UK Politics: Oh Ambassador you are really spoiling us!

[Padraig]

1 hour ago, ljkeane said:

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.

I imagine the EU is trying to squeeze as much vaccine out of Astrazeneca as it can get.   There is a 0% chance its going to get as much as it expected a week ago.  But if it can close the gap...

You have to go public or people would think you are hiding the truth and that would be a bigger scandal.  But yes, the media side is rather irrelevant otherwise.

You are right that going to court will not be particularly useful.  The contracts would have to be very one-sided (and Astrazeneca refuses to budge).

I don't believe the fire at the Indian site caused any damage to production.  But even if it did, I would think that the contracts should cover this situation also.  What's the point of a contract if it doesn't?  I would have thought an issue with a factory would be a reasonable possibility?

[Werthead]

The UK signed a contract with AstraZeneca three months before the EU did, despite negotiating at the same time; the EU for some reason delayed signing the deal, which puts them behind the UK in the queue, and the contract seems to be on the basis that the AZ plant in the UK is pumping out vaccine for the UK and the one in the EU is pumping out vaccine for the EU and if there's a problem in the EU plant, the EU are out of luck; if the positions are reversed, we'd be out of luck. If they had problems at both, everyone would be screwed.

The EU's argument seems to be that AZ should breach its contact with the UK to fulfil its contract with the EU, which is a novel suggestion. And yes, the contract will be under "best endeavours," unless the AZ lawyers had gone completely insane. The contract AZ signed with the EU was probably very similar to the one signed with the UK and very similar to the Pfizer one, not making hardcore promises set in stone (no company should be doing that at all during the pandemic, let alone one producing a vaccine which involves supply chain startups).

Also in this position, the EU seems to be trying a novel approach of getting AZ to agree with them by pouring scorn in the German press that the vaccine even works in all age categories, the science behind which suggestion seems very thin indeed.

What is odd is that none of the numerous other drug companies in Europe have suggested licensing out the AZ and Pfizer vaccines (or both, or all three with the Moderna one) to be mass-produced at other facilities. The French vaccine was recently cancelled because it was ineffective, so they presumably have production capacity going spare. Everyone seems to know how the vaccine was broadly created (so the IP/company secrets thing is less of a big deal) and given the circumstances, doing something out of the ordinary with financial compensation for the originating companies seems like a reasonable idea.

[williamjm]

10 minutes ago, Werthead said:

What is odd is that none of the numerous other drug companies in Europe have suggested licensing out the AZ and Pfizer vaccines (or both, or all three with the Moderna one) to be mass-produced at other facilities. The French vaccine was recently cancelled because it was ineffective, so they presumably have production capacity going spare. Everyone seems to know how the vaccine was broadly created (so the IP/company secrets thing is less of a big deal) and given the circumstances, doing something out of the ordinary with financial compensation for the originating companies seems like a reasonable idea.

You're not the only one who has been thinking that...

https://www.france24.com/en/france/20210127-french-firm-sanofi-to-help-produce-100-million-doses-of-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine

Sanofi will fill and pack millions of doses of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine from July in an effort to help meet the huge demand for the U.S. drugmaker's shots. 

The French company will aim to help supply more than 100 million doses of the vaccine this year from its German plant in Frankfurt, CEO Paul Hudson told Le Figaro newspaper on Tuesday.

[Fragile Bird]

I can tell you that the shutdown of most of the Pfizer plant in Belgium (for expansion purposes) has pissed off people in Canada because it means we get 0 doses this week, when we were supposed to receive 200,000. Various premiers have been shaking their proverbial fists at Pfizer and demanding a shipment from their Michigan plant to make up the missing doses. I don't think we are going to get any vaccine, though, since Trump demanded the first 100 M doses produced by the plant be for the US only.

[Padraig]

32 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The contract seems to be on the basis that the AZ plant in the UK is pumping out vaccine for the UK and the one in the EU is pumping out vaccine for the EU and if there's a problem in the EU plant, the EU are out of luck; if the positions are reversed, we'd be out of luck.

Have you seen an article saying this? That would be very clear cut and i'm surprised that isn't very public by now.

