the risk i referred to was to get the contracts done early and not sit back and wait which the EU did .. i have no idea what that contract is but i guess as AZ is a private company that would have lawyers to make sure that any contract is watertight so as to not have to put up with scrutiny from the other side in a court ..
i will also say i agree with some that you seem to only post negative news articles and will not post any positive articles to just balance out your negative view on the UK .
Just want to mention 3 positive effects of Brexit.
1. The UK Government promised to give the electorate a free vote on Brexit, and to respect and implement the result. And-they did. 2. In your old Brexit thread, there was an article that purported to show how Brexit was going to mean that we were at the back of the queue for any vaccine. That there was no way that the UK was going to be able to match the speed with which the EU was going to be able to source vaccine. But it didn't work out like that, did it? Printed the pro-EU article. Forgot to print anything that showed it was wrong. 3. Everybody over the age of 50-like me, & Haysie, are less likely to die of Covid in the first 6 months of 2021, due to 2 above, than if we lived anywhere in the EU. For which I am profoundly grateful.
Having thought about this, I think you are clutching at straws, and just confirming that my statement about the lack of any good news is true.
On the first point, I think that to qualify as a Brexit benefit it must be an improvement, and should have occurred since we left the EU. As the referendum took place around four and a half years before we actually left, then it cant possibly qualify as a Brexit benefit. Surely nothing that occurred while we were still members could possibly qualify.
Frankly, point number two is quite ridiculous. The discontinued thread has now been demoted to page eight. So you have to scroll through eight pages to find it. Who does that? The referendum campaign was almost based on forecasts, and some were more accurate than others. Are seriously expecting everyone on the forum to look back through years of posts, and update any articles they might have posted that turned out to be inaccurate. I think not. How could you possibly include an incorrect forecast, as a benefit.
Point number three is nonsense. We were still members when the vaccine roll out plan was implemented. Any other EU member country could have followed the same course.
If you have any genuine Brexit good news stories, I would be glad to hear about them.
As far as the above is concerned, you might as well have included winning the World Cup in 1966, as a Brexit benefit.
1. Really? You get to decide what time period qualified as an allowable benefit? You do know that you have created thousands of posts bout the evils of Brexit in that timeframe, don't you? 2. On threads created by you, you believe that anything any politician says, or anything that anyone who disagrees with you are fair game, but anything you say is off limits. Really? It got demoted to page 8 because you scared everyone else off. My best friend was an avid Remainer, and will always be anti-Boris. As he said to me last week:- "The bit that really p1sses me off, is that the whole vaccine saga shows that we were lied to just as much by Remainers as Leavers." 3. This is the difference between theory and practice in the real world. In theory, we could have. But that conveniently ignores these facts:- (1) But for Brexit, we would still be in the EU (2) We would just have had a referendum confirming our commitment to the EU (3) In a club of 28 Members, no-one agreed to go it alone except for the 1 that was leaving the club (4) The EMA would still have been based in the UK-how easy would it be to say that we don't want to trust a UK-based agency? (5) The MHRA would in many respects still have been under the EMA-how easy would it have been to plan a solo mission? Particularly, a quicker 1 than the UK-based EU one? (6) The EU was already tired of us only following the EU when it suited us-just how much reputational damage would we have suffered, immediately after a referendum saying we should remain tied to Europe?
You see, these are facts. Providing context as to why your fact is true, but not realistic.
In 2021, you are considerably less likely to die of Covid in the UK, as opposed to the EU. So (for example) Angela Merkel has not yet been allowed to have a vaccine. Most of Europe is entering a 3rd lockdown. We have a Regulator that understands that "an abundance of caution" costs lives. And a country that has acted decisively on vaccines. While the EU did not.
But you hide from this. I'm sure you genuinely believe that these are not good results from Brexit. Just like I am sure that you are in an ever-dwindling minority. Just like you hide from answering questions. Because you don't like the answers.
Which is a shame. Because I genuinely like you. And I'm always interested in what you have to say. Even when I profoundly disagree with you.
Found this which is interesting read , sheds more light for both the EU and UK . have to post in 2 or 3 parts as its quite long...... THIS IS THE 2ND PART NEXTED POST IS 1ST ONE ...
Stronger supply chains The U.K. contract makes it clear that London had thought through the entire Oxford/AstraZeneca supply chain, rather than just focusing on the delivery of the vaccines. The EU, by comparison, was more unclear, even as to where its plants would be.
The U.K. contract contains a commitment by AstraZeneca that the British supply chain “will be appropriate and sufficient” for the supply of the doses the U.K. purchased. London understood, then, that if the supply chain were not “sufficient,” the drug company would be on the hook for meeting any shortfall from somewhere else, according to a person familiar with the U.K. contract’s development.
The British contract also indicates the deal would cover “other manufacturing facilities in Europe” in the event that the European Medicines Agency approved the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine before British regulators after the Brexit transition period.
It didn’t specify what would happen if approval came first in the U.K., which is in fact what happened. But the U.K. Task Force told journalists in December that it would get vaccines from Germany and the Netherlands to meet any potential shortages on the island ahead of the U.K.’s earlier approval.
By contrast, the EU’s contract basically states that AstraZeneca will only make its "best reasonable efforts" to supply and manufacture the vaccines in the EU, which in the contract includes the U.K. manufacturing sites. In the full version of the contract and order form, the three British plants — as well as a Dutch and German subcontractor that haven't been used for the EU doses — are included in the EU's supply chain. The company hasn't used the U.K. doses to fix the shortage of EU supply.
Instead, AstraZeneca has largely relied on a Belgian subcontractor, Thermo Fisher Scientific (originally Novasep), to supply the EU with drug substance. It has also gotten some doses from a U.S. plant in Maryland.
More broadly, the specifics of the EU’s plants have been a subject of confusion. For example, the Commission's published contract said the EU would get drug substance from “I\IL.” When a redacted version was published on January 29, the Commission at first kept on insisting that this referred to Italy and Ireland. It later turned out to be a copy error that should have said “NL,” for the Netherlands, according to Dutch broadcaster NOS.
Earlier timelines As with supply chains, the timeline is also disputed. But it does appear that the U.K. got an earlier start on the ground — even though that’s not clear on paper.
AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soriot made the argument that the U.K. had better vaccine supply because the U.K. signed an agreement for vaccines months earlier than the EU. Formally, this isn’t true: The U.K. contract was signed on August 28, while the EU’s was signed a day earlier on August 27.
However, the key lies in an earlier agreement that AstraZeneca made back in May with the U.K., which was a binding deal establishing “the development of a dedicated supply chain for the U.K.,” an AstraZeneca spokesperson said.
One official close to the U.K. contract said the agreement began as an email in April from the U.K. government saying it would provide £65 million to help the University of Oxford execute its production plan. It later evolved into a fully-fledged contract between the government and the British-Swedish company, which also might explain why it took until August for the contract to be signed.
Most important, however, is that it meant that the British government was “effectively a major shareholder” in the jab’s development as early as April. After Oxford and AstraZeneca agreed to team up at the end of April, for example, the British government filled seats on Oxford-AstraZeneca joint liaison committees.
“Protecting the U.K.‘s supply was a central objective ... as that was being negotiated from April onwards,” the official said. Even though this isn't explicitly stated in the contract, the official said that the government’s role in the early stages of the vaccine meant “there is absolutely no way that AstraZeneca would have been able to enter a contract which gave away equal priority of access to the U.K. doses.”
This British supply was therefore already secured by the time four EU countries — Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy — signed an agreement in June to obtain up to 300 million doses of the vaccines. The countries’ deal at the time was a fairly bare-bones agreement, and it’s unclear whether it established a European supply chain, but over the summer it was transferred into the formal purchasing agreement managed by the Commission.
The Commission wouldn't comment this week on the publication of the U.K.'s AstraZeneca contract, but it has underscored that the EU's agreement provided money — up to €336 million — to the company to ramp up manufacturing of vaccines at-risk for the bloc.
"We did not invest in the company on the assumption that they would not be able to pre-produce," a Commission official wrote in an email. “Investing and ramping up pre-production capacity was one of the premises of our agreements."
"There are clear delivery quantities, both for December of last year as well as the coming quarters for this year," the official added.
Stronger enforceability A further difference is that the British and Belgian legal systems have different views of how these contracts should be delivered and adjudicated if issues arise.
Many companies choose the U.K. for contracts involving the purchase of goods or other agreements that deal with a point of sale. That’s because English law is an effective route for suing a company if it doesn’t deliver goods in time. The U.K. contract is testament to that advantage, lawyers said.
English contract law also has much more literal interpretation — what’s on paper is what counts, lawyers say. By contrast, Belgian law, which the Commission chose for its contract, takes a wider view that includes the context a contract’s written in and the good intentions of both parties. The court system in Belgium also tends to reach a decision in a legal dispute far more slowly than its English counterpart.
That said, while the EU’s contract may be less precise, it can still carry weight in a court of law, De Rey said. It's more detailed in laying out what it means by best reasonable efforts, he added, pointing to the preamble of the EU contract, which goes into great detail about the great need for vaccines during the pandemic.
"In the end, it will always come back to this 'best reasonable efforts' and the interpretation of this," he said. "But the standard of these 'best reasonable efforts' is quite high."
the risk i referred to was to get the contracts done early and not sit back and wait which the EU did .. i have no idea what that contract is but i guess as AZ is a private company that would have lawyers to make sure that any contract is watertight so as to not have to put up with scrutiny from the other side in a court ..
i will also say i agree with some that you seem to only post negative news articles and will not post any positive articles to just balance out your negative view on the UK .
Just want to mention 3 positive effects of Brexit.
1. The UK Government promised to give the electorate a free vote on Brexit, and to respect and implement the result. And-they did. 2. In your old Brexit thread, there was an article that purported to show how Brexit was going to mean that we were at the back of the queue for any vaccine. That there was no way that the UK was going to be able to match the speed with which the EU was going to be able to source vaccine. But it didn't work out like that, did it? Printed the pro-EU article. Forgot to print anything that showed it was wrong. 3. Everybody over the age of 50-like me, & Haysie, are less likely to die of Covid in the first 6 months of 2021, due to 2 above, than if we lived anywhere in the EU. For which I am profoundly grateful.
Ok, I cant recall the article, but I will take your word for it.
Kind of you. It's on Page 331. Here are the highlights:-
"Brexit means coronavirus vaccine will be slower to reach the UK And it will cost more here because of the UK pulling out of the European Medicines Agency on 30 December • Three experts explain why Brexit leaves the UK less able to respond to pandemic
The UK faces having to wait longer and pay more to acquire a coronavirus vaccine because it has left the EU, health experts and international legal experts warn today. Brexit means the UK will probably have to join other non-EU countries in a queue to acquire the vaccine after EU member states have had it, and on less-favourable terms.
The UK will leave the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the body responsible for the scientific evaluation, supervision and safety monitoring of medicines, at the end of the transition period on 30 December. This means it will no longer be part of the EU’s regulatory regime, which allows for “accelerated assessment” of products developed by drugs companies during a pandemic.
The UK has already withdrawn from the EU’s emergency bulk-buying mechanism for vaccines and medicines, under which member states strike collective agreements with pharmaceutical companies, which speeds up their access to the latest products during a crisis.
The academics write: “For all these reasons ... the UK is likely to have to join the queue for access with other countries outside the EU, and to pay more than it would otherwise as an EU member state.
“Looking further ahead, this problem will not be limited to emergencies and the UK can expect slower and more limited access to medicines, especially those for rare conditions or those used to treat children, where the market is small.”
While it appears the UK government wants to press ahead with its own regulatory system and rapid market authorisation system for emergencies, the experts say this will be all but impossible to put in place in time for a new Covid-19 vaccine, which is expected in about a year.
“Vaccine makers and drug companies may decide to first seek approval from the EMA, which represents some 500 million patients, before seeking approval from the UK MHRA, which covers a smaller patient pool.”
The point here is not that this has proved to be totally untrue. None of us can predict the future.
Nobody can. Not totally untrue. The Guardian claim to be quoting 3 experts, obviously they werent.
It is that you have printed lots of these sorts of articles. And still do. Yet when they are proved to be totally incorrect, you don't mention it at all. Or say stuff like
I am contemplating employing a couple of people to plough throgh the Sky Poker forum archives, on a full time basis, to check on my old posts. I will let you know when I decide.
"With all due respect questions about Russia, German over 55s, Sputnik, EU medical agencies, Pfizer, Moderna, the EU vaccine roll out, Hungary, Malta, Israel, Brexit, the EUs survival, and the nature of politicians are completely irrelevant to this dispute."
With the best will in the world, how on earth could a dispute between the EU and AZ, on vaccine deliveries be relevant to any of the above.
Really? They are just as relevant as the disaster developing in Northern Ireland. Which, incidentally, is the fault of the EU as well as the UK. Unless by "completely irrelevant" you really mean "don't support my view that the EU is wonderful."
I dont believe that the EU is wonderful. I appreciate that some of their actions are ill judged, although many fewer than Boris. I am convinced that they havent been treated fairly by AZ. Dont start me off about the Irish border. I have made my feelings on this very clear on a number of occasions. Boris misled the DUP at their party conference, and denied there was an Irish Sea border after he had agreed to put one there. So I suppose we should blame the EU.
No, let's get back to the Irish border.
You are an intelligent man. You saw through what Boris was trying to do in an instant. You posted about it immediately.
Not defending Boris on this. It could only be through extreme ignorance as to the reality, or deliberately lying. For me, it is undoubtedly a mixture of the 2.
But let's look at the actions of the DUP, Fianna Fail, etc. Do you believe that the ruling parties of Northern Ireland/Ireland couldn't see fine well that Boris was either lying, ignorant as to the reality, or both? Really? You believe that no-one in the ruling parties of 2 countries is intelligent enough to see through Boris?
Could it be that the DUP made the political decision to keep quiet, so that Boris could take all the blame instead of them? Because I expect the DUP to have understood instantly what that border was, and how important it would be.
Could it be that Ireland Government decided that the likely ensuing economic dependence on Ireland from NI was worth the problems that would undoubtedly be faced by a lot of Irish people in the Borders or North West of Ireland, and kept quiet for that reason?
It is not only you that has a "just blame Boris" agenda.
How is Boris Johnson's Brexit deal different from Theresa May's? This article is more than 1 year old New deal swaps backstop for a four-year alignment between Northern Ireland and EU
All the latest Brexit developments – live At a glance: how much of ‘great new deal’ is actually new?
The new Brexit deal is essentially the old Brexit deal with a new chapter on the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland and a few key tweaks to the political declaration.
The main protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland runs to just 15 pages – 64 pages including the annexes – and restates the commitment to all the baseline elements on the Good Friday agreement, the common travel area and other rights contained in Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement of 2018.
Here is a link to the full text with a summary of the key new points below.
The backstop is replaced Overall the backstop has essentially been replaced by a full stop whereby Northern Ireland remains aligned to the EU from the end of the transition period for at least four years. A change can only happen if it is voted on by the Stormont assembly (more of that later).
As Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair’s chief negotiator in the Good Friday agreement, tweeted: “The funny side of the No 10 claim they have got rid of the backstop is that they have in fact transformed it from a fallback into the definitive future arrangement for NI with the province remaining in the single market and customs union”.
Consent Stormont will have a key role in future Brexit arrangements. And if there is cross-community support to remain aligned to the EU rather than the UK the consent will hold for eight years.
The arrangements in this deal will automatically kick in for a mandated four years if there is a breakdown in trade talks, so it remains a “backstop” but with a permanent tinge.
The line in the political declaration that “the United Kingdom will consider aligning with union rules in relevant areas” in any future trade talks has been ditched.
One source said the removal of this albeit vague promise of being aligned to the EU in future has been the key to unlocking the support of the European Research Group.
