Political relations between UK-EU

[Vic]

I’m no way up on contractual law but find your insight valuable.
Are there not two conflicting paragraphs in this contract?

Without checking back, it’s either the 5.4 or 6.2 with this one.

Now I would find it highly unlikely that there would be, I’m sure the legal teams would have been all over this contract, so is it a case of interpretation and how one paragraph supersedes another?

6.2 is irrelevant, it's about if an individual EU state, or the Commision itself, enters a competing contract (not a third party).

But the UK govt announced last May that it had first dibs on the AZ vaccine (for 30m doses by last September if possible) but it's a bit ambiguous as to how many of the 30m they could get before anyone else). So the warranty in 13.1 that there were no competing contracts seems odd (when the UK govt had announced it effectively had a prior claim).

Until we see the UK/AZ agreement, it looks like (as I said) it's like The Producers (promising the same thing to different customers).

What is not obvious is why AZ would give preference to the customer who wants 100m doses rather than the one that wants 400m.

 

[meltonblue]

6
6.2 is irrelevant, it's about if an individual EU state, or the Commision itself, enters a competing contract (not a third party).

But the UK govt announced last May that it had first dibs on the AZ vaccine (for 30m doses by last September if possible) but it's a bit ambiguous as to how many of the 30m they could get before anyone else). So the warranty in 13.1 that there were no competing contracts seems odd (when the UK govt had announced it effectively had a prior claim).

Until we see the UK/AZ agreement, it looks like (as I said) it's like The Producers (promising the same thing to different customers).

What is not obvious is why AZ would give preference to the customer who wants 100m doses rather than the one that wants 400m.

On your last point, it’s linked to AZs vaccine only being not for profit whilst this remains classed as a pandemic...

 

[BobKowalski]

“Vaccine war”

“the contract doesn’t contain a best effort section”

Both by senior members within the EU, the latter being the President.

If that’s not talking shite I don’t know what is.

The ‘talking shite’ referred to the EU having no case under the AZ/EU contract.

The EU have a case they can present in the court of public opinion, which is what this is all about. Ultimately though, both sides need to start working on a solution which is all that really matters.

 

[Vic]

For real, if you order 10 tons of cement and I order 3, but I order mine and pay 3 months before you do, and mine arrives and yours doesn’t, when there’s a supply issue, it’s not my fault is it?

If one of us is going to sue the supplier, I think they might prefer to be sued for 3 tons rather than 7.

 

[Ban-jani]

If one of us i going to sue the supplier, I think they might prefer to be sued for 3 tons rather than 7.

That might be the case but me as the 3 tons customer isn’t at fault and won’t be punished and I’m laughing at you for being so slow. If you try and steal my stock then you’re going to be in trouble.

(not really laughing as lives are obviously at risk in reality).

 

[Ban-jani]

The ‘talking shite’ referred to the EU having no case under the AZ/EU contract.

The EU have a case they can present in the court of public opinion, which is what this is all about. Ultimately though, both sides need to start working on a solution which is all that really matters.

No the talking shite I was referring to was being wrong about the contract they signed and threatening the UK with blocking exports and talking about a “vaccine war”.

I couldn’t care less about AZ vs the EU in court, I don’t want them threatening me and mine because they took too long, which is ultimately what they are doing by their threats of export blocking.

Public opinion in the EU will blame them.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

6.2 is irrelevant, it's about if an individual EU state, or the Commision itself, enters a competing contract (not a third party).

But the UK govt announced last May that it had first dibs on the AZ vaccine (for 30m doses by last September if possible) but it's a bit ambiguous as to how many of the 30m they could get before anyone else). So the warranty in 13.1 that there were no competing contracts seems odd (when the UK govt had announced it effectively had a prior claim).

Until we see the UK/AZ agreement, it looks like (as I said) it's like The Producers (promising the same thing to different customers).

What is not obvious is why AZ would give preference to the customer who wants 100m doses rather than the one that wants 400m.

Possibly because the customer ordering 100m doses isn't acting like a dick by storming into offices and publishing contracts to all and sundry. That's how it looks to the ordinary person.

Clause 1.9b is interesting where it talks about the customer supporting the supplier in the fight against Covid. Well guess who has the most need in Europe at the moment and they want to weaken that fight? Of course this might change and they might need support soon, I hope our government is more mature about it. (Unlikely of course).

 

[Vic]

I did wonder if there was a peerage in the offing, but the AZ chairman is Swedish and the CEO of this UK company is French. No Legion d'Honneur I guess.

 

[BobKowalski]

Possibly because the customer ordering 100m doses isn't acting like a dick by storming into offices and publishing contracts to all and sundry. That's how it looks to the ordinary person.

Clause 1.9b is interesting where it talks about the customer supporting the supplier in the fight against Covid. Well guess who has the most need in Europe at the moment and they want to weaken that fight? Of course this might change and they might need support soon, I hope our government is more mature about it. (Unlikely of course).

AZ went to the media and leaked selected parts of the confidential contract, ie the bits that supported their case. That’s when the EU wanted the full contract published so they could point to the bits they like.

