facts are "fake news", while yours are the only 1 that matters. If you say so, Donald.
"A fact used to be undeniable because it was true." Did you really say this? Which other facts do you think might be undeniable? How about:-
(1) The EU has ordered 2 billion vaccines. You believe that the reason they are about 150 million vaccines behind is because 60 million (3%) are late.
(2) It is miles behind in producing the Pfizer vaccine. The USA is only just behind us. But BionTech have never mass-produced anything. And it shows. No facts about how many millions they are behind schedule. But I expect it is more thgan 60 million. And America has vaccinated far greater numbers than anywhere else
(3) The Moderna vaccine. Supposed to be produced in Italy in large numbers. But it's all gone Pete Tong
All facts. All undeniable.
"The EU population etc, is completely irrelevant in regards to their AZ contract.
I dont think that the EU are disputing the numbers of those that have been vaccinated.
You would have to be completely blind not to see that production delays that have caused a two thirds shortage to the EU supply, but leaves the UK supply uninterrupted, is pathetic excuse, and one that would be unlikely to stand up in court."
No, of course it isn't irrelevant. Unless of course you are so in love with the EU that you believe the sole reason for the 150 million shortfall is purely relating to 60 million vaccines being delayed. You would have to be totally blind not to see that the EU is failing on all fronts, and choosing just to pick on the Anglo-Swedish Company. With numbers that are embarrassing.
And Court? Don't make me laugh. You can spend 5 years going through the Courts. Safe in the knowledge that the main results will be:-
(1) Massive increase in deaths
(2) Politicians removed by electorate
(3) Next time the EU needs Big Pharma, payback
"Your claim that the EU did not invest in AZ, is untrue, or maybe an alternative fact.
The article below detailing the EU investment is dated August last year."
The EU had a choice. To back the American Pfizer vaccine, with the German junior partner, or AZ-the UK/Swedish firm.
It chose Germany over Sweden. No surprise there. It always chooses Germany.
It is not, as has been widely misreported, as simple as choosing to use the EU purchasing vehicle.
There are, as 1 would expect, various rules as part of that deal. The most important 1 is that any member state is not allowed to enter it's own separate deal with 1 who has a deal with the EU. So-no deals with Pfizer/AZ/Moderna. To ensure no conflicts of interest.
All the states have been let down by the EU. Various have gone to Russia/China for vaccines. 26 of the 27 have not been caught breaking the rules.
The exception, of course, is Germany. Placed a separate 30 million Pfizer order. And that is going to cause massive ructions within the EU.
Not with the EU Commission, of course. They've waved it through. But other nations are starting to see that there are different rules for bigger countries.
Every nation in the EU, in theory, had a free choice to go it alone or use the EU vaccine arrangements. As I set out above.
The UK chose to go it alone. The 27 (current) EU members did not. (With the possible exception of Germany breaking the rules while forcing everyone else in the EU to follow those rules. And have presumably jumped the queue and are holding 30 million vaccines that should be shared out with the EU).
It goes back to what I was saying earlier. We chose to go it alone for various reasons, but 1 of them was undoubtedly that we did not want to have our hands tied as to vaccine deals going forward.
IF you think that was the main reason, or a general distrust of the EU, then Brexit on this 1 point has been a godsend.
The only other logical reason could be that our PM was much wiser than the 27 other heads of state.
Unless you can think of a 3rd reason. But I can't. And no-one else has.
You seem to want to move the goalposts.
COVID-19: Three reasons why the EU is so angry with AstraZeneca
The EU is furious about AstraZeneca's vaccine delays - not least as there's currently no similar threat hanging over UK supplies.
Vaccines are the key to the end of this crisis. But they have also become the catalyst for a huge swirl of acrimony.
The European Union has accused AstraZeneca of breaking its contract by not supplying enough vaccine doses.
The company blames production delays.
The EU is not satisfied with the answer, not least because there is currently no similar threat hanging over the supply of vaccines to the UK.
So why is the EU so angry?
Well, it comes down to three main reasons.
Firstly, the European Union maintains it provided money up-front to AstraZeneca so the company could beef up its production capacity, precisely to avoid these sorts of problems.
Secondly, it is furious about the idea that the UK is getting preferential treatment.
And then finally, the EU is angry for the simple reason that all this plays into the idea that Europe's approach to vaccination has been stuttering and sluggish, particularly in contrast to the UK.
