Current Affairs EU In or Out

In or Out

  • In

    Votes: 688 67.9%

  • Out

    Votes: 325 32.1%
  • Total voters
    1,013
Status
Not open for further replies.
peteblue said:
Anyway, it will all come out in the wash this week. We will find out if the EU intend to stop export of vaccines to the U.K. and if they intend to take AZ to court. I doubt they will, but if they do, then we will find out the UK’s response...
Click to expand...

Better buy a few multi packs of Walkers this week! lol
 
Neiler said:
There is something in that mate, my understanding is the UK provided a grant to Oxford in Dec 19 (precovid) for vaccine research with a stipulation that the UK would have an option on a priority % basis. I won’t say how I know this, but I was told. The EU also provided an Annual 59mil to Oxford for vaccine research annually without that stipulation. The vaccine at the time was being developed for something else, but they changed tack when COVID happened. But then the UK were part of the EU.

So this is a bit more intricate then myself and Pete in Morrison’s, if Oxford had a pre existing agreement with the UK, AZ inherited, but didn’t disclose with the EU and entered into a duplicitous situation.

Part of this is disagreement 1) the uk signing something unilaterally while part of the eu 2) UK part of the EU when signed 3) A duplicitous contract signed by AZ.

Either way what we know is contract obligations haven’t been met, the UK believe they have a right to domestic supply, export nothing and import from the EU - like you say people in the EU are furious because people are dying and vaccines are being sent abroad to the UK.
Click to expand...
I think the key to it mate is in the wording of the contracts under which laws they come under ,
I have thought the same as yourself about how two seemingly , pretty much the same contracts can be seen to say diffrent things , when i looked into it it looks like the UK one is more tightly bound , in its use of wording under its laws , which it signed the contract.
It looks to a layman like myself like the equivalent of getting a solicitor doing a will and getting one off the net , while on face value they look the same.
In reality if you go to court to dispute it it's those little things that swings it for the former.
If you can recall , when the Oxford Vaccine came out it was asked would the UK get first dibs on TV,
They gave a veiled understanding without the figures that this was the case.
Something I cant really understand ,why didnt the EU get right behind the AZ vaccine on purely cost it's getting them for about £1.70 a dose as against about £24 for the Pfizer surely they could have come to some understanding to produce this under some sort of license at other sites.
Then again personally I would have made the AZ vaccine patent free available to any country who wanted to make it at there own risk in their country, would be better and quicker for the world to get a grip of the pandemic.
Even if they added a token payment of say 2p a vaccine produced, to fund future research it would be a start and we would benefit from having the research here in the UK.
 
edge said:
I think the key to it mate is in the wording of the contracts under which laws they come under ,
I have thought the same as yourself about how two seemingly , pretty much the same contracts can be seen to say diffrent things , when i looked into it it looks like the UK one is more tightly bound , in its use of wording under its laws , which it signed the contract.
It looks to a layman like myself like the equivalent of getting a solicitor doing a will and getting one off the net , while on face value they look the same.
In reality if you go to court to dispute it it's those little things that swings it for the former.
If you can recall , when the Oxford Vaccine came out it was asked would the UK get first dibs on TV,
They gave a veiled understanding without the figures that this was the case.
Something I cant really understand ,why didnt the EU get right behind the AZ vaccine on purely cost it's getting them for about £1.70 a dose as against about £24 for the Pfizer surely they could have come to some understanding to produce this under some sort of license at other sites.
Then again personally I would have made the AZ vaccine patent free available to any country who wanted to make it at there own risk in their country, would be better and quicker for the world to get a grip of the pandemic.
Even if they added a token payment of say 2p a vaccine to fund future research it would be a start and we would benefit from having the research here in the UK.
Click to expand...

I think it boils down to very simply mate, there are three key stakeholders who signed two contracts - each of those stakeholders have three different interpretations of those contract s and a grievance exists. If this was normal life we would be into months if not years of legal due process. And that will happen, but doesn’t benefit anyone today or tomorrow in this emergency. We will all have different opinion on the rights and wrongs.

So as it’s not you and me but political unions and big pharma in conflict, they have different cards up their sleeves, in terms of import and export sanctions. In all reality, if you are the EU and are exporting to the UK and USA and one of those countries has enacted in a law and exporting 0 (USA), or you have a contract with a supplier in the UK, your contract isn’t been delivered as promised by 70% and that supply is being provided to that country (UK) - who you are also exporting vaccine to, what would you do?

