Cont: Brexit: Now What? The Perfect 10.

[Samson]

I voted remain with no vote. Thought experiment.
It now seems certain Brexit is saving British lives, the law of unintended consequences.

 

[Darat]

I voted remain with no vote. Thought experiment.
It now seems certain Brexit is saving British lives, the law of unintended consequences.

How?

 

[Aber]

There's allegation that British government is mandating Astra Zeneca to prioritize UK regardless of contractual obligation including contract with EU.

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.

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.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Uhh, that's quite a misrepresentation. What actually happened was that the DUP sought - and received - an assurance from the PM that the UK would invoke Art.16 if things got sufficiently bad as to warrant it.

The DUP wasn't "urging Boris to (invoke Art.15)". The entire request and assurance was predicated on some hypothetical future situation if/when the conditions that Art.16 was designed to address ever came to pass.

Unless you have other information that I don't have then it is clear from the quotes in the article that the DUP man was asking Boris to invoke Article 16 to address the situation as it stood.

"So what I and the people of Northern Ireland need to know from the Prime Minister, the leader of the United Kingdom, is what his government is going to do to ensure this - will he consider invoking Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol to resolve these issues?

If there is misrepresentation then it's therefore in selective quoting by the newspaper but I haven't seen anywhere that provides the alternative narrative that you suggest.

Boris's reply may have been the typical non-answer but he was quite clear that if he thought the situation warranted it then he would do it. So the DUP thought the situation warranted it and obviously the Government didn't.

So the DUP on this one, as usual, are talking out of both cheeks of their backside.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

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.

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?

 

[Aber]

I'm not sure how many smart biotech venture capitalists were involved in the whole process

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

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?

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?

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

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[angrysoba]

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

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.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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)

 

[Planigale]

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.

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.

 

[Agatha]

The thread has been split due to length and the continuation is here.

Posted By: Agatha