• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Brexit: Now What? Turning it up to 11

Status
Not open for further replies.

Archie Gemmill Goal

Banned
Archie Gemmill Goal
Joined
Nov 18, 2015
Messages
8,324
Continued from here. As is usual, the split point is arbitrary and you may freely quote from earlier editions of the thread.
Posted By: Agatha





Aber said:
EU has a contract with AZ Sweden, which I assume is the holding company for EU operations. The EU prioritised price per dose and production in the EU.
Click to expand...

Production in the EU in the contract also includes the UK though

I suspect UK has a contract with AZ plc the overall owner of the group. The UK paid for setting up UK production facilities as AZ did not have any in the UK. A smart biotech venture capitalist would have made sure that they got priority use of any new facilities they were funding.
Click to expand...

I thought the AZ factories in UK were EU funded also?

I'm not sure how many smart biotech venture capitalists were involved in the whole process but it looks like AZ have promised priority to both the EU and the UK or at least overpromised what they can deliver to both and are now robbing Peter to pay Paul (probably in both directions) and there is also the question as to whether EU production is being exported to other places.

It's a pity that time and energy is being wasted on a political bunfight rather than all parties co-operating to achieve the best outcome but the 'England First' loons have taken over the asylum what more can we expect?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
I'm not sure how many smart biotech venture capitalists were involved in the whole process
Click to expand...

Look at Kate Bingham's CV.


but it looks like AZ have promised priority to both the EU and the UK or at least overpromised what they can deliver to both
Click to expand...

No they have not promised priority to both, and I'm not convinced the EU contract promises anything from the UK - to me it looks as as "may use UK facilities", not "must use" and I think AZ understand their group structure.

They did not overpromise - the schedule was "reasonable endeavours" not a promise. The EU should have investigated further when they saw delays in UK production; and should have been asking for weekly updates from then on. They were too late to sign the contract and seem not to have managed it well since.

I thought the AZ factories in UK were EU funded also?
Click to expand...
Why?

IIRC there's a specific clause which talks about setting up more production facilities in the EU if there are more delays. I simply can't see the EU investing in UK facilities given Brexit.

It's a pity that time and energy is being wasted on a political bunfight rather than all parties co-operating to achieve the best outcome but the 'England First' loons have taken over the asylum what more can we expect?
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:Nothing at all to do with the EU's vaccine problems - they also have delays with other vaccines.
 
Aber said:
No they have not promised priority to both, and I'm not convinced the EU contract promises anything from the UK - to me it looks as as "may use UK facilities", not "must use" and I think AZ understand their group structure.

They did not overpromise - the schedule was "reasonable endeavours" not a promise. The EU should have investigated further when they saw delays in UK production; and should have been asking for weekly updates from then on. They were too late to sign the contract and seem not to have managed it well since.
Click to expand...

If I remember rightly it's not 'reasonable endeavours' but 'best reasonable endeavours' and by definition you can't be making best endeavours to fulfil 1 contract if you are prioritising another one. I don't think we have seen the UK contract yet and it's entirely possible that they have the same wording or that if they have stronger wording then you can argue that's not fulfiling the wording of the EU contract.

The EU contract promises UK supply to the EU in so much as you consider diverting UK production a 'reasonable best endeavour' which to me it would seem to be. The sticking point being that they also have a UK contract to fulfil. In the fact that they have signed 2 contracts with 2 entities and are unable to deliver then they have overpromised both parties. if they fulfil the EU contract they can't fulfil the UK one (presumably) and vice versa.

Management of the issue isn't really here nor there in terms of determining whether AZ are meeting their contractual obligations.

Why?
Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure I read it an article that the EU had partially funded the Welsh facility. But I can't find it now. I could be wrong on that but it's just my remembering

IIRC there's a specific clause which talks about setting up more production facilities in the EU if there are more delays. I simply can't see the EU investing in UK facilities given Brexit.
Click to expand...

The clause I was referring to though specifically identifies the UK as part of the EU for the purposes of prioritising production. My reading of it isn't that it says the UK production belongs to the EU but rather in terms of prioritising production the UK production should be considered on a par with EU production. In other words it's perfectly acceptable for AZ to substitute Belgian production with UK production in order to fulfil the contract.

Whether they HAVE to comes back to 'best reasonable endeavours'. IMO if there is a priority for UK contracts then this should have been disclosed to the EU at the time of the contract being agreed as it clearly limits their 'best endeavours' but I am not a lawyer.

