Political relations between UK-EU

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
meltonblue said:
It’ll be springing it so late and also AZ saying about the agreement they signed with the Uk that prioritised the vaccines produced here to us - they should have told the EU that when they signed the contract with them if it was potentially going to cause this impact to some but not others.
Click to expand...
They did the right thing - they gave the EU their commitment to 'best efforts/endeavours' - so they are likely in the right and the EU - not so
 
mcfc1632 said:
Nope - I am not doing anything of the sort......

I am pointing out that the pro-EU reporting 'triumphs' : "best efforts"

being secured in the contract = the EU are in a strong position;-)
Click to expand...

Which is the journalistic assumption I was talking about, otherwise you’d be pointing out the other things they’re saying about wanting to publicise the contract for that very reason.

If you’re just arguing that journalists perception rather than the actual issue, fair enough.
 
meltonblue said:
Which is the journalistic assumption I was talking about, otherwise you’d be pointing out the other things they’re saying about wanting to publicise the contract for that very reason.

If you’re just arguing that journalists perception rather than the actual issue, fair enough.
Click to expand...
Nope - you just have this wrong I am afraid

I am simply stating clearly that the EU seems to be presenting that it is in the right because it has a contract committing the company to clauses of "best efforts/endeavours"

This is typical in major contracts and is more often a get-out for the supplier

I was pointing out that Bob's smugness because of this just demonstrates a lack of real world experience

This articles explains the reality - you are better off ignoring the distraction fluff

MAGGIE PAGANO: Shame of the Brussels bullies | This is Money
 
meltonblue said:
Ah so you are assuming that’s the actual position then?

I retract my previous post!
Click to expand...

Both parties are being clear that the contract includes a best efforts/endeavour clause - so.......

Nope - just wrong again - I am not assuming anything - just being factual

Not understanding why you are confusing yourself

I have better things to do
 
Ban-jani said:
Imagine disliking your own country that much you think being proud of world changing vaccine a British institution has developed ... and being pissed off another country (well trading bloc) is trying to stop people in your country benefiting, out of spite, is jingoistic.

Pathetic, Vic, but not unexpected.

As for your team there:

Project Leader Professor Sarah Gilbert - Kettering Born and very much English

Professor Adrian Hill - Irish and been in the UK since 1982

Professor Andrew Pollard who is Director of Oxford Vaccine Group and has hands on lead with Hill, under Gilbert’s project leadership - English

Dr Alexander Douglas - British (I think?)

Regardless. They’re all heroes and I don’t care where they came from, obviously you do, but it proves that we have world leading universities and research.

That’s something to be proud of, even if you hate your country of birth.
Click to expand...
No I just hate jingoism.
 
Ban-jani said:
Vs other countries the UK contributed more than most though, including EU nations.
Click to expand...
Have you got figures for contributions, or just the number of offers of funding?

One offer of £1million would be better than 9 offers of £100,000.
 

shootmeifipost10k said:
So the same as the UK manufacturing firstly for the UK chain which as been stated both by AZ and the UK goverment. An agreement set up before the EU one.
Surely the EU does not have the right to demand the breaking of someone elses contract to resolve their own broken contract.
What if there is another production issue in 3 months.
Does the next country who were expecting their delivery to start then say production for the EU should go to them ?
Where does it end.
Click to expand...
It's a bit like The Producers. Sell 10% of something to a hundred people. Why should a few of the people get all their 10% of what they contracted to buy? No excuse for anyone to go on a rant about pride in Britain. So far as I can see, long-term, if you're an overseas customer would you contract with a British firm to buy a scarce product if you thought they'd take your money then give preference to their British customers?
 
Last edited:
mcfc1632 said:
Both parties are being clear that the contract includes a best efforts/endeavour clause - so.......

Nope - just wrong again - I am not assuming anything - just being factual

Not understanding why you are confusing yourself

I have better things to do
Click to expand...

Ok, I had a bit of a battle with myself as to whether you’re worth responding to as you’re clearly either incredibly disingenuous or a moron, but I thought I’d give it a go :)

The EU doesn’t agree that the contract only includes best endeavours - my point there was you’ve clearly not read their full response and just gone with that journalists perception. What the EU is actually saying is that it has contractual obligations as part of the upfront funding that AZ hasn’t fulfilled - it’s not just best endeavours. Their response specifically stated that was incorrect.

They are also disputing that any vaccines produced in AZs Uk plants being primarily for uk use can be used as a valid reason for AZ not fulfilling their obligations as they say their contract says that the uk plants are supposed to be part of their primary distribution.

