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 .
I dont think there is any doubt that they have broken the contract, they havent delivered the agreed number of doses.
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 .
Yes and the EU signed an agreement for 300 million doses a couple of months prior to signing the contract.
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
If AZ contracted to supply 270 million doses by the end of this quarter, and plan to deliver only 101 million, how can the contract not be broken? The AZ top man was slated when this dispute arose for claiming that the UK signed their contract in advance of the EU, and therefore entitled to preferential treatment. He is not saying anything now.
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.
Does that make sense to you? They signed the EU agreement in June. They signed the UK contract after the EU contract. Surely if the UK contract has more value than the EU contract, and was signed later, doesnt that make contracts in general not worth the paper they are written on?
And in the end, the EU waived its right to take AstraZeneca to court if there are delivery delays.
I dont think they have yet.
I'm no expert so my interpretation is that AZ will make there best effort but if they fail then they have covered themselves ..
The legal opinion I posted said that the two contracts are pretty much the same, but the UK contract includes harsher penalties.
it does not give any guarantee just because they ordered 4 x more .
I was just pointing out that purely on a commercial basis, they might have given preference to the EU, as they have invested 4 times as much, ordered 4 times as many doses, and entered agreement a couple of months earlier.
the UK contract has penalty clause which could be why the UK has not had any great delay
Dont all contracts have a penalty clause? Wouldnt a contract without a penalty clause be completely useless
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 .
As I said previously the other legal opinion said the the UK contract had tougher penalties, other than that they were pretty much the same. I think if AZ had let down the UK, and supplied the EU in full, there would have been a massive outcry over here. To me this just stinks. It leaves a bad taste. We used to think more about honour than being sneaky. Production delays that affect one contract is b0ll0cks. Do you think the delays will cost lives in the EU. Why do you think that nobody even mentions India, and the 5 million missing doses that are slowing down are vaccine roll out this month? Will that cost lives? Why doesnt anyone mention Canada, and their AZ restrictions? Every time a European politician says anything they represent the EU. Yet during the last 47 years, when any British politician said something stupid or out of order they werent representing the EU. What I mean is that if Merkel, or Macron say something we dont like, in this country we dont criticise them or their country, we always criticise the EU. Yet while we were still members, if Boris said something stupid, we would criticise him, or the Tories, never the EU.
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.
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.
I should have said we still have one of the highest death rates in Europe, well ahead of France, and Germany, and I find you comment about Boris and whoppers a bit harsh.
Covid map: Coronavirus cases, deaths, vaccinations by country By The Visual and Data Journalism Team BBC News
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.
What is a terrible plan?
The plan seems to be that the NI Assembly get to vote on the protocol in 2024. If they vote against, the EU have to come up with an unspecified alternative. Maybe the Boris plan is to unilaterally extend the grace periods until 2024, to limit the chaos. Although I am not sure what might change between now and 2024
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.
I should have said we still have one of the highest death rates in Europe, well ahead of France, and Germany, and I find you comment about Boris and whoppers a bit harsh.
Covid map: Coronavirus cases, deaths, vaccinations by country By The Visual and Data Journalism Team BBC News
the EU contract says AZ will make there best endeavours and also says best efforts to deliver doses on time and quantities .. if AZ fail to do so there are terms in which the EU can follow to redress the shortfall in there contract which the EU signed freely ...
You keep implying the EU had 100 million guaranteed in 1st qtr and AZ came up short . i see it as AZ made there best efforts and came up short of expectation ..
i interpreted this part of the EU contract..
if AZ short suspend payments ..
have to admit next part when read is very confusing
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
sounds like AZ cannot have impending contracts but if they do and it impedes AZs EU contract then AZ cannot be deemed in breach with the EU ..
After reading what the expert in contractual law wrote when compare ring both contracts my opinion has not changed same as yours has not ...
the EU contract says AZ will make there best endeavours and also says best efforts to deliver doses on time and quantities .. if AZ fail to do so there are terms in which the EU can follow to redress the shortfall in there contract which the EU signed freely ...
Both contracts are the same in this respect.
You keep implying the EU had 100 million guaranteed in 1st qtr and AZ came up short . i see it as AZ made there best efforts and came up short of expectation ..
The first quarter agreement was for 90 million and they delivered 31 million. They are already saying that they will only deliver 70 million and not the 180 million that they agreed to supply in quarter 2. The UK supply will be on target. The reason for the EU shortfall according to AZ, is production delays, nothing to do with contracts. These production delays have miraculously not affected the UK supply.
i interpreted this part of the EU contract..
if AZ short suspend payments ..
have to admit next part when read is very confusing
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
But they signed the EU contract first.
sounds like AZ cannot have impending contracts but if they do and it impedes AZs EU contract then AZ cannot be deemed in breach with the EU ..
Then maybe they shouldnt have signed a contract with the UK.
After reading what the expert in contractual law wrote when compare ring both contracts my opinion has not changed same as yours has not ...
we will have to agree to disagree ..
If it had occurred the other way around you would be screaming like a stuck pig.
the EU contract says AZ will make there best endeavours and also says best efforts to deliver doses on time and quantities .. if AZ fail to do so there are terms in which the EU can follow to redress the shortfall in there contract which the EU signed freely ...
Both contracts are the same in this respect.
You keep implying the EU had 100 million guaranteed in 1st qtr and AZ came up short . i see it as AZ made there best efforts and came up short of expectation ..
The first quarter agreement was for 90 million and they delivered 31 million. They are already saying that they will only deliver 70 million and not the 180 million that they agreed to supply in quarter 2. The UK supply will be on target. The reason for the EU shortfall according to AZ, is production delays, nothing to do with contracts. These production delays have miraculously not affected the UK supply.
i interpreted this part of the EU contract..
if AZ short suspend payments ..
have to admit next part when read is very confusing
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
But they signed the EU contract first.
sounds like AZ cannot have impending contracts but if they do and it impedes AZs EU contract then AZ cannot be deemed in breach with the EU ..