Because then it didn't matter when the EU signed the contract.  Even if it signed the contract before the UK, if the EU factory didn't work, the EU would be out of luck.  I know the Astrazeneca CEO has said that they lost almost 3 months preparing things in the EU because the EU signed later but I am a little dubious about that.  Did they really sit on their hands for 3 months?  Was the EU order that unlikely?  I'm not saying they should have gone full steam ahead but to lose 3 months seems odd.  (And of course, Astrazeneca gained a month because the EU will only approve it a month later than the UK).

39 minutes ago, Werthead said:

the EU seems to be trying a novel approach of getting AZ to agree with them by pouring scorn in the German press that the vaccine even works in all age categories, the science behind which suggestion seems very thin indeed.

Hmm.  There does seem to be something in this German report also.  That is partly why the US wouldn't approve it till at least March.  Look at what the Astra CEO said in this article.  There seems to be a lot of rather misleading reports in the UK press but that seems factual.

[Werthead]

39 minutes ago, Padraig said:

Have you seen an article saying this? That would be very clear cut and i'm surprised that isn't very public by now.

Because then it didn't matter when the EU signed the contract.  Even if it signed the contract before the UK, if the EU factory didn't work, the EU would be out of luck.  I know the Astrazeneca CEO has said that they lost almost 3 months preparing things in the EU because the EU signed later but I am a little dubious about that.  Did they really sit on their hands for 3 months?  Was the EU order that unlikely?  I'm not saying they should have gone full steam ahead but to lose 3 months seems odd.  (And of course, Astrazeneca gained a month because the EU will only approve it a month later than the UK).

AstraZeneca have said that the UK gets the vaccines from the UK site. The EU seems to be disputing that by saying their contract doesn't stipulate where the vaccines come from. Of course, both could be true: AstraZeneca are sending UK shipments from their UK site and EU ones from their EU site and that might not be stipulated in the EU contract but not disallowed by it.

AstraZeneca seem pretty firm that the contract calls for best endeavours only - I saw enough such contracts whilst working for the UK Department of Transport to know that companies will always use "best endeavours" in lieu of a hard date unless you basically force them at gunpoint (or threat of contract refusal) to give a date, and there are far more variables in play here - so the EU really don't seem to have much of a leg to stand on. AstraZeneca themselves aren't happy about the situation but it seems unavoidable, and the shoe could be on the other foot (or both feet) rather easily.

[ants]

16 hours 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.

If we're going by the referendum, I agree that it doesn't match what was promised.  Nothing could, since what was promised was unicorns.

But it is pretty much what Boris said he'd get done when campaigning for the 2019 election.  Its main focus (sovereignty) is what many Brexiters, including HOI, have been harping on about for years.  As the article from 2018 showed, the economic impacts were known (if downplayed).  And many polls have shown that Brexiters would take an economic hit to get it through.

I think Brexit is a disaster.  But I also think Boris mostly delivered what he campaigned on when he went to the polls, and was given a massive majority.  

15 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

......

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.

.....

he he he he.  Can't help laughing at them.  Because the main reason that the Torres (or Labour) never implemented any of the immigration controls that existed within the EU, was because the UK desperately needs younger skilled workers due to the pension system, ageing population, and skill shortages.  The dirty secret was they needed all these people, but also wanted to blame them.

And they still need them.  So they'll still be allowed in.  I suspect the feelings of betrayal may really hurt the Tories. 

[ants]

21 minutes ago, Werthead said:

AstraZeneca have said that the UK gets the vaccines from the UK site. The EU seems to be disputing that by saying their contract doesn't stipulate where the vaccines come from. Of course, both could be true: AstraZeneca are sending UK shipments from their UK site and EU ones from their EU site and that might not be stipulated in the EU contract but not disallowed by it.

AstraZeneca seem pretty firm that the contract calls for best endeavours only - I saw enough such contracts whilst working for the UK Department of Transport to know that companies will always use "best endeavours" in lieu of a hard date unless you basically force them at gunpoint (or threat of contract refusal) to give a date, and there are far more variables in play here - so the EU really don't seem to have much of a leg to stand on. AstraZeneca themselves aren't happy about the situation but it seems unavoidable, and the shoe could be on the other foot (or both feet) rather easily.

Unless the contracts specifically said that the vaccine will be sourced from particular factories (seems unlikely) the odds are all the contracts are on best endeavours basis.  Which then, as a layman, would imply to me they should be sharing the vaccines equally.  If you have two contracts, both best endeavours, and you fill one at 100% and one at 50%; are they both being treated as best endeavours? 

