I don't mean to be rude, Haysie. But 1 of us has 30 years' experience of international supply contracts. and it's not you.
As an example, in these situations, the vaccine providers always say they won't be taking a profit. Of course they are-just subtly. This sort of research costs £billions. There are all sorts of ways they can be compensated without making a "profit". New plants paid for and funded by governments being just one.
The Uk will have contributed far more to this Company, just like Germany and the EU have to Pfizer. That is why they are based in those countries.
Companies follow the money. Both in the current contracts, and for future investment. I know that. And, for all their posturing, so do the EU.
It seems that the AZ contract with the EU specifically includes access to production from UK factories.
I don't mean to be rude, Haysie. But 1 of us has 30 years' experience of international supply contracts. and it's not you.
As an example, in these situations, the vaccine providers always say they won't be taking a profit. Of course they are-just subtly. This sort of research costs £billions. There are all sorts of ways they can be compensated without making a "profit". New plants paid for and funded by governments being just one.
The Uk will have contributed far more to this Company, just like Germany and the EU have to Pfizer. That is why they are based in those countries.
Companies follow the money. Both in the current contracts, and for future investment. I know that. And, for all their posturing, so do the EU.
It seems that the AZ contract with the EU specifically includes access to production from UK factories.
I don't mean to be rude, Haysie. But 1 of us has 30 years' experience of international supply contracts. and it's not you.
As an example, in these situations, the vaccine providers always say they won't be taking a profit. Of course they are-just subtly. This sort of research costs £billions. There are all sorts of ways they can be compensated without making a "profit". New plants paid for and funded by governments being just one.
The Uk will have contributed far more to this Company, just like Germany and the EU have to Pfizer. That is why they are based in those countries.
Companies follow the money. Both in the current contracts, and for future investment. I know that. And, for all their posturing, so do the EU.
It seems that the AZ contract with the EU specifically includes access to production from UK factories.
"Best Reasonable Efforts" good luck EU proving that is not the case. See you in court.
That Astrazeneca is breaking their contract is unlikely to be in dispute. But there is a world of difference in allowing manufacture from the UK and denying the UK its contractually agreed items. There is nothing making the EU a preferred supplier over the UK.
The key issues are likely to be:-
1. On what basis does the EU feel entitled to insist that both Astra and Pfizer breach their contracts with the UK; and 2. If you sue a multi-billion pharmaceutical giant, this can have consequences down the line. As examples, (a) the need for vaccines is likely to be permanent (like flu), and prices can legitimately vary to factor in legal costs. and (b) Astra are a lot cheaper than the alternatives, both in cost per unit, and shipping/storage costs
I don't think the EU will dare follow through with this. If they do, then they will be looing to settle early.
I don't mean to be rude, Haysie. But 1 of us has 30 years' experience of international supply contracts. and it's not you.
As an example, in these situations, the vaccine providers always say they won't be taking a profit. Of course they are-just subtly. This sort of research costs £billions. There are all sorts of ways they can be compensated without making a "profit". New plants paid for and funded by governments being just one.
The Uk will have contributed far more to this Company, just like Germany and the EU have to Pfizer. That is why they are based in those countries.
Companies follow the money. Both in the current contracts, and for future investment. I know that. And, for all their posturing, so do the EU.
It seems that the AZ contract with the EU specifically includes access to production from UK factories.
"Best Reasonable Efforts" good luck EU proving that is not the case. See you in court.
Firstly, Phil is the expert on contracts so I probably shouldnt be writing this.
Secondly, if the situation was reversed many in this country would be squealing like stuck pigs.
Besides that the problem is that the UK and EU have both signed contracts for AZ to supply them with exactly the same product.
I dont think that in law it makes a difference when these contracts were signed.
AZ has a legal responsibility to fulfil both of them.
AZ have notified the EU that they will be around 50 million doses short of the agreed number that were to be supplied by the end of March.
At the same time there will be no shortfall in the UK.
I could see this as a difficult position to defend in court.
I don't mean to be rude, Haysie. But 1 of us has 30 years' experience of international supply contracts. and it's not you.
As an example, in these situations, the vaccine providers always say they won't be taking a profit. Of course they are-just subtly. This sort of research costs £billions. There are all sorts of ways they can be compensated without making a "profit". New plants paid for and funded by governments being just one.
The Uk will have contributed far more to this Company, just like Germany and the EU have to Pfizer. That is why they are based in those countries.
Companies follow the money. Both in the current contracts, and for future investment. I know that. And, for all their posturing, so do the EU.
It seems that the AZ contract with the EU specifically includes access to production from UK factories.
"Best Reasonable Efforts" good luck EU proving that is not the case. See you in court.
Firstly, Phil is the expert on contracts so I probably shouldnt be writing this.
Secondly, if the situation was reversed many in this country would be squealing like stuck pigs.
Besides that the problem is that the UK and EU have both signed contracts for AZ to supply them with exactly the same product.
I dont think that in law it makes a difference when these contracts were signed.
AZ has a legal responsibility to fulfil both of them.
AZ have notified the EU that they will be around 50 million doses short of the agreed number that were to be supplied by the end of March.
At the same time there will be no shortfall in the UK.
I could see this as a difficult position to defend in court.
Not at all. I'm a Retired Solicitor, whose knowledge on such things is starting to get out of date.
In any event, I agree with what you say.
It doesn't matter when the contracts were signed in a legal sense, although there are clearly practical considerations.
AZ do have a legal responsibility to fulfil both orders-I appreciate there have been some teething troubles, but it is equally clear that they should have anticipated this (it happened in the UK and elsewhere earlier) and it was up to them to safeguard this in the contract.
The UK are not a party to the other contract. We have no contractual duties in respect of the other contract, and are perfectly entitled to maintain our position. However, it is true to say that it would be difficult for AZ to maintain the defence where all the shortfall is on 1 side.
However, there are other factors to consider.
If you have a strong legal case, you take it to where it matters-the legal forum. Not b1tching about it to the papers. Seeing to defame AZ is just unwise. Also, the German pronouncement about over 65s gives AZ the perfect excuse to argue that it provides more benefit to the over 65s in the UK, and thus it is right to concentrate their efforts there.
It is also noticeable that various European papers are furious, saying that (unlike Brexit) the UK is far more prepared than Germany/the EU. From the earlier regulatory approval, to the earlier signed contracts, to the marked increase in those vaccined, to the superior manufacturing capacity. Several papers are saying this is the reverse of Brexit, where it is now the EU without a coherent plan. We may have got a lot of things wrong, but the vaccine rollout looks good in the UK, particularly when compared to the EU..
It would be total madness for this to end up anywhere near Court. AZ should be making a certain amount of reparation, the UK can be making noises about releasing some of our stockpiled vaccine at agreed dates, in return for assurances about supply of the Pfizer vaccine etc. The only time it would not is if Brexit turns this into some sort of p1ssing contest
Sam McBride: Read the small print – the Irish Sea border may be impossible to remove, even if MLAs vote it down
For that reason, it is a potentially perilous moment, and all the more dangerous for this government’s profound dishonesty with the people of Northern Ireland about what it has done – and its refusal to be clear about what it might yet do.
For the next four years, one strategic debate is likely to dominate Northern Ireland politics – not the question of a border poll, but whether the Irish Sea border should be kept in place.