Then maybe they shouldnt have signed a contract with the UK.
After reading what the expert in contractual law wrote when compare ring both contracts my opinion has not changed same as yours has not ...
we will have to agree to disagree ..
If it had occurred the other way around you would be screaming like a stuck pig.
One of us has considerable experience of Big Pharma. It is not you.
When a Lawyer refers to the contract "technically" being 1 day later, they are being disingenuous.
Lawyers working for Big Pharma in Senior positions are paid vast amounts of money. Put it this way-the gap between the top Pharma lawyers and me on Contract Law is about the same difference as between me and you. and I have spent most of my life dealing with Contract Law.
They are paid the big bucks to look after their clients, and the money. The Head of Legal at AZ or Pfizer will be earning way more than me, or you, or indeed any Lawyer working for the UK or the EU. Not because they are good. But because they are among the very best of the best.
They know fine well that at some point some smart alec will pull the FOI (Freedom of Information) trick. So it works like this.
1. Joint venture agreement. With well-crafted Non-Disclosure Agreement. While all parties risk hundreds of millions of pounds, wanting to ensure that their work cannot be gifted to a rival 2. Lots of work done covertly, not least due to the importance of being first and/or better. Temporary new organisation for joint works, none of which made public 3. Once you have done all the backstage work, sign the Contract you want others to see. Because that makes it easy to deny that anything else ever existed. And you don't have to disclose historic trade-sensitive stuff.
You'll no doubt that I'm making all this up. But then I have done this lots of times. And you haven't. I know you don't answer any questions. So ask yourself these:-
1. Do you think there was no Contract signed when Oxford Uni were persuaded to ditch Merck and go to AZ? 2. Do you think a multi-billion pound Company allows people from Governments and Universities to sit on Joint Venture Boards without a Contract? 3. Why do you think it is caused the "Oxford" vaccine? Why not Heidelberg? Paris? Do you think there just might have been a Contract in place BEFORE all the work is carried out?
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.
I should have said we still have one of the highest death rates in Europe, well ahead of France, and Germany, and I find you comment about Boris and whoppers a bit harsh.
Covid map: Coronavirus cases, deaths, vaccinations by country By The Visual and Data Journalism Team BBC News
You are shameless at only using facts that suit you. You claim you are looking at now, not the past. Let us look at the rate NOW.
"SHOT AHEAD UK’s Covid infection rate plunges lower than 25 of 27 EU nations as cases fall 28% in a week after vaccine rollout
Joe Duggan
1 Apr 2021, 7:19Updated: 1 Apr 2021, 10:04
THE UK'S Covid infection rate is lower than 25 of 27 EU countries after the success of Britain's vaccine rollout.
The daily case numbers in the UK have slumped by 28 per cent in a week, official figures show.
Only Denmark and Portugal have lower infection rates among EU nations that the UK, the seven-day average of cases per million people shows The success of the UK's vaccine rollout has seen deaths and infections slump 5 The success of the UK's vaccine rollout has seen deaths and infections slumpCredit: AFP
The UK is now the best-placed major European nation as a third-wave wreaks havoc on the continent.
France has seen cases triple since early February to nearly 60,000 cases a day, with doctors in overwhelmed hospitals forced to choose which Covid patients get a ventilator.
Emmanuel Macron last night declared a four-week national lockdown and warned France is likely to "lose control" amid a surge in coronavirus cases.
The French President has blamed the UK Kent variant for the explosion in cases, with the weekly infection rate around eight times higher than in the UK. FRANCE LOCKDOWN
In a televised nationwide address , President Macron said the "epidemic is accelerating" and warned France is likely to "lose control" as infections spiral.
Germany's infection rate is nearly three times higher than the UK's, with 23,681 cases recorded on March 30.
The UK has seen an average of 73 daily cases per million people over the past week.
Only two EU countries - Denmark and Portugal - have lower case rates. French president Emmanuel Macron warned in a televised address his country is likely to "lose control" amid soaring Covid rates 5 French president Emmanuel Macron warned in a televised address his country is likely to "lose control" amid soaring Covid ratesCredit: AFP Total deaths in France have soared to almost 100,000 5 Total deaths in France have soared to almost 100,000
Hungary is the worst hit EU nation, with the daily rate soaring to 882 cases per one million people.
France's seven-day average is 571, with Netherlands 449 and Italy's 334.
As the pandemic sends Europe into meltdown, UK cases, deaths and hospitalisations have dropped to a six-month low.
Yesterday, there were 43 deaths - a 56 per cent week-on-week drop on last Wednesday's deaths -. and 4,052 cases.
UK deaths are now averaging averaging 50 a day, down from the peak of 1,284 deaths on January 19.
Almost six in ten adults in the UK have received at least one dose of the vaccine, with the EU figure only around 11 per cent.
Europe's chaotic vaccine rollout has seen Germany this week ban the AstraZeneca jab for under-55s over blood clot fears.
The shock decision comes days after France, Italy and Germany resumed their rollout out of the AstraZeneca vaccine after the EU finally declared it safe.
The trio's humiliating U-turn had come after all three countries led the way in suspending use of the jab amid an unfounded safety scare about the link with blood-clots.
And today the European Medical Agency again ruled the AZ jab safe despite Germany slapping a ban on using it on under 55s. Angela Merkel banning the Oxford vaccine and flirting with Putin over the Sputnik jab has been blamed on 'hatred for Brexit Britain' 5 Angela Merkel banning the Oxford vaccine and flirting with Putin over the Sputnik jab has been blamed on 'hatred for Brexit Britain'Credit: EPA"
That was in lots of National newspapers yesterday. Did you not see it?