:rolleyes:Nothing at all to do with the EU's vaccine problems - they also have delays with other vaccines.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: But very much to do with the political wrangling. Rather than having 3 entities co-operating on a solution we have 3 entities battling for their own interests. and of course had the UK been part of the EU then the situation wouldn't exist.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
I thought the AZ factories in UK were EU funded also?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the EU did indeed invest a lot of money into the vaccine.

Yes, it is unfortunate that the EU dialed the dispute up to 11, but now I think everyone involved should calm down and figure out the best way forward. Platitudinous? Yes, but so be it.
 
Daily Mail
Boris's Double Vaccine Victory over the EU

Sunday People
Vaccine Victory

Sundday Express
EU tears itself apart, Global Britain Powers On
Boris toasts another big Brexit bonus (Boris is going to ask if we can join the Trans-Pacific Partnership)
 
angrysoba said:
My understanding is that the EU did indeed invest a lot of money into the vaccine.

Yes, it is unfortunate that the EU dialed the dispute up to 11, but now I think everyone involved should calm down and figure out the best way forward. Platitudinous? Yes, but so be it.
Click to expand...

The development of vaccine manufacturing capacity in the UK was UK funded. More importantly perhaps the UK invested much earlier, and proportionately more which I suspect is more important, than later when much of the development has already been done.

The big difference is the UK also delivered on vaccine trials via the NHS. These were crucial. The EU has in contrast very poor commitment to vaccine trials. The US and the UK and to a lesser extent South Africa were major contributors to the international trials. The EU has contributed proportionately little.
 
Planigale said:
The development of vaccine manufacturing capacity in the UK was UK funded. More importantly perhaps the UK invested much earlier, and proportionately more which I suspect is more important, than later when much of the development has already been done.
...
Click to expand...

Evidence for bolded?
Reminder: EU prepaid 2/3 of contract and contract is worth 870m€.
 
Dominic Raab tweets

@DominicRaab
United Kingdom government account
The United Kingdom is committed to building an even stronger relationship with dynamic economies in the Pacific region and championing rules-based free trade. I’m delighted that the UK will tomorrow apply to join the Pacific free trade area CPTPP.
 
For someone who didn't realise the importance of Dover, that's quite a statement.
 
Klimax said:
Evidence for bolded?
Reminder: EU prepaid 2/3 of contract and contract is worth 870m€.
Click to expand...

I read a FT article;
https://assets.publishing.service.g...4308/VTF_Interim_report_-_5th_publication.pdf
I get free access as an NHS employee but you may not be able to access article.

Try;
https://assets.publishing.service.g...4308/VTF_Interim_report_-_5th_publication.pdf

From The Guardian (not likely to report favourably on the UK government),
With Brexit looming, the UK drew huge criticism for declining to join EU schemes to purchase PPE and ventilators. There was also growing pressure to join a joint EU procurement plan for vaccines, and to put aside the Brexit rhetoric.

Brussels’ demands were eye-watering: the UK, unlike EU member states, would not be able to take part in the governance of the scheme, including the steering group or the negotiating team.

Britain would have no say in what vaccines to procure, at what price or in what quantity, and for what delivery schedule. There would be no side-deals possible.
Click to expand...
The EU had spent just €1.78bn in “risk money”, cash handed to pharmaceutical companies without any guarantee of a return, compared to €1.9bn by the UK and €9bn by the US
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/society...ow-the-uk-got-ahead-in-the-covid-vaccine-race
 
Planigale said:
I read a FT article;
https://assets.publishing.service.g...4308/VTF_Interim_report_-_5th_publication.pdf
I get free access as an NHS employee but you may not be able to access article.

Try;
https://assets.publishing.service.g...4308/VTF_Interim_report_-_5th_publication.pdf

From The Guardian (not likely to report favourably on the UK government),



https://www.theguardian.com/society...ow-the-uk-got-ahead-in-the-covid-vaccine-race
Click to expand...

Thanks. Link is working fine.
 
It is good that things have calmed down. I worry that the recent events are a signifier of irrational hostility in the EU commission against the UK. I find it worrying that what was in essence a commercial dispute escalated very rapidly to an international crisis. What was striking was the third countries which would be excluded from export restrictions e.g. Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, Israel, various ex-Yugoslavia states. But notably not the UK. In particular I wonder why Israel was excluded, since if there is one country that seems to have had disproportionate access to the Pfizer vaccine it is Israel. So it seemed to be a clear anti-UK policy. Introducing barriers on the NI land border suggests that this was never really a priority for the EU to maintain peace, but was something to use against the UK in negotiations. It was openly said within the EU commission that the UK had to suffer for leaving the UK, the rational for this was that if the UK did not suffer then other countries might leave the EU. What I am concerned about is this episode reveals a continued hostility to the UK by the EU commission. Now Brexit has happened I had hoped that a more neutral approach would be followed. Unfortunately this episode will I fear empower the euro-sceptic nationalist tendency in the UK. The EU does not seem to want to be a good neighbour.
 
