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.
I did.
It all seemed normal to me. I was trying to explain why it is "not clear on paper".
Except the bit about 4 EU countries apparently reneging on the contract they had with the EU.
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.
The EU gave them 330 million euros. Does that make them a bigger shareholder?
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.”
The two contracts were virtually the same.
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.
So even though the contracts were the same somebody might have said something to the UK Government which gave them a preferential deal, maybe or possibly, and nobody knows what was said to the EU or what the EU might possibly have said to AZ. Straw clutching at its best. Anyway you are completely missing the point that AZ have claimed that the EU shortage is down to production delays, and therefore nothing to do with contracts, or what somebody might have said in an email, possibly.
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.
The Indian mob were supposed to be manufacturing 10 million for us. They supplied 5 million, and are now keeping the other 5 million for themselves. Hence the slowdown in April. They intend to supply the shortfall in the future, but it is not clear when.
read it.... do not read it... makes no real difference to me or my opinion ..
The lawyer is a expert in contractual law... he will have a far better opinion than myself on the subject ..
Just like now ,the EU commission did not fully understand what they signed had no guarantee you still keep harping on about the shortfall being a breach of contract when it is not .. even the short fall in the 2nd qtr is not a breach as AZ has told them they will be short.. all in there contract ..
As i said read it . don't read it, makes no difference as you will probably still insist the EU are short ..
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.
The EU gave them 330 million euros. Does that make them a bigger shareholder?
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.”
The two contracts were virtually the same.
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.
So even though the contracts were the same somebody might have said something to the UK Government which gave them a preferential deal, maybe or possibly, and nobody knows what was said to the EU or what the EU might possibly have said to AZ. Straw clutching at its best. Anyway you are completely missing the point that AZ have claimed that the EU shortage is down to production delays, and therefore nothing to do with contracts, or what somebody might have said in an email, possibly.
You say "straw clutching".
I say I have 40 years' contract law experience, have dealt with Big Pharma in detail, and gave specifics. Which you either do not understand or choose not to do so. I neither know nor care which.
But I am confident that I, like absolutely everyone else before, will get tired of endlessly debating with you.
Because it gets quite dull answering questions, while knowing that you will never do the same. Because you are confident that every question you ask is relevant, while mine are, apparently, in every single case either irrelevant or some sort of meaningless quiz.
And you are equally confident that you are the only person to be the arbiter on that. Which is rather sad.
The current winner of most effective Covid jab is Moderna, which returned efficacy rates a fraction above Pfizer, which was first to deliver results in 2020. People who have one dose of Pfizer's jab will develop protection from roughly 52.4 percent of cases between their first and second doses.
Protection starts around 10 days following the initial jab, eventually providing an estimated 96 percent following a second.
Moderna, which returned its results not long after Pfizer at the end of 2020, boasted 80.2 percent protection after one dose.
Immunity jumps to 95.6 percent after a second shot, besting Pfizer by a fraction.
The other operational candidate developed by teams from Oxford University and pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca offers 64.1 percent coverage after a single dose.
Two full doses provide 70.4 percent protection from the virus.
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.
is that not what is happening already.. AZ is cost price i believe for the first 3 billion doses but others are going for profit straight away which is very decent of them not to follow suit as this is a world wide problem ..maybe what AZ should have done was charge the same as others as effectively the UK is a major share holder in the AZ vaccine and the UK just pays the cost price
read it.... do not read it... makes no real difference to me or my opinion ..
The lawyer is a expert in contractual law... he will have a far better opinion than myself on the subject ..
Just like now ,the EU commission did not fully understand what they signed had no guarantee you still keep harping on about the shortfall being a breach of contract when it is not .. even the short fall in the 2nd qtr is not a breach as AZ has told them they will be short.. all in there contract ..
As i said read it . don't read it, makes no difference as you will probably still insist the EU are short ..
We will have to agree to disagree, as we seem to be going around in circles.
AZ are blaming production delays not the contracts. I think that to prove production delays the UK must have had a shortage.
I am not sure why you think the EU signed a contract. Maybe they would have been better just phoning up AZ, and saying send us a couple of million doses when the UK has finished vaccinating.
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.
The EU gave them 330 million euros. Does that make them a bigger shareholder?
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.”
The two contracts were virtually the same.
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.
So even though the contracts were the same somebody might have said something to the UK Government which gave them a preferential deal, maybe or possibly, and nobody knows what was said to the EU or what the EU might possibly have said to AZ. Straw clutching at its best. Anyway you are completely missing the point that AZ have claimed that the EU shortage is down to production delays, and therefore nothing to do with contracts, or what somebody might have said in an email, possibly.