There’s a reason they’re happy to publicise the contract and wanted to do it as soon as AZ responded. The reason they also want the Uk one publicised is because they can then say that AZ should have made it known to them at the time that distribution from uk plants had a priority agreement attached that could impact their own distribution. Their argument will then be that AZ have signed incompatible agreements with both.

i have to ask, because it’s something I’ve always wondered with things like this, what’s the motivation behind posting on a subject like this claiming you’re talking factually when it’s clearly not something you know much about? I get stating an opinion, but why pretend you know what the issue is when you don’t?

I’ll be very open here. I don’t know fully either with this in particular as I haven’t had visibility of either contract, no-one has yet. There’s people still charging ahead with their own perceptions of it though, that’s why all I’m stating here is what the actual public position is of the parties involved though rather than the perception.

Now what I do know. I work for a company that is involved in both the logistics and administration of both the biotech and AZ vaccines. We do that both in the UK and in Europe. The last six months of my life have been endless meetings with both of the two suppliers and we’ve had to do shedloads around the supply chains (with the added issue of brexit) to ensure we can keep a smooth operation between both as they are planned to still act autonomously.

So, in a nutshell, absolutely, feel free to go off with your better things to do, which seemingly consists of arguing on an anonymous forum about topics you know nothing about and rather than either admitting it or just not commenting, assume everyone else is doing the same and try and project your own stupidity on to them, making others that don’t know any better more stupid in the process.

Thinking about it, you haven’t thought about working for Matt Hancock have you...? ;)
 
meltonblue said:
Ok, I had a bit of a battle with myself as to whether you’re worth responding to as you’re clearly either incredibly disingenuous or a moron, but I thought I’d give it a go :)

The EU doesn’t agree that the contract only includes best endeavours - my point there was you’ve clearly not read their full response and just gone with that journalists perception. What the EU is actually saying is that it has contractual obligations as part of the upfront funding that AZ hasn’t fulfilled - it’s not just best endeavours. Their response specifically stated that was incorrect.

They are also disputing that any vaccines produced in AZs Uk plants being primarily for uk use can be used as a valid reason for AZ not fulfilling their obligations as they say their contract says that the uk plants are supposed to be part of their primary distribution.

There’s a reason they’re happy to publicise the contract and wanted to do it as soon as AZ responded. The reason they also want the Uk one publicised is because they can then say that AZ should have made it known to them at the time that distribution from uk plants had a priority agreement attached that could impact their own distribution. Their argument will then be that AZ have signed incompatible agreements with both.

i have to ask, because it’s something I’ve always wondered with things like this, what’s the motivation behind posting on a subject like this claiming you’re talking factually when it’s clearly not something you know much about? I get stating an opinion, but why pretend you know what the issue is when you don’t?

I’ll be very open here. I don’t know fully either with this in particular as I haven’t had visibility of either contract, no-one has yet. There’s people still charging ahead with their own perceptions of it though, that’s why all I’m stating here is what the actual public position is of the parties involved though rather than the perception.

Now what I do know. I work for a company that is involved in both the logistics and administration of both the biotech and AZ vaccines. We do that both in the UK and in Europe. The last six months of my life have been endless meetings with both of the two suppliers and we’ve had to do shedloads around the supply chains (with the added issue of brexit) to ensure we can keep a smooth operation between both as they are planned to still act autonomously.

So, in a nutshell, absolutely, feel free to go off with your better things to do, which seemingly consists of arguing on an anonymous forum about topics you know nothing about and rather than either admitting it or just not commenting, assume everyone else is doing the same and try and project your own stupidity on to them, making others that don’t know any better more stupid in the process.

Thinking about it, you haven’t thought about working for Matt Hancock have you...? ;)
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification. It’s useful to get information from people actually involved rather than bullshitters who pretend they know it all based on hearsay that fits in with their world view.
 
mcfc1632 said:
Very good point

And it begs an interesting question...........

Why are UK citizens so desperate to distract from the truth of what has happened here

The answer seem to lie in the need to win an argument on a football forum is sooooooo important
Click to expand...
Oh hello, welcome back to the football forum where I guess you are hoping to win an argument
 
meltonblue said:
Ok, I had a bit of a battle with myself as to whether you’re worth responding to as you’re clearly either incredibly disingenuous or a moron, but I thought I’d give it a go :)

The EU doesn’t agree that the contract only includes best endeavours - my point there was you’ve clearly not read their full response and just gone with that journalists perception. What the EU is actually saying is that it has contractual obligations as part of the upfront funding that AZ hasn’t fulfilled - it’s not just best endeavours. Their response specifically stated that was incorrect.