Planigale said:
It is good that things have calmed down. I worry that the recent events are a signifier of irrational hostility in the EU commission against the UK. I find it worrying that what was in essence a commercial dispute escalated very rapidly to an international crisis. What was striking was the third countries which would be excluded from export restrictions e.g. Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, Israel, various ex-Yugoslavia states. But notably not the UK. In particular I wonder why Israel was excluded, since if there is one country that seems to have had disproportionate access to the Pfizer vaccine it is Israel. So it seemed to be a clear anti-UK policy. Introducing barriers on the NI land border suggests that this was never really a priority for the EU to maintain peace, but was something to use against the UK in negotiations. It was openly said within the EU commission that the UK had to suffer for leaving the UK, the rational for this was that if the UK did not suffer then other countries might leave the EU. What I am concerned about is this episode reveals a continued hostility to the UK by the EU commission. Now Brexit has happened I had hoped that a more neutral approach would be followed. Unfortunately this episode will I fear empower the euro-sceptic nationalist tendency in the UK. The EU does not seem to want to be a good neighbour.
Click to expand...

Its amazing that people think the UK being treated the same as Canada or the US is somehow them being singled out for nasty treatment. That's what the Brexiteers wanted!
 
The Commission illegally tried to interfere in business contracts.

What we've paid for, we own.
First come first served.

Whilst they dithered we wrote cheques and approved the vaccines.

I'm not a fan of Boris but our vaccine policy is the right policy.

We should of course help our neighbours if we find ourselves with surpluses.
 
Last edited:
EU also have business contracts with the same suppliers.
The supplier can't rob one to supply the other, both contracts should be honoured.
Maybe the suppliers shouldn't have been so greedy.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Its amazing that people think the UK being treated the same as Canada or the US is somehow them being singled out for nasty treatment. That's what the Brexiteers wanted!
Click to expand...

Yeah. Stupid and disproportionate moves by the EU but not seeing it being an anti-UK move, simply that we have a strange deal with the EU given the Irish circumstances.

Airfix said:
The Commission illegally tried to interfere in business contracts.

What we've paid for, we own.
First come first served.

Whilst they dithered we wrote cheques and approved the vaccines.

I'm not a fan of Boris but our vaccine policy is the right policy.

We should of course help our neighbours if we find ourselves with surpluses.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately we don’t know whether the current deal the UK has with various manufacturers are good or not, that information is not being made public.

Certainly we seem to be doing well securing doses, hopefully that will help us get people vaccinated as soon as possible.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
EU also have business contracts with the same suppliers.
The supplier can't rob one to supply the other, both contracts should be honoured. Maybe the suppliers shouldn't have been so greedy.
Click to expand...

Depends on the contracts they’ve signed and which legal system was chosen for the contracts.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
EU also have business contracts with the same suppliers.
The supplier can't rob one to supply the other, both contracts should be honoured.
Maybe the suppliers shouldn't have been so greedy.
Click to expand...

You're correct the supplier can't rob one to supply the other, BOTH contracts should be honoured, but the Commission were proposing robbing us to supply them.

The Commission, have now conceded that they were wrong.
But this shouldn't have happened in the first place.

If the suppliers cannot produce enough on their own, they should outsource the production of the vaccines.
 
What a surprise that a Brexiteer sees things as the EU robbing the UK.

How long before the Daily Mail blames Muslims and the Brexiteers swallow that too?
 
I don't read the daily fail.
But how unsurprising that a remoaner supports things that Michel Barnier, Micheal Martin and even Tim Farron do not.

Of course we should assist the EU with vaccines if we can.

But it's wrong of the EU Commission to have considered preventing vaccines paid for by the British taxpayer, from being exported to the UK.

Imagine the uproar if the British government had prevented vaccines paid for by EU taxpayers from being exported to the EU.
 
Little reminder for our British friends like Airfix:
UK restricts COVID medicine exports amid AstraZeneca vaccine fight
Yet, while Johnson hit out at the EU for weighing export controls on vaccines, the British government itself has a list of 174 medicines that are currently banned from export from the U.K., because they “are needed for UK patients.” Additions to the list in 2020 included around 100 medicines that have been suggested as possible treatments for COVID-19 patients or are being used to alleviate symptoms of COVID-19 patients in intensive care units.
Click to expand...

You may want to be bit more careful with your complaints...
 