If the vote is negative, then the regulatory uncoupling will not happen for a further two years: 1 January 2027. During this two-year period the EU will work out how to protect the single market, ie another backstop.
Customs Northern Ireland will remain legally in the UK customs territory but practically in the EU customs unions. There will therefore be no customs checks on the border but tariffs will be payable on certain commercial goods.
A system of rebates will allow importers to be reimbursed.
Tariffs will be applied to commercial goods entering from Great Britain to Northern Ireland from third countries unless it can be established that they are for use in Northern Ireland only.
UK authorities will do this work on behalf of the EU. If it can be proven that these goods remain in Northern Ireland, the duties will be reimbursed to the importer.
The criteria for how to demonstrate that the importing of such goods remain in Northern Ireland and qualify for a duty rebate remains to be worked out.
sry this is the 1st part above is 2nd part .......
Two contracts, two different legal systems, but one goal: Getting doses of a life-saving vaccine to people as quickly as possible.
Just how the U.K. has secured doses more quickly than the EU from pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca has been a matter of intense scrutiny. Some clues can be found in comparing the contract that AstraZeneca signed with London to the one it inked with Brussels.
On the whole, the contracts appear roughly the same when it comes to their language and their tone, says Sébastien De Rey, a contract law specialist at Leuven University. But there's one key difference, he notes: “The U.K. contract is, on some specific points, more detailed."
The level of specificity is partially due to the legal systems they're based on. The U.K. contract is written in English law, which will judge whether both parties delivered the goods based on the exact wording of the contract. The EU contract is written in Belgian law, which focuses on whether both parties tried their best to deliver the goods and acted in good faith.
It's these extra details that give the U.K. more leverage to ensure its contract is delivered effectively. While both contracts say all parties will make their “best reasonable effort” to deliver the vaccine, the U.K. government is clearer in asserting its oversight of the agreement.
This core difference, according to a lawyer familiar with the development of the U.K. text, can be chalked up to the fact that the contract sealed with London was written by people with significant experience of purchasing agreements, specifically drug-buying deals. The European Commission’s contract, by contrast, shows a lack of commercial common sense, in the lawyer’s view.
The starkest example of this difference is a clause in the U.K. contract stating that if any party tries to force or persuade AstraZeneca or its subcontractors to do anything that could hold up the supply of the vaccine doses, the government may terminate the deal and invoke what appear to be punishment clauses — although these are largely redacted.
The EU, on the other hand, can only withhold payments until the company delivers the goods, or until it helps find more producers to make the vaccine. And as POLITICO reported last week, the non-redacted version of the contract shows that the EU also waived its right to sue AstraZeneca in the event of delivery delays.
Furthermore, officials with knowledge of the U.K. contract say the British government was a more active participant in the manufacturing of the home-grown vaccine — even though the U.K. contract was signed just a day after the one with the EU. This aggressive approach gave London a lead in securing AstraZeneca's doses.
“In sum, the balance of power tilts notably towards the U.K.,” senior MEP and former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt wrote in a post Friday. “Since the outcome of this particular contract has led to an enormous amount of public distrust, both the Commision [sic] and AstraZeneca have a lot of explaining to do.”
More micromanagment The U.K. contract is also more clear in how it will monitor the delivery of the doses, as well as what happens if the company doesn't come through.
Although the delivery schedule itself is redacted, the U.K. contract clearly states that AstraZeneca shall notify the British government about any changes to the schedule and use its “Best Reasonable Efforts to keep as close to the original” delivery schedule. The company also has 30 days to notify the U.K. ahead of its delivery about the number of doses it should expect.
Once that happens, “AstraZeneca may not adjust the Delivery Schedule without the prior consent” of the British government.
An exception: AstraZeneca isn't in violation if there's a “minor variance” to the delivery schedules, up to five business days, “due to the unpredictable nature of the Manufacturing of the Products” — as long as the U.K. is notified within a reasonable timeframe.
The EU contract, by contrast, doesn't go into this level of detail about notification when manufacturing plans change. But it does have another remedy in the Belgian system, De Rey explains: If a company is in breach of a contract, the other party can appoint another producer to do the job at the expense of the company in breach.
Indeed, the Commission's contract says it or EU countries can present plans to boost production and "AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts" to contact producers “to increase the available manufacturing capacity within the EU," it states.
The problem with this provision, however, is it doesn't ensure a rapid timeline, which is crucial amid a global race to vaccinate populations.
Furthermore, the U.K. contract gave more clear powers to managers on the ground in executing and validating the contract, while the EU contract focused more on ensuring equitable distribution of the vaccines between each EU country.
The EU contract also says the Commission and EU countries should use their “Best Reasonable Efforts” to help AstraZeneca secure enough drug substance, vials and other materials to produce its vaccines, and the company should report to the Commission in “regular intervals” on whether it can meet its supply promises. AstraZeneca will "promptly notify the Commission if it encounters difficulties in this regard that place at significant risk AstraZeneca’s ability to manufacture or sell the Vaccine Doses as contemplated by this Agreement," it reads.
What this meant on the ground: When AstraZeneca faced supply issues at the start of 2021, it gave the EU little notice. It informed the Commission that the EU would receive at least 70 million fewer doses in the first quarter of 2021 just a week ahead of the European Medicines Agency’s expected approval date. The company still has not updated the EU on what it can provide them in the second quarter of the year.
To be sure, the EU contract says Brussels may suspend payments if AstraZeneca fails to deliver, and it specifically states that AstraZeneca may not have any impending contracts that would hinder its ability to supply the EU. But it also states that if AstraZeneca’s performance is “impeded by any such competing agreements, AstraZeneca shall not be deemed in breach” of its agreement with the EU.
And in the end, the EU waived its right to take AstraZeneca to court if there are delivery delays.
This article is part of POLITICO’s premium policy service: Pro Health Care. From drug pricing, EMA, vaccines, pharma and more, our specialized journalists keep you on top of the topics driving the health care policy agenda. Email pro@politico.eu for a complimentary trial.
MORE FROM ... ANNA ISAAC AND JILLIAN DEUTSCH
Most Read Articles 1 Boris Johnson’s most senior Black aide has quit APRIL 1, 2021 8:10 AM 2 Merkel and Spahn: No more Oxford/AstraZeneca jabs for under 60s MARCH 30, 2021 11:26 PM 3 EU regulator: No evidence to support restriction of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine MARCH 31, 2021 5:50 PM 4 Court orders Belgium to end coronavirus measures due to insufficient legal basis MARCH 31, 2021 3:47 PM 5 Austria threatens to halt EU’s 100M vaccine buy until it gets greater share of jabs MARCH 30, 2021 1:03 PM
the risk i referred to was to get the contracts done early and not sit back and wait which the EU did .. i have no idea what that contract is but i guess as AZ is a private company that would have lawyers to make sure that any contract is watertight so as to not have to put up with scrutiny from the other side in a court ..
i will also say i agree with some that you seem to only post negative news articles and will not post any positive articles to just balance out your negative view on the UK .
Just want to mention 3 positive effects of Brexit.
1. The UK Government promised to give the electorate a free vote on Brexit, and to respect and implement the result. And-they did. 2. In your old Brexit thread, there was an article that purported to show how Brexit was going to mean that we were at the back of the queue for any vaccine. That there was no way that the UK was going to be able to match the speed with which the EU was going to be able to source vaccine. But it didn't work out like that, did it? Printed the pro-EU article. Forgot to print anything that showed it was wrong. 3. Everybody over the age of 50-like me, & Haysie, are less likely to die of Covid in the first 6 months of 2021, due to 2 above, than if we lived anywhere in the EU. For which I am profoundly grateful.
Ok, I cant recall the article, but I will take your word for it.
Kind of you. It's on Page 331. Here are the highlights:-
"Brexit means coronavirus vaccine will be slower to reach the UK And it will cost more here because of the UK pulling out of the European Medicines Agency on 30 December • Three experts explain why Brexit leaves the UK less able to respond to pandemic
The UK faces having to wait longer and pay more to acquire a coronavirus vaccine because it has left the EU, health experts and international legal experts warn today. Brexit means the UK will probably have to join other non-EU countries in a queue to acquire the vaccine after EU member states have had it, and on less-favourable terms.
The UK will leave the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the body responsible for the scientific evaluation, supervision and safety monitoring of medicines, at the end of the transition period on 30 December. This means it will no longer be part of the EU’s regulatory regime, which allows for “accelerated assessment” of products developed by drugs companies during a pandemic.
The UK has already withdrawn from the EU’s emergency bulk-buying mechanism for vaccines and medicines, under which member states strike collective agreements with pharmaceutical companies, which speeds up their access to the latest products during a crisis.
The academics write: “For all these reasons ... the UK is likely to have to join the queue for access with other countries outside the EU, and to pay more than it would otherwise as an EU member state.
“Looking further ahead, this problem will not be limited to emergencies and the UK can expect slower and more limited access to medicines, especially those for rare conditions or those used to treat children, where the market is small.”
While it appears the UK government wants to press ahead with its own regulatory system and rapid market authorisation system for emergencies, the experts say this will be all but impossible to put in place in time for a new Covid-19 vaccine, which is expected in about a year.
“Vaccine makers and drug companies may decide to first seek approval from the EMA, which represents some 500 million patients, before seeking approval from the UK MHRA, which covers a smaller patient pool.”
The point here is not that this has proved to be totally untrue. None of us can predict the future.
Nobody can. Not totally untrue. The Guardian claim to be quoting 3 experts, obviously they werent.
It is that you have printed lots of these sorts of articles. And still do. Yet when they are proved to be totally incorrect, you don't mention it at all. Or say stuff like
I am contemplating employing a couple of people to plough throgh the Sky Poker forum archives, on a full time basis, to check on my old posts. I will let you know when I decide.
"With all due respect questions about Russia, German over 55s, Sputnik, EU medical agencies, Pfizer, Moderna, the EU vaccine roll out, Hungary, Malta, Israel, Brexit, the EUs survival, and the nature of politicians are completely irrelevant to this dispute."
With the best will in the world, how on earth could a dispute between the EU and AZ, on vaccine deliveries be relevant to any of the above.
Really? They are just as relevant as the disaster developing in Northern Ireland. Which, incidentally, is the fault of the EU as well as the UK. Unless by "completely irrelevant" you really mean "don't support my view that the EU is wonderful."
I dont believe that the EU is wonderful. I appreciate that some of their actions are ill judged, although many fewer than Boris. I am convinced that they havent been treated fairly by AZ. Dont start me off about the Irish border. I have made my feelings on this very clear on a number of occasions. Boris misled the DUP at their party conference, and denied there was an Irish Sea border after he had agreed to put one there. So I suppose we should blame the EU.
No, let's get back to the Irish border.
You are an intelligent man. You saw through what Boris was trying to do in an instant. You posted about it immediately.
Not defending Boris on this. It could only be through extreme ignorance as to the reality, or deliberately lying. For me, it is undoubtedly a mixture of the 2.
But let's look at the actions of the DUP, Fianna Fail, etc. Do you believe that the ruling parties of Northern Ireland/Ireland couldn't see fine well that Boris was either lying, ignorant as to the reality, or both? Really? You believe that no-one in the ruling parties of 2 countries is intelligent enough to see through Boris?
Could it be that the DUP made the political decision to keep quiet, so that Boris could take all the blame instead of them? Because I expect the DUP to have understood instantly what that border was, and how important it would be.
Could it be that Ireland Government decided that the likely ensuing economic dependence on Ireland from NI was worth the problems that would undoubtedly be faced by a lot of Irish people in the Borders or North West of Ireland, and kept quiet for that reason?
It is not only you that has a "just blame Boris" agenda.
I think Boris misled everyone over this. He was still claiming that there was no Irish Sea border after the agreement was done. He was on tv advising businesses that they could bin the extra paperwork, and that if anyone queried this they were to say that Boris said they could.
There was an easy solution to this which our government wouldnt consider,
I am reluctant to blame the EU. There has to be a border. The EU accepted that it couldnt be on the island of Ireland, the most logical place. They reached an agreement with Theresa May. They reached an alternative agreement with Boris. I believe that this points to their flexibility.
The problems will worsen when the grace periods end.
So NI remains subject to EU rules. Is separated from the rest of the UK. I believe this leaves the UK as the only country in the world with an internal customs border. It seems like the UK made it up as they went along. While the border exists there will be problems.
The most likely long term solution is for NI to leave the UK.
Even if the EU dont ratify the deal, and we end up with no deal, there will still have to be a border.
I hear what you say.
I'm sure Boris tried to mislead everyone. I just don't think he really did.
Unless you believe that 2 Governments did not look as closely as you about the most important Act for the island of Ireland in about 100 years.
Your "easy solution" would be political suicide. You do know that the full title of his party is traditionally "The Conservative and Unionist Party"? There was no easy solution. Just an array of ones with massive consequences. With all sides pretending otherwise.
NI may well leave the UK. Although I don't think that will be the end of the matter. And the solution might end up being (even) worse than now.
the risk i referred to was to get the contracts done early and not sit back and wait which the EU did .. i have no idea what that contract is but i guess as AZ is a private company that would have lawyers to make sure that any contract is watertight so as to not have to put up with scrutiny from the other side in a court ..
i will also say i agree with some that you seem to only post negative news articles and will not post any positive articles to just balance out your negative view on the UK .
Just want to mention 3 positive effects of Brexit.
1. The UK Government promised to give the electorate a free vote on Brexit, and to respect and implement the result. And-they did. 2. In your old Brexit thread, there was an article that purported to show how Brexit was going to mean that we were at the back of the queue for any vaccine. That there was no way that the UK was going to be able to match the speed with which the EU was going to be able to source vaccine. But it didn't work out like that, did it? Printed the pro-EU article. Forgot to print anything that showed it was wrong. 3. Everybody over the age of 50-like me, & Haysie, are less likely to die of Covid in the first 6 months of 2021, due to 2 above, than if we lived anywhere in the EU. For which I am profoundly grateful.
Ok, I cant recall the article, but I will take your word for it.
Kind of you. It's on Page 331. Here are the highlights:-
"Brexit means coronavirus vaccine will be slower to reach the UK And it will cost more here because of the UK pulling out of the European Medicines Agency on 30 December • Three experts explain why Brexit leaves the UK less able to respond to pandemic
The UK faces having to wait longer and pay more to acquire a coronavirus vaccine because it has left the EU, health experts and international legal experts warn today. Brexit means the UK will probably have to join other non-EU countries in a queue to acquire the vaccine after EU member states have had it, and on less-favourable terms.
The UK will leave the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the body responsible for the scientific evaluation, supervision and safety monitoring of medicines, at the end of the transition period on 30 December. This means it will no longer be part of the EU’s regulatory regime, which allows for “accelerated assessment” of products developed by drugs companies during a pandemic.
The UK has already withdrawn from the EU’s emergency bulk-buying mechanism for vaccines and medicines, under which member states strike collective agreements with pharmaceutical companies, which speeds up their access to the latest products during a crisis.
The academics write: “For all these reasons ... the UK is likely to have to join the queue for access with other countries outside the EU, and to pay more than it would otherwise as an EU member state.
“Looking further ahead, this problem will not be limited to emergencies and the UK can expect slower and more limited access to medicines, especially those for rare conditions or those used to treat children, where the market is small.”
While it appears the UK government wants to press ahead with its own regulatory system and rapid market authorisation system for emergencies, the experts say this will be all but impossible to put in place in time for a new Covid-19 vaccine, which is expected in about a year.
“Vaccine makers and drug companies may decide to first seek approval from the EMA, which represents some 500 million patients, before seeking approval from the UK MHRA, which covers a smaller patient pool.”
The point here is not that this has proved to be totally untrue. None of us can predict the future.
Nobody can. Not totally untrue. The Guardian claim to be quoting 3 experts, obviously they werent.
