UK Politics: Oh Ambassador you are really spoiling us!

[ants]

14 hours ago, Heartofice said:

So the EU is threatening to block supply of vaccines for countries outside the EU due to disagreements over supply

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/25/eu-threatens-to-block-covid-vaccine-exports-amid-astrazeneca-shortfall

Which is lovely of them. 
 

Pestons take on the situation:

Hilarious quote in there as well, EU source says “ I understand Brexit better now”

Again - why does anything in this have to do with Brexit?  EU countries didn't have to go with the EU group deal.  The faster authorisation was a system the UK used under EU rules.  This is a breach/failure by a private company.  

[Which Tyler]

6 hours ago, ants said:

Sorry, but I think Boris delivered exactly the Brexit that Leavers wanted.  He got a no-tariff deal with the EU on goods, while maintaining significant control over borders and UK regulations.  That such a deal was always going to shaft the services sector, add a huge amount of red-tape, cause NI issues, and will cause problems if the UK does change regulations, were all things that Brexiters have said again and again in opinion polls they would do (i.e. take an economic hit for sovereignty). 

I disagree.
We have no-way of knowing what Brexit the leavers voted for, because it was never defined, and intentions weren't asked.
We do know that the Brexit that's been delivered is not a Brexit that was (widely) discussed at the time. And that it's a Brexit that has largely left brexiteers unhappy.

Some people voted to leave because "up yours David Cameron", some voted for Norway+ (which was actually widely discussed at the time), some voted for cakeism (sunlit uplands, easiest deal in history, hold all the cards....), some voted to keep the foreigners out, some voted for more money for the NHS, some voted to replace the CAP with something better, some few voted to cosy up to America, some few voted for WTO.

Not many brexiters said that they'd take an economic hit in return for sovereignty, most said there wouldn't be an economic hit, some said there was a risk of an economic hit and they were willing to take that risk, but they were mostly kept quiet - and were the politicians, not the voters.

[Heartofice]

Disagree, you can argue about the specifics but the generally concept, why people voted for Brexit, was that they wanted the UK to have greater levels of sovereignty and control and wanted decisions about the UK to be made in the UK.

On that, Boris has delivered.  At the very least he has understood what Brexit was about , unlike Theresa May who really didn’t understand it at all, and turned it into almost a caricature of what Brexit voters wanted.

[Which Tyler]

Out of interest - what actually are the differences between May's deal and Johnson's deal?

 

I've not read either in detail, or a good summary of their differences; but they seem remarkably similar in broad terms

[Chaircat Meow]

1 minute ago, Which Tyler said:

Out of interest - what actually are the differences between May's deal and Johnson's deal?

 

I've not read either in detail, or a good summary of their differences; but they seem remarkably similar in broad terms

May's had closer integration in terms of trade in goods. It proposed a customs union, where Johnson just wanted a tariff free trade deal. May deal would have had less red tape in UK and EU goods trade (for example, more agreement on rules of origin which would have reduced friction) but would have limited the UK's ability to make its own trade deals. Both signed up to some LPF provisions though.

As May proposed a closer UK and EU trading relationship her deal may have minimised differences between GB and NI. 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

7 hours ago, ants said:

Sorry, but I think Boris delivered exactly the Brexit that Leavers wanted.  He got a no-tariff deal with the EU on goods, while maintaining significant control over borders and UK regulations.  That such a deal was always going to shaft the services sector, add a huge amount of red-tape, cause NI issues, and will cause problems if the UK does change regulations, were all things that Brexiters have said again and again in opinion polls they would do (i.e. take an economic hit for sovereignty).  

Of course, a whole heap of people are now finding out that red-tape and economic hit will impact them, and suddenly have a lot of regrets.  But Boris did pretty much deliver what he promised.  

Now, obviously people would have liked more time to plan the change.  But people also said they were sick of Brexit.  Well, this is Boris delivering what they wanted.  

What you're really complaining about is him not delivering a deal that Remainers wanted.  And if he'd given two stuffs about the economy, that is what he'd have done.  But he instead delivered the deal that Brexiters wanted, and I'm not sure you can throw too many stones over that.  Losing frictionless trade with the EU wasn't something that had to happen under Brexit; but it was something that had to happen for the Brexit that Brexiters have been talking about for the last 4 years to be actualised.  

I've actually been staggered at how well Boris has delivered for his constituents.  And staggered how head in the sand they were over the damage it would do.  Two good articles talk about this, the FT article "Inside the Brexit deal: the agreement and the aftermath" (limited clicks, link may not work) and an article on the forecasts from 2018 which predicted how much this Brexit would cost.  

https://www.ft.com/content/cc6b0d9a-d8cc-4ddb-8c57-726df018c10e

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/28/uk-significantly-worse-off-under-all-brexit-scenarios-official-forecast-gdp

I find the fact most leavers were willing  to say they’d take an economic hit for Brexit important to remember.

Least people be allowed to reconfigure the referendum to being much more rationally based than it was.

Instead of it just mainly being pushed on preserving innocuously pretty words like “culture” and “heritage” and wanting to curtail some “change” that is often left nebulous.

I think the economic fallout of Johnson’s Brexit probably won’t get that many Britains who voted for it to change their minds.

The fact rate of migrants to the U.K. from Asia and the Middle East has exploded I think may change a few minds at least.

1 hour ago, Which Tyler said:

I disagree.
We have no-way of knowing what Brexit the leavers voted for, because it was never defined, and intentions weren't asked.
We do know that the Brexit that's been delivered is not a Brexit that was (widely) discussed at the time. And that it's a Brexit that has largely left brexiteers unhappy.

Some people voted to leave because "up yours David Cameron", some voted for Norway+ (which was actually widely discussed at the time), some voted for cakeism (sunlit uplands, easiest deal in history, hold all the cards....), some voted to keep the foreigners out, some voted for more money for the NHS, some voted to replace the CAP with something better, some few voted to cosy up to America, some few voted for WTO.

Not many brexiters said that they'd take an economic hit in return for sovereignty, most said there wouldn't be an economic hit, some said there was a risk of an economic hit and they were willing to take that risk, but they were mostly kept quiet - and were the politicians, not the voters.

There polls done on this particular topic;https://www.ft.com/content/1b636ba8-76b3-11e7-a3e8-60495fe6ca71

Most leavers wanted Brexit even if it fucked the economy of the U.K.

You’ve given them way to much credit. 

[Heartofice]

From Mays perspective I suspect she simply thought Brexit was about immigration , so once you sort that out, staying closely aligned to the EU is the best solution. May’s views on immigration are pretty dirty, we all know that, but again, it’s kind of a caricature of what Brexit voters want.

[mormont]

The fact is, most Brexit voters didn't really know what they wanted. They didn't have a strong opinion on the level playing field or customs forms or rules of origin, and it isn't reasonable to expect that they would have. The best that can be said is that they were generally in favour of some vague, inchoate principles like 'taking back control' and 'reducing immigration', to various degrees. The only way that could have been avoided was to publish a detailed white paper on exactly what Brexit would look like and so what people were voting on, and David Cameron declined to do that.

So arguments about what type of Brexit voters wanted are really moot.

[Werthead]

Comparisons can be made to New Zealand and Australia. Both are islands (or an island and a island-continent) like us, and have strong international links for trade and for transport.

The total populations to be compared are of course different (67 million to Australia's 25 million and New Zealand's 5 million), but that's a mixed factor because COVID's primary transmission factor is through person-to-person contact, so it's less important how many people there are overall but how many people live in close proximity to others. Both New Zealand and Australia are more urbanised than Britain (Britain 83.4%, New Zealand 84.1% and Australia 89%) with more of the population as a percentage living in large cities. Australia's population is massively centralised in fact, with five cities that are all larger than Britain's second-largest city and lower (and outshone only by London, one of the largest metropolitan areas in the world, and only then not by very much compared to Sydney and Melbourne). Even New Zealand has one city (Auckland) which is larger than any British city bar only London.