Please be aware that I will be checking an emojis used on this thread against the old fa rt test. You seem ok so far. You have been warned.
I liked this bit. Don't know about you, but I read this article and had a nervous feeling that I might be too old to use the stuff that the young think of as old!
Then I thought of how often @madprof uses that poo emoji. And I felt much better...
Here's a question for you - if Astra Zeneca vaccine is licensed to a UK company why on earth are we not manufacturing it here? If not why not?
We are. In Oxford, Keele and Wrexham. We also manufacture parts for the Pfizer vaccine in (I think) Yorkshire.
It is also made in several sites in the EU, but they have had difficulties at various sites. Which is, of course, part of (but certainly not all of) the problem.
Why is it also made abroad (Brazil, India etc)? Partly because of the necessary global reach. And partly to save money.
the EU contract says AZ will make there best endeavours and also says best efforts to deliver doses on time and quantities .. if AZ fail to do so there are terms in which the EU can follow to redress the shortfall in there contract which the EU signed freely ...
Both contracts are the same in this respect.
You keep implying the EU had 100 million guaranteed in 1st qtr and AZ came up short . i see it as AZ made there best efforts and came up short of expectation ..
The first quarter agreement was for 90 million and they delivered 31 million. They are already saying that they will only deliver 70 million and not the 180 million that they agreed to supply in quarter 2. The UK supply will be on target. The reason for the EU shortfall according to AZ, is production delays, nothing to do with contracts. These production delays have miraculously not affected the UK supply.
i interpreted this part of the EU contract..
if AZ short suspend payments ..
have to admit next part when read is very confusing
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
But they signed the EU contract first.
sounds like AZ cannot have impending contracts but if they do and it impedes AZs EU contract then AZ cannot be deemed in breach with the EU ..
Then maybe they shouldnt have signed a contract with the UK.
After reading what the expert in contractual law wrote when compare ring both contracts my opinion has not changed same as yours has not ...
we will have to agree to disagree ..
If it had occurred the other way around you would be screaming like a stuck pig.
One of us has considerable experience of Big Pharma. It is not you.
When a Lawyer refers to the contract "technically" being 1 day later, they are being disingenuous.
Lawyers working for Big Pharma in Senior positions are paid vast amounts of money. Put it this way-the gap between the top Pharma lawyers and me on Contract Law is about the same difference as between me and you. and I have spent most of my life dealing with Contract Law.
They are paid the big bucks to look after their clients, and the money. The Head of Legal at AZ or Pfizer will be earning way more than me, or you, or indeed any Lawyer working for the UK or the EU. Not because they are good. But because they are among the very best of the best.
They know fine well that at some point some smart alec will pull the FOI (Freedom of Information) trick. So it works like this.
1. Joint venture agreement. With well-crafted Non-Disclosure Agreement. While all parties risk hundreds of millions of pounds, wanting to ensure that their work cannot be gifted to a rival 2. Lots of work done covertly, not least due to the importance of being first and/or better. Temporary new organisation for joint works, none of which made public 3. Once you have done all the backstage work, sign the Contract you want others to see. Because that makes it easy to deny that anything else ever existed. And you don't have to disclose historic trade-sensitive stuff.
You'll no doubt that I'm making all this up. But then I have done this lots of times. And you haven't. I know you don't answer any questions. So ask yourself these:-
1. Do you think there was no Contract signed when Oxford Uni were persuaded to ditch Merck and go to AZ? 2. Do you think a multi-billion pound Company allows people from Governments and Universities to sit on Joint Venture Boards without a Contract? 3. Why do you think it is caused the "Oxford" vaccine? Why not Heidelberg? Paris? Do you think there just might have been a Contract in place BEFORE all the work is carried out?
I wouldnt dream of ignoring your experience as a lawyer, and appreciate what you say. Although I think some of it is irrelevant. It is surely pointless going into a long speech about how clever AZs lawyers are, when these clever lawyers presumably produced both contracts. That is unless you are suggesting that the contract that they prepared for the EU was purposely inferior in some way, to the contract they prepared for the UK.
Anyway I regard the contract issue as a red herring, as AZ are clearly blaming production delays for their shortcomings.
Repeating myself over and over again is pointless, so I am not going to.
AstraZeneca signed vaccine contract with EU at the same time and with the same terms as UK It flies in the face of claims made by the pharmaceutical giant that it had committed to "best effort" terms with the EU at a later date.
EU and UK spokespeople also refused to elaborate in detail. But David Greene, a senior partner at the law firm Edwin Coe, confirmed that the contracts on both sides were essentially the same in terms of language.
“There are many similarities between these two contracts, including the best reasonable efforts terms. It’s hardly surprising because they were made at the same time,” he said.
He explained that the term “Best Reasonable Efforts” was essentially an escape clause to offer some legal protection to AstraZeneca in the event it could not deliver to its agreed schedule.
“However, what they can’t do, on the face of it, is choose one contracting party over another. So they can’t say to the EU ‘I’m not going to deliver to you because I’m going to deliver to the UK,’ and similar. That’s always been the case.”
Newly-released vaccine contracts show Astrazeneca made the same agreements at the same time with the UK and EU, prompting confusion over comments made by Pascal Soriot in the wake of heated disputes in January.
According to documents obtained by CNN the pharmaceutical giant signed a contract to deliver Covid-19 vaccines with the EU one day prior to the UK and used the same ‘best efforts’ language in the agreements.