It is that you have printed lots of these sorts of articles. And still do. Yet when they are proved to be totally incorrect, you don't mention it at all. Or say stuff like
I am contemplating employing a couple of people to plough throgh the Sky Poker forum archives, on a full time basis, to check on my old posts. I will let you know when I decide.
"With all due respect questions about Russia, German over 55s, Sputnik, EU medical agencies, Pfizer, Moderna, the EU vaccine roll out, Hungary, Malta, Israel, Brexit, the EUs survival, and the nature of politicians are completely irrelevant to this dispute."
With the best will in the world, how on earth could a dispute between the EU and AZ, on vaccine deliveries be relevant to any of the above.
Really? They are just as relevant as the disaster developing in Northern Ireland. Which, incidentally, is the fault of the EU as well as the UK. Unless by "completely irrelevant" you really mean "don't support my view that the EU is wonderful."
I dont believe that the EU is wonderful. I appreciate that some of their actions are ill judged, although many fewer than Boris. I am convinced that they havent been treated fairly by AZ. Dont start me off about the Irish border. I have made my feelings on this very clear on a number of occasions. Boris misled the DUP at their party conference, and denied there was an Irish Sea border after he had agreed to put one there. So I suppose we should blame the EU.
No, let's get back to the Irish border.
You are an intelligent man. You saw through what Boris was trying to do in an instant. You posted about it immediately.
Not defending Boris on this. It could only be through extreme ignorance as to the reality, or deliberately lying. For me, it is undoubtedly a mixture of the 2.
But let's look at the actions of the DUP, Fianna Fail, etc. Do you believe that the ruling parties of Northern Ireland/Ireland couldn't see fine well that Boris was either lying, ignorant as to the reality, or both? Really? You believe that no-one in the ruling parties of 2 countries is intelligent enough to see through Boris?
Could it be that the DUP made the political decision to keep quiet, so that Boris could take all the blame instead of them? Because I expect the DUP to have understood instantly what that border was, and how important it would be.
Could it be that Ireland Government decided that the likely ensuing economic dependence on Ireland from NI was worth the problems that would undoubtedly be faced by a lot of Irish people in the Borders or North West of Ireland, and kept quiet for that reason?
It is not only you that has a "just blame Boris" agenda.
I think Boris misled everyone over this. He was still claiming that there was no Irish Sea border after the agreement was done. He was on tv advising businesses that they could bin the extra paperwork, and that if anyone queried this they were to say that Boris said they could.
There was an easy solution to this which our government wouldnt consider,
I am reluctant to blame the EU. There has to be a border. The EU accepted that it couldnt be on the island of Ireland, the most logical place. They reached an agreement with Theresa May. They reached an alternative agreement with Boris. I believe that this points to their flexibility.
The problems will worsen when the grace periods end.
So NI remains subject to EU rules. Is separated from the rest of the UK. I believe this leaves the UK as the only country in the world with an internal customs border. It seems like the UK made it up as they went along. While the border exists there will be problems.
The most likely long term solution is for NI to leave the UK.
Even if the EU dont ratify the deal, and we end up with no deal, there will still have to be a border.
I hear what you say.
I'm sure Boris tried to mislead everyone. I just don't think he really did.
Unless you believe that 2 Governments did not look as closely as you about the most important Act for the island of Ireland in about 100 years.
Your "easy solution" would be political suicide. You do know that the full title of his party is traditionally "The Conservative and Unionist Party"? There was no easy solution. Just an array of ones with massive consequences. With all sides pretending otherwise.
NI may well leave the UK. Although I don't think that will be the end of the matter. And the solution might end up being (even) worse than now.
The obvious easy solution I was thinking of was staying in the single market/customs union. The position that NI is in, and Boris described as the best of both worlds. What Boris was saying was in contradiction to what was agreed, and many believed him. WTO rules require a border so no deal is not a solution.
sry this is the 1st part above is 2nd part .......
Two contracts, two different legal systems, but one goal: Getting doses of a life-saving vaccine to people as quickly as possible.
Just how the U.K. has secured doses more quickly than the EU from pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca has been a matter of intense scrutiny. Some clues can be found in comparing the contract that AstraZeneca signed with London to the one it inked with Brussels.
On the whole, the contracts appear roughly the same when it comes to their language and their tone, says Sébastien De Rey, a contract law specialist at Leuven University. But there's one key difference, he notes: “The U.K. contract is, on some specific points, more detailed."
The level of specificity is partially due to the legal systems they're based on. The U.K. contract is written in English law, which will judge whether both parties delivered the goods based on the exact wording of the contract. The EU contract is written in Belgian law, which focuses on whether both parties tried their best to deliver the goods and acted in good faith.
It's these extra details that give the U.K. more leverage to ensure its contract is delivered effectively. While both contracts say all parties will make their “best reasonable effort” to deliver the vaccine, the U.K. government is clearer in asserting its oversight of the agreement.
This core difference, according to a lawyer familiar with the development of the U.K. text, can be chalked up to the fact that the contract sealed with London was written by people with significant experience of purchasing agreements, specifically drug-buying deals. The European Commission’s contract, by contrast, shows a lack of commercial common sense, in the lawyer’s view.
The starkest example of this difference is a clause in the U.K. contract stating that if any party tries to force or persuade AstraZeneca or its subcontractors to do anything that could hold up the supply of the vaccine doses, the government may terminate the deal and invoke what appear to be punishment clauses — although these are largely redacted.
The EU, on the other hand, can only withhold payments until the company delivers the goods, or until it helps find more producers to make the vaccine. And as POLITICO reported last week, the non-redacted version of the contract shows that the EU also waived its right to sue AstraZeneca in the event of delivery delays.
Furthermore, officials with knowledge of the U.K. contract say the British government was a more active participant in the manufacturing of the home-grown vaccine — even though the U.K. contract was signed just a day after the one with the EU. This aggressive approach gave London a lead in securing AstraZeneca's doses.
“In sum, the balance of power tilts notably towards the U.K.,” senior MEP and former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt wrote in a post Friday. “Since the outcome of this particular contract has led to an enormous amount of public distrust, both the Commision [sic] and AstraZeneca have a lot of explaining to do.”
the risk i referred to was to get the contracts done early and not sit back and wait which the EU did .. i have no idea what that contract is but i guess as AZ is a private company that would have lawyers to make sure that any contract is watertight so as to not have to put up with scrutiny from the other side in a court ..
i will also say i agree with some that you seem to only post negative news articles and will not post any positive articles to just balance out your negative view on the UK .
Just want to mention 3 positive effects of Brexit.
1. The UK Government promised to give the electorate a free vote on Brexit, and to respect and implement the result. And-they did. 2. In your old Brexit thread, there was an article that purported to show how Brexit was going to mean that we were at the back of the queue for any vaccine. That there was no way that the UK was going to be able to match the speed with which the EU was going to be able to source vaccine. But it didn't work out like that, did it? Printed the pro-EU article. Forgot to print anything that showed it was wrong. 3. Everybody over the age of 50-like me, & Haysie, are less likely to die of Covid in the first 6 months of 2021, due to 2 above, than if we lived anywhere in the EU. For which I am profoundly grateful.
Ok, I cant recall the article, but I will take your word for it.
Kind of you. It's on Page 331. Here are the highlights:-
"Brexit means coronavirus vaccine will be slower to reach the UK And it will cost more here because of the UK pulling out of the European Medicines Agency on 30 December • Three experts explain why Brexit leaves the UK less able to respond to pandemic
The UK faces having to wait longer and pay more to acquire a coronavirus vaccine because it has left the EU, health experts and international legal experts warn today. Brexit means the UK will probably have to join other non-EU countries in a queue to acquire the vaccine after EU member states have had it, and on less-favourable terms.
The UK will leave the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the body responsible for the scientific evaluation, supervision and safety monitoring of medicines, at the end of the transition period on 30 December. This means it will no longer be part of the EU’s regulatory regime, which allows for “accelerated assessment” of products developed by drugs companies during a pandemic.
The UK has already withdrawn from the EU’s emergency bulk-buying mechanism for vaccines and medicines, under which member states strike collective agreements with pharmaceutical companies, which speeds up their access to the latest products during a crisis.
The academics write: “For all these reasons ... the UK is likely to have to join the queue for access with other countries outside the EU, and to pay more than it would otherwise as an EU member state.
“Looking further ahead, this problem will not be limited to emergencies and the UK can expect slower and more limited access to medicines, especially those for rare conditions or those used to treat children, where the market is small.”
While it appears the UK government wants to press ahead with its own regulatory system and rapid market authorisation system for emergencies, the experts say this will be all but impossible to put in place in time for a new Covid-19 vaccine, which is expected in about a year.
“Vaccine makers and drug companies may decide to first seek approval from the EMA, which represents some 500 million patients, before seeking approval from the UK MHRA, which covers a smaller patient pool.”
The point here is not that this has proved to be totally untrue. None of us can predict the future.
Nobody can. Not totally untrue. The Guardian claim to be quoting 3 experts, obviously they werent.
It is that you have printed lots of these sorts of articles. And still do. Yet when they are proved to be totally incorrect, you don't mention it at all. Or say stuff like
I am contemplating employing a couple of people to plough throgh the Sky Poker forum archives, on a full time basis, to check on my old posts. I will let you know when I decide.
"With all due respect questions about Russia, German over 55s, Sputnik, EU medical agencies, Pfizer, Moderna, the EU vaccine roll out, Hungary, Malta, Israel, Brexit, the EUs survival, and the nature of politicians are completely irrelevant to this dispute."
With the best will in the world, how on earth could a dispute between the EU and AZ, on vaccine deliveries be relevant to any of the above.
Really? They are just as relevant as the disaster developing in Northern Ireland. Which, incidentally, is the fault of the EU as well as the UK. Unless by "completely irrelevant" you really mean "don't support my view that the EU is wonderful."
I dont believe that the EU is wonderful. I appreciate that some of their actions are ill judged, although many fewer than Boris. I am convinced that they havent been treated fairly by AZ. Dont start me off about the Irish border. I have made my feelings on this very clear on a number of occasions. Boris misled the DUP at their party conference, and denied there was an Irish Sea border after he had agreed to put one there. So I suppose we should blame the EU.
No, let's get back to the Irish border.
You are an intelligent man. You saw through what Boris was trying to do in an instant. You posted about it immediately.
Not defending Boris on this. It could only be through extreme ignorance as to the reality, or deliberately lying. For me, it is undoubtedly a mixture of the 2.
But let's look at the actions of the DUP, Fianna Fail, etc. Do you believe that the ruling parties of Northern Ireland/Ireland couldn't see fine well that Boris was either lying, ignorant as to the reality, or both? Really? You believe that no-one in the ruling parties of 2 countries is intelligent enough to see through Boris?
Could it be that the DUP made the political decision to keep quiet, so that Boris could take all the blame instead of them? Because I expect the DUP to have understood instantly what that border was, and how important it would be.
Could it be that Ireland Government decided that the likely ensuing economic dependence on Ireland from NI was worth the problems that would undoubtedly be faced by a lot of Irish people in the Borders or North West of Ireland, and kept quiet for that reason?
It is not only you that has a "just blame Boris" agenda.
I think Boris misled everyone over this. He was still claiming that there was no Irish Sea border after the agreement was done. He was on tv advising businesses that they could bin the extra paperwork, and that if anyone queried this they were to say that Boris said they could.
There was an easy solution to this which our government wouldnt consider,
I am reluctant to blame the EU. There has to be a border. The EU accepted that it couldnt be on the island of Ireland, the most logical place. They reached an agreement with Theresa May. They reached an alternative agreement with Boris. I believe that this points to their flexibility.
The problems will worsen when the grace periods end.
So NI remains subject to EU rules. Is separated from the rest of the UK. I believe this leaves the UK as the only country in the world with an internal customs border. It seems like the UK made it up as they went along. While the border exists there will be problems.
The most likely long term solution is for NI to leave the UK.
Even if the EU dont ratify the deal, and we end up with no deal, there will still have to be a border.
I hear what you say.
I'm sure Boris tried to mislead everyone. I just don't think he really did.
Unless you believe that 2 Governments did not look as closely as you about the most important Act for the island of Ireland in about 100 years.
Your "easy solution" would be political suicide. You do know that the full title of his party is traditionally "The Conservative and Unionist Party"? There was no easy solution. Just an array of ones with massive consequences. With all sides pretending otherwise.
NI may well leave the UK. Although I don't think that will be the end of the matter. And the solution might end up being (even) worse than now.
The obvious easy solution I was thinking of was staying in the single market/customs union. The position that NI is in, and Boris described as the best of both worlds. What Boris was saying was in contradiction to what was agreed, and many believed him. WTO rules require a border so no deal is not a solution.
That is most certainly not an "easy" solution. Is it the 1 you wanted? Yes Is it the 1 I wanted? Yes.
But the majority of the public voted to leave.
And then the public voted overwhelmingly in favour of a Party that was in the grip of the wing of its party that wanted a more right-wing solution.
That's what democracy can do. It can result in things that you and I do not like. That may well have significant downsides that the public do not fully grasp.
Where we differ is that I am looking at where we actually are. Whereas you are focusing on where you think we could/would or should have been. If people had only listened to you and me then.
But they didn't. I'm not England replaying the world cup win. You are still claiming that the goal was offside, and the result should not stand. When it is never going to change.
More micromanagment The U.K. contract is also more clear in how it will monitor the delivery of the doses, as well as what happens if the company doesn't come through.
Although the delivery schedule itself is redacted, the U.K. contract clearly states that AstraZeneca shall notify the British government about any changes to the schedule and use its “Best Reasonable Efforts to keep as close to the original” delivery schedule. The company also has 30 days to notify the U.K. ahead of its delivery about the number of doses it should expect.
Once that happens, “AstraZeneca may not adjust the Delivery Schedule without the prior consent” of the British government.
An exception: AstraZeneca isn't in violation if there's a “minor variance” to the delivery schedules, up to five business days, “due to the unpredictable nature of the Manufacturing of the Products” — as long as the U.K. is notified within a reasonable timeframe.
The EU contract, by contrast, doesn't go into this level of detail about notification when manufacturing plans change. But it does have another remedy in the Belgian system, De Rey explains: If a company is in breach of a contract, the other party can appoint another producer to do the job at the expense of the company in breach.
Indeed, the Commission's contract says it or EU countries can present plans to boost production and "AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts" to contact producers “to increase the available manufacturing capacity within the EU," it states.
The problem with this provision, however, is it doesn't ensure a rapid timeline, which is crucial amid a global race to vaccinate populations.
Furthermore, the U.K. contract gave more clear powers to managers on the ground in executing and validating the contract, while the EU contract focused more on ensuring equitable distribution of the vaccines between each EU country.
The EU contract also says the Commission and EU countries should use their “Best Reasonable Efforts” to help AstraZeneca secure enough drug substance, vials and other materials to produce its vaccines, and the company should report to the Commission in “regular intervals” on whether it can meet its supply promises. AstraZeneca will "promptly notify the Commission if it encounters difficulties in this regard that place at significant risk AstraZeneca’s ability to manufacture or sell the Vaccine Doses as contemplated by this Agreement," it reads.
What this meant on the ground: When AstraZeneca faced supply issues at the start of 2021, it gave the EU little notice. It informed the Commission that the EU would receive at least 70 million fewer doses in the first quarter of 2021 just a week ahead of the European Medicines Agency’s expected approval date. The company still has not updated the EU on what it can provide them in the second quarter of the year.
To be sure, the EU contract says Brussels may suspend payments if AstraZeneca fails to deliver, and it specifically states that AstraZeneca may not have any impending contracts that would hinder its ability to supply the EU. But it also states that if AstraZeneca’s performance is “impeded by any such competing agreements, AstraZeneca shall not be deemed in breach” of its agreement with the EU.