If the EU stop exporting (hopefully they don’t) they are just taking up the same position and seems normal accepted reasonable position of the other political unions. Simply put if no one has a problem with the US or UK not exporting, they can’t have a problem if the EU dont.
 
Last edited:
“AstraZeneca has criticised the European Union’s threat to blockade vaccine supply to the UK, claiming member states are sitting on up to 12 million unused jabs.

Insiders also said an EU export ban on sending Covid-19 vaccines to the UK would not work, not least because Britain is currently manufacturing almost its entire supply.

A small number of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine batches are being supplied via India, and almost none in the EU.

The pharmaceutical giant has been stung by criticism from Brussels and member states over the roll out on the Continent of the vaccine, developed in the UK.

Sources at AstraZeneca appear puzzled by a threat issued last week by Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, to ban vaccine exports.

Pressure was ramped up further on Sunday when Mairead McGuinness, the EU European commissioner for financial services, refused to rule out a blockade, telling the BBC: “Everything is on the table.”

However, a well-placed source involved in the Oxford/AstraZeneca manufacture said the EU only had itself to blame and was sitting on almost 13 million vaccine doses that it had failed to get into people’s arms.”


Actually this may well explain the EU political strategy to get themselves off the hook. Ban the export of AZ to the U.K., to make themselves look tough, while none of the product was going there anyway, then release the 12 million they have in store to ramp up the rollout. Cynical but it might work. Obviously they can’t ban the Pfizer because we provide components for it, so AZ it is.....
 
peteblue said:
“AstraZeneca has criticised the European Union’s threat to blockade vaccine supply to the UK, claiming member states are sitting on up to 12 million unused jabs.

Insiders also said an EU export ban on sending Covid-19 vaccines to the UK would not work, not least because Britain is currently manufacturing almost its entire supply.

A small number of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine batches are being supplied via India, and almost none in the EU.

The pharmaceutical giant has been stung by criticism from Brussels and member states over the roll out on the Continent of the vaccine, developed in the UK.

Sources at AstraZeneca appear puzzled by a threat issued last week by Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, to ban vaccine exports.

Pressure was ramped up further on Sunday when Mairead McGuinness, the EU European commissioner for financial services, refused to rule out a blockade, telling the BBC: “Everything is on the table.”

However, a well-placed source involved in the Oxford/AstraZeneca manufacture said the EU only had itself to blame and was sitting on almost 13 million vaccine doses that it had failed to get into people’s arms.”


Actually this may well explain the EU political strategy to get themselves off the hook. Ban the export of AZ to the U.K., to make themselves look tough, while none of the product was going there anyway, then release the 12 million they have in store to ramp up the rollout. Cynical but it might work. Obviously they can’t ban the Pfizer because we provide components for it, so AZ it is.....
Click to expand...

I never knew you were a well placed source in AZ mate! lol
 
peteblue said:
“AstraZeneca has criticised the European Union’s threat to blockade vaccine supply to the UK, claiming member states are sitting on up to 12 million unused jabs.

Insiders also said an EU export ban on sending Covid-19 vaccines to the UK would not work, not least because Britain is currently manufacturing almost its entire supply.

A small number of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine batches are being supplied via India, and almost none in the EU.

The pharmaceutical giant has been stung by criticism from Brussels and member states over the roll out on the Continent of the vaccine, developed in the UK.

Sources at AstraZeneca appear puzzled by a threat issued last week by Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, to ban vaccine exports.

Pressure was ramped up further on Sunday when Mairead McGuinness, the EU European commissioner for financial services, refused to rule out a blockade, telling the BBC: “Everything is on the table.”

However, a well-placed source involved in the Oxford/AstraZeneca manufacture said the EU only had itself to blame and was sitting on almost 13 million vaccine doses that it had failed to get into people’s arms.”


Actually this may well explain the EU political strategy to get themselves off the hook. Ban the export of AZ to the U.K., to make themselves look tough, while none of the product was going there anyway, then release the 12 million they have in store to ramp up the rollout. Cynical but it might work. Obviously they can’t ban the Pfizer because we provide components for it, so AZ it is.....
Click to expand...