In January, amid a bitter row between the EU and AZ over shortfalls in delivery, the firm’s chief executive Sorio said the contract only committed to meet the EU’s demands to its “best effort” and that the EU’s deliveries were delayed in part because the bloc signed its contract later than the UK and therefore EU manufacturing facilities were still catching up.
But that argument has been rubbished
Which contract to choose? As a matter of law, both the EU and the UK have a case. Both contracts contain a “best reasonable efforts” clause, which is intended to cover the situation where force majeure – a legal term for an event outside one’s control – makes full delivery impossible or unreasonably difficult.
But signing a preferential contract with someone else is not force majeure: it is just selling the same stuff twice. AstraZeneca’s EU obligations are not diminished by its promises to the UK. But if AstraZeneca had distributed the output of its four European plants equally between the EU and UK, as the EU would like, it would be violating the UK contract. It appears to have promised too much to too many people.
A question of fairness In a situation of global shortage, any vaccine that one country obtains is one that another has lost, which puts a particular responsibility on states with power, money, and vaccine production facilities to consider where doses should go. Should the spoils go to the strongest, or are there issues of fairness?
The US and UK have been consistent and clear in their commitment to helping themselves first. While both have made promises to help others, this will only come after they have met their own needs, and there is no evidence either country has yet exported anything at all.
The EU is probably the third largest producer of vaccines, after the US and China, but has exported 77 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines to numerous countries and to Covax, the vaccine scheme for developing countries, to which it is the largest supplier.
The western European vaccine-producing countries have also agreed to supply the rest of their production to the EU as a whole to be made available on a per capita basis to all member states. They are adopting a policy of sharing with non-producing countries globally, and with their neighbours, which of course means less for themselves.
This is seen as utter foolishness, and failure, by the UK government. Its measure of success is how much its gets for people in the UK.
On the other hand, the EU hopes to reach a herd immunity level of vaccination in the summer, probably only a month or two after the UK. It will have done so while showing some sense of global responsibility.
Please be aware that I will be checking an emojis used on this thread against the old fa rt test. You seem ok so far. You have been warned.
I liked this bit. Don't know about you, but I read this article and had a nervous feeling that I might be too old to use the stuff that the young think of as old!
Then I thought of how often @madprof uses that poo emoji. And I felt much better...
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.
I should have said we still have one of the highest death rates in Europe, well ahead of France, and Germany, and I find you comment about Boris and whoppers a bit harsh.
Covid map: Coronavirus cases, deaths, vaccinations by country By The Visual and Data Journalism Team BBC News
You are shameless at only using facts that suit you. You claim you are looking at now, not the past. Let us look at the rate NOW.
"SHOT AHEAD UK’s Covid infection rate plunges lower than 25 of 27 EU nations as cases fall 28% in a week after vaccine rollout
Joe Duggan
1 Apr 2021, 7:19Updated: 1 Apr 2021, 10:04
THE UK'S Covid infection rate is lower than 25 of 27 EU countries after the success of Britain's vaccine rollout.
The daily case numbers in the UK have slumped by 28 per cent in a week, official figures show.
Only Denmark and Portugal have lower infection rates among EU nations that the UK, the seven-day average of cases per million people shows The success of the UK's vaccine rollout has seen deaths and infections slump 5 The success of the UK's vaccine rollout has seen deaths and infections slumpCredit: AFP
The UK is now the best-placed major European nation as a third-wave wreaks havoc on the continent.
France has seen cases triple since early February to nearly 60,000 cases a day, with doctors in overwhelmed hospitals forced to choose which Covid patients get a ventilator.
Emmanuel Macron last night declared a four-week national lockdown and warned France is likely to "lose control" amid a surge in coronavirus cases.
The French President has blamed the UK Kent variant for the explosion in cases, with the weekly infection rate around eight times higher than in the UK. FRANCE LOCKDOWN
In a televised nationwide address , President Macron said the "epidemic is accelerating" and warned France is likely to "lose control" as infections spiral.
Germany's infection rate is nearly three times higher than the UK's, with 23,681 cases recorded on March 30.
The UK has seen an average of 73 daily cases per million people over the past week.
Only two EU countries - Denmark and Portugal - have lower case rates. French president Emmanuel Macron warned in a televised address his country is likely to "lose control" amid soaring Covid rates 5 French president Emmanuel Macron warned in a televised address his country is likely to "lose control" amid soaring Covid ratesCredit: AFP Total deaths in France have soared to almost 100,000 5 Total deaths in France have soared to almost 100,000
Hungary is the worst hit EU nation, with the daily rate soaring to 882 cases per one million people.
France's seven-day average is 571, with Netherlands 449 and Italy's 334.
As the pandemic sends Europe into meltdown, UK cases, deaths and hospitalisations have dropped to a six-month low.
Yesterday, there were 43 deaths - a 56 per cent week-on-week drop on last Wednesday's deaths -. and 4,052 cases.
UK deaths are now averaging averaging 50 a day, down from the peak of 1,284 deaths on January 19.
Almost six in ten adults in the UK have received at least one dose of the vaccine, with the EU figure only around 11 per cent.
Europe's chaotic vaccine rollout has seen Germany this week ban the AstraZeneca jab for under-55s over blood clot fears.
The shock decision comes days after France, Italy and Germany resumed their rollout out of the AstraZeneca vaccine after the EU finally declared it safe.
The trio's humiliating U-turn had come after all three countries led the way in suspending use of the jab amid an unfounded safety scare about the link with blood-clots.
And today the European Medical Agency again ruled the AZ jab safe despite Germany slapping a ban on using it on under 55s. Angela Merkel banning the Oxford vaccine and flirting with Putin over the Sputnik jab has been blamed on 'hatred for Brexit Britain' 5 Angela Merkel banning the Oxford vaccine and flirting with Putin over the Sputnik jab has been blamed on 'hatred for Brexit Britain'Credit: EPA"
That was in lots of National newspapers yesterday. Did you not see it?