And in the end, the EU waived its right to take AstraZeneca to court if there are delivery delays.
This article is part of POLITICO’s premium policy service: Pro Health Care. From drug pricing, EMA, vaccines, pharma and more, our specialized journalists keep you on top of the topics driving the health care policy agenda. Email pro@politico.eu for a complimentary trial.
MORE FROM ... ANNA ISAAC AND JILLIAN DEUTSCH
Most Read Articles 1 Boris Johnson’s most senior Black aide has quit APRIL 1, 2021 8:10 AM 2 Merkel and Spahn: No more Oxford/AstraZeneca jabs for under 60s MARCH 30, 2021 11:26 PM 3 EU regulator: No evidence to support restriction of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine MARCH 31, 2021 5:50 PM 4 Court orders Belgium to end coronavirus measures due to insufficient legal basis MARCH 31, 2021 3:47 PM 5 Austria threatens to halt EU’s 100M vaccine buy until it gets greater share of jabs MARCH 30, 2021 1:03 PM
View the Latest Issue
READ THE LATEST PRINT ISSUE ONLINE
I regard my self as a fair minded person. I am clear on what is right and wrong. If I thought that the EU was in the wrong I wouldnt hesitate to say so.
This dispute is simple. I have often found that when people go into a long story it is often in an attempt to camouflage the truth.
In a nutshell AZ contracted to deliver 270 million doses of vaccine to the EU by the end of the second quarter of this year. They now plan to deliver just 101 million. AZ have blamed production delays for the shortfall. Thats it end of. That is the dispute.
The EU have got the hump, and in my view quite rightly so. The fact that the UK supply has remained unaffected by the production delays has exacerbated the situation. How is this possible? AZ put forward a number of other excuses, which were later found to be untrue. How can production delays affect one contract, and not the other.
A few justifications have been put forward. Like the UK invested in AZ upfront. Yes they did, but the EU invested four times as much. The UK signed their contract first. The EU had signed their contract the day before the UK, in late August last year. This was subsequent the EU signing an agreement in June last year.
AZ have supplied the UK in full. This is despite the EU signing a contract first, signing an agreement months before, investing 4 times as much as the UK, as well as ordering 4 times as many doses.
As a result the EU have threatened all sorts which obviously winds people up in this country but is probably popular amongst EU citizens.
They are not asking for all of it at the expense of the UK.
the risk i referred to was to get the contracts done early and not sit back and wait which the EU did .. i have no idea what that contract is but i guess as AZ is a private company that would have lawyers to make sure that any contract is watertight so as to not have to put up with scrutiny from the other side in a court ..
i will also say i agree with some that you seem to only post negative news articles and will not post any positive articles to just balance out your negative view on the UK .
Just want to mention 3 positive effects of Brexit.
1. The UK Government promised to give the electorate a free vote on Brexit, and to respect and implement the result. And-they did. 2. In your old Brexit thread, there was an article that purported to show how Brexit was going to mean that we were at the back of the queue for any vaccine. That there was no way that the UK was going to be able to match the speed with which the EU was going to be able to source vaccine. But it didn't work out like that, did it? Printed the pro-EU article. Forgot to print anything that showed it was wrong. 3. Everybody over the age of 50-like me, & Haysie, are less likely to die of Covid in the first 6 months of 2021, due to 2 above, than if we lived anywhere in the EU. For which I am profoundly grateful.
Ok, I cant recall the article, but I will take your word for it.
Kind of you. It's on Page 331. Here are the highlights:-
"Brexit means coronavirus vaccine will be slower to reach the UK And it will cost more here because of the UK pulling out of the European Medicines Agency on 30 December • Three experts explain why Brexit leaves the UK less able to respond to pandemic
The UK faces having to wait longer and pay more to acquire a coronavirus vaccine because it has left the EU, health experts and international legal experts warn today. Brexit means the UK will probably have to join other non-EU countries in a queue to acquire the vaccine after EU member states have had it, and on less-favourable terms.
The UK will leave the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the body responsible for the scientific evaluation, supervision and safety monitoring of medicines, at the end of the transition period on 30 December. This means it will no longer be part of the EU’s regulatory regime, which allows for “accelerated assessment” of products developed by drugs companies during a pandemic.
The UK has already withdrawn from the EU’s emergency bulk-buying mechanism for vaccines and medicines, under which member states strike collective agreements with pharmaceutical companies, which speeds up their access to the latest products during a crisis.
The academics write: “For all these reasons ... the UK is likely to have to join the queue for access with other countries outside the EU, and to pay more than it would otherwise as an EU member state.
“Looking further ahead, this problem will not be limited to emergencies and the UK can expect slower and more limited access to medicines, especially those for rare conditions or those used to treat children, where the market is small.”
While it appears the UK government wants to press ahead with its own regulatory system and rapid market authorisation system for emergencies, the experts say this will be all but impossible to put in place in time for a new Covid-19 vaccine, which is expected in about a year.
“Vaccine makers and drug companies may decide to first seek approval from the EMA, which represents some 500 million patients, before seeking approval from the UK MHRA, which covers a smaller patient pool.”
The point here is not that this has proved to be totally untrue. None of us can predict the future.
Nobody can. Not totally untrue. The Guardian claim to be quoting 3 experts, obviously they werent.
It is that you have printed lots of these sorts of articles. And still do. Yet when they are proved to be totally incorrect, you don't mention it at all. Or say stuff like
I am contemplating employing a couple of people to plough throgh the Sky Poker forum archives, on a full time basis, to check on my old posts. I will let you know when I decide.
"With all due respect questions about Russia, German over 55s, Sputnik, EU medical agencies, Pfizer, Moderna, the EU vaccine roll out, Hungary, Malta, Israel, Brexit, the EUs survival, and the nature of politicians are completely irrelevant to this dispute."
With the best will in the world, how on earth could a dispute between the EU and AZ, on vaccine deliveries be relevant to any of the above.
Really? They are just as relevant as the disaster developing in Northern Ireland. Which, incidentally, is the fault of the EU as well as the UK. Unless by "completely irrelevant" you really mean "don't support my view that the EU is wonderful."
I dont believe that the EU is wonderful. I appreciate that some of their actions are ill judged, although many fewer than Boris. I am convinced that they havent been treated fairly by AZ. Dont start me off about the Irish border. I have made my feelings on this very clear on a number of occasions. Boris misled the DUP at their party conference, and denied there was an Irish Sea border after he had agreed to put one there. So I suppose we should blame the EU.
No, let's get back to the Irish border.
You are an intelligent man. You saw through what Boris was trying to do in an instant. You posted about it immediately.
Not defending Boris on this. It could only be through extreme ignorance as to the reality, or deliberately lying. For me, it is undoubtedly a mixture of the 2.
But let's look at the actions of the DUP, Fianna Fail, etc. Do you believe that the ruling parties of Northern Ireland/Ireland couldn't see fine well that Boris was either lying, ignorant as to the reality, or both? Really? You believe that no-one in the ruling parties of 2 countries is intelligent enough to see through Boris?
Could it be that the DUP made the political decision to keep quiet, so that Boris could take all the blame instead of them? Because I expect the DUP to have understood instantly what that border was, and how important it would be.
Could it be that Ireland Government decided that the likely ensuing economic dependence on Ireland from NI was worth the problems that would undoubtedly be faced by a lot of Irish people in the Borders or North West of Ireland, and kept quiet for that reason?
It is not only you that has a "just blame Boris" agenda.
I think Boris misled everyone over this. He was still claiming that there was no Irish Sea border after the agreement was done. He was on tv advising businesses that they could bin the extra paperwork, and that if anyone queried this they were to say that Boris said they could.
There was an easy solution to this which our government wouldnt consider,
I am reluctant to blame the EU. There has to be a border. The EU accepted that it couldnt be on the island of Ireland, the most logical place. They reached an agreement with Theresa May. They reached an alternative agreement with Boris. I believe that this points to their flexibility.
The problems will worsen when the grace periods end.
So NI remains subject to EU rules. Is separated from the rest of the UK. I believe this leaves the UK as the only country in the world with an internal customs border. It seems like the UK made it up as they went along. While the border exists there will be problems.
The most likely long term solution is for NI to leave the UK.
Even if the EU dont ratify the deal, and we end up with no deal, there will still have to be a border.
I hear what you say.
I'm sure Boris tried to mislead everyone. I just don't think he really did.
Unless you believe that 2 Governments did not look as closely as you about the most important Act for the island of Ireland in about 100 years.
Your "easy solution" would be political suicide. You do know that the full title of his party is traditionally "The Conservative and Unionist Party"? There was no easy solution. Just an array of ones with massive consequences. With all sides pretending otherwise.
NI may well leave the UK. Although I don't think that will be the end of the matter. And the solution might end up being (even) worse than now.
On the basis of there has to be a border whatever happens, that NI has to be part of two customs territories, and a land border is not possible, what do you think the solution is?
the risk i referred to was to get the contracts done early and not sit back and wait which the EU did .. i have no idea what that contract is but i guess as AZ is a private company that would have lawyers to make sure that any contract is watertight so as to not have to put up with scrutiny from the other side in a court ..
i will also say i agree with some that you seem to only post negative news articles and will not post any positive articles to just balance out your negative view on the UK .
Just want to mention 3 positive effects of Brexit.
1. The UK Government promised to give the electorate a free vote on Brexit, and to respect and implement the result. And-they did. 2. In your old Brexit thread, there was an article that purported to show how Brexit was going to mean that we were at the back of the queue for any vaccine. That there was no way that the UK was going to be able to match the speed with which the EU was going to be able to source vaccine. But it didn't work out like that, did it? Printed the pro-EU article. Forgot to print anything that showed it was wrong. 3. Everybody over the age of 50-like me, & Haysie, are less likely to die of Covid in the first 6 months of 2021, due to 2 above, than if we lived anywhere in the EU. For which I am profoundly grateful.
Ok, I cant recall the article, but I will take your word for it.
Kind of you. It's on Page 331. Here are the highlights:-
"Brexit means coronavirus vaccine will be slower to reach the UK And it will cost more here because of the UK pulling out of the European Medicines Agency on 30 December • Three experts explain why Brexit leaves the UK less able to respond to pandemic
The UK faces having to wait longer and pay more to acquire a coronavirus vaccine because it has left the EU, health experts and international legal experts warn today. Brexit means the UK will probably have to join other non-EU countries in a queue to acquire the vaccine after EU member states have had it, and on less-favourable terms.
The UK will leave the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the body responsible for the scientific evaluation, supervision and safety monitoring of medicines, at the end of the transition period on 30 December. This means it will no longer be part of the EU’s regulatory regime, which allows for “accelerated assessment” of products developed by drugs companies during a pandemic.
The UK has already withdrawn from the EU’s emergency bulk-buying mechanism for vaccines and medicines, under which member states strike collective agreements with pharmaceutical companies, which speeds up their access to the latest products during a crisis.
The academics write: “For all these reasons ... the UK is likely to have to join the queue for access with other countries outside the EU, and to pay more than it would otherwise as an EU member state.
“Looking further ahead, this problem will not be limited to emergencies and the UK can expect slower and more limited access to medicines, especially those for rare conditions or those used to treat children, where the market is small.”
While it appears the UK government wants to press ahead with its own regulatory system and rapid market authorisation system for emergencies, the experts say this will be all but impossible to put in place in time for a new Covid-19 vaccine, which is expected in about a year.
“Vaccine makers and drug companies may decide to first seek approval from the EMA, which represents some 500 million patients, before seeking approval from the UK MHRA, which covers a smaller patient pool.”
The point here is not that this has proved to be totally untrue. None of us can predict the future.
Nobody can. Not totally untrue. The Guardian claim to be quoting 3 experts, obviously they werent.
It is that you have printed lots of these sorts of articles. And still do. Yet when they are proved to be totally incorrect, you don't mention it at all. Or say stuff like
I am contemplating employing a couple of people to plough throgh the Sky Poker forum archives, on a full time basis, to check on my old posts. I will let you know when I decide.
"With all due respect questions about Russia, German over 55s, Sputnik, EU medical agencies, Pfizer, Moderna, the EU vaccine roll out, Hungary, Malta, Israel, Brexit, the EUs survival, and the nature of politicians are completely irrelevant to this dispute."
With the best will in the world, how on earth could a dispute between the EU and AZ, on vaccine deliveries be relevant to any of the above.
Really? They are just as relevant as the disaster developing in Northern Ireland. Which, incidentally, is the fault of the EU as well as the UK. Unless by "completely irrelevant" you really mean "don't support my view that the EU is wonderful."
I dont believe that the EU is wonderful. I appreciate that some of their actions are ill judged, although many fewer than Boris. I am convinced that they havent been treated fairly by AZ. Dont start me off about the Irish border. I have made my feelings on this very clear on a number of occasions. Boris misled the DUP at their party conference, and denied there was an Irish Sea border after he had agreed to put one there. So I suppose we should blame the EU.
No, let's get back to the Irish border.
You are an intelligent man. You saw through what Boris was trying to do in an instant. You posted about it immediately.
Not defending Boris on this. It could only be through extreme ignorance as to the reality, or deliberately lying. For me, it is undoubtedly a mixture of the 2.
But let's look at the actions of the DUP, Fianna Fail, etc. Do you believe that the ruling parties of Northern Ireland/Ireland couldn't see fine well that Boris was either lying, ignorant as to the reality, or both? Really? You believe that no-one in the ruling parties of 2 countries is intelligent enough to see through Boris?
Could it be that the DUP made the political decision to keep quiet, so that Boris could take all the blame instead of them? Because I expect the DUP to have understood instantly what that border was, and how important it would be.
Could it be that Ireland Government decided that the likely ensuing economic dependence on Ireland from NI was worth the problems that would undoubtedly be faced by a lot of Irish people in the Borders or North West of Ireland, and kept quiet for that reason?
It is not only you that has a "just blame Boris" agenda.
I think Boris misled everyone over this. He was still claiming that there was no Irish Sea border after the agreement was done. He was on tv advising businesses that they could bin the extra paperwork, and that if anyone queried this they were to say that Boris said they could.
There was an easy solution to this which our government wouldnt consider,
I am reluctant to blame the EU. There has to be a border. The EU accepted that it couldnt be on the island of Ireland, the most logical place. They reached an agreement with Theresa May. They reached an alternative agreement with Boris. I believe that this points to their flexibility.
The problems will worsen when the grace periods end.
So NI remains subject to EU rules. Is separated from the rest of the UK. I believe this leaves the UK as the only country in the world with an internal customs border. It seems like the UK made it up as they went along. While the border exists there will be problems.
The most likely long term solution is for NI to leave the UK.
Even if the EU dont ratify the deal, and we end up with no deal, there will still have to be a border.
I hear what you say.
I'm sure Boris tried to mislead everyone. I just don't think he really did.
Unless you believe that 2 Governments did not look as closely as you about the most important Act for the island of Ireland in about 100 years.
Your "easy solution" would be political suicide. You do know that the full title of his party is traditionally "The Conservative and Unionist Party"? There was no easy solution. Just an array of ones with massive consequences. With all sides pretending otherwise.
NI may well leave the UK. Although I don't think that will be the end of the matter. And the solution might end up being (even) worse than now.
The obvious easy solution I was thinking of was staying in the single market/customs union. The position that NI is in, and Boris described as the best of both worlds. What Boris was saying was in contradiction to what was agreed, and many believed him. WTO rules require a border so no deal is not a solution.
That is most certainly not an "easy" solution. Is it the 1 you wanted? Yes Is it the 1 I wanted? Yes.
But the majority of the public voted to leave.
And then the public voted overwhelmingly in favour of a Party that was in the grip of the wing of its party that wanted a more right-wing solution.
That's what democracy can do. It can result in things that you and I do not like. That may well have significant downsides that the public do not fully grasp.
Where we differ is that I am looking at where we actually are. Whereas you are focusing on where you think we could/would or should have been. If people had only listened to you and me then.
But they didn't. I'm not England replaying the world cup win. You are still claiming that the goal was offside, and the result should not stand. When it is never going to change.
You make a lot of assumptions about me, and many of them are wrong. I am very much where we are now. I would have adopted a blind eye if the goal was offside. The public may well have voted to leave but NI remains in the cu/sm, and are subject to EU rules. What do you think is going to happen if the NI Assembly votes to end the protocol. Back to square one? A very well thought out plan?
the risk i referred to was to get the contracts done early and not sit back and wait which the EU did .. i have no idea what that contract is but i guess as AZ is a private company that would have lawyers to make sure that any contract is watertight so as to not have to put up with scrutiny from the other side in a court ..
i will also say i agree with some that you seem to only post negative news articles and will not post any positive articles to just balance out your negative view on the UK .
Just want to mention 3 positive effects of Brexit.
1. The UK Government promised to give the electorate a free vote on Brexit, and to respect and implement the result. And-they did. 2. In your old Brexit thread, there was an article that purported to show how Brexit was going to mean that we were at the back of the queue for any vaccine. That there was no way that the UK was going to be able to match the speed with which the EU was going to be able to source vaccine. But it didn't work out like that, did it? Printed the pro-EU article. Forgot to print anything that showed it was wrong. 3. Everybody over the age of 50-like me, & Haysie, are less likely to die of Covid in the first 6 months of 2021, due to 2 above, than if we lived anywhere in the EU. For which I am profoundly grateful.
Ok, I cant recall the article, but I will take your word for it.
Kind of you. It's on Page 331. Here are the highlights:-
"Brexit means coronavirus vaccine will be slower to reach the UK And it will cost more here because of the UK pulling out of the European Medicines Agency on 30 December • Three experts explain why Brexit leaves the UK less able to respond to pandemic
The UK faces having to wait longer and pay more to acquire a coronavirus vaccine because it has left the EU, health experts and international legal experts warn today. Brexit means the UK will probably have to join other non-EU countries in a queue to acquire the vaccine after EU member states have had it, and on less-favourable terms.
The UK will leave the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the body responsible for the scientific evaluation, supervision and safety monitoring of medicines, at the end of the transition period on 30 December. This means it will no longer be part of the EU’s regulatory regime, which allows for “accelerated assessment” of products developed by drugs companies during a pandemic.
The UK has already withdrawn from the EU’s emergency bulk-buying mechanism for vaccines and medicines, under which member states strike collective agreements with pharmaceutical companies, which speeds up their access to the latest products during a crisis.
The academics write: “For all these reasons ... the UK is likely to have to join the queue for access with other countries outside the EU, and to pay more than it would otherwise as an EU member state.
“Looking further ahead, this problem will not be limited to emergencies and the UK can expect slower and more limited access to medicines, especially those for rare conditions or those used to treat children, where the market is small.”
While it appears the UK government wants to press ahead with its own regulatory system and rapid market authorisation system for emergencies, the experts say this will be all but impossible to put in place in time for a new Covid-19 vaccine, which is expected in about a year.
“Vaccine makers and drug companies may decide to first seek approval from the EMA, which represents some 500 million patients, before seeking approval from the UK MHRA, which covers a smaller patient pool.”
The point here is not that this has proved to be totally untrue. None of us can predict the future.
Nobody can. Not totally untrue. The Guardian claim to be quoting 3 experts, obviously they werent.
It is that you have printed lots of these sorts of articles. And still do. Yet when they are proved to be totally incorrect, you don't mention it at all. Or say stuff like
I am contemplating employing a couple of people to plough throgh the Sky Poker forum archives, on a full time basis, to check on my old posts. I will let you know when I decide.
"With all due respect questions about Russia, German over 55s, Sputnik, EU medical agencies, Pfizer, Moderna, the EU vaccine roll out, Hungary, Malta, Israel, Brexit, the EUs survival, and the nature of politicians are completely irrelevant to this dispute."
With the best will in the world, how on earth could a dispute between the EU and AZ, on vaccine deliveries be relevant to any of the above.
Really? They are just as relevant as the disaster developing in Northern Ireland. Which, incidentally, is the fault of the EU as well as the UK. Unless by "completely irrelevant" you really mean "don't support my view that the EU is wonderful."
I dont believe that the EU is wonderful. I appreciate that some of their actions are ill judged, although many fewer than Boris. I am convinced that they havent been treated fairly by AZ. Dont start me off about the Irish border. I have made my feelings on this very clear on a number of occasions. Boris misled the DUP at their party conference, and denied there was an Irish Sea border after he had agreed to put one there. So I suppose we should blame the EU.
No, let's get back to the Irish border.
You are an intelligent man. You saw through what Boris was trying to do in an instant. You posted about it immediately.
Not defending Boris on this. It could only be through extreme ignorance as to the reality, or deliberately lying. For me, it is undoubtedly a mixture of the 2.
But let's look at the actions of the DUP, Fianna Fail, etc. Do you believe that the ruling parties of Northern Ireland/Ireland couldn't see fine well that Boris was either lying, ignorant as to the reality, or both? Really? You believe that no-one in the ruling parties of 2 countries is intelligent enough to see through Boris?
Could it be that the DUP made the political decision to keep quiet, so that Boris could take all the blame instead of them? Because I expect the DUP to have understood instantly what that border was, and how important it would be.
Could it be that Ireland Government decided that the likely ensuing economic dependence on Ireland from NI was worth the problems that would undoubtedly be faced by a lot of Irish people in the Borders or North West of Ireland, and kept quiet for that reason?
It is not only you that has a "just blame Boris" agenda.
I think Boris misled everyone over this. He was still claiming that there was no Irish Sea border after the agreement was done. He was on tv advising businesses that they could bin the extra paperwork, and that if anyone queried this they were to say that Boris said they could.
There was an easy solution to this which our government wouldnt consider,
I am reluctant to blame the EU. There has to be a border. The EU accepted that it couldnt be on the island of Ireland, the most logical place. They reached an agreement with Theresa May. They reached an alternative agreement with Boris. I believe that this points to their flexibility.
The problems will worsen when the grace periods end.
So NI remains subject to EU rules. Is separated from the rest of the UK. I believe this leaves the UK as the only country in the world with an internal customs border. It seems like the UK made it up as they went along. While the border exists there will be problems.
The most likely long term solution is for NI to leave the UK.
Even if the EU dont ratify the deal, and we end up with no deal, there will still have to be a border.
I hear what you say.
I'm sure Boris tried to mislead everyone. I just don't think he really did.
Unless you believe that 2 Governments did not look as closely as you about the most important Act for the island of Ireland in about 100 years.
Your "easy solution" would be political suicide. You do know that the full title of his party is traditionally "The Conservative and Unionist Party"? There was no easy solution. Just an array of ones with massive consequences. With all sides pretending otherwise.
NI may well leave the UK. Although I don't think that will be the end of the matter. And the solution might end up being (even) worse than now.
On the basis of there has to be a border whatever happens, that NI has to be part of two customs territories, and a land border is not possible, what do you think the solution is?
Got to admire you. Keep asking me questions. Keep refusing to answer any of mine. And desperately hoping no-one notices
The simple answer, in common with many things pertaining to NI, the UK's treatment of NI and Ireland and, to a lesser extent, Ireland's treatment of the UK, is that there is no simple answer.
What would I like, in an ideal world? Compromise. For example, for economic purposes, NI to leave the UK and join the EEA. and Ireland to leave the EU and join the EEA. While remaining 2 separate countries politically.
But that is not likely. Compromise seems to unite the UK, NI, and Ireland only in a determination to resist compromise with one another. At all and any cost.
the risk i referred to was to get the contracts done early and not sit back and wait which the EU did .. i have no idea what that contract is but i guess as AZ is a private company that would have lawyers to make sure that any contract is watertight so as to not have to put up with scrutiny from the other side in a court ..
i will also say i agree with some that you seem to only post negative news articles and will not post any positive articles to just balance out your negative view on the UK .
Just want to mention 3 positive effects of Brexit.
1. The UK Government promised to give the electorate a free vote on Brexit, and to respect and implement the result. And-they did. 2. In your old Brexit thread, there was an article that purported to show how Brexit was going to mean that we were at the back of the queue for any vaccine. That there was no way that the UK was going to be able to match the speed with which the EU was going to be able to source vaccine. But it didn't work out like that, did it? Printed the pro-EU article. Forgot to print anything that showed it was wrong. 3. Everybody over the age of 50-like me, & Haysie, are less likely to die of Covid in the first 6 months of 2021, due to 2 above, than if we lived anywhere in the EU. For which I am profoundly grateful.
Ok, I cant recall the article, but I will take your word for it.
Kind of you. It's on Page 331. Here are the highlights:-
"Brexit means coronavirus vaccine will be slower to reach the UK And it will cost more here because of the UK pulling out of the European Medicines Agency on 30 December • Three experts explain why Brexit leaves the UK less able to respond to pandemic
The UK faces having to wait longer and pay more to acquire a coronavirus vaccine because it has left the EU, health experts and international legal experts warn today. Brexit means the UK will probably have to join other non-EU countries in a queue to acquire the vaccine after EU member states have had it, and on less-favourable terms.
The UK will leave the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the body responsible for the scientific evaluation, supervision and safety monitoring of medicines, at the end of the transition period on 30 December. This means it will no longer be part of the EU’s regulatory regime, which allows for “accelerated assessment” of products developed by drugs companies during a pandemic.
The UK has already withdrawn from the EU’s emergency bulk-buying mechanism for vaccines and medicines, under which member states strike collective agreements with pharmaceutical companies, which speeds up their access to the latest products during a crisis.
The academics write: “For all these reasons ... the UK is likely to have to join the queue for access with other countries outside the EU, and to pay more than it would otherwise as an EU member state.
“Looking further ahead, this problem will not be limited to emergencies and the UK can expect slower and more limited access to medicines, especially those for rare conditions or those used to treat children, where the market is small.”
While it appears the UK government wants to press ahead with its own regulatory system and rapid market authorisation system for emergencies, the experts say this will be all but impossible to put in place in time for a new Covid-19 vaccine, which is expected in about a year.
“Vaccine makers and drug companies may decide to first seek approval from the EMA, which represents some 500 million patients, before seeking approval from the UK MHRA, which covers a smaller patient pool.”
The point here is not that this has proved to be totally untrue. None of us can predict the future.
Nobody can. Not totally untrue. The Guardian claim to be quoting 3 experts, obviously they werent.
It is that you have printed lots of these sorts of articles. And still do. Yet when they are proved to be totally incorrect, you don't mention it at all. Or say stuff like
I am contemplating employing a couple of people to plough throgh the Sky Poker forum archives, on a full time basis, to check on my old posts. I will let you know when I decide.
"With all due respect questions about Russia, German over 55s, Sputnik, EU medical agencies, Pfizer, Moderna, the EU vaccine roll out, Hungary, Malta, Israel, Brexit, the EUs survival, and the nature of politicians are completely irrelevant to this dispute."
With the best will in the world, how on earth could a dispute between the EU and AZ, on vaccine deliveries be relevant to any of the above.
Really? They are just as relevant as the disaster developing in Northern Ireland. Which, incidentally, is the fault of the EU as well as the UK. Unless by "completely irrelevant" you really mean "don't support my view that the EU is wonderful."
I dont believe that the EU is wonderful. I appreciate that some of their actions are ill judged, although many fewer than Boris. I am convinced that they havent been treated fairly by AZ. Dont start me off about the Irish border. I have made my feelings on this very clear on a number of occasions. Boris misled the DUP at their party conference, and denied there was an Irish Sea border after he had agreed to put one there. So I suppose we should blame the EU.
No, let's get back to the Irish border.
You are an intelligent man. You saw through what Boris was trying to do in an instant. You posted about it immediately.
Not defending Boris on this. It could only be through extreme ignorance as to the reality, or deliberately lying. For me, it is undoubtedly a mixture of the 2.
But let's look at the actions of the DUP, Fianna Fail, etc. Do you believe that the ruling parties of Northern Ireland/Ireland couldn't see fine well that Boris was either lying, ignorant as to the reality, or both? Really? You believe that no-one in the ruling parties of 2 countries is intelligent enough to see through Boris?
Could it be that the DUP made the political decision to keep quiet, so that Boris could take all the blame instead of them? Because I expect the DUP to have understood instantly what that border was, and how important it would be.
Could it be that Ireland Government decided that the likely ensuing economic dependence on Ireland from NI was worth the problems that would undoubtedly be faced by a lot of Irish people in the Borders or North West of Ireland, and kept quiet for that reason?
It is not only you that has a "just blame Boris" agenda.
I think Boris misled everyone over this. He was still claiming that there was no Irish Sea border after the agreement was done. He was on tv advising businesses that they could bin the extra paperwork, and that if anyone queried this they were to say that Boris said they could.
There was an easy solution to this which our government wouldnt consider,
I am reluctant to blame the EU. There has to be a border. The EU accepted that it couldnt be on the island of Ireland, the most logical place. They reached an agreement with Theresa May. They reached an alternative agreement with Boris. I believe that this points to their flexibility.
The problems will worsen when the grace periods end.
So NI remains subject to EU rules. Is separated from the rest of the UK. I believe this leaves the UK as the only country in the world with an internal customs border. It seems like the UK made it up as they went along. While the border exists there will be problems.
The most likely long term solution is for NI to leave the UK.
Even if the EU dont ratify the deal, and we end up with no deal, there will still have to be a border.
I hear what you say.
I'm sure Boris tried to mislead everyone. I just don't think he really did.
Unless you believe that 2 Governments did not look as closely as you about the most important Act for the island of Ireland in about 100 years.
Your "easy solution" would be political suicide. You do know that the full title of his party is traditionally "The Conservative and Unionist Party"? There was no easy solution. Just an array of ones with massive consequences. With all sides pretending otherwise.
NI may well leave the UK. Although I don't think that will be the end of the matter. And the solution might end up being (even) worse than now.
The obvious easy solution I was thinking of was staying in the single market/customs union. The position that NI is in, and Boris described as the best of both worlds. What Boris was saying was in contradiction to what was agreed, and many believed him. WTO rules require a border so no deal is not a solution.
That is most certainly not an "easy" solution. Is it the 1 you wanted? Yes Is it the 1 I wanted? Yes.
But the majority of the public voted to leave.
And then the public voted overwhelmingly in favour of a Party that was in the grip of the wing of its party that wanted a more right-wing solution.
That's what democracy can do. It can result in things that you and I do not like. That may well have significant downsides that the public do not fully grasp.
Where we differ is that I am looking at where we actually are. Whereas you are focusing on where you think we could/would or should have been. If people had only listened to you and me then.
But they didn't. I'm not England replaying the world cup win. You are still claiming that the goal was offside, and the result should not stand. When it is never going to change.
You make a lot of assumptions about me, and many of them are wrong. I am very much where we are now. I would have adopted a blind eye if the goal was offside. The public may well have voted to leave but NI remains in the cu/sm, and are subject to EU rules. What do you think is going to happen if the NI Assembly votes to end the protocol. Back to square one? A very well thought out plan?
It is a terrible plan.
But then again, it is no more terrible than all the other realistic solutions. You believe the NI Assembly will take charge, and take any of the blame themselves? Not likely.
More micromanagment The U.K. contract is also more clear in how it will monitor the delivery of the doses, as well as what happens if the company doesn't come through.
Although the delivery schedule itself is redacted, the U.K. contract clearly states that AstraZeneca shall notify the British government about any changes to the schedule and use its “Best Reasonable Efforts to keep as close to the original” delivery schedule. The company also has 30 days to notify the U.K. ahead of its delivery about the number of doses it should expect.