Airfix said:
I don't read the daily fail.
But how unsurprising that a remoaner supports things that Michel Barnier, Micheal Martin and even Tim Farron do not.

Of course we should assist the EU with vaccines if we can.

But it's wrong of the EU Commission to have considered preventing vaccines paid for by the British taxpayer, from being exported to the UK.

Imagine the uproar if the British government had prevented vaccines paid for by EU taxpayers from being exported to the EU.
Click to expand...

How do you work out which vaccines were paid for by the British taxpayer and which by the EU taxpayer?
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
How do you work out which vaccines were paid for by the British taxpayer and which by the EU taxpayer?
Click to expand...

Just supply both at the same time rather than trying to prevent taxpayers from being treated because of their nationality.....

Fairness is not rocket science.
 
Airfix said:
Just supply both at the same time rather than trying to prevent taxpayers from being treated because of their nationality.....

Fairness is not rocket science.
Click to expand...

So if EU taxpayers buy 100 units and UK taxpayers buy 100 units and you can only manufacture 150 units then you just supply both at the same time?

Nothing is rocket science in Brexiteerland. UNfortunately reality is often more complicated.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
So if EU taxpayers buy 100 units and UK taxpayers buy 100 units and you can only manufacture 150 units then you just supply both at the same time?

Nothing is rocket science in Brexiteerland. UNfortunately reality is often more complicated.
Click to expand...
There are different ways deliveries could be sliced, and this is where it looks like the governments have not acted in a “joined-up” way, if they’d coordinated their rollouts then we should have been able to be more efficient.

The UK government did do something very sensible earlier in the pandemic, not only by guaranteed orders prior to licences being granted but also literally investing in bricks and mortar for at least one of the private companies.

Looks like in the EU the procurement of vaccines was left to the EU rather than individual governments and the EU executive screwed it up and have suddenly found themselves in a very uncomfortable place i.e the countries of the EU asking the EU admin “why aren’t we getting doses?” and them trying to make up for their mistakes.
 
Airfix said:
You're correct the supplier can't rob one to supply the other, BOTH contracts should be honoured, but the Commission were proposing robbing us to supply them.

The Commission, have now conceded that they were wrong.
But this shouldn't have happened in the first place.

If the suppliers cannot produce enough on their own, they should outsource the production of the vaccines.
Click to expand...

“Outsourcing” isn’t a magic tap that can be switched on like that. Prime example for a UK based person - no flour in the supermarkets after panic buying.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
So if EU taxpayers buy 100 units and UK taxpayers buy 100 units and you can only manufacture 150 units then you just supply both at the same time? .
Click to expand...

So you manufacture 150 units, give half to one customer, and half to the other, agreeing to continue manufacture more, for both.

75 units is better than none.

There'd be delays inevitably, BUT you'd still be providing some to both customers.

What the Commission seemed to want to do was hand all units to the EU.

That wouldn't have been fair.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
So if EU taxpayers buy 100 units and UK taxpayers buy 100 units and you can only manufacture 150 units then ....
Click to expand...
You look at the contracts. You will be in breach of one (or both contracts if you don't fulfil the order. Lots of other suppliers are queueing up to supply both parties.

The EU pays $2.15 a dose and the UK $4. Production costs at are the same.

In order to satisfy your shareholders you take the $400 from the UK and $107.5 from the EU
 
Lothian said:
You look at the contracts. You will be in breach of one (or both contracts if you don't fulfil the order. Lots of other suppliers are queueing up to supply both parties.

The EU pays $2.15 a dose and the UK $4. Production costs at are the same.

In order to satisfy your shareholders you take the $400 from the UK and $107.5 from the EU
Click to expand...

And you think “by the time a lawsuit winds its way up to the EU courts I’ll have left and cashed in my 30 million euro bonus “.
 
Airfix said:
So you manufacture 150 units, give half to one customer, and half to the other, agreeing to continue manufacture more, for both.

75 units is better than none.

There'd be delays inevitably, BUT you'd still be providing some to both customers.

What the Commission seemed to want to do was hand all units to the EU.

That wouldn't have been fair.
Click to expand...
If is not about being fair it is about making money.

3 vaccines have been approved in the UK. 2 others are about to be approved. 117 are in development. The market is about to be swamped so sell as many as you can to the highest bidder. That is the UK. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51665497
 
When the contract was drawn up it was explicitly stated that for the purpose of the contract - which was during the transition period - that references to a UK-base was specifically the same as an EU-base. The fact that a factory is in the UK did not make it 'British First', as in a 'third country'. The EU gave AstraZeneca funding to increase its UK output. It is quite wrong to claim 'the EU were trying to steal the Brits' vaccines'.