In my defence I used an article that was 17 hours old.
Who wrote that? It was lovely. As a work of fiction.
Let's look at fairness. Or reciprocity.
You printed the articles previously. The EU proudly announced that their regulator would be quicker than the UK, they would make the vaccine quicker. And we would have to wait our turn in the queue.
Our regulator was quicker than the EMA. We made the vaccine quicker. And the EU screams there is a lack of reciprocity. And the EU is waiting its turn in the queue. Really? Looks remarkably similar to me.
"Global responsibility". No. all they are saying is that they are going to hijack other Company's product, and share it among their members. Because when stuff is made in the UK that might be ours or theirs, it is wrong for AZ to favour us. But no problem in hijacking AZ/Pfizer product meant for elsewhere. Not to the UK. Not to Australia. And certainly not to poor countries.
Let us look at why we are quicker. See if you can spot the key divergence.
1. Technological experts that have no experience in mass roll-out (Biontech) want to partner with a global player to combine expertise 2. They want to use an American Company-Pfizer 3. The EU agree, place 80% of future orders there, and have another 20% ordered with AZ 4. There are various problems in the US and UK. Which result in a shortfall in product. Which, for reasons that are hotly disputed, doesn't seem to fall on the places that make/own the stuff
Or
1. Technological experts that have no experience in mass roll-out (Oxford Uni) want to partner with a global player to combine expertise 2. They want to use an American Company-Merck 3. The UK (for whatever reason, tho I'm sure we would disagree as to those reasons) persuades the experts to partner instead with a UK-based Company, AZ. Place 80% of orders with a UK Company, 20% with a US one 4. There are various problems in the US and UK. Which result in a shortfall in product. Which, for reasons which are hotly disputed, doesn't seem to fall on the places that make/own the stuff
Can you spot a key difference? Do you think that this is the EU's very own "track and trace". Or do the UK deserve credit?
Who wrote that? It was lovely. As a work of fiction.
Let's look at fairness. Or reciprocity.
You printed the articles previously. The EU proudly announced that their regulator would be quicker than the UK, they would make the vaccine quicker. And we would have to wait our turn in the queue.
Our regulator was quicker than the EMA. We made the vaccine quicker. And the EU screams there is a lack of reciprocity. And the EU is waiting its turn in the queue. Really? Looks remarkably similar to me.
"Global responsibility". No. all they are saying is that they are going to hijack other Company's product, and share it among their members. Because when stuff is made in the UK that might be ours or theirs, it is wrong for AZ to favour us. But no problem in hijacking AZ/Pfizer product meant for elsewhere. Not to the UK. Not to Australia. And certainly not to poor countries.
Let us look at why we are quicker. See if you can spot the key divergence.
1. Technological experts that have no experience in mass roll-out (Biontech) want to partner with a global player to combine expertise 2. They want to use an American Company-Pfizer 3. The EU agree, place 80% of future orders there, and have another 20% ordered with AZ 4. There are various problems in the US and UK. Which result in a shortfall in product. Which, for reasons that are hotly disputed, doesn't seem to fall on the places that make/own the stuff
Or
1. Technological experts that have no experience in mass roll-out (Oxford Uni) want to partner with a global player to combine expertise 2. They want to use an American Company-Merck 3. The UK (for whatever reason, tho I'm sure we would disagree as to those reasons) persuades the experts to partner instead with a UK-based Company, AZ. Place 80% of orders with a UK Company, 20% with a US one 4. There are various problems in the US and UK. Which result in a shortfall in product. Which, for reasons which are hotly disputed, doesn't seem to fall on the places that make/own the stuff
Can you spot a key difference? Do you think that this is the EU's very own "track and trace". Or do the UK deserve credit?
How can production delays only affect one contract?
Here's a question for you - if Astra Zeneca vaccine is licensed to a UK company why on earth are we not manufacturing it here? If not why not?
We are. In Oxford, Keele and Wrexham. We also manufacture parts for the Pfizer vaccine in (I think) Yorkshire.
It is also made in several sites in the EU, but they have had difficulties at various sites. Which is, of course, part of (but certainly not all of) the problem.
Why is it also made abroad (Brazil, India etc)? Partly because of the necessary global reach. And partly to save money.
Sorry I meant to say all that we need to be manufactured in UK.
If vaccine being sold at cost why not let other Countries manufacture their own under licence at least for the foreseeable future.
Did you actually read the article in case you did not he is the part on timeline ...
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.
Comments
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 .
I dont think there is any doubt that they have broken the contract, they havent delivered the agreed number of doses.
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 .
Yes and the EU signed an agreement for 300 million doses a couple of months prior to signing the contract.
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
If AZ contracted to supply 270 million doses by the end of this quarter, and plan to deliver only 101 million, how can the contract not be broken?
The AZ top man was slated when this dispute arose for claiming that the UK signed their contract in advance of the EU, and therefore entitled to preferential treatment.
He is not saying anything now.
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.
Does that make sense to you?
They signed the EU agreement in June.
They signed the UK contract after the EU contract.
Surely if the UK contract has more value than the EU contract, and was signed later, doesnt that make contracts in general not worth the paper they are written on?
And in the end, the EU waived its right to take AstraZeneca to court if there are delivery delays.
I dont think they have yet.
I'm no expert so my interpretation is that AZ will make there best effort but if they fail then they have covered themselves ..
The legal opinion I posted said that the two contracts are pretty much the same, but the UK contract includes harsher penalties.
it does not give any guarantee just because they ordered 4 x more .