They are also disputing that any vaccines produced in AZs Uk plants being primarily for uk use can be used as a valid reason for AZ not fulfilling their obligations as they say their contract says that the uk plants are supposed to be part of their primary distribution.

There’s a reason they’re happy to publicise the contract and wanted to do it as soon as AZ responded. The reason they also want the Uk one publicised is because they can then say that AZ should have made it known to them at the time that distribution from uk plants had a priority agreement attached that could impact their own distribution. Their argument will then be that AZ have signed incompatible agreements with both.

i have to ask, because it’s something I’ve always wondered with things like this, what’s the motivation behind posting on a subject like this claiming you’re talking factually when it’s clearly not something you know much about? I get stating an opinion, but why pretend you know what the issue is when you don’t?

I’ll be very open here. I don’t know fully either with this in particular as I haven’t had visibility of either contract, no-one has yet. There’s people still charging ahead with their own perceptions of it though, that’s why all I’m stating here is what the actual public position is of the parties involved though rather than the perception.

Now what I do know. I work for a company that is involved in both the logistics and administration of both the biotech and AZ vaccines. We do that both in the UK and in Europe. The last six months of my life have been endless meetings with both of the two suppliers and we’ve had to do shedloads around the supply chains (with the added issue of brexit) to ensure we can keep a smooth operation between both as they are planned to still act autonomously.

So, in a nutshell, absolutely, feel free to go off with your better things to do, which seemingly consists of arguing on an anonymous forum about topics you know nothing about and rather than either admitting it or just not commenting, assume everyone else is doing the same and try and project your own stupidity on to them, making others that don’t know any better more stupid in the process.

Thinking about it, you haven’t thought about working for Matt Hancock have you...? ;)
Click to expand...
It is BioNTech.
Loads of people have had full sight of the contracts.
The AZ CEO will have, for a start. He'll have been taken through them all by their internal and external counsel before talking. And his public words will reflect his knowledge about the contract, but also the commercial reality that you don't want to upset large customers and the regulators.
Whether the various politicians that are spouting off have seen the full details - maybe, maybe not. Copies given to the EU parliament were heavily redacted.
But we do have access to the AZ press release when they signed the contract which says: “This agreement will ensure that hundreds of millions of Europeans have access to Oxford University’s vaccine following approval. With our European supply chain due to begin production soon, we hope to make the vaccine available widely and rapidly. I would like to thank the governments of Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands for their commitment and swift response.” It then says that separate agreements have been concluded with the UK, India etc. It doesn't say "and we'll take the vaccines from the UK plant which were going to be initially for UK orders if the Belgians are slow" As many people on this thread may know, and many are very upset about, when "European" is used nowadays, it doesn't include us.

The EU are getting 80M fewer doses from AZ against the 400m ordered - their much much bigger issue is that they ordered 300m doses with Sanofi in September, even though they didn't have a didn't have a good trial going. May or may not have been a French thing, I don't know. But they are scrambling because they are getting sweet FA from that source (until Sanofi start contract manufacturing the Pfizer vaccine, 125m dose from the summer). So if the contracts aren't "best efforts" - there is going to be one massive lawsuit against Sanofi coming up.
 
west didsblue said:
Thanks for the clarification. It’s useful to get information from people actually involved rather than bullshitters who pretend they know it all based on hearsay that fits in with their world view.
Click to expand...
Bless - you are so needy and desperate

As for:
meltonblue said:
Ok, I had a bit of a battle with myself as to whether you’re worth responding to as you’re clearly either incredibly disingenuous or a moron, but I thought I’d give it a go :)

The EU doesn’t agree that the contract only includes best endeavours - my point there was you’ve clearly not read their full response and just gone with that journalists perception. What the EU is actually saying is that it has contractual obligations as part of the upfront funding that AZ hasn’t fulfilled - it’s not just best endeavours. Their response specifically stated that was incorrect.

They are also disputing that any vaccines produced in AZs Uk plants being primarily for uk use can be used as a valid reason for AZ not fulfilling their obligations as they say their contract says that the uk plants are supposed to be part of their primary distribution.

There’s a reason they’re happy to publicise the contract and wanted to do it as soon as AZ responded. The reason they also want the Uk one publicised is because they can then say that AZ should have made it known to them at the time that distribution from uk plants had a priority agreement attached that could impact their own distribution. Their argument will then be that AZ have signed incompatible agreements with both.

i have to ask, because it’s something I’ve always wondered with things like this, what’s the motivation behind posting on a subject like this claiming you’re talking factually when it’s clearly not something you know much about? I get stating an opinion, but why pretend you know what the issue is when you don’t?