The Sunday Times’ front page story last weekend drew national attention to both Scotland and Northern Ireland’s fragile positions within the Union. In Northern Ireland over recent years there has been both increased support for holding a referendum on Irish unity and increased support for Irish unity itself.
But on closer inspection the poll was less dramatic than its presentation suggested. The polling company, Lucid Talk, has consistently found far higher levels of support for Irish unity than other polls and academic surveys.
Marcus Leroux, formerly of The Times’ business desk, recently highlighted how the company’s sample is much more politicised than the population – a problem in judging the outcome of a referendum on radical change where people who have never voted before will turn out
But even setting aside questions about how accurately the poll reflects public opinion, this poll shows a decline in support for Irish unity – now 42% –from a Lucid Talk poll a year ago. The fact that a majority of those polled supported the holding of a border poll can therefore only be explained, as Lord Bew observed, by a significant minority of unionists wanting a plebiscite on the basis of their confidence that their side would win.
However, while that debate is almost certain to intensify over coming years, a more immediate issue is likely to have a greater electoral impact. The Northern Ireland Protocol – the UK-EU agreement which created an Irish Sea border on January 1 – was not voted on by the Assembly prior to its implementation.
However, in a concession both to unionists and some Tory MPs who felt queasy about an internal UK trade border being created against the wishes of Northern Ireland, Boris Johnson and the EU agreed that the Assembly would retrospectively get to vote on the deal.
That vote will come at the end of 2024 – a point which seems far off until one realises that it is closer to the present day than we are to the 2016 EU referendum.
The great hope of the unionist parties is that they may be able to use that mechanism to overturn the protocol – even if only after four years in which trade between GB and NI will have been so disrupted that there are likely to be lasting changes to trade patterns irrespective of what happens then.
However, there has been surprisingly little scrutiny of what will happen after that vote .
The procedure for holding the vote was laid down in prescriptively clear detail six weeks ago by an amendment to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. In simple terms, the Secretary of State must write to the First and deputy First Ministers on October 31, 2024, asking them to bring a motion to the Assembly within a month to let MLAs vote on whether to continue with the protocol.
If they fail to do so, then any MLA can do so. If that does not happen, then the Speaker must table the motion, meaning that the vote will happen in either November or December 2024 – less than four years from now. A second mechanism means that either unionism or nationalism collapsing Stormont will not prevent the vote being held.
Crucially, the vote will not require parallel consent – that is, a majority of unionists and a majority of nationalists having to agree for anything to happen, as is standard for controversial votes at Stormont.
The government says that is because the issue relates to international relations, which is not the responsibility of Stormont. But if that was the whole story, Stormont would have no say at all.
Almost certainly the decision not to allow a cross-community vote was calculated to remove the certain deployment of the unionist veto, which would after just four years have strangled the deal.
Nevertheless, even holding the vote on the basis of a simple majority represents a threat to the government and to the EU if they want the status quo to endure.
Unionism has not had an outright Stormont majority since 2017 and is currently six seats short of being in a position to overturn the protocol. Even some DUP members privately lament how leaderless unionism has been under Arlene Foster and morale among unionist politicians and voters is low.
Some unionist psychologists are privately sceptical about whether unionism therefore has any real prospect of securing a Stormont majority in next year’s election.
However, the scale of the Irish Sea border has the potential to become an unparalleled rallying point – not just for passionate unionists, but for those who care little for the flag but do care that they can no longer order seed from GB, enjoy the same choice of products on supermarket shelves, or take their dog on holiday to Britain without a bureaucratic insistence that the animal has a rabies injection which it does not need.
It is possible that if the new border becomes deeply unpopular across society then even Alliance will come under pressure to end its current support for the arrangements.
However, while the Northern Ireland Act is precise about how the vote should be held, it is silent as to what will happen if unionism does manage to vote down the protocol.
The desire to avoid a physical border at the Irish border means that the EU and the UK would be back to square one.
Article 18 of the protocol provides more detail here, saying that if the Assembly rejects the Irish Sea border then the parts of the protocol which created that border would last for a further two years from that point – until the end of 2026 – before coming to an end.
Rather than that being the end of the Irish Sea border as some unionists appear to believe, in such a case the UK-EU Joint Committee will make “recommendations...on the necessary measures”. It may “seek an opinion” from Stormont, but can ignore what MLAs want.
That leaves open the possibility of the Lisbon Treaty situation being reenacted – but, unlike Ireland which at least got a democratic say on small changes to a document it had rejected, this time there may not be any second vote at all.
I asked the NIO if the government could set out what would happen if the protocol is voted down, and give a categorical assurance that it will not reimpose a tweaked version without prior democratic consent in Northern Ireland. Tellingly, the answer gave no such assurance.
Instead, the NIO said that the requirement for Stormont’s consent for the protocol “was intrinsic to its acceptance by this government” and that “the UK Government remains committed to that principle”.
Few unionists have yet realised this looming issue. The 2024 vote has been sold to them by the government as genuine “democratic consent” for the new trade frontier.
In a week where the police have warned about growing loyalist unrest and at a time when unionism lacks a competent and charismatic leader to effectively channel anger into political action, any self-satisfied manoeuvring by ministers or civil servants is potentially dangerous if it appears to be underhand.
The blunt truth for unionists is that the Irish Sea border which Brexit has led to may never be removed. Even if voted down, it may simply be reincarnated with cosmetic alterations.
There is a long history of supposedly temporary fixes to difficult problems long outliving their authors.
The current land border when introduced in 1921 was viewed by the government as being temporary. This year it marks its centenary.
I don't mean to be rude, Haysie. But 1 of us has 30 years' experience of international supply contracts. and it's not you.
As an example, in these situations, the vaccine providers always say they won't be taking a profit. Of course they are-just subtly. This sort of research costs £billions. There are all sorts of ways they can be compensated without making a "profit". New plants paid for and funded by governments being just one.
The Uk will have contributed far more to this Company, just like Germany and the EU have to Pfizer. That is why they are based in those countries.
Companies follow the money. Both in the current contracts, and for future investment. I know that. And, for all their posturing, so do the EU.
It seems that the AZ contract with the EU specifically includes access to production from UK factories.
"Best Reasonable Efforts" good luck EU proving that is not the case. See you in court.
Firstly, Phil is the expert on contracts so I probably shouldnt be writing this.
Secondly, if the situation was reversed many in this country would be squealing like stuck pigs.
Besides that the problem is that the UK and EU have both signed contracts for AZ to supply them with exactly the same product.
I dont think that in law it makes a difference when these contracts were signed.
AZ has a legal responsibility to fulfil both of them.
AZ have notified the EU that they will be around 50 million doses short of the agreed number that were to be supplied by the end of March.
At the same time there will be no shortfall in the UK.
I could see this as a difficult position to defend in court.
Not at all. I'm a Retired Solicitor, whose knowledge on such things is starting to get out of date.
In any event, I agree with what you say.
It doesn't matter when the contracts were signed in a legal sense, although there are clearly practical considerations.
AZ do have a legal responsibility to fulfil both orders-I appreciate there have been some teething troubles, but it is equally clear that they should have anticipated this (it happened in the UK and elsewhere earlier) and it was up to them to safeguard this in the contract.
The UK are not a party to the other contract. We have no contractual duties in respect of the other contract, and are perfectly entitled to maintain our position. However, it is true to say that it would be difficult for AZ to maintain the defence where all the shortfall is on 1 side.
However, there are other factors to consider.
If you have a strong legal case, you take it to where it matters-the legal forum. Not b1tching about it to the papers. Seeing to defame AZ is just unwise. Also, the German pronouncement about over 65s gives AZ the perfect excuse to argue that it provides more benefit to the over 65s in the UK, and thus it is right to concentrate their efforts there.
It is also noticeable that various European papers are furious, saying that (unlike Brexit) the UK is far more prepared than Germany/the EU. From the earlier regulatory approval, to the earlier signed contracts, to the marked increase in those vaccined, to the superior manufacturing capacity. Several papers are saying this is the reverse of Brexit, where it is now the EU without a coherent plan. We may have got a lot of things wrong, but the vaccine rollout looks good in the UK, particularly when compared to the EU..
It would be total madness for this to end up anywhere near Court. AZ should be making a certain amount of reparation, the UK can be making noises about releasing some of our stockpiled vaccine at agreed dates, in return for assurances about supply of the Pfizer vaccine etc. The only time it would not is if Brexit turns this into some sort of p1ssing contest
Neither side will gain anything from a pi55ing contest.
The German Vaccine Commission have concluded that there is not enough test data on over 65s, and have decided to use other vaccines on this group. Only time will tell if this opinion is correct. However they are entitled to their opinion, and are experts. I dont see anything wrong with erring on the side of caution in this instance.
AZ have had 6 months to prepare since the EU contract was signed. I am surprised at the short notice of the difficulties in fulfilling the contract. To let the EU know at the end of January that the deliveries for February, and March would be 50 million doses short seems to illustrate a total lack of preparedness. I am amazed that they thought they could get away with such a huge reduction in the agreed EU supply, while the UK supply would continue uninterrupted. They appear to have offered to increase the EU supply overnight, by 10 million doses, a miracle.
For me this is purely a contractual dispute between EU, and AZ. It has nothing to do with how the EU vaccine programme is going, or what the Germans think of the AZ vaccine for over 65s. I wish I was surprised by the attitude of some in the UK. I have watched the squeaky Carole Malone, and Andrew Pierce on consecutive nights reviewing the papers on Sky News, both of whom have claimed ownership of the AZ vaccine as the UK ordered it first. Those with this attitude are probably children of parents that gleefully shouted "Who won the War" on sight of any German.
I don't mean to be rude, Haysie. But 1 of us has 30 years' experience of international supply contracts. and it's not you.
As an example, in these situations, the vaccine providers always say they won't be taking a profit. Of course they are-just subtly. This sort of research costs £billions. There are all sorts of ways they can be compensated without making a "profit". New plants paid for and funded by governments being just one.
The Uk will have contributed far more to this Company, just like Germany and the EU have to Pfizer. That is why they are based in those countries.
Companies follow the money. Both in the current contracts, and for future investment. I know that. And, for all their posturing, so do the EU.
It seems that the AZ contract with the EU specifically includes access to production from UK factories.
"Best Reasonable Efforts" good luck EU proving that is not the case. See you in court.
Firstly, Phil is the expert on contracts so I probably shouldnt be writing this.
Secondly, if the situation was reversed many in this country would be squealing like stuck pigs.
Besides that the problem is that the UK and EU have both signed contracts for AZ to supply them with exactly the same product.
I dont think that in law it makes a difference when these contracts were signed.
AZ has a legal responsibility to fulfil both of them.
AZ have notified the EU that they will be around 50 million doses short of the agreed number that were to be supplied by the end of March.
At the same time there will be no shortfall in the UK.
I could see this as a difficult position to defend in court.
Not at all. I'm a Retired Solicitor, whose knowledge on such things is starting to get out of date.
In any event, I agree with what you say.
It doesn't matter when the contracts were signed in a legal sense, although there are clearly practical considerations.
AZ do have a legal responsibility to fulfil both orders-I appreciate there have been some teething troubles, but it is equally clear that they should have anticipated this (it happened in the UK and elsewhere earlier) and it was up to them to safeguard this in the contract.
The UK are not a party to the other contract. We have no contractual duties in respect of the other contract, and are perfectly entitled to maintain our position. However, it is true to say that it would be difficult for AZ to maintain the defence where all the shortfall is on 1 side.
However, there are other factors to consider.
If you have a strong legal case, you take it to where it matters-the legal forum. Not b1tching about it to the papers. Seeing to defame AZ is just unwise. Also, the German pronouncement about over 65s gives AZ the perfect excuse to argue that it provides more benefit to the over 65s in the UK, and thus it is right to concentrate their efforts there.
It is also noticeable that various European papers are furious, saying that (unlike Brexit) the UK is far more prepared than Germany/the EU. From the earlier regulatory approval, to the earlier signed contracts, to the marked increase in those vaccined, to the superior manufacturing capacity. Several papers are saying this is the reverse of Brexit, where it is now the EU without a coherent plan. We may have got a lot of things wrong, but the vaccine rollout looks good in the UK, particularly when compared to the EU..
It would be total madness for this to end up anywhere near Court. AZ should be making a certain amount of reparation, the UK can be making noises about releasing some of our stockpiled vaccine at agreed dates, in return for assurances about supply of the Pfizer vaccine etc. The only time it would not is if Brexit turns this into some sort of p1ssing contest
Neither side will gain anything from a pi55ing contest.
The German Vaccine Commission have concluded that there is not enough test data on over 65s, and have decided to use other vaccines on this group. Only time will tell if this opinion is correct. However they are entitled to their opinion, and are experts. I dont see anything wrong with erring on the side of caution in this instance.
AZ have had 6 months to prepare since the EU contract was signed. I am surprised at the short notice of the difficulties in fulfilling the contract. To let the EU know at the end of January that the deliveries for February, and March would be 50 million doses short seems to illustrate a total lack of preparedness. I am amazed that they thought they could get away with such a huge reduction in the agreed EU supply, while the UK supply would continue uninterrupted. They appear to have offered to increase the EU supply overnight, by 10 million doses, a miracle.
For me this is purely a contractual dispute between EU, and AZ. It has nothing to do with how the EU vaccine programme is going, or what the Germans think of the AZ vaccine for over 65s. I wish I was surprised by the attitude of some in the UK. I have watched the squeaky Carole Malone, and Andrew Pierce on consecutive nights reviewing the papers on Sky News, both of whom have claimed ownership of the AZ vaccine as the UK ordered it first. Those with this attitude are probably children of parents that gleefully shouted "Who won the War" on sight of any German.
This is quite simply weird.
Stage 3 testing is where the large-scale trials take place. Let's look at Germany's options.
1. Pfizer. Completed Stage 3 trials. The safest option, but expensive. And massive shortages, so cannot be the answer. 2. AZ. 30,000 trial due to be completed in August 2021. Largescale interim data, sufficient for both the UK and EU regulators to approve it for use in all age groups. 3. Moderna. Similar to AZ in regulatory approval. But Stage 3 trials not due to be completed until October 2022. 4. Something else. These options are lacking in current approval, and/or have insufficient Stage 3 trials, scheduled to last until 2023.
Our over 65's are due to be vaccinated in the next 2 months. Germany? Not saying. And it is that lack of time that will prove them incorrect.