I was just pointing out that purely on a commercial basis, they might have given preference to the EU, as they have invested 4 times as much, ordered 4 times as many doses, and entered agreement a couple of months earlier.
the UK contract has penalty clause which could be why the UK has not had any great delay
Dont all contracts have a penalty clause?
Wouldnt a contract without a penalty clause be completely useless
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 .
As I said previously the other legal opinion said the the UK contract had tougher penalties, other than that they were pretty much the same.
I think if AZ had let down the UK, and supplied the EU in full, there would have been a massive outcry over here.
To me this just stinks.
It leaves a bad taste.
We used to think more about honour than being sneaky.
Production delays that affect one contract is b0ll0cks.
Do you think the delays will cost lives in the EU.
Why do you think that nobody even mentions India, and the 5 million missing doses that are slowing down are vaccine roll out this month?
Will that cost lives?
Why doesnt anyone mention Canada, and their AZ restrictions?
Every time a European politician says anything they represent the EU.
Yet during the last 47 years, when any British politician said something stupid or out of order they werent representing the EU.
What I mean is that if Merkel, or Macron say something we dont like, in this country we dont criticise them or their country, we always criticise the EU.
Yet while we were still members, if Boris said something stupid, we would criticise him, or the Tories, never the EU.
But they have already said that they are going to do worse in quarter 2 than they did in quarter 1.
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.
I should have said we still have one of the highest death rates in Europe, well ahead of France, and Germany, and I find you comment about Boris and whoppers a bit harsh.
Covid map: Coronavirus cases, deaths, vaccinations by country
By The Visual and Data Journalism Team
BBC News
Published17 hours ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
If they vote against, the EU have to come up with an unspecified alternative.
Maybe the Boris plan is to unilaterally extend the grace periods until 2024, to limit the chaos.
Although I am not sure what might change between now and 2024
Covid map: Coronavirus cases, deaths, vaccinations by country
By The Visual and Data Journalism Team
BBC News
Published17 hours ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
Please be aware that I will be checking an emojis used on this thread against the old fa rt test.
You seem ok so far.
You have been warned.
You keep implying the EU had 100 million guaranteed in 1st qtr and AZ came up short .
i see it as AZ made there best efforts and came up short of expectation ..
i interpreted this part of the EU contract..
if AZ short suspend payments ..
have to admit next part when read is very confusing
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
sounds like AZ cannot have impending contracts but if they do and it impedes AZs EU contract then AZ cannot be deemed in breach with the EU ..
After reading what the expert in contractual law wrote when compare ring both contracts my opinion has not changed same as yours has not ...
we will have to agree to disagree ..
When a Lawyer refers to the contract "technically" being 1 day later, they are being disingenuous.
Lawyers working for Big Pharma in Senior positions are paid vast amounts of money. Put it this way-the gap between the top Pharma lawyers and me on Contract Law is about the same difference as between me and you. and I have spent most of my life dealing with Contract Law.
They are paid the big bucks to look after their clients, and the money. The Head of Legal at AZ or Pfizer will be earning way more than me, or you, or indeed any Lawyer working for the UK or the EU. Not because they are good. But because they are among the very best of the best.
They know fine well that at some point some smart alec will pull the FOI (Freedom of Information) trick. So it works like this.
1. Joint venture agreement. With well-crafted Non-Disclosure Agreement. While all parties risk hundreds of millions of pounds, wanting to ensure that their work cannot be gifted to a rival
2. Lots of work done covertly, not least due to the importance of being first and/or better. Temporary new organisation for joint works, none of which made public
3. Once you have done all the backstage work, sign the Contract you want others to see. Because that makes it easy to deny that anything else ever existed. And you don't have to disclose historic trade-sensitive stuff.
You'll no doubt that I'm making all this up. But then I have done this lots of times. And you haven't. I know you don't answer any questions. So ask yourself these:-
1. Do you think there was no Contract signed when Oxford Uni were persuaded to ditch Merck and go to AZ?
2. Do you think a multi-billion pound Company allows people from Governments and Universities to sit on Joint Venture Boards without a Contract?
3. Why do you think it is caused the "Oxford" vaccine? Why not Heidelberg? Paris? Do you think there just might have been a Contract in place BEFORE all the work is carried out?
Covid map: Coronavirus cases, deaths, vaccinations by country
By The Visual and Data Journalism Team
BBC News
Published17 hours ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
You are shameless at only using facts that suit you. You claim you are looking at now, not the past. Let us look at the rate NOW.
"SHOT AHEAD UK’s Covid infection rate plunges lower than 25 of 27 EU nations as cases fall 28% in a week after vaccine rollout
Joe Duggan
1 Apr 2021, 7:19Updated: 1 Apr 2021, 10:04
THE UK'S Covid infection rate is lower than 25 of 27 EU countries after the success of Britain's vaccine rollout.
The daily case numbers in the UK have slumped by 28 per cent in a week, official figures show.
Only Denmark and Portugal have lower infection rates among EU nations that the UK, the seven-day average of cases per million people shows
The success of the UK's vaccine rollout has seen deaths and infections slump
5
The success of the UK's vaccine rollout has seen deaths and infections slumpCredit: AFP
The UK is now the best-placed major European nation as a third-wave wreaks havoc on the continent.
France has seen cases triple since early February to nearly 60,000 cases a day, with doctors in overwhelmed hospitals forced to choose which Covid patients get a ventilator.
Emmanuel Macron last night declared a four-week national lockdown and warned France is likely to "lose control" amid a surge in coronavirus cases.
The French President has blamed the UK Kent variant for the explosion in cases, with the weekly infection rate around eight times higher than in the UK.
FRANCE LOCKDOWN
In a televised nationwide address , President Macron said the "epidemic is accelerating" and warned France is likely to "lose control" as infections spiral.