You say "straw clutching".
I say I have 40 years' contract law experience, have dealt with Big Pharma in detail, and gave specifics. Which you either do not understand or choose not to do so. I neither know nor care which.
But I am confident that I, like absolutely everyone else before, will get tired of endlessly debating with you.
Because it gets quite dull answering questions, while knowing that you will never do the same. Because you are confident that every question you ask is relevant, while mine are, apparently, in every single case either irrelevant or some sort of meaningless quiz.
And you are equally confident that you are the only person to be the arbiter on that. Which is rather sad.
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.
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.
The EU gave them 330 million euros. Does that make them a bigger shareholder?
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.”
The two contracts were virtually the same.
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.
So even though the contracts were the same somebody might have said something to the UK Government which gave them a preferential deal, maybe or possibly, and nobody knows what was said to the EU or what the EU might possibly have said to AZ. Straw clutching at its best. Anyway you are completely missing the point that AZ have claimed that the EU shortage is down to production delays, and therefore nothing to do with contracts, or what somebody might have said in an email, possibly.
it says even thou they they look the same the UK contract is in UK law the EU contract in Belgium law they are different ... As phil said AZ lawyers will be payed vast sums to be the best at what they do which will include to have a extensive knowledge of the difference in various countries contractual laws ..
AZ probably have lawyers checking over what there other lawyer's are committing AZ to before any contract is signed .. no private company wants to be held liable for multi million law suit ...
its a fact of life for these situations , face to face your promised or even guaranteed something . but in the contract that is signed the wording and the detail is what counts...
Is it fair or right ? i would suggest not as these contracts are all secret and non disclosure and open to interpretation but the EU signed a contract that said they cannot go to court over missed deadlines for doses
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.
The EU gave them 330 million euros. Does that make them a bigger shareholder?
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.”
The two contracts were virtually the same.
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.
So even though the contracts were the same somebody might have said something to the UK Government which gave them a preferential deal, maybe or possibly, and nobody knows what was said to the EU or what the EU might possibly have said to AZ. Straw clutching at its best. Anyway you are completely missing the point that AZ have claimed that the EU shortage is down to production delays, and therefore nothing to do with contracts, or what somebody might have said in an email, possibly.
it says even thou they they look the same the UK contract is in UK law the EU contract in Belgium law they are different ...
The laws in the two countries are different, but the contracts are virtually the same. More importantly production delays will be the same in the EU as they are in the UK.
As phil said AZ lawyers will be payed vast sums to be the best at what they do which will include to have a extensive knowledge of the difference in various countries contractual laws ..
I get that, but the AZ lawyers presumably prepared both contracts.
AZ probably have lawyers checking over what there other lawyer's are committing AZ to before any contract is signed .. no private company wants to be held liable for multi million law suit ...
Dont you think this applies equally to both contracts. No private company wants to be sued by the UK or EU.
its a fact of life for these situations , face to face your promised or even guaranteed something . but in the contract that is signed the wording and the detail is what counts...
The two contracts are virtually the same.
Is it fair or right ? i would suggest not as these contracts are all secret and non disclosure and open to interpretation but the EU signed a contract that said they cannot go to court over missed deadlines for doses
I dont think for a minute that that is the case. You keep bringing up the contracts, when AZ are blaming production delays for their failure to deliver. They are clearly not saying that the UK has a preferential contract or that it is different in any way. Production delays.
there is a lot i do not understand as you clearly do not understand .. yes they appear to be the same contract but you do not seem to understand the difference in the 2 different laws UK law and Belgium law which i admit both go over my head and the article explains this . A expert in contractual law says they look the same but are different as the AZ lawyers had to negotiate contracts in both UK law and Belgium law ..
it explains why the UK contract surpasses the EU contract and says the EU contract based on Belgium law is inept in relation to there theory that AZ broke there contract ..
TBH i really do not care either way . who is right or who is wrong, every government is expected by there citizens to do right by them the UK government has on this occasion done that ..
if you want the UK fail then that's on you and you can twist it anyway you want to but you seem that is want so you can say told you so ..
Just remember those ivory towers are very high and it is a long way down ..