I’ll be very open here. I don’t know fully either with this in particular as I haven’t had visibility of either contract, no-one has yet. There’s people still charging ahead with their own perceptions of it though, that’s why all I’m stating here is what the actual public position is of the parties involved though rather than the perception.

Now what I do know. I work for a company that is involved in both the logistics and administration of both the biotech and AZ vaccines. We do that both in the UK and in Europe. The last six months of my life have been endless meetings with both of the two suppliers and we’ve had to do shedloads around the supply chains (with the added issue of brexit) to ensure we can keep a smooth operation between both as they are planned to still act autonomously.

So, in a nutshell, absolutely, feel free to go off with your better things to do, which seemingly consists of arguing on an anonymous forum about topics you know nothing about and rather than either admitting it or just not commenting, assume everyone else is doing the same and try and project your own stupidity on to them, making others that don’t know any better more stupid in the process.

Thinking about it, you haven’t thought about working for Matt Hancock have you...? ;)
Click to expand...
Only speed read this attempted smartarse post - as I am up early to do some work rather than respond to smartarse posts.

My conclusion though:

"I had a bit of a battle with myself as to whether you’re worth responding to as you’re clearly either incredibly disingenuous or a moron and decided that it was not really worth giving it a go"

But - to deal with the pedantry side of your post:

Yes, I can see that you were 'banging on' about the EU's claim that they have a stronger position than best endeavours - and that indeed they claim that the strength of their contract gives them claim to the production of vaccine allocated to the UK - who entered into contractual commitments prior to the EU.

So, in a very small area - you can 'claim' to be correct - as I have not seen the contract, but I am very familiar with such contracts and therefore I am very confident that the EU stance is 'blustering' - the proof of who is right will become clear quite quickly

If I am correct, I expect that the next few days will show the EU position to be not as strong as their blustering and that AZ indeed do not have the obligations that the EU are claiming - if so - yep, I will have been spot on. If AZ do not have to take the action the EU insists - I wonder - will you show character and come on and admit you were wrong?

For other posters:

The EU are - IMO - simply floundering, to avoid the scale of their bureaucratic delays and lack of action, which have left them clearly at fault in caring for their citizens, becoming fully exposed and are seeking to hide behind their 'interpretation' of contract clauses - such as 'best endeavours' - rather than what such clauses mean in reality.

Whilst, along with everyone else, I hope that there is a resolution to production issues that ensures there is enough vaccine for the EU, hopefully their tardiness will not lead to a position where the UK's citizens are left adversely impacted.

Re:

"Thinking about it, you haven’t thought about working for Matt Hancock have you...?"

Although before Hancock's time, I have undertaken many reviews for the DH and NHS - including some being commissioned by the Permanent Secretary and NHS Board - so I am indeed very familiar with how things operate
 
Last edited:
Funny how the same folk who last year were criticising our government over a lack of ppe, then criticising that part of the ppe was wrong spec etc can’t bring themselves to just say the EU have fucked up
They ordered it too late and they still even now haven’t approved its use
When it all goes to shit they do what big companies do and stamp their feet and try to bully the supply chain.
Astra Zeneca clearly have the upper hand as the EU need the vaccine desperately
I see the bbc is reporting They are also facing delays with supplies of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
I’m sure once the guardian come up with some pro EU article later the usual suspects will be back
 
Tb1981 said:
Funny how the same folk who last year were criticising our government over a lack of ppe, then criticising that part of the ppe was wrong spec etc can’t bring themselves to just say the EU have fucked up
They ordered it too late and they still even now haven’t approved its use
When it all goes to shit they do what big companies do and stamp their feet and try to bully the supply chain.
Astra Zeneca clearly have the upper hand as the EU need the vaccine desperately
I see the bbc is reporting They are also facing delays with supplies of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
I’m sure once the guardian come up with some pro EU article later the usual suspects will be back
Click to expand...
Exactly the same folk or are you just guessing to support your point? And by pro EU article do you mean another article illustrating what a duck up Brexit is?

Apart from that, good post
 
Tb1981 said:
Funny how the same folk who last year were criticising our government over a lack of ppe, then criticising that part of the ppe was wrong spec etc can’t bring themselves to just say the EU have fucked up
They ordered it too late and they still even now haven’t approved its use
When it all goes to shit they do what big companies do and stamp their feet and try to bully the supply chain.
Astra Zeneca clearly have the upper hand as the EU need the vaccine desperately
I see the bbc is reporting They are also facing delays with supplies of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
I’m sure once the guardian come up with some pro EU article later the usual suspects will be back
Click to expand...
The EU have fucked up their vaccine procurement programme.

Are you honestly defending our government’s PPE procurement programme?

It is actually possible that both fuck ups are true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top