Germany's infection rate is nearly three times higher than the UK's, with 23,681 cases recorded on March 30.
The UK has seen an average of 73 daily cases per million people over the past week.
Only two EU countries - Denmark and Portugal - have lower case rates.
French president Emmanuel Macron warned in a televised address his country is likely to "lose control" amid soaring Covid rates
5
French president Emmanuel Macron warned in a televised address his country is likely to "lose control" amid soaring Covid ratesCredit: AFP
Total deaths in France have soared to almost 100,000
5
Total deaths in France have soared to almost 100,000
Hungary is the worst hit EU nation, with the daily rate soaring to 882 cases per one million people.
France's seven-day average is 571, with Netherlands 449 and Italy's 334.
As the pandemic sends Europe into meltdown, UK cases, deaths and hospitalisations have dropped to a six-month low.
Yesterday, there were 43 deaths - a 56 per cent week-on-week drop on last Wednesday's deaths -. and 4,052 cases.
UK deaths are now averaging averaging 50 a day, down from the peak of 1,284 deaths on January 19.
Almost six in ten adults in the UK have received at least one dose of the vaccine, with the EU figure only around 11 per cent.
Europe's chaotic vaccine rollout has seen Germany this week ban the AstraZeneca jab for under-55s over blood clot fears.
The shock decision comes days after France, Italy and Germany resumed their rollout out of the AstraZeneca vaccine after the EU finally declared it safe.
The trio's humiliating U-turn had come after all three countries led the way in suspending use of the jab amid an unfounded safety scare about the link with blood-clots.
And today the European Medical Agency again ruled the AZ jab safe despite Germany slapping a ban on using it on under 55s.
Angela Merkel banning the Oxford vaccine and flirting with Putin over the Sputnik jab has been blamed on 'hatred for Brexit Britain'
5
Angela Merkel banning the Oxford vaccine and flirting with Putin over the Sputnik jab has been blamed on 'hatred for Brexit Britain'Credit: EPA"
That was in lots of National newspapers yesterday. Did you not see it?
You seem ok so far.
You have been warned.
I liked this bit. Don't know about you, but I read this article and had a nervous feeling that I might be too old to use the stuff that the young think of as old!
Then I thought of how often @madprof uses that poo emoji. And I felt much better...
It is also made in several sites in the EU, but they have had difficulties at various sites. Which is, of course, part of (but certainly not all of) the problem.
Why is it also made abroad (Brazil, India etc)? Partly because of the necessary global reach. And partly to save money.
Although I think some of it is irrelevant.
It is surely pointless going into a long speech about how clever AZs lawyers are, when these clever lawyers presumably produced both contracts.
That is unless you are suggesting that the contract that they prepared for the EU was purposely inferior in some way, to the contract they prepared for the UK.
Anyway I regard the contract issue as a red herring, as AZ are clearly blaming production delays for their shortcomings.
Repeating myself over and over again is pointless, so I am not going to.
AstraZeneca signed vaccine contract with EU at the same time and with the same terms as UK
It flies in the face of claims made by the pharmaceutical giant that it had committed to "best effort" terms with the EU at a later date.
EU and UK spokespeople also refused to elaborate in detail. But David Greene, a senior partner at the law firm Edwin Coe, confirmed that the contracts on both sides were essentially the same in terms of language.
“There are many similarities between these two contracts, including the best reasonable efforts terms. It’s hardly surprising because they were made at the same time,” he said.
He explained that the term “Best Reasonable Efforts” was essentially an escape clause to offer some legal protection to AstraZeneca in the event it could not deliver to its agreed schedule.
“However, what they can’t do, on the face of it, is choose one contracting party over another. So they can’t say to the EU ‘I’m not going to deliver to you because I’m going to deliver to the UK,’ and similar. That’s always been the case.”
Newly-released vaccine contracts show Astrazeneca made the same agreements at the same time with the UK and EU, prompting confusion over comments made by Pascal Soriot in the wake of heated disputes in January.
According to documents obtained by CNN the pharmaceutical giant signed a contract to deliver Covid-19 vaccines with the EU one day prior to the UK and used the same ‘best efforts’ language in the agreements.
In January, amid a bitter row between the EU and AZ over shortfalls in delivery, the firm’s chief executive Sorio said the contract only committed to meet the EU’s demands to its “best effort” and that the EU’s deliveries were delayed in part because the bloc signed its contract later than the UK and therefore EU manufacturing facilities were still catching up.
But that argument has been rubbished
Which contract to choose?
As a matter of law, both the EU and the UK have a case. Both contracts contain a “best reasonable efforts” clause, which is intended to cover the situation where force majeure – a legal term for an event outside one’s control – makes full delivery impossible or unreasonably difficult.
But signing a preferential contract with someone else is not force majeure: it is just selling the same stuff twice. AstraZeneca’s EU obligations are not diminished by its promises to the UK. But if AstraZeneca had distributed the output of its four European plants equally between the EU and UK, as the EU would like, it would be violating the UK contract. It appears to have promised too much to too many people.
A question of fairness
In a situation of global shortage, any vaccine that one country obtains is one that another has lost, which puts a particular responsibility on states with power, money, and vaccine production facilities to consider where doses should go. Should the spoils go to the strongest, or are there issues of fairness?
The US and UK have been consistent and clear in their commitment to helping themselves first. While both have made promises to help others, this will only come after they have met their own needs, and there is no evidence either country has yet exported anything at all.
The EU is probably the third largest producer of vaccines, after the US and China, but has exported 77 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines to numerous countries and to Covax, the vaccine scheme for developing countries, to which it is the largest supplier.