So the potential for virus spread in those countries is about as much, if not greater, than the UK at least on a percentage basis, not in absolute terms. The potential is there in both countries for the COVID epidemic to be far worse - especially in Australia - than it is here. So asking why it isn't is perfectly valid.

There are some differences which are indeed significant: there aren't any land links or mainland borders between Australia and New Zealand and neighbouring countries, unlike the UK which has a land border with Ireland and a tunnel link to France. However, both Ireland and France have had lower cases of COVID by any means than we have, so outsiders bringing COVID into the country does not seem to be a major factor in Britain's COVID spread (although it doesn't help).

There is also the argument that in Australia the main population centres are much further apart than in the UK (even Melbourne to Sydney is a greater distance than London to Edinburgh) and more people fly to go from one big city to another rather than drive (with it being easier to shut down or restrict internal flights), so it's harder for a virus outbreak to spread from one city to another, thus one city can be locked down whilst others are perfectly fine. In the UK that's been proven to be fairly ineffective, with a mass of quite highly-populated towns (which would be cities in almost any other country in the world) pretty much forming continuous urban corridors up and down the country, allowing for relatively easy virus spread with people not travelling very far.

Still, even taking those differences into account, it is clear there has been the potential for massive outbreaks in both Australia and New Zealand, let alone even more comparable countries like South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam (or even Germany), than has occurred, and it is perfectly legitimate to ask if those countries have lessons that can be applied here.

[Chaircat Meow]

The EU's vaccine woes are partly its own fault, says the trumpet of Remainia.

The EU has fewer vaccines delivered in a timely fashion because that enlightened guardian of all good and true, the Commission, was determined to cut costs. The evil Torieees on the other hand, in between scheming how to sell homeless people into slavery, agreed to pay full whack to get enough vaccines for their people fast. 

The Guardian - The EU's vaccine bust-up with AstraZeneca is partly of its own making

I can only imagine the howls of rage if those positions were reversed. 

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

The EU's vaccine woes are partly its own fault, says the trumpet of Remainia.

The EU has fewer vaccines delivered in a timely fashion because that enlightened guardian of all good and true, the Commission, was determined to cut costs. The evil Torieees on the other hand, in between scheming how to sell homeless people into slavery, agreed to pay full whack to get enough vaccines for their people fast. 

The Guardian - The EU's vaccine bust-up with AstraZeneca is partly of its own making

I can only imagine the howls of rage if those positions were reversed. 

 

Trueish, I suppose.

Reporting over here is somewhat different.

It's basically a contract dispute between Astra Zeneca and the EU.

EU's perspective. They have signed a contract with Astra Zeneca to deliver vaccines to the EU. And they irritated that AstraZeneca is experiencing delivery problems on this side of the channel, while they apparently have no such issues on the other side. The EU's argument boils down to, we paid you, and now we expect you to deliver the goods. There's also a sideshow going on, that basically the cause for the delivery problems are the two plants in Europe (while the English one's (or two, not sure) are working fine); there the EU's argument is: we signed a contract with the company, not with the factories, we don't care how you do it, live up to your part of the bargain. I think the EU's argument there is more convincing on that account, but like I said, that's just a sideshow, we can ignore for the moment, and go back to the contract.

Astra Zeneca argues, their contract with the EU does not specify a certain quantity of vaccines to be delivered to the EU (by date x). The contract between the EU and Astra Zeneca are not public, so hard to know, who's telling the truth. However, the agreement between Biontech (Pfizer) is out in the public. In those contracts they talk about best endeavours. So, I am going out on a limb here and assume, that the EU-Astra Zeneca agreement will look very similar. So there I'd be more inclined to agree with Astra Zeneca's point of view. But again, that contract is not out in the public, without knowing what's in it, it's hard to say who has the better argument.