Once that happens, “AstraZeneca may not adjust the Delivery Schedule without the prior consent” of the British government.
An exception: AstraZeneca isn't in violation if there's a “minor variance” to the delivery schedules, up to five business days, “due to the unpredictable nature of the Manufacturing of the Products” — as long as the U.K. is notified within a reasonable timeframe.
The EU contract, by contrast, doesn't go into this level of detail about notification when manufacturing plans change. But it does have another remedy in the Belgian system, De Rey explains: If a company is in breach of a contract, the other party can appoint another producer to do the job at the expense of the company in breach.
Indeed, the Commission's contract says it or EU countries can present plans to boost production and "AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts" to contact producers “to increase the available manufacturing capacity within the EU," it states.
The problem with this provision, however, is it doesn't ensure a rapid timeline, which is crucial amid a global race to vaccinate populations.
Furthermore, the U.K. contract gave more clear powers to managers on the ground in executing and validating the contract, while the EU contract focused more on ensuring equitable distribution of the vaccines between each EU country.
The EU contract also says the Commission and EU countries should use their “Best Reasonable Efforts” to help AstraZeneca secure enough drug substance, vials and other materials to produce its vaccines, and the company should report to the Commission in “regular intervals” on whether it can meet its supply promises. AstraZeneca will "promptly notify the Commission if it encounters difficulties in this regard that place at significant risk AstraZeneca’s ability to manufacture or sell the Vaccine Doses as contemplated by this Agreement," it reads.
What this meant on the ground: When AstraZeneca faced supply issues at the start of 2021, it gave the EU little notice. It informed the Commission that the EU would receive at least 70 million fewer doses in the first quarter of 2021 just a week ahead of the European Medicines Agency’s expected approval date. The company still has not updated the EU on what it can provide them in the second quarter of the year.
To be sure, the EU contract says Brussels may suspend payments if AstraZeneca fails to deliver, and it specifically states that AstraZeneca may not have any impending contracts that would hinder its ability to supply the EU. But it also states that if AstraZeneca’s performance is “impeded by any such competing agreements, AstraZeneca shall not be deemed in breach” of its agreement with the EU.
And in the end, the EU waived its right to take AstraZeneca to court if there are delivery delays.
This article is part of POLITICO’s premium policy service: Pro Health Care. From drug pricing, EMA, vaccines, pharma and more, our specialized journalists keep you on top of the topics driving the health care policy agenda. Email pro@politico.eu for a complimentary trial.
MORE FROM ... ANNA ISAAC AND JILLIAN DEUTSCH
Most Read Articles 1 Boris Johnson’s most senior Black aide has quit APRIL 1, 2021 8:10 AM 2 Merkel and Spahn: No more Oxford/AstraZeneca jabs for under 60s MARCH 30, 2021 11:26 PM 3 EU regulator: No evidence to support restriction of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine MARCH 31, 2021 5:50 PM 4 Court orders Belgium to end coronavirus measures due to insufficient legal basis MARCH 31, 2021 3:47 PM 5 Austria threatens to halt EU’s 100M vaccine buy until it gets greater share of jabs MARCH 30, 2021 1:03 PM
View the Latest Issue
READ THE LATEST PRINT ISSUE ONLINE
I regard my self as a fair minded person. I am clear on what is right and wrong. If I thought that the EU was in the wrong I wouldnt hesitate to say so.
This dispute is simple. I have often found that when people go into a long story it is often in an attempt to camouflage the truth.
In a nutshell AZ contracted to deliver 270 million doses of vaccine to the EU by the end of the second quarter of this year. They now plan to deliver just 101 million. AZ have blamed production delays for the shortfall. Thats it end of. That is the dispute.
The EU have got the hump, and in my view quite rightly so. The fact that the UK supply has remained unaffected by the production delays has exacerbated the situation. How is this possible? AZ put forward a number of other excuses, which were later found to be untrue. How can production delays affect one contract, and not the other.
A few justifications have been put forward. Like the UK invested in AZ upfront. Yes they did, but the EU invested four times as much. The UK signed their contract first. The EU had signed their contract the day before the UK, in late August last year. This was subsequent the EU signing an agreement in June last year.
AZ have supplied the UK in full. This is despite the EU signing a contract first, signing an agreement months before, investing 4 times as much as the UK, as well as ordering 4 times as many doses.
As a result the EU have threatened all sorts which obviously winds people up in this country but is probably popular amongst EU citizens.
They are not asking for all of it at the expense of the UK.
All they are asking for is reciprocity.
Who can really blame them?
i guess it comes down to the wording within the contract that has been signed .... As to if AZ has broken it .
the article explains the EU signed there contract on there agreed terms which the article goes into detail of and compares to the UK terms ..Yes they did sign on the 27th and the UK a day later .
rightly or wrongly i cannot see that AZ have broken the terms of the EU contract as there is a section where if there is any dispute sets out the terms if the EU feel its been broken... surly they read and understood what they was signing , the last paragraph says
To be sure, the EU contract says Brussels may suspend payments if AstraZeneca fails to deliver, and it specifically states that AstraZeneca may not have any impending contracts that would hinder its ability to supply the EU. But it also states that if AstraZeneca’s performance is “impeded by any such competing agreements, AstraZeneca shall not be deemed in breach” of its agreement with the EU.
And in the end, the EU waived its right to take AstraZeneca to court if there are delivery delays.
I'm no expert so my interpretation is that AZ will make there best effort but if they fail then they have covered themselves ..
it does not give any guarantee just because they ordered 4 x more .
the UK contract has penalty clause which could be why the UK has not had any great delay
the article is very long and the lawyer is explaining the difference between the 2 contracts so I'm not trying to camouflage the truth .
More micromanagment The U.K. contract is also more clear in how it will monitor the delivery of the doses, as well as what happens if the company doesn't come through.
Although the delivery schedule itself is redacted, the U.K. contract clearly states that AstraZeneca shall notify the British government about any changes to the schedule and use its “Best Reasonable Efforts to keep as close to the original” delivery schedule. The company also has 30 days to notify the U.K. ahead of its delivery about the number of doses it should expect.
Once that happens, “AstraZeneca may not adjust the Delivery Schedule without the prior consent” of the British government.
An exception: AstraZeneca isn't in violation if there's a “minor variance” to the delivery schedules, up to five business days, “due to the unpredictable nature of the Manufacturing of the Products” — as long as the U.K. is notified within a reasonable timeframe.
The EU contract, by contrast, doesn't go into this level of detail about notification when manufacturing plans change. But it does have another remedy in the Belgian system, De Rey explains: If a company is in breach of a contract, the other party can appoint another producer to do the job at the expense of the company in breach.
Indeed, the Commission's contract says it or EU countries can present plans to boost production and "AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts" to contact producers “to increase the available manufacturing capacity within the EU," it states.
The problem with this provision, however, is it doesn't ensure a rapid timeline, which is crucial amid a global race to vaccinate populations.
Furthermore, the U.K. contract gave more clear powers to managers on the ground in executing and validating the contract, while the EU contract focused more on ensuring equitable distribution of the vaccines between each EU country.
The EU contract also says the Commission and EU countries should use their “Best Reasonable Efforts” to help AstraZeneca secure enough drug substance, vials and other materials to produce its vaccines, and the company should report to the Commission in “regular intervals” on whether it can meet its supply promises. AstraZeneca will "promptly notify the Commission if it encounters difficulties in this regard that place at significant risk AstraZeneca’s ability to manufacture or sell the Vaccine Doses as contemplated by this Agreement," it reads.
What this meant on the ground: When AstraZeneca faced supply issues at the start of 2021, it gave the EU little notice. It informed the Commission that the EU would receive at least 70 million fewer doses in the first quarter of 2021 just a week ahead of the European Medicines Agency’s expected approval date. The company still has not updated the EU on what it can provide them in the second quarter of the year.
To be sure, the EU contract says Brussels may suspend payments if AstraZeneca fails to deliver, and it specifically states that AstraZeneca may not have any impending contracts that would hinder its ability to supply the EU. But it also states that if AstraZeneca’s performance is “impeded by any such competing agreements, AstraZeneca shall not be deemed in breach” of its agreement with the EU.
And in the end, the EU waived its right to take AstraZeneca to court if there are delivery delays.
This article is part of POLITICO’s premium policy service: Pro Health Care. From drug pricing, EMA, vaccines, pharma and more, our specialized journalists keep you on top of the topics driving the health care policy agenda. Email pro@politico.eu for a complimentary trial.
MORE FROM ... ANNA ISAAC AND JILLIAN DEUTSCH
Most Read Articles 1 Boris Johnson’s most senior Black aide has quit APRIL 1, 2021 8:10 AM 2 Merkel and Spahn: No more Oxford/AstraZeneca jabs for under 60s MARCH 30, 2021 11:26 PM 3 EU regulator: No evidence to support restriction of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine MARCH 31, 2021 5:50 PM 4 Court orders Belgium to end coronavirus measures due to insufficient legal basis MARCH 31, 2021 3:47 PM 5 Austria threatens to halt EU’s 100M vaccine buy until it gets greater share of jabs MARCH 30, 2021 1:03 PM
View the Latest Issue
READ THE LATEST PRINT ISSUE ONLINE
I regard my self as a fair minded person. I am clear on what is right and wrong. If I thought that the EU was in the wrong I wouldnt hesitate to say so.
This dispute is simple. I have often found that when people go into a long story it is often in an attempt to camouflage the truth.
In a nutshell AZ contracted to deliver 270 million doses of vaccine to the EU by the end of the second quarter of this year. They now plan to deliver just 101 million. AZ have blamed production delays for the shortfall. Thats it end of. That is the dispute.
The EU have got the hump, and in my view quite rightly so. The fact that the UK supply has remained unaffected by the production delays has exacerbated the situation. How is this possible? AZ put forward a number of other excuses, which were later found to be untrue. How can production delays affect one contract, and not the other.
A few justifications have been put forward. Like the UK invested in AZ upfront. Yes they did, but the EU invested four times as much. The UK signed their contract first. The EU had signed their contract the day before the UK, in late August last year. This was subsequent the EU signing an agreement in June last year.
AZ have supplied the UK in full. This is despite the EU signing a contract first, signing an agreement months before, investing 4 times as much as the UK, as well as ordering 4 times as many doses.
As a result the EU have threatened all sorts which obviously winds people up in this country but is probably popular amongst EU citizens.
They are not asking for all of it at the expense of the UK.
All they are asking for is reciprocity.
Who can really blame them?
i guess it comes down to the wording within the contract that has been signed .... As to if AZ has broken it .
the article explains the EU signed there contract on there agreed terms which the article goes into detail of and compares to the UK terms ..Yes they did sign on the 27th and the UK a day later .
rightly or wrongly i cannot see that AZ have broken the terms of the EU contract as there is a section where if there is any dispute sets out the terms if the EU feel its been broken... surly they read and understood what they was signing , the last paragraph says
To be sure, the EU contract says Brussels may suspend payments if AstraZeneca fails to deliver, and it specifically states that AstraZeneca may not have any impending contracts that would hinder its ability to supply the EU. But it also states that if AstraZeneca’s performance is “impeded by any such competing agreements, AstraZeneca shall not be deemed in breach” of its agreement with the EU.
And in the end, the EU waived its right to take AstraZeneca to court if there are delivery delays.
I'm no expert so my interpretation is that AZ will make there best effort but if they fail then they have covered themselves ..
it does not give any guarantee just because they ordered 4 x more .
the UK contract has penalty clause which could be why the UK has not had any great delay
the article is very long and the lawyer is explaining the difference between the 2 contracts so I'm not trying to camouflage the truth .
But they have already said that they are going to do worse in quarter 2 than they did in quarter 1.
1. Really? You get to decide what time period qualified as an allowable benefit? You do know that you have created thousands of posts bout the evils of Brexit in that timeframe, don't you?
I do. That was the old, discontinued, not updated thread. This is the new post Brexit thread. Surely a Brexit benefit can only be something that has improved after we have left, rather than something that occurred while we were still members.
3. On threads created by you, you believe that anything any politician says, or anything that anyone who disagrees with you are fair game, but anything you say is off limits. Really? It got demoted to page 8 because you scared everyone else off. My best friend was an avid Remainer, and will always be anti-Boris. As he said to me last week:- "The bit that really p1sses me off, is that the whole vaccine saga shows that we were lied to just as much by Remainers as Leavers."
Again untrue. In fact I rarely believe UK politicians. It got demoted to page 8 because I stopped posting on it. We had left the EU, and I thought it time for a new thread. Posting an article does not somehow certify the veracity of it, it merely creates an opportunity to debate the contents. I dont follow your friends argument.
4. This is the difference between theory and practice in the real world. In theory, we could have. But that conveniently ignores these facts:- (1) But for Brexit, we would still be in the EU
Obviously.
(2) We would just have had a referendum confirming our commitment to the EU
?
(3) In a club of 28 Members, no-one agreed to go it alone except for the 1 that was leaving the club
True.
(4) The EMA would still have been based in the UK-how easy would it be to say that we don't want to trust a UK-based agency? (5) The MHRA would in many respects still have been under the EMA-how easy would it have been to plan a solo mission? Particularly, a quicker 1 than the UK-based EU one? (6) The EU was already tired of us only following the EU when it suited us-just how much reputational damage would we have suffered, immediately after a referendum saying we should remain tied to Europe?
You see, these are facts. Providing context as to why your fact is true, but not realistic.
These are not facts, it seems you are trying to rewrite history.
In 2021, you are considerably less likely to die of Covid in the UK, as opposed to the EU. So (for example) Angela Merkel has not yet been allowed to have a vaccine. Most of Europe is entering a 3rd lockdown. We have a Regulator that understands that "an abundance of caution" costs lives. And a country that has acted decisively on vaccines. While the EU did not.
We used to have the highest death rate in Europe, although I havent checked it for a bit.
But you hide from this. I'm sure you genuinely believe that these are not good results from Brexit. Just like I am sure that you are in an ever-dwindling minority. Just like you hide from answering questions. Because you don't like the answers.
I am happy to answer questions that are pertinent. Just not keen on pointless quizes.' I am not hiding from anything.
Which is a shame. Because I genuinely like you. And I'm always interested in what you have to say. Even when I profoundly disagree with you.
the risk i referred to was to get the contracts done early and not sit back and wait which the EU did .. i have no idea what that contract is but i guess as AZ is a private company that would have lawyers to make sure that any contract is watertight so as to not have to put up with scrutiny from the other side in a court ..
i will also say i agree with some that you seem to only post negative news articles and will not post any positive articles to just balance out your negative view on the UK .
Just want to mention 3 positive effects of Brexit.
1. The UK Government promised to give the electorate a free vote on Brexit, and to respect and implement the result. And-they did. 2. In your old Brexit thread, there was an article that purported to show how Brexit was going to mean that we were at the back of the queue for any vaccine. That there was no way that the UK was going to be able to match the speed with which the EU was going to be able to source vaccine. But it didn't work out like that, did it? Printed the pro-EU article. Forgot to print anything that showed it was wrong. 3. Everybody over the age of 50-like me, & Haysie, are less likely to die of Covid in the first 6 months of 2021, due to 2 above, than if we lived anywhere in the EU. For which I am profoundly grateful.
Ok, I cant recall the article, but I will take your word for it.
Kind of you. It's on Page 331. Here are the highlights:-
"Brexit means coronavirus vaccine will be slower to reach the UK And it will cost more here because of the UK pulling out of the European Medicines Agency on 30 December • Three experts explain why Brexit leaves the UK less able to respond to pandemic
The UK faces having to wait longer and pay more to acquire a coronavirus vaccine because it has left the EU, health experts and international legal experts warn today. Brexit means the UK will probably have to join other non-EU countries in a queue to acquire the vaccine after EU member states have had it, and on less-favourable terms.