You are right that no-one wins in some sort of nationalist vaccine contest. But, for once, we have the better of this argument. It is the EU that are talking about seeking to "legalise" theft and modern-day piracy, together with dim pronouncements on Northern Ireland.
Really nice to see Boris acting lie a leader for once.
I don't mean to be rude, Haysie. But 1 of us has 30 years' experience of international supply contracts. and it's not you.
As an example, in these situations, the vaccine providers always say they won't be taking a profit. Of course they are-just subtly. This sort of research costs £billions. There are all sorts of ways they can be compensated without making a "profit". New plants paid for and funded by governments being just one.
The Uk will have contributed far more to this Company, just like Germany and the EU have to Pfizer. That is why they are based in those countries.
Companies follow the money. Both in the current contracts, and for future investment. I know that. And, for all their posturing, so do the EU.
It seems that the AZ contract with the EU specifically includes access to production from UK factories.
"Best Reasonable Efforts" good luck EU proving that is not the case. See you in court.
Firstly, Phil is the expert on contracts so I probably shouldnt be writing this.
Secondly, if the situation was reversed many in this country would be squealing like stuck pigs.
Besides that the problem is that the UK and EU have both signed contracts for AZ to supply them with exactly the same product.
I dont think that in law it makes a difference when these contracts were signed.
AZ has a legal responsibility to fulfil both of them.
AZ have notified the EU that they will be around 50 million doses short of the agreed number that were to be supplied by the end of March.
At the same time there will be no shortfall in the UK.
I could see this as a difficult position to defend in court.
Not at all. I'm a Retired Solicitor, whose knowledge on such things is starting to get out of date.
In any event, I agree with what you say.
It doesn't matter when the contracts were signed in a legal sense, although there are clearly practical considerations.
AZ do have a legal responsibility to fulfil both orders-I appreciate there have been some teething troubles, but it is equally clear that they should have anticipated this (it happened in the UK and elsewhere earlier) and it was up to them to safeguard this in the contract.
The UK are not a party to the other contract. We have no contractual duties in respect of the other contract, and are perfectly entitled to maintain our position. However, it is true to say that it would be difficult for AZ to maintain the defence where all the shortfall is on 1 side.
However, there are other factors to consider.
If you have a strong legal case, you take it to where it matters-the legal forum. Not b1tching about it to the papers. Seeing to defame AZ is just unwise. Also, the German pronouncement about over 65s gives AZ the perfect excuse to argue that it provides more benefit to the over 65s in the UK, and thus it is right to concentrate their efforts there.
It is also noticeable that various European papers are furious, saying that (unlike Brexit) the UK is far more prepared than Germany/the EU. From the earlier regulatory approval, to the earlier signed contracts, to the marked increase in those vaccined, to the superior manufacturing capacity. Several papers are saying this is the reverse of Brexit, where it is now the EU without a coherent plan. We may have got a lot of things wrong, but the vaccine rollout looks good in the UK, particularly when compared to the EU..
It would be total madness for this to end up anywhere near Court. AZ should be making a certain amount of reparation, the UK can be making noises about releasing some of our stockpiled vaccine at agreed dates, in return for assurances about supply of the Pfizer vaccine etc. The only time it would not is if Brexit turns this into some sort of p1ssing contest
I dont know if you watched Newsnight last night, but there was a report on vaccines.
The comments made about the AZ vaccine are as follows.
The EU conditionally approved it for all age groups and concluded that it is around 60% effective overall.
Considerably less than the Pfizer vaccine.
The report stated that it could be used in older people but cautioned that there is not enough data to be certain of how well it will work.
There is a large trial of the AZ vaccine going on in the US, with far more older people involved.
An Australian clinical epidemiology writer appeared, and concluded that the AZ trials were weak, because the trials were small, they didnt use older people in the early phase test, they used different doses, and didnt include many older people in the phase 3 trial.
The British expert said they were "pretty confident", advised against nit picking the data, for a particular group, and recommended looking at the whole picture. He went on to say that looking at the whole picture, the AZ vaccine will "almost undoubtedly" work in the elderly.
The amount of protection that is gained during the 12 weeks between doses was questioned.
The EU say this is difficult to quantify.
The British guy said they are "reasonably well" protected, we dont have "really good" data on it, but it will probably prevent at least half of the minor clinical disease, probable prevent more of those that get to hospital, and probably prevent death. The man was clearly fond of using the word probable.
The trade off to have a vaccine now appears to be lots of uncertainty, probably.
I don't mean to be rude, Haysie. But 1 of us has 30 years' experience of international supply contracts. and it's not you.
As an example, in these situations, the vaccine providers always say they won't be taking a profit. Of course they are-just subtly. This sort of research costs £billions. There are all sorts of ways they can be compensated without making a "profit". New plants paid for and funded by governments being just one.
The Uk will have contributed far more to this Company, just like Germany and the EU have to Pfizer. That is why they are based in those countries.
Companies follow the money. Both in the current contracts, and for future investment. I know that. And, for all their posturing, so do the EU.
It seems that the AZ contract with the EU specifically includes access to production from UK factories.
"Best Reasonable Efforts" good luck EU proving that is not the case. See you in court.
Firstly, Phil is the expert on contracts so I probably shouldnt be writing this.
Secondly, if the situation was reversed many in this country would be squealing like stuck pigs.
Besides that the problem is that the UK and EU have both signed contracts for AZ to supply them with exactly the same product.
I dont think that in law it makes a difference when these contracts were signed.
AZ has a legal responsibility to fulfil both of them.
AZ have notified the EU that they will be around 50 million doses short of the agreed number that were to be supplied by the end of March.
At the same time there will be no shortfall in the UK.
I could see this as a difficult position to defend in court.
Not at all. I'm a Retired Solicitor, whose knowledge on such things is starting to get out of date.
In any event, I agree with what you say.
It doesn't matter when the contracts were signed in a legal sense, although there are clearly practical considerations.
AZ do have a legal responsibility to fulfil both orders-I appreciate there have been some teething troubles, but it is equally clear that they should have anticipated this (it happened in the UK and elsewhere earlier) and it was up to them to safeguard this in the contract.
The UK are not a party to the other contract. We have no contractual duties in respect of the other contract, and are perfectly entitled to maintain our position. However, it is true to say that it would be difficult for AZ to maintain the defence where all the shortfall is on 1 side.
However, there are other factors to consider.
If you have a strong legal case, you take it to where it matters-the legal forum. Not b1tching about it to the papers. Seeing to defame AZ is just unwise. Also, the German pronouncement about over 65s gives AZ the perfect excuse to argue that it provides more benefit to the over 65s in the UK, and thus it is right to concentrate their efforts there.
It is also noticeable that various European papers are furious, saying that (unlike Brexit) the UK is far more prepared than Germany/the EU. From the earlier regulatory approval, to the earlier signed contracts, to the marked increase in those vaccined, to the superior manufacturing capacity. Several papers are saying this is the reverse of Brexit, where it is now the EU without a coherent plan. We may have got a lot of things wrong, but the vaccine rollout looks good in the UK, particularly when compared to the EU..
It would be total madness for this to end up anywhere near Court. AZ should be making a certain amount of reparation, the UK can be making noises about releasing some of our stockpiled vaccine at agreed dates, in return for assurances about supply of the Pfizer vaccine etc. The only time it would not is if Brexit turns this into some sort of p1ssing contest
Neither side will gain anything from a pi55ing contest.