It doesn't, pete. It is as throwaway as article as most of the rest of the articles in the Telegraph are nowadays.
 
Neiler said:
I think it boils down to very simply, there are three key stakeholders who signed two contracts - each of those stakeholders have three different interpretations of those contract s and a grievance exists. If this was normal life we would be into months if not years of legal due process. And that will happen, but doesn’t benignity anyone today or tomorrow in this emergency. We will all have different opinion on the right and wrongs.

So as it’s not you and me but political unions and big pharma in conflict, they have different cards up their sleeves, in terms of import and export sanctions. In all reality, if you are the EU and are exporting to the UK and USA and one of those countries has enacted in a law and exporting 0 (USA), or you have a contract with a supplier in the UK, your contract isn’t been delivered as promised by 70% and that supply is being provided to that country - who you are also exporting vaccine to, what would you do? If the EU stop exporting (hopefully they don’t) they are just taking up the same position and seems normal accepted reasonable position of the other political unions. Simply put if no one has a problem with the US or UK not exporting, they can’t have a problem if the EU dont.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it’s contracts and the law. There are not three stakeholders, otherwise there would be many more because of contracts signed by AZ with a myriad of other countries. There is an AZ/U.K. contract. There is an AZ/EU contract. Each stands separately. Using words like ‘reasonable position’ or ‘can’t have a problem’ may well have traction in politics or on a forum, but has nothing to do with the contracts signed or the law. If the EU feels its contract is not being fulfilled, it’s very simple, take them to court...but none of this has anything to do with the U.K.....
 
peteblue said:
Unfortunately it’s contracts and the law. There are not three stakeholders, otherwise there would be many more because of contracts signed by AZ with a myriad of other countries. There is an AZ/U.K. contract. There is an AZ/EU contract. Each stands separately. Using words like ‘reasonable position’ or ‘can’t have a problem’ may well have traction in politics or on a forum, but has nothing to do with the contracts signed or the law. If the EU feels its contract is not being fulfilled, it’s very simple, take them to court...but none of this has anything to do with the U.K.....
Click to expand...

It relates to the UK in that UK plants are named in the EU contract as part of its supply chain and are not exporting as per contractual agreements. If the EU interpret their vaccine contracts differently tomorrow and stop exporting vaccine from the EU, the UK and you will obviously feel like you have a grievance with the EU, no point saying you wouldn’t. Thats why your spending have the day fretting over an export ban and saying how evil the EU is.
 
Last edited:
peteblue said:
Unfortunately it’s contracts and the law. There are not three stakeholders, otherwise there would be many more because of contracts signed by AZ with a myriad of other countries. There is an AZ/U.K. contract. There is an AZ/EU contract. Each stands separately. Using words like ‘reasonable position’ or ‘can’t have a problem’ may well have traction in politics or on a forum, but has nothing to do with the contracts signed or the law. If the EU feels its contract is not being fulfilled, it’s very simple, take them to court...but none of this has anything to do with the U.K.....
Click to expand...
If it was that simple there would be no need for contracts lawyers required to interpret contract law. It’s all very well posting that it’s all simple, cut and dried on a football Internet forum when the lawyers might turn you inside out.
Anyhow, you would need to be familiar with the minutiae of the contracts to argue with any authority wouldn’t you?
 
Neiler said:
It relates to the UK in that plants are named in the EU contract and are not exporting as per contractual agreements. If the EU intercut their vaccine contracts differently tomorrow and stop exporting the EU, the UK and you will obviously feel like you have a grievance with the EU, no point saying you wouldn’t. That why your spending have the day fretting over an export ban and saying how evil the EU is.
Click to expand...

TBF he'd be doing that even if the only news of the day was that the Eurostar has changed the colour of its trains
 
Neiler said:
That’s great thanks mate, I think I actually read it before. I find politico a bit right wing, but that just me.

Here’s the thing I’d be critical of the EU here, the vaccine producers have to apply for sanction of the factories to the EMA, despite the British plants being named in the supply contract to the EU, AZ never applied for approval - so far by those plants.

I’d be critical of bot( AZ and the EU there.
Click to expand...
It should also be remembered that AZ didn't even apply for EMA approval until January. They've been an utter shambles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top