Anway, it is now getting 9m more from AZ.
 
Airfix said:
So you manufacture 150 units, give half to one customer, and half to the other, agreeing to continue manufacture more, for both.

75 units is better than none.

There'd be delays inevitably, BUT you'd still be providing some to both customers.

What the Commission seemed to want to do was hand all units to the EU.

That wouldn't have been fair.
Click to expand...

That's not what the Commission seemed to want to do at all. What they wanted was for AZ to fulfil what they saw as a binding contract.

Lothian said:
You look at the contracts. You will be in breach of one (or both contracts if you don't fulfil the order. Lots of other suppliers are queueing up to supply both parties.

The EU pays $2.15 a dose and the UK $4. Production costs at are the same.

In order to satisfy your shareholders you take the $400 from the UK and $107.5 from the EU
Click to expand...

Interesting that the 'not rocket science' question has 2 replies and 2 different answers. Of course if you make a commercial decision to break the contract with the EU then you can do so, but the EU also have the right to stop you exporting units from the EU without their permission.

Vixen said:
When the contract was drawn up it was explicitly stated that for the purpose of the contract - which was during the transition period - that references to a UK-base was specifically the same as an EU-base. The fact that a factory is in the UK did not make it 'British First', as in a 'third country'. The EU gave AstraZeneca funding to increase its UK output. It is quite wrong to claim 'the EU were trying to steal the Brits' vaccines'.

Anway, it is now getting 9m more from AZ.
Click to expand...

Actually from looking at the contract, the reference to UK only seems to apply to the EU preference for EU supply - in other words they will regard UK supplies as equivalent to EU supply.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
That's not what the Commission seemed to want to do at all. What they wanted was for AZ to fulfil what they saw as a binding contract.

Interesting that the 'not rocket science' question has 2 replies and 2 different answers. Of course if you make a commercial decision to break the contract with the EU then you can do so, but the EU also have the right to stop you exporting units from the EU without their permission.

Actually from looking at the contract, the reference to UK only seems to apply to the EU preference for EU supply - in other words they will regard UK supplies as equivalent to EU supply.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is self interest. What they are saying is that they will not impose trade barriers / tariffs on UK produced vaccine but regard it as if it had been produced in the EU. Entirely reasonable in the circumstances.

What is not reasonable to say is that the output of vaccine produced in the EU should be prioritised for EU use and exports out of the EU will be restricted to select third countries (excluding the UK) and for the purposes of this case the UK factory is defined as being within the EU therefore AZ have to prioritise output of the UK factory for EU use.
 
Vixen said:
When the contract was drawn up it was explicitly stated that for the purpose of the contract - which was during the transition period - that references to a UK-base was specifically the same as an EU-base. The fact that a factory is in the UK did not make it 'British First', as in a 'third country'. The EU gave AstraZeneca funding to increase its UK output. It is quite wrong to claim 'the EU were trying to steal the Brits' vaccines'.

Anway, it is now getting 9m more from AZ.
Click to expand...

No EU gave funding for AZ to produce vaccine within the EU (in Belgium and France I believe). No EU funding went to develop vaccine infrastructure in the UK, this has been all UK funded.
 
Lothian said:
You look at the contracts. You will be in breach of one (or both contracts if you don't fulfil the order. Lots of other suppliers are queueing up to supply both parties.

The EU pays $2.15 a dose and the UK $4. Production costs at are the same.

In order to satisfy your shareholders you take the $400 from the UK and $107.5 from the EU
Click to expand...

This of course does not apply to AZ since they have committed to providing vaccine at cost. They are in this instance a 'not-for-profit', they have also agreed (and have) shared IP with others who wish / are able to produce the vaccine. The money paid was essentially to cover the development of a vaccine production capability. AZ was not a significant producer of vaccines, it has essentially had to develop the manufacturing capability de novo. This is why they were second choice for partnership with Oxford.

Novartis has dropped its own potential vaccine and will produce the Pfizer vaccine instead, so vaccine manufacturers are co-operating to maximise production. vaccine production especially these novel vaccines is harder than producing drugs.
 
Planigale said:
See references above. If you can provide a reference that the EU funded vaccine production capability in the UK I would be interested to read it.
Click to expand...

AIUI The EU invested €336million in AstraZeneca, including in the UK, to the extent of €28m specifically to expand the production lines.

I will treat your claim that the UK 100% paid for development of the vaccine with Oxford and that the EU investment did not include the UK production lines as your opinion rather than fact. This is because you have presented your case as the EU trying to cheat the UK out of its vaccinations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom