Current Affairs EU In or Out

[Jebus_lives]

Nah the bold bit is the part where in my view you've gone wrong.

It's not priority, like they've shifted to prefer the UK once issues arose - they haven't. They're simply proceeding with the contracted plan for the UK, as that allocated supply chain was unaffected.

So priority is the wrong word.

If AZ took away from the plan for UK vaccines, they then breach a contract with the UK. Deliberately. They can't do that.

As said, people are 'annoyed' at the EU because they're casting around seeking to blame based on the UK supply chain being unaffected. Which is political.

The UK has an agreement for supply with AZ and the EU has a supply agreement with AZ simultaneously.

The EU have a APA to build capacity prior to supply.

The UK supply is being met, the EU supply is reduced by 60% (not being met).

It's not necessarily a political statement to state that the UK supply chain is unaffected. It's evidence that supports a breach in contract between AZ and the EU. If two contracts exist in parallel and capacity for one is met at the detriment of another, then the party adversely affected will of course seek redress.

If AZ can't meet the demand for both, it's a headache for the EU, which will becomes headache for AZ...which may become a headache for the UK.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Where is your evidence for that?

Even if it's true, the AZ contract with the EU may make reference to UK facilities as part of the agreement.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Where is your evidence for that?

Ok, it seems like the plant in Wrexham is actually a deal between the government and Wockhardt, with the company seemingly able to produce a number of different vaccines - https://www.fiercepharma.com/manufacturing/az-taps-indian-pharma-wockhardt-for-u-k-shot-finishing

Whereas the Belgian Novasep plant is an arrangement between them and AZ - https://www.novasep.com/home/about-...oduce-covid-19-oxford-vaccine-for-europe.html

Which would presumably take the Wockhardt plant off the table.

 

[peteblue]

Those factories in the UK aren't owned by the UK any more than the ones in Belgium, the Netherlands et al are owned by the EU. Why do you keep referring to them as UK and EU facilities? The Belgian factory is run by Novasep - https://www.novasep.com/ -, the Welsh factory by Wockhardt - https://www.wockhardt.co.uk/, so unless AZ have an agreement with the UK government that all output from the Wockhardt factory is going to them then it's frankly got naff all to do with the UK government. The deal is between AZ and the EU and it's down to AZ to fulfil the order to the best of their ability.

It doesn’t quite work like that Bruce. Imagine if they sent 5M doses to the U.K. and 5M doses to the EU, then they found out that the EU doses were corrupted and did not work. The EU could not then ask for 2.5M of the U.K. doses. If they believe they have AZ for breach of contract then sue them and see what happens. If AZ were to take the 2.5M doses from the U.K. and send to the EU then the U.K. would sue them. I don’t believe for one second that the EU will contractually have AZ by the goolies over this if they have used the term ‘best endeavours’ or some such and cannot be proven to have not done so.......

 

[peteblue]

Ok, it seems like the plant in Wrexham is actually a deal between the government and Wockhardt, with the company seemingly able to produce a number of different vaccines - https://www.fiercepharma.com/manufacturing/az-taps-indian-pharma-wockhardt-for-u-k-shot-finishing

Whereas the Belgian Novasep plant is an arrangement between them and AZ - https://www.novasep.com/home/about-...oduce-covid-19-oxford-vaccine-for-europe.html

Which would presumably take the Wockhardt plant off the table.

Isn‘t that what AZ have said all along, that the Belgium plant is for the EU, and that’s where the problem is.....

 

[Tubey]

Where is your evidence for that?

Vaccine war brewing as EU demands Covid jabs produced in UK

Boris Johnson insists he is ‘very confident’ of supplies of AstraZeneca doses

www.independent.co.uk

AZ insisted that its contracts made clear that the UK had first claim on vaccines produced domestically

Head of AstraZeneca rejects calls for UK vaccine to be diverted to EU

Chief executive of pharmaceutical giant says the firm will honour UK’s earlier contract despite EU anger over shortfall

www.theguardian.com

“The UK agreement was reached in June, three months before the European one,” he said. “As you could imagine, the UK government said the supply coming out of the UK supply chain would go for the UK first. Basically, that’s how it is.”