[ljkeane]

5 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Astra Zeneca argues, their contract with the EU does not specify a certain quantity of vaccines to be delivered to the EU (by date x). The contract between the EU and Astra Zeneca are not public, so hard to know, who's telling the truth. However, the agreement between Biontech (Pfizer) is out in the public. In those contracts they talk about best endeavours. So, I am going out on a limb here and assume, that the EU-Astra Zeneca agreement will look very similar. So there I'd be more inclined to agree with Astra Zeneca's point of view. But again, that contract is not out in the public, without knowing what's in it, it's hard to say who has the better argument.

I very strongly suspect this is right. Signing a contract guaranteeing delivery of a certain amount of a new product they were still developing by a certain date would have been nuts. They'd be setting themselves up for problems.

I'd also suspect the contract with the EU doesn't explicitly say the vaccine supplied to the EU won't come from Astrazenica's UK facilities, once they've met their UK contract I'm sure they have plans to start exporting, but it's been pretty clear for some time that the plan was for the UK's order to mostly be met by the UK plants. On top of that most of the sites in use in the UK have been directly subsidised by the UK government so the UK's contract might well say they get first access to the vaccine produced by them.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

9 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

I'd also suspect the contract with the EU doesn't explicitly say the vaccine supplied to the EU won't come from Astrazenica's UK facilities, once they've met their UK contract I'm sure they have plans to start exporting, but it's been pretty clear for some time that the plan was for the UK's order to mostly be met by the UK plants. On top of that most of the sites in use in the UK have been directly subsidised by the UK government so the UK's contract might well say they get first access to the vaccine produced by them.

Yeah, the EU will argue, that they heavily subsidised the research (I think they've thrown 2bn into the research pot), and that Astra Zeneca has received a big chunk of it.

Like I said, EU expects or rather expected 80m dosage to be delivered by the end of March, and it looks like Astra won't be able to deliver half of that. This is now question of what's exactly in the contracts.

Ah, why bother writing stuff, when there's a link.

 

[ljkeane]

6 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Yeah, the EU will argue, that they heavily subsidised the research (I think they've thrown 2bn into the research pot), and that Astra Zeneca has received a big chunk of it.

Sure, and so did a bunch of other wealthy countries. Given the research was based at Oxford University I'd think there's a decent chance the biggest subsidies came from the UK government on that front. Still, I doubt research funding came with any preconditions beyond making orders. On the other hand funding for manufacturing sites might have. I don't know though.

[The Anti-Targ]

Either AZ is meeting the terms of its contract with the EU or it isn't, and that can only be determined by a court. All this media bullshit between the company and the EU is just arse covering while the terms of the contract remain confidential and inaccessible to the public and the media. If it ever gets to a court, it will be interesting to see what a court has to say about delivering the same product to different parties and whether one contract has priority over the other.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

56 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

Sure, and so did a bunch of other wealthy countries. Given the research was based at Oxford University I'd think there's a decent chance the biggest subsidies came from the UK government on that front. Still, I doubt research funding came with any preconditions beyond making orders. On the other hand funding for manufacturing sites might have. I don't know though.

Well, AZ also recived 2-300m to up their production sites, so they can deliver the goods.

As for, who put more money into the research of the vaccine, yeah, it was done in Oxford, but I'd think the money in the research pot (which was also accessible for the team in Oxford if I am not mistaken) was arguably bigger than what the UK alone could provide. So I can see, how the EU is not particularly happy with AZ.

Anyway, like Anti-Targ said, without knowing what's exactly in the contracts no idea.

However, if the contract actually entails something like: best endeavour to deliver 80m dosages of our vaccine to the EU by the end of the first quartal. And their best endeavour results in a bit more than 30m dosages, then the suspicion that AZ negotiated in bad faith (making a promise they couldn't keep (and thus never meant to keep)) is probably not that unfounded.