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-three-reasons-why-the-eu-is-so-angry-with-astrazeneca-12200500
On the first point, you claimed that the EU have invested nothing in AZ, which is clearly not true.
On the second it is impossible to argue otherwise.
The EU is 60 million AZ doses short, and the UK arent.
The EU have sent us 10 million doses in the last 2 weeks, AZ have sent them none.
Production delays that only affected the EU supply, is a tough one to explain.
The EU threat of retaliation, unless things change, appears quite reasonable.
I fully accept the third point and have made no attempt to argue otherwise.
British-Swedish pharmaceutical firm AstraZeneca has been accused by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of providing 'outdated' information on their COVID vaccine.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9391951/AstraZeneca-accused-providing-outdated-information-vaccine-trial.html
No. The debate is "Effects of Brexit." Clue is in the title. Your title. Your goalposts.
You may not have noticed, but the debate over the last couple of pages, has been about the EU/UK vaccine dispute.
The EU is seeking to blame an Anglo-Swedish Company for all its ills. While conveniently ignoring the American/German and American/Italian ones.
It seemed to me that they were making the point that they merely wanted AZ to supply the contracted number of vaccine doses, and that priority given to UK supplies was unfair.
How on earth could it be possible for production delays to affect one contract, but not the other?
It's almost as though they are looking to scapegoat the British for failings in Europe. As usual.
Or they just want to be treated fairly.
We are receiving vaccines from them, but they are receiving nothing from us at the moment, and only one third of what was supposed to have been delivered in the first quarter.
I don't know all the ins and outs of the EU's dispute with AZ. I do know that is is only a small part of the problem. I also know that AZ's plants in the EU have not worked well. And that there is not a shred of evidence that the Uk have any liability.
AZ is supplying the UK, but are sending the EU a fraction of what they have ordered.
Production from the AZ/UK plants was included in the EU contract.
But that is a matter for the EU and AZ. Not the same as keeping AZ's European product in the manner threatened. That is modern day piracy.
Or just tit for tat, and so far it is just a threat
It is silly to expect anyone to place any trust in Boris Johnson, when he has a record of breaking International Law, and going back on agreements he has signed, at the drop of a hat.
You believe my arguments don't hold water.
You have clearly stated things that are untrue.
Whereas I think I'm miles ahead. And I spent 40 years arguing 1 side of a case for a living. Trust me. I know when I'm ahead.
Marking your own homework is rarely a good idea.
I recall how angry you got with someone that refused to answer your questions a while back. Now, I am sure that you have not deliberately avoided answering various questions I have put.
So I am going to make this nice and simple. These are the questions that you have not answered, together with a few supplemental questions that would have followed the answers.
I am sure that you will at some stage want to give long, windy answers to various points. But humour me. Just answer the questions with a simple yes/no in your next post. And then feel free to answer your own posts in more detail after that.
1. Do you believe that there has been a shortfall in production/supply in Europe of the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines? Yes/no
2. Do you find it incongruous that there are precise numbers on shortfalls of AZ, and nothing on Pfizer/Moderna? Yes/no
3. Do you find it strange that the EU can bang on about the UK being ahead of the EU by massive amounts, yet ignore the fact that the US (the makers of the other vaccines) is also ahead by some 300%? Yes/no
4. Do you think it is in the nature of politicians, when they have made a massive error, to try and blame someone else? Yes/no
5. A non-member of the EU (the UK) has, deliberately or otherwise, gained a clear advantage. And Germany has clearly done so deliberately, and in clear breach of the rules of the club it belongs to. Do you think that it is right that the EU Commission has found no problem with this, while continuing to accuse the UK without proof? Yes/no
6. The EU is about 150 million vaccines behind the UK. If we use that figure, and also say that they are 60 million AZ vaccines short, do you believe that the other 90 million shortfall is due either to 1 above, and/or EU incompetence? Yes/no
7. Countries such as Hungary and Malta have vaccinated large numbers via deals with Russia/Israel, etc. Given that some 150 million people in the EU appear to have an increased risk of dying, do you think the EU is right to keep pointing fingers at AZ, rather than getting vaccines that are freely available elsewhere? Yes/no
8. It has been widely reported that 40-50% of AZ vaccine is going unused in EU countries. Do you believe that EU leaders statements have contributed to this? Yes/no
9. Do you believe that Brexit has contributed to our improved position in relation to vaccines? Yes/no
10. Do you believe that the EU's apparent failure to safeguard its members adequately in relation to vaccines means that the EU is less likely to survive in the medium term than 6 months ago? Yes/no
I look forward to your 1 word responses.