GOODNIGHT and farewell to all ..GL on tables to all ,,
there is a lot i do not understand as you clearly do not understand .. yes they appear to be the same contract but you do not seem to understand the difference in the 2 different laws UK law and Belgium law which i admit both go over my head and the article explains this . A expert in contractual law says they look the same but are different as the AZ lawyers had to negotiate contracts in both UK law and Belgium law ..
it explains why the UK contract surpasses the EU contract and says the EU contract based on Belgium law is inept in relation to there theory that AZ broke there contract ..
TBH i really do not care either way . who is right or who is wrong, every government is expected by there citizens to do right by them the UK government has on this occasion done that ..
if you want the UK fail then that's on you and you can twist it anyway you want to but you seem that is want so you can say told you so ..
Just remember those ivory towers are very high and it is a long way down ..
GOODNIGHT and farewell to all ..GL on tables to all ,,
I obviously dont want the UK Government to fail. I have approached this from a point of view of fairness. I cant see why you cant accept that AZ have said that they havent supplied the EU in full, is because of production delays. If they had said that the UK had a better contract then your argument might stand up, but they havent, so it doesnt.
This guy is obviously British, but he is a Professor of EU Law.
Did the UK outsmart the EU over AstraZeneca vaccines? Gareth Davies, Professor of EU Law, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Tue, 30 March 2021, 11:06 am·5-min read
In the “vaccine spat” between the EU and the UK, the common perception is that the UK is winning. The UK health secretary, Matt Hancock, has said this is because his government secured a better contract with vaccine manufacturers, in particular with AstraZeneca, than the EU did.
The EU produces far more vaccines than the UK, but it also exports far more, including to the UK, whereas no vaccines go the other way. In response to this imbalance, which is creating shortages in the EU while the UK is well supplied, the EU has threatened to block exports to countries with higher vaccination rates until its member states catch up.
To date, 80% of the vaccines administered in the UK, 26 million out of the 32 million total, have been imports, of which 5 million came from India, and 21 million, or two-thirds came from the EU.
Put differently: the UK which, based on these figures, would only have been able to vaccinate about 10%-18% of its population if it had to rely on domestic supply, is enjoying a massive vaccine bailout from its European neighbours.
Why would the EU be so generous? Hancock referred to the clauses in the UK’s vaccine supply contracts requiring vaccine producers to supply it preferentially: if there are production shortages, then the UK order must be fulfilled by diverting supplies from other customers. A failure to do so attracts fierce penalties.
As a result, the UK has had its orders fully met, whereas the EU suffered early shortfalls from Pfizer, and is now receiving less than a quarter of what it contracted for from AstraZeneca, which has experienced production problems.
The EU takes the view that if production disappoints, all customers should see a proportional reduction in deliveries. The UK view is that it has a right to preferential supply, because that is what the contract says. The UK government invested in the research, done at the University of Oxford, that powered the AstraZeneca vaccine, and the firm has its headquarters in Cambridge, England.
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.
The question is why AstraZeneca chose to breach the EU contract rather than the UK one. This will be largely because the UK deal had much harsher penalties – the EU deal has no penalties beyond non-payment and requires informal negotiation rather than litigation when problems arise.
So the UK did not contract better in the sense that it has a right to the vaccines it is obtaining; under the law governing the EU contract it does not. Rather, it seems that the UK contracted better in the sole sense that its contract was more expensive to breach.
That is partly a product of different legal systems and their styles: European contracting parties tend to see contracts as a tool to build up trust and long-term relationships. Anglo-American legal culture tends to see contracts as a way to avoid needing trust at all. Some Europeans seem jealous of this UK fierceness. On the other hand, if everyone did it, it wouldn’t work: grabbing more for yourself can only pay off for a few.
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.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Gareth Davies does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
You keep printing this article. In the genuine belief that these are somehow facts.
I don't know Mr Davies. I do know he was once a barrister in England.
I do know that he has spent the last 15 years or so lecturing in EU Law at middle-ranking Dutch Universities. And at least some of it criticising House of Lords decisions as being flawed in EU Law. Something that, due to Brexit, he can no longer do. I can also see that he is skilled in presenting "facts" in a way that suits what he is trying to say.
I have told you many times that Lawyers are skilled at using facts in a skewed way. So let's look at some of the "facts" that you take as gospel. And show you how facts are malleable.
1." In the “vaccine spat” between the EU and the UK, the common perception is that the UK is winning."
The first sentence. Which he fails to provide any context. Because, by any yardstick, we are.
2. "The EU produces far more vaccines than the UK, but it also exports far more, including to the UK, whereas no vaccines go the other way. In response to this imbalance, which is creating shortages in the EU while the UK is well supplied, the EU has threatened to block exports to countries with higher vaccination rates until its member states catch up."