[Padraig]

54 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Either AZ is meeting the terms of its contract with the EU or it isn't, and that can only be determined by a court. All this media bullshit between the company and the EU is just arse covering while the terms of the contract remain confidential and inaccessible to the public and the media. If it ever gets to a court, it will be interesting to see what a court has to say about delivering the same product to different parties and whether one contract has priority over the other.

Yes.  Exactly.  Its purely a contractual matter.  And who knows what caveats could have gotten added in.

As for the Guardian article.  Sigh.  I miss nuance.  This is not well written.

Quote

The goal to vaccinate at least 70% of the EU’s population by this summer is wildly off – at the current pace, the bloc as a whole would reach only 15% by the end of September.

This sentence.  Its almost trolling to leave a point hanging like that.

And do we know that the UK paid full price for the vaccine?  I suspect the EU didn't spend almost 3 months haggling about price and not thinking about delivery times.  It just seems a very simplistic argument.  Again, no exploration of this.  No sources.  Just throw it out there.

And yes, i'm pretty confident that the contract didn't state that the EU expects deliveries from the 29th Jan.   Given nobody knew when it would be approved.  For example, if it was approved a month ago, it seems unlikely that it would be expected to deliver the same amounts over the first month, given it would have 1 month less to ramp up.

But again, you'd need to see the contract to know how exactly it would work.  You'd think it would explain how its production volumes would be distributed across the various countries that ordered it.

I do imagine Oxford itself got more money from the UK government.  But the EU will give Astra a lot more money since its ordered far more.

[ljkeane]

19 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

As for, who put more money into the research of the vaccine, yeah, it was done in Oxford, but I'd think the money in the research pot (which was also accessible for the team in Oxford if I am not mistaken) was arguably bigger than what the UK alone could provide. So I can see, how the EU is not particularly happy with AZ.

That will have been divided between a number of different projects though. Regardless, as I said, I doubt it matters because I think it's extremely unlikely research funding will have come with any contractual delivery guarantees. I do think it's possible direct subsidies of manufacturing sites might have but who knows?

19 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Well, AZ also recived 2-300m to up their production sites, so they can deliver the goods.

I mean, sure, but they will have been pre paid some amount or another by a lot of countries who have pre-ordered vaccine.

19 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

 And their best endeavour results in a bit more than 30m dosages, then the suspicion that AZ negotiated in bad faith (making a promise they couldn't keep (and thus never meant to keep)) is probably not that unfounded.

I've said this a few times over a few different threads but it's a new vaccine and a new type of vaccine that requires a different type of production than traditional vaccines. It was only shown to be viable a few months ago and the EU only placed it's order in August. I think a lot of people are distinctly underestimating the kind of challenges involved in getting mass production up and running in the space of a few months.

[Padraig]

12 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

I think it's extremely unlikely research funding will have come with any contractual delivery guarantees.

I don't believe that is what the EU is arguing.

It's all about (contractually) where the vaccine was supposed to come from.  It is possible that the EU contract disagrees with the UK one.  What do you do then?  If no vaccine was currently being produced by Astra, there wouldn't be much of a discussion.

[ljkeane]

2 minutes ago, Padraig said:

I don't believe that is what the EU is arguing.

I don't believe that's what the EU is arguing either. It's just what A Horse Name Stranger mentioned.

3 minutes ago, Padraig said:

It's all about (contractually) where the vaccine was supposed to come from.  It is possible that the EU contract disagrees with the UK one.  What do you do then?  If no vaccine was currently being produced by Astra, there wouldn't be much of a discussion.

I don't think it's all about contractually were the vaccines are coming from. Astrazenica has a bigger contract to supply vaccine doses to India than it does with the EU and there's just been a fire in the facility producing the vaccine in India. I don't think the EU will be suggesting splitting it's share of vaccines being produced in Europe equitably with India to make up any shortfalls though. It's about all countries being desperate for as much vaccine as they can get.

Beyond that I doubt the EU wants to spend months in court to find out who's right about the contractual situation. Thus all the blustering in the media I suspect. They want to put pressure on Astrazeneca to back down without them having to go to court.