The German Vaccine Commission have concluded that there is not enough test data on over 65s, and have decided to use other vaccines on this group. Only time will tell if this opinion is correct. However they are entitled to their opinion, and are experts. I dont see anything wrong with erring on the side of caution in this instance.
AZ have had 6 months to prepare since the EU contract was signed. I am surprised at the short notice of the difficulties in fulfilling the contract. To let the EU know at the end of January that the deliveries for February, and March would be 50 million doses short seems to illustrate a total lack of preparedness. I am amazed that they thought they could get away with such a huge reduction in the agreed EU supply, while the UK supply would continue uninterrupted. They appear to have offered to increase the EU supply overnight, by 10 million doses, a miracle.
For me this is purely a contractual dispute between EU, and AZ. It has nothing to do with how the EU vaccine programme is going, or what the Germans think of the AZ vaccine for over 65s. I wish I was surprised by the attitude of some in the UK. I have watched the squeaky Carole Malone, and Andrew Pierce on consecutive nights reviewing the papers on Sky News, both of whom have claimed ownership of the AZ vaccine as the UK ordered it first. Those with this attitude are probably children of parents that gleefully shouted "Who won the War" on sight of any German.
This is quite simply weird.
Stage 3 testing is where the large-scale trials take place. Let's look at Germany's options.
1. Pfizer. Completed Stage 3 trials. The safest option, but expensive. And massive shortages, so cannot be the answer. 2. AZ. 30,000 trial due to be completed in August 2021. Largescale interim data, sufficient for both the UK and EU regulators to approve it for use in all age groups. 3. Moderna. Similar to AZ in regulatory approval. But Stage 3 trials not due to be completed until October 2022. 4. Something else. These options are lacking in current approval, and/or have insufficient Stage 3 trials, scheduled to last until 2023.
Our over 65's are due to be vaccinated in the next 2 months. Germany? Not saying. And it is that lack of time that will prove them incorrect.
You are right that no-one wins in some sort of nationalist vaccine contest. But, for once, we have the better of this argument. It is the EU that are talking about seeking to "legalise" theft and modern-day piracy, together with dim pronouncements on Northern Ireland.
Really nice to see Boris acting lie a leader for once.
He hasnt said very much.
If he has acted like a leader it is likely to be a temporary measure.
Brexit news - live: PM accused of ‘dereliction of duty’ on NI as trade from Ireland to GB slumps 50%
Boris Johnson has been accused of a dereliction of duty after he was accused of not doing enough to address Irish Sea trade disruption amid the continued fallout from the European Union’s botched move to invoke a mechanism to suspend elements of the new trading arrangements.
Arlene Foster, Northern Ireland’s first minister, said it was "patronising and offensive" to described the problems encountered by Northern Ireland businesses and consumers in the wake of Vrexit as "teething problems" and she called on the prime minister to act and move immediately to deploy Article 16.
It comes after the EU tried to unilaterally suspend part of the Northern Ireland Protocol to prevent the region being used as backdoor to move vaccines from the bloc into the UK. Earlier, the prime minister said he is “very confident” in the security of the UK’s coronavirus vaccine supplies regardless of “the toings and froings” of the European Union.
The prime minister’s first public comments since Brussels briefly overrode part of the Brexit deal on Northern Ireland to impose export controls on jabs came after ministers agreed to a “reset” in relations with the EU.
Meanwhile, the Irish government revealed that trade between the Republic and Great Britain has fallen by 50 per cent on this time last year, with the government saying some businesses were experiencing “severe difficulty” adapting to the new controls since the UK left the EU’s single market and customs union at the end of the transition period.
Northern Ireland border staff withdrawn from duty over safety fears
All regulatory animal-based food checks have been suspended at Belfast and Larne ports, Northern Ireland's Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Daera) has said.
It comes after council staff at Larne Port were withdrawn from inspection duties amid concerns for their safety and welfare.
A Daera spokesman said: "On the basis of information received today and pending further discussions with the PSNI (Police Service of Northern Ireland), Daera has decided in the interests of the wellbeing of staff to temporarily suspend physical inspections of products of animal origin at Larne and Belfast.
Despite the EU missteps, despite the vaccines, Brexit will still prove a grave error
“Europhiles have finally had their eyes opened to the hideous reality of the EU.” That’s Daniel Hannan, the ex-MEP, gloating in the Sunday Telegraph. Brexiter glee is achingly potent this week, a visceral punch to us remainers, pole-axed to find Boris Johnson right and the European Union behaving outrageously.
The European commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, a medical doctor and mother of seven, has fallen off her superwoman pedestal. Throughout four excruciating years of Britain behaving badly, the EU were the grownups, firm and patient negotiators with our rabble of infantile lawbreakers. This (temporary, we hope) role-reversal leaves remainers dumbfounded.
Pandemic pressure weakened the EU’s glue, as 27 countries argued over how much vaccine to buy at what cost while Britain streaked ahead, wallet wide open. Yet some things can’t be unsaid: Von der Leyen’s threat to break the fragile Northern Ireland protocol and shut the Irish border opened several gates of ****. The DUP and Brexit-fanatic MPs dashed to use it as a means to tear up the agreement in their search for the nonexistent good Brexit.
UK ministers have suddenly assumed unaccustomed dignity, under strict No 10 instructions not to rub salt in the EU’s vaccine wounds: they even offer up Britain’s leftovers. But there’s a reason for this newfound civility. Because, beyond the vaccine wars, Brexit is unravelling before their eyes, and they know it. The five big business groups led by the Confederation of British Industry delivered the news to them with both barrels: “Absolute carnage!”, “Dante’s fifth circle of ****,” says manufacturers’ organisation Make UK.
Disingenuously, the government replies that all is quiet at the ports; but that’s only because a third less traffic is trading either way, and may never return. Stockpiles will run down, 1,000 cars from just one factory are parked up waiting for parts, and things will get worse. A year before Brexit, the Institute of Directors warned that a third of businesses would move operations to the EU – and it’s happening, haemorrhaging tax revenues and jobs. This is not “teething trouble” but extractions without anaesthetic.
Despite this latest example of EU flaws, despite our relief at getting vaccines faster than other Europeans, over the coming years leaving the union will keep revealing itself as a fatal error. Brexit is not going away.
The Tories hoped to run the next election as “Keep Brexit done”, while Labour hoped never to talk of Brexit again. “Forward not back,” says Keir Starmer, to focus on the economy, jobs, public services, climate and fairness. But now it’s plain neither party can duck awkward Brexit questions. For Tories, the challenge from voters will be: you lied and now look what you’ve done. Labour’s is this: repair means rejoining the single market, but do you dare advocate freedom of movement?
Right now, pandemic politics dominates. In May comes an important test: the UK votes for councils and mayors. The government hopes that by then the easing of the lockdown will maximise its vaccine bounce. Political scientist Prof John Curtice tells me he expects a swapping of losses and gains, but no landslide either way: both parties are managing down expectations. These elections mean that the budget in March will extend furloughs for four million people, with businesses supported for longer. That weekly £20 for universal credit is a certainty. A hint of future fat-cat taxes on corporations and capital gains will come with much “recovery plan” rhetoric. Expect little of the deficit-reducing austerity that is certainly in the chancellor’s mind.