No, this is just not true. The EU doesn't produce any vaccines. Pharmaceutical companies do. It is only pirates that believe stuff should be theirs purely because somebody else either makes stuff there, or transports it through their country.
"No vaccines go the other way." a nice touch. We make parts for the Pfizer vaccine. Technically, that is not "vaccines". So-technically true, but designed to mislead.
3. That guff about our contract wasn't better. It just had better penalty clauses. Tell me-would you prefer to carry out best endeavours where you would have to lose millions, or lose nothing? Particularly where you have agreed to provide the stuff without a profit margin.
4. "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."
This is nonsense, in exactly the same way as 2 above. The US/UK do not make any vaccines. Pfizer and AZ do. It is not ours to export. But Pfizer and Az have invested massively in new plants in the EU (and elsewhere). Which belong to them. Not the EU
5. "That is partly a product of different legal systems and their styles: European contracting parties tend to see contracts as a tool to build up trust and long-term relationships. Anglo-American legal culture tends to see contracts as a way to avoid needing trust at all. Some Europeans seem jealous of this UK fierceness. On the other hand, if everyone did it, it wouldn’t work: grabbing more for yourself can only pay off for a few."
Was he absent the day the EU decreed that Sale of Goods legislation in the UK was superior to the Civil Code Law traditionally used in Europe? 1 of the main advantages being flexibility and the ability to react to new situations. As opposed to "a tool to build up trust and long-term relations." so-he refers to an undoubted advantage of a system that is NOT relevant to a new system and a new contract. And ignores the fact that the opposite side of the coin is where he wants to be for THIS contract.
7. "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."
No. The EU does not produce any vaccine. Companies do. Those companies have provided those 77 million doses. Not the EU. The EU has only vaccinated about 60 million people. Think they have given more away than they kept? Recommend he doesn't play poker.
9. "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."
No, it is not. The main measures of success are (1) not dying, and (2) being able to emerge from lockdown. Not enter one.
I don't mean to sound harsh. I don't want anyone to die. But I expect our Government to try and protect its own first. And others second. As do the EU-they want to share vaccine amongst themselves first. And others 2nd.
10. "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."
I love this bit. Not the 9 priority groups. That we have already done, and the EU are still trying to do the 1st 3 of them, and hope to catch up in the next 3 months (on something that has only been going for 3-4 months). No-herd immunity. So the y will "probably" only be a "month or two" behind way further down the line.
"Fairness"? "Global responsibility"? Only used by people who are losing the key arguments. I know that. And so does he.
The EU needs to stop pointing fingers. And pull their finger out.
They should start by incentivising 1 or more of the 8 EU/EEA Pharma Companies with turnover of over $10 billion per annum to actually start doing something to help. It should have been Plan A. It desperately needs to be Plan B.
In case you are any doubt, what Mr Davies said on 30th March night not be quite as good as you might hope.
He writes a blog. Here are some of the things he says on 31st March:-
"Even committed Europhiles are joining in the chorus complaining that the EU has lacked dynamism..."
"Membership is supposed to make states stronger and safer in a sometimes threatening world...If, instead, the EU is part of the problem, then Member States will learn the lesson that they can better go it alone, and the future of the EU will be in doubt. The post-Brexit time was supposed to be when the benefits of membership would become crystal clear. Now a crisis risks turning that on its head."
"Where did it go wrong?...Other vaccine producing countries have long been aware that where vaccines go is a matter for public power. The EU seems to be learning this only now. Its technocratic bias towards freedom to contract...is suited to times of calm stability, but not to crisis."
"Building new plants began ridiculously late...they should have been planned in detail in the Summer of 2020, not 2021"
"Contracting...has only been relevant as yet to the supply of AZ vaccines, and there are simply not enough..to make much difference...The EU may succeed in getting a larger share of local production, but it will still be a relatively small amount."
There's lots more. You might think he is your champion. But he is not.
In case you are any doubt, what Mr Davies said on 30th March night not be quite as good as you might hope.
He writes a blog. Here are some of the things he says on 31st March:-
"Even committed Europhiles are joining in the chorus complaining that the EU has lacked dynamism..."
"Membership is supposed to make states stronger and safer in a sometimes threatening world...If, instead, the EU is part of the problem, then Member States will learn the lesson that they can better go it alone, and the future of the EU will be in doubt. The post-Brexit time was supposed to be when the benefits of membership would become crystal clear. Now a crisis risks turning that on its head."