And, yes, it all got a bit silly at this point.

 

[metalblue]

UK sites class as EU, not just being deemed as acceptable.

I don’t read it that way, 5.4 looks more concerned with equivalence of manufacturing standards which the UK is deemed to meet. Otherwise why would they need to give written notice? It would make absolute sense to have such a clause from an EU fixated with standards.

Nonetheless as AZ is manufacturing in the UK we can say the clause 5.4 is met. The UK is mentioned explicitly for the purposes of 5.4 alone and 5.4 makes no reference to delivery; just manufacturing it. Pedantic maybe but that’s what this is coming down to

 

[Saddleworth2]

It sounds like AZ may have signed a contract to perform what cannot be performed because they had already signed a contract to (secretly) give priority to another customer.

Whats the evidence to back that one up mate?

 

[metalblue]

It’s the 13.1 section. AZ signed up to no other agreements could impede on their abilities to fulfil the contract.

They didn’t have any other agreements in place that could impede it. Or at least no one could show they knew back in august the Belgium facility would not be ready (otherwise they would have had a different schedule for delivery right?)

 

[meltonblue]

I don’t read it that way, 5.4 looks more concerned with equivalence of manufacturing standards which the UK is deemed to meet. Otherwise why would they need to give written notice? It would make absolute sense to have such a clause from an EU fixated with standards.

Nonetheless as AZ is manufacturing in the UK we can say the clause 5.4 is met. The UK is mentioned explicitly for the purposes of 5.4 alone and 5.4 makes no reference to delivery; just manufacturing it. Pedantic maybe but that’s what this is coming down to

No, it’s just about where it will manufactured. Manufacturing standards is referenced later on in the contract.

They’d need to give written notice for if it was being manufactured in non Eu countries to ensure no issues in delivery - there’d be additional regulations that wouldn’t apply to EU sites (including U.K. ones).

 

[meltonblue]

They didn’t have any other agreements in place that could impede it. Or at least no one could show they knew back in august the Belgium facility would not be ready (otherwise they would have had a different schedule for delivery right?)

AZ haven’t said the reason for the delay is just that the Belgian site isn’t ready though, they also said that the U.K. site couldn’t fulfil the order because the vaccines produced there were already prioritised for the U.K. That’s the breach as they can’t use that as validation for the shortfall.

The other bit that looks like a pretty clear breach is 6.3 too, that’s just more pissing them off even further though.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

AZ went to the media and leaked selected parts of the confidential contract, ie the bits that supported their case. That’s when the EU wanted the full contract published so they could point to the bits they like.

And, yes, it all got a bit silly at this point.

I didn't follow all this from the start but am assuming they did that in response to something said in public.

 

[metalblue]

No, it’s just about where it will manufactured. Manufacturing standards is referenced later on in the contract.

They’d need to give written notice for if it was being manufactured in non Eu countries to ensure no issues in delivery - there’d be additional regulations that wouldn’t apply to EU sites (including U.K. ones).

I don’t buy it. How would they know no issues in delivery from UK, versus anywhere else, as this was signed during brexit negotiations ...when folk were fretting about medical supplies not getting through.

See we can bring the thread back on topic @Mëtal Bikër ;)

 

[meltonblue]

I don’t buy it. How would they know no issues in delivery from UK, versus anywhere else, as this was signed during brexit negotiations ...when folk were fretting about medical supplies not getting through.

See we can bring the thread back on topic @Mëtal Bikër ;)

You don’t buy what?

Get the UK out of your head, it’s just AstraZeneca sites of which they were always going to use four to fulfil both the U.K. and mainland Europe’s vaccines.

The ones based in Europe aren’t ready yet. The EU said make up for some of the shortfall from the U.K. site then, given they’re supposed to be coming from there too. AZ said they can’t as those have already been prioritised for the U.K. The Eu then say that’s not a valid reason to delay production from there to us, the contract states any other agreement you have won’t impede on ours.

 

[metalblue]

AZ haven’t said the reason for the delay is just that the Belgian site isn’t ready though, they also said that the U.K. site couldn’t fulfil the order because the vaccines produced there were already prioritised for the U.K. That’s the breach as they can’t use that as validation for the shortfall.

The other bit that looks like a pretty clear breach is 6.3 too, that’s just more pissing them off even further though.

I don’t agree because that is relying on the part about no existing commitments that could impede the EU one, and there wasn’t any. Next step? Court..Which is obviously just daft. Hopefully sense will prevail in the end.

Yes I can see why 6.3 has annoyed them

 

[Tanzeylee]

Why are so many on here happy to jump on the EUs side with everything, it all smells a bit Vichy to me.

 

[meltonblue]

I don’t agree because that is relying on the part about no existing commitments that could impede the EU one, and there wasn’t any. Next step? Court..Which is obviously just daft. Hopefully sense will prevail in the end.

Yes I can see why 6.3 has annoyed them

There clearly was though, the U.K. agreement!

It’s not going to go to court.