The UK will leave the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the body responsible for the scientific evaluation, supervision and safety monitoring of medicines, at the end of the transition period on 30 December. This means it will no longer be part of the EU’s regulatory regime, which allows for “accelerated assessment” of products developed by drugs companies during a pandemic.
The UK has already withdrawn from the EU’s emergency bulk-buying mechanism for vaccines and medicines, under which member states strike collective agreements with pharmaceutical companies, which speeds up their access to the latest products during a crisis.
The academics write: “For all these reasons ... the UK is likely to have to join the queue for access with other countries outside the EU, and to pay more than it would otherwise as an EU member state.
“Looking further ahead, this problem will not be limited to emergencies and the UK can expect slower and more limited access to medicines, especially those for rare conditions or those used to treat children, where the market is small.”
While it appears the UK government wants to press ahead with its own regulatory system and rapid market authorisation system for emergencies, the experts say this will be all but impossible to put in place in time for a new Covid-19 vaccine, which is expected in about a year.
“Vaccine makers and drug companies may decide to first seek approval from the EMA, which represents some 500 million patients, before seeking approval from the UK MHRA, which covers a smaller patient pool.”
The point here is not that this has proved to be totally untrue. None of us can predict the future.
Nobody can. Not totally untrue. The Guardian claim to be quoting 3 experts, obviously they werent.
It is that you have printed lots of these sorts of articles. And still do. Yet when they are proved to be totally incorrect, you don't mention it at all. Or say stuff like
I am contemplating employing a couple of people to plough throgh the Sky Poker forum archives, on a full time basis, to check on my old posts. I will let you know when I decide.
"With all due respect questions about Russia, German over 55s, Sputnik, EU medical agencies, Pfizer, Moderna, the EU vaccine roll out, Hungary, Malta, Israel, Brexit, the EUs survival, and the nature of politicians are completely irrelevant to this dispute."
With the best will in the world, how on earth could a dispute between the EU and AZ, on vaccine deliveries be relevant to any of the above.
Really? They are just as relevant as the disaster developing in Northern Ireland. Which, incidentally, is the fault of the EU as well as the UK. Unless by "completely irrelevant" you really mean "don't support my view that the EU is wonderful."
I dont believe that the EU is wonderful. I appreciate that some of their actions are ill judged, although many fewer than Boris. I am convinced that they havent been treated fairly by AZ. Dont start me off about the Irish border. I have made my feelings on this very clear on a number of occasions. Boris misled the DUP at their party conference, and denied there was an Irish Sea border after he had agreed to put one there. So I suppose we should blame the EU.
No, let's get back to the Irish border.
You are an intelligent man. You saw through what Boris was trying to do in an instant. You posted about it immediately.
Not defending Boris on this. It could only be through extreme ignorance as to the reality, or deliberately lying. For me, it is undoubtedly a mixture of the 2.
But let's look at the actions of the DUP, Fianna Fail, etc. Do you believe that the ruling parties of Northern Ireland/Ireland couldn't see fine well that Boris was either lying, ignorant as to the reality, or both? Really? You believe that no-one in the ruling parties of 2 countries is intelligent enough to see through Boris?
Could it be that the DUP made the political decision to keep quiet, so that Boris could take all the blame instead of them? Because I expect the DUP to have understood instantly what that border was, and how important it would be.
Could it be that Ireland Government decided that the likely ensuing economic dependence on Ireland from NI was worth the problems that would undoubtedly be faced by a lot of Irish people in the Borders or North West of Ireland, and kept quiet for that reason?
It is not only you that has a "just blame Boris" agenda.
I think Boris misled everyone over this. He was still claiming that there was no Irish Sea border after the agreement was done. He was on tv advising businesses that they could bin the extra paperwork, and that if anyone queried this they were to say that Boris said they could.
There was an easy solution to this which our government wouldnt consider,
I am reluctant to blame the EU. There has to be a border. The EU accepted that it couldnt be on the island of Ireland, the most logical place. They reached an agreement with Theresa May. They reached an alternative agreement with Boris. I believe that this points to their flexibility.
The problems will worsen when the grace periods end.
So NI remains subject to EU rules. Is separated from the rest of the UK. I believe this leaves the UK as the only country in the world with an internal customs border. It seems like the UK made it up as they went along. While the border exists there will be problems.
The most likely long term solution is for NI to leave the UK.
Even if the EU dont ratify the deal, and we end up with no deal, there will still have to be a border.
I hear what you say.
I'm sure Boris tried to mislead everyone. I just don't think he really did.
Unless you believe that 2 Governments did not look as closely as you about the most important Act for the island of Ireland in about 100 years.
Your "easy solution" would be political suicide. You do know that the full title of his party is traditionally "The Conservative and Unionist Party"? There was no easy solution. Just an array of ones with massive consequences. With all sides pretending otherwise.
NI may well leave the UK. Although I don't think that will be the end of the matter. And the solution might end up being (even) worse than now.
The obvious easy solution I was thinking of was staying in the single market/customs union. The position that NI is in, and Boris described as the best of both worlds. What Boris was saying was in contradiction to what was agreed, and many believed him. WTO rules require a border so no deal is not a solution.
That is most certainly not an "easy" solution. Is it the 1 you wanted? Yes Is it the 1 I wanted? Yes.
But the majority of the public voted to leave.
And then the public voted overwhelmingly in favour of a Party that was in the grip of the wing of its party that wanted a more right-wing solution.
That's what democracy can do. It can result in things that you and I do not like. That may well have significant downsides that the public do not fully grasp.
Where we differ is that I am looking at where we actually are. Whereas you are focusing on where you think we could/would or should have been. If people had only listened to you and me then.
But they didn't. I'm not England replaying the world cup win. You are still claiming that the goal was offside, and the result should not stand. When it is never going to change.
You make a lot of assumptions about me, and many of them are wrong. I am very much where we are now. I would have adopted a blind eye if the goal was offside. The public may well have voted to leave but NI remains in the cu/sm, and are subject to EU rules. What do you think is going to happen if the NI Assembly votes to end the protocol. Back to square one? A very well thought out plan?
It is a terrible plan.
But then again, it is no more terrible than all the other realistic solutions. You believe the NI Assembly will take charge, and take any of the blame themselves? Not likely.
1. Really? You get to decide what time period qualified as an allowable benefit? You do know that you have created thousands of posts bout the evils of Brexit in that timeframe, don't you?
I do. That was the old, discontinued, not updated thread. This is the new post Brexit thread. Surely a Brexit benefit can only be something that has improved after we have left, rather than something that occurred while we were still members.
3. On threads created by you, you believe that anything any politician says, or anything that anyone who disagrees with you are fair game, but anything you say is off limits. Really? It got demoted to page 8 because you scared everyone else off. My best friend was an avid Remainer, and will always be anti-Boris. As he said to me last week:- "The bit that really p1sses me off, is that the whole vaccine saga shows that we were lied to just as much by Remainers as Leavers."
Again untrue. In fact I rarely believe UK politicians. It got demoted to page 8 because I stopped posting on it. We had left the EU, and I thought it time for a new thread. Posting an article does not somehow certify the veracity of it, it merely creates an opportunity to debate the contents. I dont follow your friends argument.
4. This is the difference between theory and practice in the real world. In theory, we could have. But that conveniently ignores these facts:- (1) But for Brexit, we would still be in the EU
Obviously.
(2) We would just have had a referendum confirming our commitment to the EU
?
(3) In a club of 28 Members, no-one agreed to go it alone except for the 1 that was leaving the club
True.
(4) The EMA would still have been based in the UK-how easy would it be to say that we don't want to trust a UK-based agency? (5) The MHRA would in many respects still have been under the EMA-how easy would it have been to plan a solo mission? Particularly, a quicker 1 than the UK-based EU one? (6) The EU was already tired of us only following the EU when it suited us-just how much reputational damage would we have suffered, immediately after a referendum saying we should remain tied to Europe?
You see, these are facts. Providing context as to why your fact is true, but not realistic.
These are not facts, it seems you are trying to rewrite history.
In 2021, you are considerably less likely to die of Covid in the UK, as opposed to the EU. So (for example) Angela Merkel has not yet been allowed to have a vaccine. Most of Europe is entering a 3rd lockdown. We have a Regulator that understands that "an abundance of caution" costs lives. And a country that has acted decisively on vaccines. While the EU did not.
We used to have the highest death rate in Europe, although I havent checked it for a bit.
But you hide from this. I'm sure you genuinely believe that these are not good results from Brexit. Just like I am sure that you are in an ever-dwindling minority. Just like you hide from answering questions. Because you don't like the answers.
I am happy to answer questions that are pertinent. Just not keen on pointless quizes.' I am not hiding from anything.
Which is a shame. Because I genuinely like you. And I'm always interested in what you have to say. Even when I profoundly disagree with you.
Well it looks like that is likely to continue.
"I am happy to answer questions that are pertinent. Just not keen on pointless quizes.' I am not hiding from anything."
Bluff. Raise.
Even Boris would be ashamed of that whopper
"We used to have the highest death rate in Europe, although I haven't checked it since I knew fine well that that is no longer true..
Comments
2. On threads created by you, you believe that anything any politician says, or anything that anyone who disagrees with you are fair game, but anything you say is off limits. Really? It got demoted to page 8 because you scared everyone else off. My best friend was an avid Remainer, and will always be anti-Boris. As he said to me last week:-
"The bit that really p1sses me off, is that the whole vaccine saga shows that we were lied to just as much by Remainers as Leavers."
3. This is the difference between theory and practice in the real world. In theory, we could have. But that conveniently ignores these facts:-
(1) But for Brexit, we would still be in the EU
(2) We would just have had a referendum confirming our commitment to the EU
(3) In a club of 28 Members, no-one agreed to go it alone except for the 1 that was leaving the club
(4) The EMA would still have been based in the UK-how easy would it be to say that we don't want to trust a UK-based agency?
(5) The MHRA would in many respects still have been under the EMA-how easy would it have been to plan a solo mission? Particularly, a quicker 1 than the UK-based EU one?
(6) The EU was already tired of us only following the EU when it suited us-just how much reputational damage would we have suffered, immediately after a referendum saying we should remain tied to Europe?
You see, these are facts. Providing context as to why your fact is true, but not realistic.
In 2021, you are considerably less likely to die of Covid in the UK, as opposed to the EU. So (for example) Angela Merkel has not yet been allowed to have a vaccine.
Most of Europe is entering a 3rd lockdown.
We have a Regulator that understands that "an abundance of caution" costs lives.
And a country that has acted decisively on vaccines. While the EU did not.
But you hide from this. I'm sure you genuinely believe that these are not good results from Brexit. Just like I am sure that you are in an ever-dwindling minority. Just like you hide from answering questions. Because you don't like the answers.
Which is a shame. Because I genuinely like you. And I'm always interested in what you have to say. Even when I profoundly disagree with you.
have to post in 2 or 3 parts as its quite long...... THIS IS THE 2ND PART NEXTED POST IS 1ST ONE ...
Stronger supply chains
The U.K. contract makes it clear that London had thought through the entire Oxford/AstraZeneca supply chain, rather than just focusing on the delivery of the vaccines. The EU, by comparison, was more unclear, even as to where its plants would be.
The U.K. contract contains a commitment by AstraZeneca that the British supply chain “will be appropriate and sufficient” for the supply of the doses the U.K. purchased. London understood, then, that if the supply chain were not “sufficient,” the drug company would be on the hook for meeting any shortfall from somewhere else, according to a person familiar with the U.K. contract’s development.
The British contract also indicates the deal would cover “other manufacturing facilities in Europe” in the event that the European Medicines Agency approved the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine before British regulators after the Brexit transition period.
It didn’t specify what would happen if approval came first in the U.K., which is in fact what happened. But the U.K. Task Force told journalists in December that it would get vaccines from Germany and the Netherlands to meet any potential shortages on the island ahead of the U.K.’s earlier approval.
By contrast, the EU’s contract basically states that AstraZeneca will only make its "best reasonable efforts" to supply and manufacture the vaccines in the EU, which in the contract includes the U.K. manufacturing sites. In the full version of the contract and order form, the three British plants — as well as a Dutch and German subcontractor that haven't been used for the EU doses — are included in the EU's supply chain. The company hasn't used the U.K. doses to fix the shortage of EU supply.
Instead, AstraZeneca has largely relied on a Belgian subcontractor, Thermo Fisher Scientific (originally Novasep), to supply the EU with drug substance. It has also gotten some doses from a U.S. plant in Maryland.
More broadly, the specifics of the EU’s plants have been a subject of confusion. For example, the Commission's published contract said the EU would get drug substance from “I\IL.” When a redacted version was published on January 29, the Commission at first kept on insisting that this referred to Italy and Ireland. It later turned out to be a copy error that should have said “NL,” for the Netherlands, according to Dutch broadcaster NOS.
Earlier timelines
As with supply chains, the timeline is also disputed. But it does appear that the U.K. got an earlier start on the ground — even though that’s not clear on paper.
AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soriot made the argument that the U.K. had better vaccine supply because the U.K. signed an agreement for vaccines months earlier than the EU. Formally, this isn’t true: The U.K. contract was signed on August 28, while the EU’s was signed a day earlier on August 27.
However, the key lies in an earlier agreement that AstraZeneca made back in May with the U.K., which was a binding deal establishing “the development of a dedicated supply chain for the U.K.,” an AstraZeneca spokesperson said.
One official close to the U.K. contract said the agreement began as an email in April from the U.K. government saying it would provide £65 million to help the University of Oxford execute its production plan. It later evolved into a fully-fledged contract between the government and the British-Swedish company, which also might explain why it took until August for the contract to be signed.
Most important, however, is that it meant that the British government was “effectively a major shareholder” in the jab’s development as early as April. After Oxford and AstraZeneca agreed to team up at the end of April, for example, the British government filled seats on Oxford-AstraZeneca joint liaison committees.
“Protecting the U.K.‘s supply was a central objective ... as that was being negotiated from April onwards,” the official said. Even though this isn't explicitly stated in the contract, the official said that the government’s role in the early stages of the vaccine meant “there is absolutely no way that AstraZeneca would have been able to enter a contract which gave away equal priority of access to the U.K. doses.”
This British supply was therefore already secured by the time four EU countries — Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy — signed an agreement in June to obtain up to 300 million doses of the vaccines. The countries’ deal at the time was a fairly bare-bones agreement, and it’s unclear whether it established a European supply chain, but over the summer it was transferred into the formal purchasing agreement managed by the Commission.
The Commission wouldn't comment this week on the publication of the U.K.'s AstraZeneca contract, but it has underscored that the EU's agreement provided money — up to €336 million — to the company to ramp up manufacturing of vaccines at-risk for the bloc.
"We did not invest in the company on the assumption that they would not be able to pre-produce," a Commission official wrote in an email. “Investing and ramping up pre-production capacity was one of the premises of our agreements."
"There are clear delivery quantities, both for December of last year as well as the coming quarters for this year," the official added.
Stronger enforceability
A further difference is that the British and Belgian legal systems have different views of how these contracts should be delivered and adjudicated if issues arise.
Many companies choose the U.K. for contracts involving the purchase of goods or other agreements that deal with a point of sale. That’s because English law is an effective route for suing a company if it doesn’t deliver goods in time. The U.K. contract is testament to that advantage, lawyers said.
English contract law also has much more literal interpretation — what’s on paper is what counts, lawyers say. By contrast, Belgian law, which the Commission chose for its contract, takes a wider view that includes the context a contract’s written in and the good intentions of both parties. The court system in Belgium also tends to reach a decision in a legal dispute far more slowly than its English counterpart.
That said, while the EU’s contract may be less precise, it can still carry weight in a court of law, De Rey said. It's more detailed in laying out what it means by best reasonable efforts, he added, pointing to the preamble of the EU contract, which goes into great detail about the great need for vaccines during the pandemic.