"Where did it go wrong?...Other vaccine producing countries have long been aware that where vaccines go is a matter for public power. The EU seems to be learning this only now. Its technocratic bias towards freedom to contract...is suited to times of calm stability, but not to crisis."
"Building new plants began ridiculously late...they should have been planned in detail in the Summer of 2020, not 2021"
"Contracting...has only been relevant as yet to the supply of AZ vaccines, and there are simply not enough..to make much difference...The EU may succeed in getting a larger share of local production, but it will still be a relatively small amount."
There's lots more. You might think he is your champion. But he is not.
So you want it both ways then, his article is incorrect, but when he is criticising the EU he is on the ball.
Michel Barnier says 'au revoir' to Brussels - with a parting shot at Ursula von der Leyen
Judging by his comments on Wednesday, he continues to be dissatisfied with Mrs von der Leyen’s confrontational approach to the vaccines supplies dispute with Britain.
He even went so far as to praise Britain’s vaccination success, which has irked many in the upper echelons of the commission.
“There is no place, in such a serious situation, for polemics and competition. There are so many more reasons to cooperate, in the short and the long term," he said.
Former Brexit Secretary David Davis reveals his 2018 resignation was a 'cold blooded' decision to force Theresa May out as Prime Minister
NEW Davis, 72, told a podcast that he wanted May replaced as PM by a leader who would take a tougher stance on Europe and push for a harder Brexit after she stopped listening to his advice.
In case you are any doubt, what Mr Davies said on 30th March night not be quite as good as you might hope.
He writes a blog. Here are some of the things he says on 31st March:-
"Even committed Europhiles are joining in the chorus complaining that the EU has lacked dynamism..."
"Membership is supposed to make states stronger and safer in a sometimes threatening world...If, instead, the EU is part of the problem, then Member States will learn the lesson that they can better go it alone, and the future of the EU will be in doubt. The post-Brexit time was supposed to be when the benefits of membership would become crystal clear. Now a crisis risks turning that on its head."
"Where did it go wrong?...Other vaccine producing countries have long been aware that where vaccines go is a matter for public power. The EU seems to be learning this only now. Its technocratic bias towards freedom to contract...is suited to times of calm stability, but not to crisis."
"Building new plants began ridiculously late...they should have been planned in detail in the Summer of 2020, not 2021"
"Contracting...has only been relevant as yet to the supply of AZ vaccines, and there are simply not enough..to make much difference...The EU may succeed in getting a larger share of local production, but it will still be a relatively small amount."
There's lots more. You might think he is your champion. But he is not.
So you want it both ways then, his article is incorrect, but when he is criticising the EU he is on the ball.
No.
I set out in detail where someone tries to make a case for something. I then show you why, in reality, he agrees with me.
Wanting it both ways is where you big up someone when he agrees with you, and refuse to debate all the stuff that shows why you are wrong. And just saying "you want it both ways then." Which sounds remarkably like "nerdy, nerdy, custard."
In case you are any doubt, what Mr Davies said on 30th March night not be quite as good as you might hope.
He writes a blog. Here are some of the things he says on 31st March:-
"Even committed Europhiles are joining in the chorus complaining that the EU has lacked dynamism..."
"Membership is supposed to make states stronger and safer in a sometimes threatening world...If, instead, the EU is part of the problem, then Member States will learn the lesson that they can better go it alone, and the future of the EU will be in doubt. The post-Brexit time was supposed to be when the benefits of membership would become crystal clear. Now a crisis risks turning that on its head."
"Where did it go wrong?...Other vaccine producing countries have long been aware that where vaccines go is a matter for public power. The EU seems to be learning this only now. Its technocratic bias towards freedom to contract...is suited to times of calm stability, but not to crisis."
"Building new plants began ridiculously late...they should have been planned in detail in the Summer of 2020, not 2021"
"Contracting...has only been relevant as yet to the supply of AZ vaccines, and there are simply not enough..to make much difference...The EU may succeed in getting a larger share of local production, but it will still be a relatively small amount."
There's lots more. You might think he is your champion. But he is not.
So you want it both ways then, his article is incorrect, but when he is criticising the EU he is on the ball.
No.
I set out in detail where someone tries to make a case for something. I then show you why, in reality, he agrees with me.
Wanting it both ways is where you big up someone when he agrees with you, and refuse to debate all the stuff that shows why you are wrong. And just saying "you want it both ways then." Which sounds remarkably like "nerdy, nerdy, custard."