 

[Jebus_lives]

Vaccine war brewing as EU demands Covid jabs produced in UK

Boris Johnson insists he is ‘very confident’ of supplies of AstraZeneca doses

www.independent.co.uk

Head of AstraZeneca rejects calls for UK vaccine to be diverted to EU

Chief executive of pharmaceutical giant says the firm will honour UK’s earlier contract despite EU anger over shortfall

www.theguardian.com

That is not evidence that the contract is ring fenced nor does it mean that AZ don't have an enforceable contract for supply with the EU.

It might just mean the UK have a more credible case for breach if it were to happen (ie explicit clauses)

 

[arminisgod]

AZ are going to release the contract...

Arse cheeks clinching all over Brussels i bet

 

[Tubey]

That is not evidence that the contract is ring fenced.

Erm... "the UK government said the supply coming out of the UK supply chain would go for the UK first."

What more evidence do you need?

Unless you mean "totally" ringfenced? If so, then no, but what they mean is the UK requested supply - e.g. 2 million a week, or whatever it was agreed to scale up to - was ringfenced, not all production. That's why AZ have came out firmly and said that contract will not be breached.

 

[Tubey]

That is not evidence that the contract is ring fenced not does it mean that AZ don't have an enforceable contract for supply with the EU.

It might just mean the UK have a more credible case for breach if it were to happen (ie explicit clauses)

The EU can't realistically say the breach is because AZ are fulfilling an earlier contract. Just makes zero sense. They can say negligence from AZ resulted in the breach, sure, but they can't say that fulfilling the UK contract has any bearing on the EU one. The only way they could is if the UK contract was altered to take supply away - e.g. the UK requested 50 million more doses and AZ took that order and put it in front of the EU supply "in the queue", effectively taking EU vaccines away. That hasn't happened.

The only case the EU has is to say AZ failed to foresee the issue and didn't do what they could to avert it at the Belgian plant. That's fine. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the UK contract, clearly.

 

[peteblue]

AZ are going to release the contract...

Arse cheeks clinching all over Brussels i bet

If I were the AZ CEO I’d be expecting a grovelling phone call just before they are released......

 

[Jebus_lives]

Erm... "the UK government said the supply coming out of the UK supply chain would go for the UK first."

What more evidence do you need?

Unless you mean "totally" ringfenced? If so, then no, but what they mean is the UK requested supply - e.g. 2 million a week, or whatever it was agreed to scale up to - was ringfenced, not all production. That's why AZ have came out firmly and said that contract will not be breached.

I'll need plenty more evidence than the UK government stating something as true.

In this thread, of all threads, are we expected to take this Government at it's word?

 

[Tubey]

I'll need plenty more evidence than the UK government stating something as true.

In this thread, of all threads, are we expected to take this Government at it's word?

It wasn't the government; AZ's head confirmed it.

“The UK agreement was reached in June, three months before the European one,” [Soriot] said. “As you could imagine, the UK government said the supply coming out of the UK supply chain would go for the UK first. Basically, that’s how it is.”

He's basically confirming that AZ are fulfilling contracts in order of receipt, like any business would.

Again, if, I dunno, Ecuador or someone ordered 500 million doses tomorrow, they don't go into a big mixing pot with the order and dilute the availability to the UK and EU, because that would be absurd.

 

[Jebus_lives]

The EU can't realistically say the breach is because AZ are fulfilling an earlier contract. Just makes zero sense. They can say negligence from AZ resulted in the breach, sure, but they can't say that fulfilling the UK contract has any bearing on the EU one. The only way they could is if the UK contract was altered to take supply away - e.g. the UK requested 50 million more doses and AZ took that order and put it in front of the EU supply "in the queue", effectively taking EU vaccines away. That hasn't happened.

The only case the EU has is to say AZ failed to foresee the issue and didn't do what they could to avert it at the Belgian plant. That's fine. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the UK contract, clearly.

They can specifically say it's a breach of contract. Fulfillment of a separate contract is immaterial.

It may have an impact on the contract with the EU, but if they are meeting a separate contract then it indicates they can meet capacity for the EU..

They can meet one they can meet the other...it really doesn't matter who put the order in first and it really doesn't matter if the factories are based in the UK if the AZ contract with the UK doesn't exclude them.

 

[Tubey]

They can specifically say it's a breach of contract. Fulfillment of a separate contract is immaterial.

It may have an impact on the contract with the EU, but if they are meeting a separate contract then it indicates they can meet capacity for the EU..

They can meet one they can meet the other...it really doesn't matter who put the order in first and it really doesn't matter if the factories are based in the UK if the AZ contract with the UK doesn't exclude them.

It really does though.