The western European vaccine-producing countries have also agreed to supply the rest of their production to the EU as a whole to be made available on a per capita basis to all member states. They are adopting a policy of sharing with non-producing countries globally, and with their neighbours, which of course means less for themselves.
This is seen as utter foolishness, and failure, by the UK government. Its measure of success is how much its gets for people in the UK.
On the other hand, the EU hopes to reach a herd immunity level of vaccination in the summer, probably only a month or two after the UK. It will have done so while showing some sense of global responsibility.
"SHOT AHEAD UK’s Covid infection rate plunges lower than 25 of 27 EU nations as cases fall 28% in a week after vaccine rollout
Joe Duggan
1 Apr 2021, 7:19Updated: 1 Apr 2021, 10:04
THE UK'S Covid infection rate is lower than 25 of 27 EU countries after the success of Britain's vaccine rollout.
The daily case numbers in the UK have slumped by 28 per cent in a week, official figures show.
Only Denmark and Portugal have lower infection rates among EU nations that the UK, the seven-day average of cases per million people shows
The success of the UK's vaccine rollout has seen deaths and infections slump
5
The success of the UK's vaccine rollout has seen deaths and infections slumpCredit: AFP
The UK is now the best-placed major European nation as a third-wave wreaks havoc on the continent.
France has seen cases triple since early February to nearly 60,000 cases a day, with doctors in overwhelmed hospitals forced to choose which Covid patients get a ventilator.
Emmanuel Macron last night declared a four-week national lockdown and warned France is likely to "lose control" amid a surge in coronavirus cases.
The French President has blamed the UK Kent variant for the explosion in cases, with the weekly infection rate around eight times higher than in the UK.
FRANCE LOCKDOWN
In a televised nationwide address , President Macron said the "epidemic is accelerating" and warned France is likely to "lose control" as infections spiral.
Germany's infection rate is nearly three times higher than the UK's, with 23,681 cases recorded on March 30.
The UK has seen an average of 73 daily cases per million people over the past week.
Only two EU countries - Denmark and Portugal - have lower case rates.
French president Emmanuel Macron warned in a televised address his country is likely to "lose control" amid soaring Covid rates
5
French president Emmanuel Macron warned in a televised address his country is likely to "lose control" amid soaring Covid ratesCredit: AFP
Total deaths in France have soared to almost 100,000
5
Total deaths in France have soared to almost 100,000
Hungary is the worst hit EU nation, with the daily rate soaring to 882 cases per one million people.
France's seven-day average is 571, with Netherlands 449 and Italy's 334.
As the pandemic sends Europe into meltdown, UK cases, deaths and hospitalisations have dropped to a six-month low.
Yesterday, there were 43 deaths - a 56 per cent week-on-week drop on last Wednesday's deaths -. and 4,052 cases.
UK deaths are now averaging averaging 50 a day, down from the peak of 1,284 deaths on January 19.
Almost six in ten adults in the UK have received at least one dose of the vaccine, with the EU figure only around 11 per cent.
Europe's chaotic vaccine rollout has seen Germany this week ban the AstraZeneca jab for under-55s over blood clot fears.
The shock decision comes days after France, Italy and Germany resumed their rollout out of the AstraZeneca vaccine after the EU finally declared it safe.
The trio's humiliating U-turn had come after all three countries led the way in suspending use of the jab amid an unfounded safety scare about the link with blood-clots.
And today the European Medical Agency again ruled the AZ jab safe despite Germany slapping a ban on using it on under 55s.
Angela Merkel banning the Oxford vaccine and flirting with Putin over the Sputnik jab has been blamed on 'hatred for Brexit Britain'
5
Angela Merkel banning the Oxford vaccine and flirting with Putin over the Sputnik jab has been blamed on 'hatred for Brexit Britain'Credit: EPA"
That was in lots of National newspapers yesterday. Did you not see it?
In my defence I used an article that was 17 hours old.
Let's look at fairness. Or reciprocity.
You printed the articles previously. The EU proudly announced that their regulator would be quicker than the UK, they would make the vaccine quicker. And we would have to wait our turn in the queue.
Our regulator was quicker than the EMA. We made the vaccine quicker. And the EU screams there is a lack of reciprocity. And the EU is waiting its turn in the queue. Really? Looks remarkably similar to me.
"Global responsibility". No. all they are saying is that they are going to hijack other Company's product, and share it among their members. Because when stuff is made in the UK that might be ours or theirs, it is wrong for AZ to favour us. But no problem in hijacking AZ/Pfizer product meant for elsewhere. Not to the UK. Not to Australia. And certainly not to poor countries.
Let us look at why we are quicker. See if you can spot the key divergence.
1. Technological experts that have no experience in mass roll-out (Biontech) want to partner with a global player to combine expertise
2. They want to use an American Company-Pfizer
3. The EU agree, place 80% of future orders there, and have another 20% ordered with AZ
4. There are various problems in the US and UK. Which result in a shortfall in product. Which, for reasons that are hotly disputed, doesn't seem to fall on the places that make/own the stuff
Or
1. Technological experts that have no experience in mass roll-out (Oxford Uni) want to partner with a global player to combine expertise
2. They want to use an American Company-Merck
3. The UK (for whatever reason, tho I'm sure we would disagree as to those reasons) persuades the experts to partner instead with a UK-based Company, AZ. Place 80% of orders with a UK Company, 20% with a US one
4. There are various problems in the US and UK. Which result in a shortfall in product. Which, for reasons which are hotly disputed, doesn't seem to fall on the places that make/own the stuff
Can you spot a key difference?
Do you think that this is the EU's very own "track and trace". Or do the UK deserve credit?
If vaccine being sold at cost why not let other Countries manufacture their own under licence at least for the foreseeable future.
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.