You were knocking his article, and accused him of manipulating facts. To say that he agrees with you is a bit of a stretch. You are mistaken in many of the assumptions that you make of me. I dont consider myself a cheerleader for the EU, I just dont think that we should have left. Merely we were better in than out. I am aware that the EU make mistakes, and behaved stupidly on occasion. I dont think you have to be big fan of the EU, to support this view.
On this particular topic you will never ever convince me that AZ have not breached their EU contract, acted underhandedly, and dishonestly.
We should agree to disagree, because I am getting bored with it now.
Comments
It all seemed normal to me. I was trying to explain why it is "not clear on paper".
Except the bit about 4 EU countries apparently reneging on the contract they had with the EU.
Straw clutching at its best.
Anyway you are completely missing the point that AZ have claimed that the EU shortage is down to production delays, and therefore nothing to do with contracts, or what somebody might have said in an email, possibly.
They supplied 5 million, and are now keeping the other 5 million for themselves.
Hence the slowdown in April.
They intend to supply the shortfall in the future, but it is not clear when.
https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-
...
read it.... do not read it... makes no real difference to me or my opinion ..
The lawyer is a expert in contractual law... he will have a far better opinion than myself on the subject ..
Just like now ,the EU commission did not fully understand what they signed had no guarantee you still keep harping on about the shortfall being a breach of contract when it is not .. even the short fall in the 2nd qtr is not a breach as AZ has told them they will be short.. all in there contract ..
As i said read it . don't read it, makes no difference as you will probably still insist the EU are short ..
I say I have 40 years' contract law experience, have dealt with Big Pharma in detail, and gave specifics. Which you either do not understand or choose not to do so. I neither know nor care which.
But I am confident that I, like absolutely everyone else before, will get tired of endlessly debating with you.
Because it gets quite dull answering questions, while knowing that you will never do the same. Because you are confident that every question you ask is relevant, while mine are, apparently, in every single case either irrelevant or some sort of meaningless quiz.
And you are equally confident that you are the only person to be the arbiter on that. Which is rather sad.
The current winner of most effective Covid jab is Moderna, which returned efficacy rates a fraction above Pfizer, which was first to deliver results in 2020.
People who have one dose of Pfizer's jab will develop protection from roughly 52.4 percent of cases between their first and second doses.
Protection starts around 10 days following the initial jab, eventually providing an estimated 96 percent following a second.
Moderna, which returned its results not long after Pfizer at the end of 2020, boasted 80.2 percent protection after one dose.
Immunity jumps to 95.6 percent after a second shot, besting Pfizer by a fraction.
The other operational candidate developed by teams from Oxford University and pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca offers 64.1 percent coverage after a single dose.
Two full doses provide 70.4 percent protection from the virus.
AZ are blaming production delays not the contracts.
I think that to prove production delays the UK must have had a shortage.
I am not sure why you think the EU signed a contract.
Maybe they would have been better just phoning up AZ, and saying send us a couple of million doses when the UK has finished vaccinating.
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.
https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-
it says even thou they they look the same the UK contract is in UK law the EU contract in Belgium law they are different ...
As phil said AZ lawyers will be payed vast sums to be the best at what they do which will include to have a extensive knowledge of the difference in various countries contractual laws ..
AZ probably have lawyers checking over what there other lawyer's are committing AZ to before any contract is signed ..
no private company wants to be held liable for multi million law suit ...
its a fact of life for these situations , face to face your promised or even guaranteed something . but in the contract that is signed the wording and the detail is what counts...
Is it fair or right ? i would suggest not as these contracts are all secret and non disclosure and open to interpretation but the EU signed a contract that said they cannot go to court over missed deadlines for doses
yes they appear to be the same contract but you do not seem to understand the difference in the 2 different laws UK law and Belgium law which i admit both go over my head and the article explains this . A expert in contractual law says they look the same but are different as the AZ lawyers had to negotiate contracts in both UK law and Belgium law ..
it explains why the UK contract surpasses the EU contract and says the EU contract based on Belgium law is inept in relation to there theory that AZ broke there contract ..
TBH i really do not care either way . who is right or who is wrong, every government is expected by there citizens to do right by them the UK government has on this occasion done that ..
if you want the UK fail then that's on you and you can twist it anyway you want to but you seem that is want so you can say told you so ..
Just remember those ivory towers are very high and it is a long way down ..
GOODNIGHT and farewell to all ..GL on tables to all ,,
I have approached this from a point of view of fairness.
I cant see why you cant accept that AZ have said that they havent supplied the EU in full, is because of production delays.