[JoannaL]

The EU says that in the contract two Eu and two UK factory sites are listed for the vaccine. The EU says vaccine was produced in the EU and shipped to UK in December without problem and why shouldnt this work the other way around. The EU says that there was no priority listing in the contract. AstraZeneca says diffrently. I choose to believe the EU, because they want to publish the contract:

from the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/27/eu-covid-vaccine-row-astrazeneca-european-commission

"The EU has called for AstraZeneca to waive its concerns over confidentiality and publish the vaccine contract. Officials said they would look into whether comments from its chief executive were in breach of its clauses."

6 hours ago, Werthead said:

Also in this position, the EU seems to be trying a novel approach of getting AZ to agree with them by pouring scorn in the German press that the vaccine even works in all age categories, the science behind which suggestion seems very thin indeed.

No that is certainly  100 % untrue. There are enough problems here to get the people to trust in a vaccine. No goverment official would make this even more complicated.

[Filippa Eilhart]

8 hours ago, Werthead said:

Also in this position, the EU seems to be trying a novel approach of getting AZ to agree with them by pouring scorn in the German press that the vaccine even works in all age categories, the science behind which suggestion seems very thin indeed.

it's a very interesting suggestion that the EU controls German media.

[Varysblackfyre321]

7 hours ago, ants said:

The dirty secret was they needed all these people, but also wanted to blame them.

True. 
They’re the parasites that society relies on. 
 more than likely within a couple years, people, particularly on the far-right will not acknowledge the increased levels of immigration as a direct consequence for the Brexit the type of Brexit they said they wanted, recognizing the economic imperative to have a healthy level of migration flow. The EU probably will be blamed because they’re the big devil.

the immigrants will suffer more ire. Likely there will be increased pushes for the U.K. to break its agreements off of the vague platforms of preserving culture and heritage, and other pretty  words.

 

[SeanF]

8 hours ago, ants said:

Unless the contracts specifically said that the vaccine will be sourced from particular factories (seems unlikely) the odds are all the contracts are on best endeavours basis.  Which then, as a layman, would imply to me they should be sharing the vaccines equally.  If you have two contracts, both best endeavours, and you fill one at 100% and one at 50%; are they both being treated as best endeavours? 

"Best endeavours" is quite a heavy contractual obligation.  The NHS have likely entered into a contract with a separate legal entity to the one that the EU  has (there are dozens of companies in the AZ group).   If the UK entity  is having no problems with the manufacture of vaccines in the UK, but still failed to deliver the required number to the NHS, it would almost certainly be in breach of contract.  (I'd be very surprised if there were a contractual provision entitling them to reduce supplies to the NHS in order to enable other group companies fulfil contractual obligations in other countires.) 

[Padraig]

8 hours ago, Werthead said:

so the EU really don't seem to have much of a leg to stand on. 

Based on what we know, how do you reach that conclusion?  The "best endeavour" discussion is not particularly relevant since both contracts probably include that.

8 minutes ago, SeanF said:

 (I'd be very surprised if there were a contractual provision entitling them to reduce supplies to the NHS in order to enable other group companies fulfil contractual obligations in other countries.) 

Why wouldn't there be?  These are multi-billion euro contracts, surely there are pages and pages of clauses?  This is a quote from the Guardian article linked above.

Quote

Kyriakides said there was no “priority clause” that would justify British residents benefiting first from doses made in the UK.

If you have 2 orders and 2 factories, surely it is very possible that 1 factory may have some issues that would delay supply?  Thus the contract should outline the appropriate response.

I suspect that Astrazeneca signed 2 contradictory contracts.  The UK contract said that the UK is entitled to the first 100m doses produced in the UK, but this wasn't included in the EU contract.  And now Astrazeneca is flailing at trying to get out of the hole they dug themselves into.  I could be wrong but I suspect we're  far from the "EU doesn't have a leg to stand on" situation.

[SeanF]

7 minutes ago, Padraig said:

Based on what we know, how do you reach that conclusion?  The "best endeavour" discussion is not particularly relevant since both contracts probably include that.

Why wouldn't there be?  These are multi-billion euro contracts, surely there are pages and pages of clauses?  This is a quote from the Guardian article linked above.

If you have 2 orders and 2 factories, surely it is very possible that 1 factory may have some issues that would delay supply?  Thus the contract should outline the appropriate response.