"In the end, it will always come back to this 'best reasonable efforts' and the interpretation of this," he said. "But the standard of these 'best reasonable efforts' is quite high."
This article is more than 1 year old
New deal swaps backstop for a four-year alignment between Northern Ireland and EU
All the latest Brexit developments – live
At a glance: how much of ‘great new deal’ is actually new?
The new Brexit deal is essentially the old Brexit deal with a new chapter on the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland and a few key tweaks to the political declaration.
The main protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland runs to just 15 pages – 64 pages including the annexes – and restates the commitment to all the baseline elements on the Good Friday agreement, the common travel area and other rights contained in Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement of 2018.
Here is a link to the full text with a summary of the key new points below.
The backstop is replaced
Overall the backstop has essentially been replaced by a full stop whereby Northern Ireland remains aligned to the EU from the end of the transition period for at least four years. A change can only happen if it is voted on by the Stormont assembly (more of that later).
As Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair’s chief negotiator in the Good Friday agreement, tweeted: “The funny side of the No 10 claim they have got rid of the backstop is that they have in fact transformed it from a fallback into the definitive future arrangement for NI with the province remaining in the single market and customs union”.
Consent
Stormont will have a key role in future Brexit arrangements. And if there is cross-community support to remain aligned to the EU rather than the UK the consent will hold for eight years.
The arrangements in this deal will automatically kick in for a mandated four years if there is a breakdown in trade talks, so it remains a “backstop” but with a permanent tinge.
The line in the political declaration that “the United Kingdom will consider aligning with union rules in relevant areas” in any future trade talks has been ditched.
One source said the removal of this albeit vague promise of being aligned to the EU in future has been the key to unlocking the support of the European Research Group.
If the vote is negative, then the regulatory uncoupling will not happen for a further two years: 1 January 2027. During this two-year period the EU will work out how to protect the single market, ie another backstop.
Customs
Northern Ireland will remain legally in the UK customs territory but practically in the EU customs unions. There will therefore be no customs checks on the border but tariffs will be payable on certain commercial goods.
A system of rebates will allow importers to be reimbursed.
Tariffs will be applied to commercial goods entering from Great Britain to Northern Ireland from third countries unless it can be established that they are for use in Northern Ireland only.
UK authorities will do this work on behalf of the EU. If it can be proven that these goods remain in Northern Ireland, the duties will be reimbursed to the importer.
The criteria for how to demonstrate that the importing of such goods remain in Northern Ireland and qualify for a duty rebate remains to be worked out.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/17/how-is-boris-johnson-brexit-deal-different-from-theresa-may
Two contracts, two different legal systems, but one goal: Getting doses of a life-saving vaccine to people as quickly as possible.
Just how the U.K. has secured doses more quickly than the EU from pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca has been a matter of intense scrutiny. Some clues can be found in comparing the contract that AstraZeneca signed with London to the one it inked with Brussels.
On the whole, the contracts appear roughly the same when it comes to their language and their tone, says Sébastien De Rey, a contract law specialist at Leuven University. But there's one key difference, he notes: “The U.K. contract is, on some specific points, more detailed."
The level of specificity is partially due to the legal systems they're based on. The U.K. contract is written in English law, which will judge whether both parties delivered the goods based on the exact wording of the contract. The EU contract is written in Belgian law, which focuses on whether both parties tried their best to deliver the goods and acted in good faith.
It's these extra details that give the U.K. more leverage to ensure its contract is delivered effectively. While both contracts say all parties will make their “best reasonable effort” to deliver the vaccine, the U.K. government is clearer in asserting its oversight of the agreement.
This core difference, according to a lawyer familiar with the development of the U.K. text, can be chalked up to the fact that the contract sealed with London was written by people with significant experience of purchasing agreements, specifically drug-buying deals. The European Commission’s contract, by contrast, shows a lack of commercial common sense, in the lawyer’s view.
The starkest example of this difference is a clause in the U.K. contract stating that if any party tries to force or persuade AstraZeneca or its subcontractors to do anything that could hold up the supply of the vaccine doses, the government may terminate the deal and invoke what appear to be punishment clauses — although these are largely redacted.
The EU, on the other hand, can only withhold payments until the company delivers the goods, or until it helps find more producers to make the vaccine. And as POLITICO reported last week, the non-redacted version of the contract shows that the EU also waived its right to sue AstraZeneca in the event of delivery delays.
Furthermore, officials with knowledge of the U.K. contract say the British government was a more active participant in the manufacturing of the home-grown vaccine — even though the U.K. contract was signed just a day after the one with the EU. This aggressive approach gave London a lead in securing AstraZeneca's doses.
“In sum, the balance of power tilts notably towards the U.K.,” senior MEP and former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt wrote in a post Friday. “Since the outcome of this particular contract has led to an enormous amount of public distrust, both the Commision [sic] and AstraZeneca have a lot of explaining to do.”
More micromanagment
The U.K. contract is also more clear in how it will monitor the delivery of the doses, as well as what happens if the company doesn't come through.
Although the delivery schedule itself is redacted, the U.K. contract clearly states that AstraZeneca shall notify the British government about any changes to the schedule and use its “Best Reasonable Efforts to keep as close to the original” delivery schedule. The company also has 30 days to notify the U.K. ahead of its delivery about the number of doses it should expect.
Once that happens, “AstraZeneca may not adjust the Delivery Schedule without the prior consent” of the British government.
An exception: AstraZeneca isn't in violation if there's a “minor variance” to the delivery schedules, up to five business days, “due to the unpredictable nature of the Manufacturing of the Products” — as long as the U.K. is notified within a reasonable timeframe.
The EU contract, by contrast, doesn't go into this level of detail about notification when manufacturing plans change. But it does have another remedy in the Belgian system, De Rey explains: If a company is in breach of a contract, the other party can appoint another producer to do the job at the expense of the company in breach.
Indeed, the Commission's contract says it or EU countries can present plans to boost production and "AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts" to contact producers “to increase the available manufacturing capacity within the EU," it states.
The problem with this provision, however, is it doesn't ensure a rapid timeline, which is crucial amid a global race to vaccinate populations.
Furthermore, the U.K. contract gave more clear powers to managers on the ground in executing and validating the contract, while the EU contract focused more on ensuring equitable distribution of the vaccines between each EU country.
The EU contract also says the Commission and EU countries should use their “Best Reasonable Efforts” to help AstraZeneca secure enough drug substance, vials and other materials to produce its vaccines, and the company should report to the Commission in “regular intervals” on whether it can meet its supply promises. AstraZeneca will "promptly notify the Commission if it encounters difficulties in this regard that place at significant risk AstraZeneca’s ability to manufacture or sell the Vaccine Doses as contemplated by this Agreement," it reads.
What this meant on the ground: When AstraZeneca faced supply issues at the start of 2021, it gave the EU little notice. It informed the Commission that the EU would receive at least 70 million fewer doses in the first quarter of 2021 just a week ahead of the European Medicines Agency’s expected approval date. The company still has not updated the EU on what it can provide them in the second quarter of the year.
To be sure, the EU contract says Brussels may suspend payments if AstraZeneca fails to deliver, and it specifically states that AstraZeneca may not have any impending contracts that would hinder its ability to supply the EU. But it also states that if AstraZeneca’s performance is “impeded by any such competing agreements, AstraZeneca shall not be deemed in breach” of its agreement with the EU.
And in the end, the EU waived its right to take AstraZeneca to court if there are delivery delays.
This article is part of POLITICO’s premium policy service: Pro Health Care. From drug pricing, EMA, vaccines, pharma and more, our specialized journalists keep you on top of the topics driving the health care policy agenda. Email pro@politico.eu for a complimentary trial.
MORE FROM ... ANNA ISAAC AND JILLIAN DEUTSCH
Most Read Articles
1 Boris Johnson’s most senior Black aide has quit
APRIL 1, 2021 8:10 AM
2 Merkel and Spahn: No more Oxford/AstraZeneca jabs for under 60s
MARCH 30, 2021 11:26 PM
3 EU regulator: No evidence to support restriction of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine
MARCH 31, 2021 5:50 PM
4 Court orders Belgium to end coronavirus measures due to insufficient legal basis
MARCH 31, 2021 3:47 PM
5 Austria threatens to halt EU’s 100M vaccine buy until it gets greater share of jabs
MARCH 30, 2021 1:03 PM
View the Latest Issue
READ THE LATEST PRINT ISSUE ONLINE
I'm sure Boris tried to mislead everyone. I just don't think he really did.
Unless you believe that 2 Governments did not look as closely as you about the most important Act for the island of Ireland in about 100 years.
Your "easy solution" would be political suicide. You do know that the full title of his party is traditionally "The Conservative and Unionist Party"? There was no easy solution. Just an array of ones with massive consequences. With all sides pretending otherwise.
NI may well leave the UK. Although I don't think that will be the end of the matter. And the solution might end up being (even) worse than now.
The position that NI is in, and Boris described as the best of both worlds.
What Boris was saying was in contradiction to what was agreed, and many believed him.
WTO rules require a border so no deal is not a solution.
Is it the 1 you wanted? Yes
Is it the 1 I wanted? Yes.
But the majority of the public voted to leave.
And then the public voted overwhelmingly in favour of a Party that was in the grip of the wing of its party that wanted a more right-wing solution.
That's what democracy can do. It can result in things that you and I do not like. That may well have significant downsides that the public do not fully grasp.
Where we differ is that I am looking at where we actually are. Whereas you are focusing on where you think we could/would or should have been. If people had only listened to you and me then.
But they didn't. I'm not England replaying the world cup win. You are still claiming that the goal was offside, and the result should not stand. When it is never going to change.
I am clear on what is right and wrong.
If I thought that the EU was in the wrong I wouldnt hesitate to say so.
This dispute is simple.
I have often found that when people go into a long story it is often in an attempt to camouflage the truth.
In a nutshell AZ contracted to deliver 270 million doses of vaccine to the EU by the end of the second quarter of this year.
They now plan to deliver just 101 million.
AZ have blamed production delays for the shortfall.
Thats it end of.
That is the dispute.
The EU have got the hump, and in my view quite rightly so.
The fact that the UK supply has remained unaffected by the production delays has exacerbated the situation.
How is this possible?
AZ put forward a number of other excuses, which were later found to be untrue.
How can production delays affect one contract, and not the other.
A few justifications have been put forward.
Like the UK invested in AZ upfront.
Yes they did, but the EU invested four times as much.
The UK signed their contract first.
The EU had signed their contract the day before the UK, in late August last year.
This was subsequent the EU signing an agreement in June last year.
AZ have supplied the UK in full.
This is despite the EU signing a contract first, signing an agreement months before, investing 4 times as much as the UK, as well as ordering 4 times as many doses.
As a result the EU have threatened all sorts which obviously winds people up in this country but is probably popular amongst EU citizens.
They are not asking for all of it at the expense of the UK.
All they are asking for is reciprocity.
Who can really blame them?
I am very much where we are now.
I would have adopted a blind eye if the goal was offside.
The public may well have voted to leave but NI remains in the cu/sm, and are subject to EU rules.
What do you think is going to happen if the NI Assembly votes to end the protocol.
Back to square one?
A very well thought out plan?
The simple answer, in common with many things pertaining to NI, the UK's treatment of NI and Ireland and, to a lesser extent, Ireland's treatment of the UK, is that there is no simple answer.
What would I like, in an ideal world? Compromise. For example, for economic purposes, NI to leave the UK and join the EEA. and Ireland to leave the EU and join the EEA. While remaining 2 separate countries politically.
But that is not likely. Compromise seems to unite the UK, NI, and Ireland only in a determination to resist compromise with one another. At all and any cost.
But then again, it is no more terrible than all the other realistic solutions. You believe the NI Assembly will take charge, and take any of the blame themselves? Not likely.
the article explains the EU signed there contract on there agreed terms which the article goes into detail of and compares to the UK terms ..Yes they did sign on the 27th and the UK a day later .
rightly or wrongly i cannot see that AZ have broken the terms of the EU contract as there is a section where if there is any dispute sets out the terms if the EU feel its been broken... surly they read and understood what they was signing , the last paragraph says
To be sure, the EU contract says Brussels may suspend payments if AstraZeneca fails to deliver, and it specifically states that AstraZeneca may not have any impending contracts that would hinder its ability to supply the EU. But it also states that if AstraZeneca’s performance is “impeded by any such competing agreements, AstraZeneca shall not be deemed in breach” of its agreement with the EU.
And in the end, the EU waived its right to take AstraZeneca to court if there are delivery delays.
I'm no expert so my interpretation is that AZ will make there best effort but if they fail then they have covered themselves ..
it does not give any guarantee just because they ordered 4 x more .
the UK contract has penalty clause which could be why the UK has not had any great delay
the article is very long and the lawyer is explaining the difference between the 2 contracts so I'm not trying to camouflage the truth .
1. Really? You get to decide what time period qualified as an allowable benefit? You do know that you have created thousands of posts bout the evils of Brexit in that timeframe, don't you?
I do.
That was the old, discontinued, not updated thread.
This is the new post Brexit thread.
Surely a Brexit benefit can only be something that has improved after we have left, rather than something that occurred while we were still members.
3. On threads created by you, you believe that anything any politician says, or anything that anyone who disagrees with you are fair game, but anything you say is off limits. Really? It got demoted to page 8 because you scared everyone else off. My best friend was an avid Remainer, and will always be anti-Boris. As he said to me last week:-
"The bit that really p1sses me off, is that the whole vaccine saga shows that we were lied to just as much by Remainers as Leavers."
Again untrue.
In fact I rarely believe UK politicians.
It got demoted to page 8 because I stopped posting on it.
We had left the EU, and I thought it time for a new thread.
Posting an article does not somehow certify the veracity of it, it merely creates an opportunity to debate the contents.
I dont follow your friends argument.
4. This is the difference between theory and practice in the real world. In theory, we could have. But that conveniently ignores these facts:-
(1) But for Brexit, we would still be in the EU
Obviously.
(2) We would just have had a referendum confirming our commitment to the EU
?
(3) In a club of 28 Members, no-one agreed to go it alone except for the 1 that was leaving the club
True.
(4) The EMA would still have been based in the UK-how easy would it be to say that we don't want to trust a UK-based agency?
(5) The MHRA would in many respects still have been under the EMA-how easy would it have been to plan a solo mission? Particularly, a quicker 1 than the UK-based EU one?
(6) The EU was already tired of us only following the EU when it suited us-just how much reputational damage would we have suffered, immediately after a referendum saying we should remain tied to Europe?
You see, these are facts. Providing context as to why your fact is true, but not realistic.
These are not facts, it seems you are trying to rewrite history.
In 2021, you are considerably less likely to die of Covid in the UK, as opposed to the EU. So (for example) Angela Merkel has not yet been allowed to have a vaccine.
Most of Europe is entering a 3rd lockdown.
We have a Regulator that understands that "an abundance of caution" costs lives.
And a country that has acted decisively on vaccines. While the EU did not.
We used to have the highest death rate in Europe, although I havent checked it for a bit.
But you hide from this. I'm sure you genuinely believe that these are not good results from Brexit. Just like I am sure that you are in an ever-dwindling minority. Just like you hide from answering questions. Because you don't like the answers.
I am happy to answer questions that are pertinent.
Just not keen on pointless quizes.'
I am not hiding from anything.
Which is a shame. Because I genuinely like you. And I'm always interested in what you have to say. Even when I profoundly disagree with you.
Well it looks like that is likely to continue.
"I am happy to answer questions that are pertinent.
Just not keen on pointless quizes.'
I am not hiding from anything."
Bluff. Raise.
Even Boris would be ashamed of that whopper
"We used to have the highest death rate in Europe, although I haven't checked it since I knew fine well that that is no longer true..
Fixed your post.