If they had said that the UK had a better contract then your argument might stand up, but they havent, so it doesnt.
This guy is obviously British, but he is a Professor of EU Law.
Did the UK outsmart the EU over AstraZeneca vaccines?
Gareth Davies, Professor of EU Law, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Tue, 30 March 2021, 11:06 am·5-min read
In the “vaccine spat” between the EU and the UK, the common perception is that the UK is winning. The UK health secretary, Matt Hancock, has said this is because his government secured a better contract with vaccine manufacturers, in particular with AstraZeneca, than the EU did.
The EU produces far more vaccines than the UK, but it also exports far more, including to the UK, whereas no vaccines go the other way. In response to this imbalance, which is creating shortages in the EU while the UK is well supplied, the EU has threatened to block exports to countries with higher vaccination rates until its member states catch up.
To date, 80% of the vaccines administered in the UK, 26 million out of the 32 million total, have been imports, of which 5 million came from India, and 21 million, or two-thirds came from the EU.
Put differently: the UK which, based on these figures, would only have been able to vaccinate about 10%-18% of its population if it had to rely on domestic supply, is enjoying a massive vaccine bailout from its European neighbours.
Why would the EU be so generous? Hancock referred to the clauses in the UK’s vaccine supply contracts requiring vaccine producers to supply it preferentially: if there are production shortages, then the UK order must be fulfilled by diverting supplies from other customers. A failure to do so attracts fierce penalties.
As a result, the UK has had its orders fully met, whereas the EU suffered early shortfalls from Pfizer, and is now receiving less than a quarter of what it contracted for from AstraZeneca, which has experienced production problems.
The EU takes the view that if production disappoints, all customers should see a proportional reduction in deliveries. The UK view is that it has a right to preferential supply, because that is what the contract says. The UK government invested in the research, done at the University of Oxford, that powered the AstraZeneca vaccine, and the firm has its headquarters in Cambridge, England.
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.
The question is why AstraZeneca chose to breach the EU contract rather than the UK one. This will be largely because the UK deal had much harsher penalties – the EU deal has no penalties beyond non-payment and requires informal negotiation rather than litigation when problems arise.
So the UK did not contract better in the sense that it has a right to the vaccines it is obtaining; under the law governing the EU contract it does not. Rather, it seems that the UK contracted better in the sole sense that its contract was more expensive to breach.
That is partly a product of different legal systems and their styles: European contracting parties tend to see contracts as a tool to build up trust and long-term relationships. Anglo-American legal culture tends to see contracts as a way to avoid needing trust at all. Some Europeans seem jealous of this UK fierceness. On the other hand, if everyone did it, it wouldn’t work: grabbing more for yourself can only pay off for a few.
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.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Gareth Davies does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/did-uk-outsmart-eu-over-100640074.html
I don't know Mr Davies. I do know he was once a barrister in England.
I do know that he has spent the last 15 years or so lecturing in EU Law at middle-ranking Dutch Universities. And at least some of it criticising House of Lords decisions as being flawed in EU Law. Something that, due to Brexit, he can no longer do.
I can also see that he is skilled in presenting "facts" in a way that suits what he is trying to say.
I have told you many times that Lawyers are skilled at using facts in a skewed way. So let's look at some of the "facts" that you take as gospel. And show you how facts are malleable.
1." In the “vaccine spat” between the EU and the UK, the common perception is that the UK is winning."
The first sentence. Which he fails to provide any context. Because, by any yardstick, we are.
2. "The EU produces far more vaccines than the UK, but it also exports far more, including to the UK, whereas no vaccines go the other way. In response to this imbalance, which is creating shortages in the EU while the UK is well supplied, the EU has threatened to block exports to countries with higher vaccination rates until its member states catch up."
No, this is just not true. The EU doesn't produce any vaccines. Pharmaceutical companies do. It is only pirates that believe stuff should be theirs purely because somebody else either makes stuff there, or transports it through their country.
"No vaccines go the other way." a nice touch. We make parts for the Pfizer vaccine. Technically, that is not "vaccines". So-technically true, but designed to mislead.
3. That guff about our contract wasn't better. It just had better penalty clauses. Tell me-would you prefer to carry out best endeavours where you would have to lose millions, or lose nothing? Particularly where you have agreed to provide the stuff without a profit margin.
4. "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."