I suspect that Astrazeneca signed 2 contradictory contracts.  The UK contract said that the UK is entitled to the first 100m doses produced in the UK, but this wasn't included in the EU contract.  And now Astrazeneca is flailing at trying to get out of the hole they dug themselves into.  I could be wrong but I suspect we're  far from the "EU doesn't have a leg to stand on" situation.

I suspect the contracting companies are separate legal entities , even if part of the same group.   (Multinationals set up subsidiaries in every country they operate in) .  So, in principle if company B is having difficulty supplying vaccines to the EU, it would not affect company A's obligation to supply vaccines to the NHS, even though both companies have the same parent.

[Loge]

18 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I suspect the contracting companies are separate legal entities , even if part of the same group.   (Multinationals set up subsidiaries in every country they operate in) .  So, in principle if company B is having difficulty supplying vaccines to the EU, it would not affect company A's obligation to supply vaccines to the NHS, even though both companies have the same parent.

Well the EU's accusation is that AstraZeneca shipped vaccine from their EU plants to the UK. Of course, they haven't presented proof yet.

[JoannaL]

16 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I suspect the contracting companies are separate legal entities , even if part of the same group.   (Multinationals set up subsidiaries in every country they operate in) .  So, in principle if company B is having difficulty supplying vaccines to the EU, it would not affect company A's obligation to supply vaccines to the NHS, even though both companies have the same parent.

If this were true, AZ would have said so already.

 

23 minutes ago, Padraig said:

suspect that Astrazeneca signed 2 contradictory contracts.  The UK contract said that the UK is entitled to the first 100m doses produced in the UK, but this wasn't included in the EU contract.  And now Astrazeneca is flailing at trying to get out of the hole they dug themselves into.  I could be wrong but I suspect we're  far from the "EU doesn't have a leg to stand on" situation.

This seems like the most likely explanation. But, if true, AZ somehow missed the political impact of vacccine supply in a pandemic. Additionaly they have been acting very unpolite and unfortunate this last week. That there are supply issues is forgivable, but their behavior is not.

[BigFatCoward]

I've got no problem with us demanding the first 'however many it takes to protect our vulnerable'. But if we are hoarding for healthy 50 year olds while people in the EU are still dying in their droves that would just be the most Tory thing ever, strangely being cunts in these circumstances will probably be a vote winner for them. 

[Padraig]

26 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I suspect the contracting companies are separate legal entities , even if part of the same group.   (Multinationals set up subsidiaries in every country they operate in) .  So, in principle if company B is having difficulty supplying vaccines to the EU, it would not affect company A's obligation to supply vaccines to the NHS, even though both companies have the same parent.

That is possible but the EU has indicated that the factories in the UK were included in its contract.

We are all guessing about how to interpret the contracts.  Until a legal expert reads both the EU and UK one, we can't make any definitive statements.

11 minutes ago, Loge said:

Well the EU's accusation is that AstraZeneca shipped vaccine from their EU plants to the UK. Of course, they haven't presented proof yet.

Ironically.  Read this article from December.

11 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

This seems like the most likely explanation. But, if true, AZ somehow missed the political impact of vacccine supply in a pandemic. Additionaly they have been acting very unpolite and unfortunate this last week. That there are supply issues is forgivable, but their behavior is not.

Very true.

[Padraig]

1 minute ago, BigFatCoward said:

I've got no problem with us demanding the first 'however many it takes to protect our vulnerable'. But if we are hoarding for healthy 50 year olds while people in the EU are still dying in their droves that would just be the most Tory thing ever, strangely being cunts in these circumstances will probably be a vote winner for them. 

The UK government wouldn't do this but could you imagine how embarrassed the EU would be if Johnson made some great magnanimous gesture and offered some of its vaccines to the EU?

"The UK has always helped those less fortunate than it".

Some witty author could write something even more devastating.  The EU would have to be gracious.

Anyhow, as I said, it wouldn't happen.

[ljkeane]

15 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

If this were true, AZ would have said so already.

Why?

3 minutes ago, Padraig said:

Ironically.  Read this article from December.

Not really. At the start of December the EU was 2 months away from signing off on the vaccine and wasn't anywhere near receiving deliveries of it. It was hardly a secret this happened. That's not quite the same thing as diverting supplies already intended for use somewhere else.