As is their wont, Labour supporters and some MPs are glum. Starmer is not breaking through, he’s not visible and voters don’t know him, finds Britain Thinks. Does he have a grand plan for Britain? Where’s his vision? Labour people are bad at patience. He’s only 10 months in post, and been plunged into a plague; within five months he had wiped out Labour’s 20-point deficit, mainly by not being Jeremy Corbyn. With personal ratings unseen in a Labour leader since Tony Blair’s heyday, in a New Statesman chart of decades of opposition leaders’ popularity, he does well.
Jeremy Hunt this weekend called Starmer the Tories’ greatest threat since Blair, warning he could bring about Labour’s “1948 moment” – the year the NHS was founded. A serious, decent and respected shadow cabinet may not be famous yet, but that’s better than being as infamous as many round Johnson’s table are. Right now, as people yearn most for safety and lockdown freedom, I doubt an opposition’s grand blueprint for the future would get much cut-through. Yet, frighteningly soon, the country will need Labour.
By all the forecasts, furlough’s end will bring a tsunami of unemployment: that needs Labour solutions, not the puny Kickstart so far only helping 2,000 young people. An exhausted NHS faces a waiting list of 4.5 million people: austerity had caused long delays before Covid. The government’s social care reform has vanished, while crippled councils hover near bankruptcy. Tory levelling-up will fail; Labour is better at social justice. Cop26 will let Johnson showboat climate projects, but Labour’s green new deal offers actual climate jobs.
Tory voices already reject IMF calls for investment rather than cuts; a Keynesian Labour plan may appeal better to business outraged by Brexit damage and small firms left on the brink of going bust by Covid. If there is a brief vaccine bounce, remember this bitter lesson: voters don’t do gratitude. They didn’t for Churchill winning the war, nor for Attlee’s NHS, nor will vaccine thanks last long for Johnson. Voters choose the best future: that’s for Labour to offer.
Marking Brexit’s first anniversary, Johnson repeated last year’s bombastic words: “The destiny of this great nation now resides firmly in our hands. I take on this duty with a sense of purpose.” Such balderdash may not have aged well by this time next year.
Comments
The key issues are likely to be:-
1. On what basis does the EU feel entitled to insist that both Astra and Pfizer breach their contracts with the UK; and
2. If you sue a multi-billion pharmaceutical giant, this can have consequences down the line. As examples, (a) the need for vaccines is likely to be permanent (like flu), and prices can legitimately vary to factor in legal costs. and (b) Astra are a lot cheaper than the alternatives, both in cost per unit, and shipping/storage costs
I don't think the EU will dare follow through with this. If they do, then they will be looing to settle early.
Secondly, if the situation was reversed many in this country would be squealing like stuck pigs.
Besides that the problem is that the UK and EU have both signed contracts for AZ to supply them with exactly the same product.
I dont think that in law it makes a difference when these contracts were signed.
AZ has a legal responsibility to fulfil both of them.
AZ have notified the EU that they will be around 50 million doses short of the agreed number that were to be supplied by the end of March.
At the same time there will be no shortfall in the UK.
I could see this as a difficult position to defend in court.
I'm a Retired Solicitor, whose knowledge on such things is starting to get out of date.
In any event, I agree with what you say.
It doesn't matter when the contracts were signed in a legal sense, although there are clearly practical considerations.
AZ do have a legal responsibility to fulfil both orders-I appreciate there have been some teething troubles, but it is equally clear that they should have anticipated this (it happened in the UK and elsewhere earlier) and it was up to them to safeguard this in the contract.
The UK are not a party to the other contract. We have no contractual duties in respect of the other contract, and are perfectly entitled to maintain our position. However, it is true to say that it would be difficult for AZ to maintain the defence where all the shortfall is on 1 side.
However, there are other factors to consider.
If you have a strong legal case, you take it to where it matters-the legal forum. Not b1tching about it to the papers. Seeing to defame AZ is just unwise. Also, the German pronouncement about over 65s gives AZ the perfect excuse to argue that it provides more benefit to the over 65s in the UK, and thus it is right to concentrate their efforts there.
It is also noticeable that various European papers are furious, saying that (unlike Brexit) the UK is far more prepared than Germany/the EU. From the earlier regulatory approval, to the earlier signed contracts, to the marked increase in those vaccined, to the superior manufacturing capacity. Several papers are saying this is the reverse of Brexit, where it is now the EU without a coherent plan. We may have got a lot of things wrong, but the vaccine rollout looks good in the UK, particularly when compared to the EU..
It would be total madness for this to end up anywhere near Court. AZ should be making a certain amount of reparation, the UK can be making noises about releasing some of our stockpiled vaccine at agreed dates, in return for assurances about supply of the Pfizer vaccine etc. The only time it would not is if Brexit turns this into some sort of p1ssing contest
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/brexit-news-live-boris-johnson-warned-of-export-slump-as-two-thirds-of-lorries-leaving-uk-empty/ar-BB1dcJD2?ocid=msedgntp
For that reason, it is a potentially perilous moment, and all the more dangerous for this government’s profound dishonesty with the people of Northern Ireland about what it has done – and its refusal to be clear about what it might yet do.
For the next four years, one strategic debate is likely to dominate Northern Ireland politics – not the question of a border poll, but whether the Irish Sea border should be kept in place.
The Sunday Times’ front page story last weekend drew national attention to both Scotland and Northern Ireland’s fragile positions within the Union. In Northern Ireland over recent years there has been both increased support for holding a referendum on Irish unity and increased support for Irish unity itself.
But on closer inspection the poll was less dramatic than its presentation suggested. The polling company, Lucid Talk, has consistently found far higher levels of support for Irish unity than other polls and academic surveys.
Marcus Leroux, formerly of The Times’ business desk, recently highlighted how the company’s sample is much more politicised than the population – a problem in judging the outcome of a referendum on radical change where people who have never voted before will turn out
But even setting aside questions about how accurately the poll reflects public opinion, this poll shows a decline in support for Irish unity – now 42% –from a Lucid Talk poll a year ago. The fact that a majority of those polled supported the holding of a border poll can therefore only be explained, as Lord Bew observed, by a significant minority of unionists wanting a plebiscite on the basis of their confidence that their side would win.
However, while that debate is almost certain to intensify over coming years, a more immediate issue is likely to have a greater electoral impact. The Northern Ireland Protocol – the UK-EU agreement which created an Irish Sea border on January 1 – was not voted on by the Assembly prior to its implementation.
However, in a concession both to unionists and some Tory MPs who felt queasy about an internal UK trade border being created against the wishes of Northern Ireland, Boris Johnson and the EU agreed that the Assembly would retrospectively get to vote on the deal.
That vote will come at the end of 2024 – a point which seems far off until one realises that it is closer to the present day than we are to the 2016 EU referendum.
The great hope of the unionist parties is that they may be able to use that mechanism to overturn the protocol – even if only after four years in which trade between GB and NI will have been so disrupted that there are likely to be lasting changes to trade patterns irrespective of what happens then.
However, there has been surprisingly little scrutiny of what will happen after that vote .
The procedure for holding the vote was laid down in prescriptively clear detail six weeks ago by an amendment to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. In simple terms, the Secretary of State must write to the First and deputy First Ministers on October 31, 2024, asking them to bring a motion to the Assembly within a month to let MLAs vote on whether to continue with the protocol.