This is nonsense, in exactly the same way as 2 above. The US/UK do not make any vaccines. Pfizer and AZ do. It is not ours to export. But Pfizer and Az have invested massively in new plants in the EU (and elsewhere). Which belong to them. Not the EU
5. "That is partly a product of different legal systems and their styles: European contracting parties tend to see contracts as a tool to build up trust and long-term relationships. Anglo-American legal culture tends to see contracts as a way to avoid needing trust at all. Some Europeans seem jealous of this UK fierceness. On the other hand, if everyone did it, it wouldn’t work: grabbing more for yourself can only pay off for a few."
Was he absent the day the EU decreed that Sale of Goods legislation in the UK was superior to the Civil Code Law traditionally used in Europe? 1 of the main advantages being flexibility and the ability to react to new situations. As opposed to "a tool to build up trust and long-term relations." so-he refers to an undoubted advantage of a system that is NOT relevant to a new system and a new contract. And ignores the fact that the opposite side of the coin is where he wants to be for THIS contract.
7. "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."
No. The EU does not produce any vaccine. Companies do. Those companies have provided those 77 million doses. Not the EU. The EU has only vaccinated about 60 million people. Think they have given more away than they kept? Recommend he doesn't play poker.
9. "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."
No, it is not. The main measures of success are (1) not dying, and (2) being able to emerge from lockdown. Not enter one.
I don't mean to sound harsh. I don't want anyone to die. But I expect our Government to try and protect its own first. And others second. As do the EU-they want to share vaccine amongst themselves first. And others 2nd.
10. "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."
I love this bit. Not the 9 priority groups. That we have already done, and the EU are still trying to do the 1st 3 of them, and hope to catch up in the next 3 months (on something that has only been going for 3-4 months). No-herd immunity. So the y will "probably" only be a "month or two" behind way further down the line.
"Fairness"? "Global responsibility"? Only used by people who are losing the key arguments. I know that. And so does he.
The EU needs to stop pointing fingers. And pull their finger out.
They should start by incentivising 1 or more of the 8 EU/EEA Pharma Companies with turnover of over $10 billion per annum to actually start doing something to help. It should have been Plan A. It desperately needs to be Plan B.
He writes a blog. Here are some of the things he says on 31st March:-
"Even committed Europhiles are joining in the chorus complaining that the EU has lacked dynamism..."
"Membership is supposed to make states stronger and safer in a sometimes threatening world...If, instead, the EU is part of the problem, then Member States will learn the lesson that they can better go it alone, and the future of the EU will be in doubt. The post-Brexit time was supposed to be when the benefits of membership would become crystal clear. Now a crisis risks turning that on its head."
"Where did it go wrong?...Other vaccine producing countries have long been aware that where vaccines go is a matter for public power. The EU seems to be learning this only now. Its technocratic bias towards freedom to contract...is suited to times of calm stability, but not to crisis."
"Building new plants began ridiculously late...they should have been planned in detail in the Summer of 2020, not 2021"
"Contracting...has only been relevant as yet to the supply of AZ vaccines, and there are simply not enough..to make much difference...The EU may succeed in getting a larger share of local production, but it will still be a relatively small amount."
There's lots more. You might think he is your champion. But he is not.
Judging by his comments on Wednesday, he continues to be dissatisfied with Mrs von der Leyen’s confrontational approach to the vaccines supplies dispute with Britain.
He even went so far as to praise Britain’s vaccination success, which has irked many in the upper echelons of the commission.
“There is no place, in such a serious situation, for polemics and competition. There are so many more reasons to cooperate, in the short and the long term," he said.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/michel-barnier-says-au-revoir-082649162.html
NEW Davis, 72, told a podcast that he wanted May replaced as PM by a leader who would take a tougher stance on Europe and push for a harder Brexit after she stopped listening to his advice.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9427853/David-Davis-reveals-cold-blooded-resignation-force-Theresa-Prime-Minister.html
I set out in detail where someone tries to make a case for something. I then show you why, in reality, he agrees with me.
Wanting it both ways is where you big up someone when he agrees with you, and refuse to debate all the stuff that shows why you are wrong. And just saying "you want it both ways then." Which sounds remarkably like "nerdy, nerdy, custard."
To say that he agrees with you is a bit of a stretch.
You are mistaken in many of the assumptions that you make of me.
I dont consider myself a cheerleader for the EU, I just dont think that we should have left.
Merely we were better in than out.
I am aware that the EU make mistakes, and behaved stupidly on occasion.
I dont think you have to be big fan of the EU, to support this view.
On this particular topic you will never ever convince me that AZ have not breached their EU contract, acted underhandedly, and dishonestly.
We should agree to disagree, because I am getting bored with it now.