PS-well done in the Main last night.
I dont regard you as a liar or a hypocrite.
I merely said that you have stated a number of things that are clearly untrue.
Firstly you put forward the case that the UK was more entitled to AZ vaccine because or their investment in AZ, and that the EU had invested nothing.
This is clearly untrue
Secondly you claimed that Brexit was an advantage to our vaccine rollout. This is completely untrue as we were still members when we entered into the vaccine contracts, and other members could have chosen the same course of action.
Therefore this claim is also clearly untrue.
As far as I am concerned the Sky News article that I posted earlier was extremely clear in highlighting the major points of the dispute.
You seem to be wanting to widen the scope of the argument which are not relevant to the UK/EU dispute, and ignore the points that are relevant.
I suspect that this is because the UK is in an indefensible position.
Maybe you could just stick to those points?
COVID-19: Three reasons why the EU is so angry with AstraZeneca
The EU is furious about AstraZeneca's vaccine delays - not least as there's currently no similar threat hanging over UK supplies.
Vaccines are the key to the end of this crisis. But they have also become the catalyst for a huge swirl of acrimony.
The European Union has accused AstraZeneca of breaking its contract by not supplying enough vaccine doses.
The company blames production delays.
The EU is not satisfied with the answer, not least because there is currently no similar threat hanging over the supply of vaccines to the UK.
So why is the EU so angry?
Well, it comes down to three main reasons.
Firstly, the European Union maintains it provided money up-front to AstraZeneca so the company could beef up its production capacity, precisely to avoid these sorts of problems.
Secondly, it is furious about the idea that the UK is getting preferential treatment.
And then finally, the EU is angry for the simple reason that all this plays into the idea that Europe's approach to vaccination has been stuttering and sluggish, particularly in contrast to the UK.
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-three-reasons-why-the-eu-is-so-angry-with-astrazeneca-12200500
On the first point, you claimed that the EU have invested nothing in AZ, which is clearly not true.
On the second it is impossible to argue otherwise.
The EU is 60 million AZ doses short, and the UK arent.
The EU have sent us 10 million doses in the last 2 weeks, AZ have sent them none.
Production delays that only affected the EU supply, is a tough one to explain.
The EU threat of retaliation, unless things change, appears quite reasonable.
I fully accept the third point and have made no attempt to argue otherwise.
0 answers.
Do you work for the EU?
If you are going to refuse to answer, that is your right.
But instead of being a debate, it is just you throwing rocks. And ignoring the other side. Much like the EU. And I have better things to do than try and debate stuff with someone who refuses to debate.
Have a good day. Thread is all yours now.
You could have included some questions on Eurovision, and the Champions League, and they would have been equally irrelevant.
The dispute is obvious and very clear.
I am not sure if you cant, or dont want to see it.
You are painting me as the villain in this, yet it is you that is posting stuff that is not true.
The dispute concerns the EU/UK, AND AZ.
A valid question to ask is what would have to happen to end the dispute?
I think if AZ said they would make up the EU shortfall over the next month, I think they would be happy.
I think that if AZ said that production delays were affecting the EU and the UK, they would feel much better.
I think if AZ said that all their European, and UK vaccine stocks would be split proportionally between the EU, and UK, they would be over the moon.
While the EU deliver millions of doses to us, and AZ deliver nothing to them, they wont just wear it.
I listed the obvious stuff that this dispute relates to above, and you seem to have no answer to that.
It was Sky news that made this clear, rather than me.
Neither the UK or EU are complaining about supplies from Pfizer.
You have a good day too.
Please come back when you have a reasonable explanation of how production delays can only affect the EU contract and leave the UK contract unaffected.
There are whispers that no deal may be back on the cards.
The EU have delayed ratification of the deal.
Perhaps they wont ratify it, the way Boris is carrying on.
There is no fat lady singing yet.
Boris Johnson risked inflaming the EU after telling a private meeting of the 1922 Committee: 'The reason we have the vaccine success is because of capitalism, because of greed.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9395433/Boris-Johnson-says-UK-left-EU-trailing-wake-Covid-vaccines-self-interest.html