If they fail to do so, then any MLA can do so. If that does not happen, then the Speaker must table the motion, meaning that the vote will happen in either November or December 2024 – less than four years from now. A second mechanism means that either unionism or nationalism collapsing Stormont will not prevent the vote being held.
Crucially, the vote will not require parallel consent – that is, a majority of unionists and a majority of nationalists having to agree for anything to happen, as is standard for controversial votes at Stormont.
The government says that is because the issue relates to international relations, which is not the responsibility of Stormont. But if that was the whole story, Stormont would have no say at all.
Almost certainly the decision not to allow a cross-community vote was calculated to remove the certain deployment of the unionist veto, which would after just four years have strangled the deal.
Nevertheless, even holding the vote on the basis of a simple majority represents a threat to the government and to the EU if they want the status quo to endure.
Unionism has not had an outright Stormont majority since 2017 and is currently six seats short of being in a position to overturn the protocol. Even some DUP members privately lament how leaderless unionism has been under Arlene Foster and morale among unionist politicians and voters is low.
Some unionist psychologists are privately sceptical about whether unionism therefore has any real prospect of securing a Stormont majority in next year’s election.
However, the scale of the Irish Sea border has the potential to become an unparalleled rallying point – not just for passionate unionists, but for those who care little for the flag but do care that they can no longer order seed from GB, enjoy the same choice of products on supermarket shelves, or take their dog on holiday to Britain without a bureaucratic insistence that the animal has a rabies injection which it does not need.
It is possible that if the new border becomes deeply unpopular across society then even Alliance will come under pressure to end its current support for the arrangements.
However, while the Northern Ireland Act is precise about how the vote should be held, it is silent as to what will happen if unionism does manage to vote down the protocol.
The desire to avoid a physical border at the Irish border means that the EU and the UK would be back to square one.
Article 18 of the protocol provides more detail here, saying that if the Assembly rejects the Irish Sea border then the parts of the protocol which created that border would last for a further two years from that point – until the end of 2026 – before coming to an end.
Rather than that being the end of the Irish Sea border as some unionists appear to believe, in such a case the UK-EU Joint Committee will make “recommendations...on the necessary measures”. It may “seek an opinion” from Stormont, but can ignore what MLAs want.
That leaves open the possibility of the Lisbon Treaty situation being reenacted – but, unlike Ireland which at least got a democratic say on small changes to a document it had rejected, this time there may not be any second vote at all.
I asked the NIO if the government could set out what would happen if the protocol is voted down, and give a categorical assurance that it will not reimpose a tweaked version without prior democratic consent in Northern Ireland. Tellingly, the answer gave no such assurance.
Instead, the NIO said that the requirement for Stormont’s consent for the protocol “was intrinsic to its acceptance by this government” and that “the UK Government remains committed to that principle”.
Few unionists have yet realised this looming issue. The 2024 vote has been sold to them by the government as genuine “democratic consent” for the new trade frontier.
In a week where the police have warned about growing loyalist unrest and at a time when unionism lacks a competent and charismatic leader to effectively channel anger into political action, any self-satisfied manoeuvring by ministers or civil servants is potentially dangerous if it appears to be underhand.
The blunt truth for unionists is that the Irish Sea border which Brexit has led to may never be removed. Even if voted down, it may simply be reincarnated with cosmetic alterations.
There is a long history of supposedly temporary fixes to difficult problems long outliving their authors.
The current land border when introduced in 1921 was viewed by the government as being temporary. This year it marks its centenary.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/first-month-of-brexit-9-consequence-of-leaving-the-eu-that-we-ve-already-seen/ar-BB1de4y1?ocid=msedgntp
The German Vaccine Commission have concluded that there is not enough test data on over 65s, and have decided to use other vaccines on this group.
Only time will tell if this opinion is correct.
However they are entitled to their opinion, and are experts.
I dont see anything wrong with erring on the side of caution in this instance.
AZ have had 6 months to prepare since the EU contract was signed.
I am surprised at the short notice of the difficulties in fulfilling the contract.
To let the EU know at the end of January that the deliveries for February, and March would be 50 million doses short seems to illustrate a total lack of preparedness.
I am amazed that they thought they could get away with such a huge reduction in the agreed EU supply, while the UK supply would continue uninterrupted.
They appear to have offered to increase the EU supply overnight, by 10 million doses, a miracle.
For me this is purely a contractual dispute between EU, and AZ.
It has nothing to do with how the EU vaccine programme is going, or what the Germans think of the AZ vaccine for over 65s.
I wish I was surprised by the attitude of some in the UK.
I have watched the squeaky Carole Malone, and Andrew Pierce on consecutive nights reviewing the papers on Sky News, both of whom have claimed ownership of the AZ vaccine as the UK ordered it first.
Those with this attitude are probably children of parents that gleefully shouted "Who won the War" on sight of any German.
Stage 3 testing is where the large-scale trials take place. Let's look at Germany's options.
1. Pfizer. Completed Stage 3 trials. The safest option, but expensive. And massive shortages, so cannot be the answer.
2. AZ. 30,000 trial due to be completed in August 2021. Largescale interim data, sufficient for both the UK and EU regulators to approve it for use in all age groups.
3. Moderna. Similar to AZ in regulatory approval. But Stage 3 trials not due to be completed until October 2022.
4. Something else. These options are lacking in current approval, and/or have insufficient Stage 3 trials, scheduled to last until 2023.
Our over 65's are due to be vaccinated in the next 2 months. Germany? Not saying. And it is that lack of time that will prove them incorrect.
You are right that no-one wins in some sort of nationalist vaccine contest. But, for once, we have the better of this argument. It is the EU that are talking about seeking to "legalise" theft and modern-day piracy, together with dim pronouncements on Northern Ireland.
Really nice to see Boris acting lie a leader for once.
The comments made about the AZ vaccine are as follows.
The EU conditionally approved it for all age groups and concluded that it is around 60% effective overall.
Considerably less than the Pfizer vaccine.
The report stated that it could be used in older people but cautioned that there is not enough data to be certain of how well it will work.
There is a large trial of the AZ vaccine going on in the US, with far more older people involved.
An Australian clinical epidemiology writer appeared, and concluded that the AZ trials were weak, because the trials were small, they didnt use older people in the early phase test, they used different doses, and didnt include many older people in the phase 3 trial.
The British expert said they were "pretty confident", advised against nit picking the data, for a particular group, and recommended looking at the whole picture.
He went on to say that looking at the whole picture, the AZ vaccine will "almost undoubtedly" work in the elderly.
The amount of protection that is gained during the 12 weeks between doses was questioned.
The EU say this is difficult to quantify.
The British guy said they are "reasonably well" protected, we dont have "really good" data on it, but it will probably prevent at least half of the minor clinical disease, probable prevent more of those that get to hospital, and probably prevent death.
The man was clearly fond of using the word probable.
The trade off to have a vaccine now appears to be lots of uncertainty, probably.
If he has acted like a leader it is likely to be a temporary measure.
"acting like a leader"
No I think you got it right first time.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/brexit-news-live-boris-johnson-091317228.html
Boris Johnson has been accused of a dereliction of duty after he was accused of not doing enough to address Irish Sea trade disruption amid the continued fallout from the European Union’s botched move to invoke a mechanism to suspend elements of the new trading arrangements.
Arlene Foster, Northern Ireland’s first minister, said it was "patronising and offensive" to described the problems encountered by Northern Ireland businesses and consumers in the wake of Vrexit as "teething problems" and she called on the prime minister to act and move immediately to deploy Article 16.
It comes after the EU tried to unilaterally suspend part of the Northern Ireland Protocol to prevent the region being used as backdoor to move vaccines from the bloc into the UK. Earlier, the prime minister said he is “very confident” in the security of the UK’s coronavirus vaccine supplies regardless of “the toings and froings” of the European Union.
The prime minister’s first public comments since Brussels briefly overrode part of the Brexit deal on Northern Ireland to impose export controls on jabs came after ministers agreed to a “reset” in relations with the EU.
Meanwhile, the Irish government revealed that trade between the Republic and Great Britain has fallen by 50 per cent on this time last year, with the government saying some businesses were experiencing “severe difficulty” adapting to the new controls since the UK left the EU’s single market and customs union at the end of the transition period.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/brexit-news-live-pm-accused-of-dereliction-of-duty-on-ni-as-trade-from-ireland-to-gb-slumps-50/ar-BB1dheNi?ocid=msedgntp
All regulatory animal-based food checks have been suspended at Belfast and Larne ports, Northern Ireland's Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Daera) has said.
It comes after council staff at Larne Port were withdrawn from inspection duties amid concerns for their safety and welfare.
A Daera spokesman said: "On the basis of information received today and pending further discussions with the PSNI (Police Service of Northern Ireland), Daera has decided in the interests of the wellbeing of staff to temporarily suspend physical inspections of products of animal origin at Larne and Belfast.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/northern-ireland/northern-ireland-border-staff-withdrawn-from-duty-over-safety-fears/ar-BB1dizri?ocid=msedgntp
“Europhiles have finally had their eyes opened to the hideous reality of the EU.” That’s Daniel Hannan, the ex-MEP, gloating in the Sunday Telegraph. Brexiter glee is achingly potent this week, a visceral punch to us remainers, pole-axed to find Boris Johnson right and the European Union behaving outrageously.
The European commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, a medical doctor and mother of seven, has fallen off her superwoman pedestal. Throughout four excruciating years of Britain behaving badly, the EU were the grownups, firm and patient negotiators with our rabble of infantile lawbreakers. This (temporary, we hope) role-reversal leaves remainers dumbfounded.
Pandemic pressure weakened the EU’s glue, as 27 countries argued over how much vaccine to buy at what cost while Britain streaked ahead, wallet wide open. Yet some things can’t be unsaid: Von der Leyen’s threat to break the fragile Northern Ireland protocol and shut the Irish border opened several gates of ****. The DUP and Brexit-fanatic MPs dashed to use it as a means to tear up the agreement in their search for the nonexistent good Brexit.
UK ministers have suddenly assumed unaccustomed dignity, under strict No 10 instructions not to rub salt in the EU’s vaccine wounds: they even offer up Britain’s leftovers. But there’s a reason for this newfound civility. Because, beyond the vaccine wars, Brexit is unravelling before their eyes, and they know it. The five big business groups led by the Confederation of British Industry delivered the news to them with both barrels: “Absolute carnage!”, “Dante’s fifth circle of ****,” says manufacturers’ organisation Make UK.
Disingenuously, the government replies that all is quiet at the ports; but that’s only because a third less traffic is trading either way, and may never return. Stockpiles will run down, 1,000 cars from just one factory are parked up waiting for parts, and things will get worse. A year before Brexit, the Institute of Directors warned that a third of businesses would move operations to the EU – and it’s happening, haemorrhaging tax revenues and jobs. This is not “teething trouble” but extractions without anaesthetic.
Despite this latest example of EU flaws, despite our relief at getting vaccines faster than other Europeans, over the coming years leaving the union will keep revealing itself as a fatal error. Brexit is not going away.
The Tories hoped to run the next election as “Keep Brexit done”, while Labour hoped never to talk of Brexit again. “Forward not back,” says Keir Starmer, to focus on the economy, jobs, public services, climate and fairness. But now it’s plain neither party can duck awkward Brexit questions. For Tories, the challenge from voters will be: you lied and now look what you’ve done. Labour’s is this: repair means rejoining the single market, but do you dare advocate freedom of movement?
Right now, pandemic politics dominates. In May comes an important test: the UK votes for councils and mayors. The government hopes that by then the easing of the lockdown will maximise its vaccine bounce. Political scientist Prof John Curtice tells me he expects a swapping of losses and gains, but no landslide either way: both parties are managing down expectations. These elections mean that the budget in March will extend furloughs for four million people, with businesses supported for longer. That weekly £20 for universal credit is a certainty. A hint of future fat-cat taxes on corporations and capital gains will come with much “recovery plan” rhetoric. Expect little of the deficit-reducing austerity that is certainly in the chancellor’s mind.
As is their wont, Labour supporters and some MPs are glum. Starmer is not breaking through, he’s not visible and voters don’t know him, finds Britain Thinks. Does he have a grand plan for Britain? Where’s his vision? Labour people are bad at patience. He’s only 10 months in post, and been plunged into a plague; within five months he had wiped out Labour’s 20-point deficit, mainly by not being Jeremy Corbyn. With personal ratings unseen in a Labour leader since Tony Blair’s heyday, in a New Statesman chart of decades of opposition leaders’ popularity, he does well.
Jeremy Hunt this weekend called Starmer the Tories’ greatest threat since Blair, warning he could bring about Labour’s “1948 moment” – the year the NHS was founded. A serious, decent and respected shadow cabinet may not be famous yet, but that’s better than being as infamous as many round Johnson’s table are. Right now, as people yearn most for safety and lockdown freedom, I doubt an opposition’s grand blueprint for the future would get much cut-through. Yet, frighteningly soon, the country will need Labour.
By all the forecasts, furlough’s end will bring a tsunami of unemployment: that needs Labour solutions, not the puny Kickstart so far only helping 2,000 young people. An exhausted NHS faces a waiting list of 4.5 million people: austerity had caused long delays before Covid. The government’s social care reform has vanished, while crippled councils hover near bankruptcy. Tory levelling-up will fail; Labour is better at social justice. Cop26 will let Johnson showboat climate projects, but Labour’s green new deal offers actual climate jobs.
Tory voices already reject IMF calls for investment rather than cuts; a Keynesian Labour plan may appeal better to business outraged by Brexit damage and small firms left on the brink of going bust by Covid. If there is a brief vaccine bounce, remember this bitter lesson: voters don’t do gratitude. They didn’t for Churchill winning the war, nor for Attlee’s NHS, nor will vaccine thanks last long for Johnson. Voters choose the best future: that’s for Labour to offer.
Marking Brexit’s first anniversary, Johnson repeated last year’s bombastic words: “The destiny of this great nation now resides firmly in our hands. I take on this duty with a sense of purpose.” Such balderdash may not have aged well by this time next year.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/despite-eu-missteps-despite-vaccines-183248471.html
Are there delays at the border?
Survey of 185 UK and EU supply chain managers
60% say they have faced delays getting goods into UK
45%have faced delays of more than two days
27%say paperwork is main cause of delay
23%say they could run out of stock if situation continues
Source: The Chartered Institute of Procurement & Supply
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55831263