Political relations between UK-EU

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
ctwrd said:
The covax scheme set up by countries working together to supply vaccines to poorer countries. Contributions by country:

us $2bn

uk £500m

eu €400m

those on here defending the eu over vaccines and painting the uk/az as the bad guys. Wake up and smell the coffee
Click to expand...

Thats not really a comparative to be fair, the member states gave on top of that EU contribution too. I know some might argue but they’re not just one country just yet ;)

The EU pledged an additional 100m on top of that too so the figures aren’t quite right.

I thought the US didn’t contribute unless they’ve done that recently?
 
Last edited:
meltonblue said:
Thats not really a comparative to be fair, the member states gave on top of that EU contribution too. I know some might argue but they’re not just one country just yet ;)

The EU pledged an additional 100m on top of that too so the figures aren’t quite right.
Click to expand...
100m euros to €500m

Uk is £548m
 
ctwrd said:
100m euros to €500m

Uk is £548m
Click to expand...

Yeah but add up all the member states contributions too, surely.

I edited my post as that US figure too - I thought they opted out? I imagine Biden will change that but didn’t think they’d announced anything yet
 
Ban-jani said:
What would you do differently?

Maybe we’ve added more debt because we’ve spent more on vaccine research and helping less well off countries?

That’s not even mentioning the investment in the Mega Labs that are set to be the best in the world post Covid.
Click to expand...
Our credit rating as a country hasn’t slumped because of Covid. It’s slumped because the ratings agencies (Moody’s, Fitch and S&P) all think our economy does not have the same potential to recover as quickly as similar countries due to us hobbling ourselves thanks to Brexit.

There’s not much we can do about it except keep negotiating with the EU to recover some of what we’ve thrown away, particularly in the services sector. It’s not going to be easy.
 
BobKowalski said:

‘Sky News reporting that UK ministers are saying their unpublished AstraZeneca contract “commits the pharmaceutical company to delivering UK doses first”.

That could amount to an EU contract violation.‘

news.sky.com

COVID-19: Rejected contracts and a Hollywood movie - how UK struck deal to guarantee vaccine supply

As the row over vaccine supplies heated up this week, the UK government stuck to a simple line.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
Click to expand...
Well, that's been my question all weekend. How does AZ's agreement to supply the UK first fit with their warranty that they had no obligation that would stop them fulfilling the EU contract? Forget the "best reasonable efforts", unless both parties know the reasonable efforts are after you've fulfilled a conflicting deal with someone else.
 
ctwrd said:
The covax scheme set up by countries working together to supply vaccines to poorer countries. Contributions by country:

us $2bn

uk £500m

eu €400m

those on here defending the eu over vaccines and painting the uk/az as the bad guys. Wake up and smell the coffee
Click to expand...
Who has defended the EU over vaccines? You’re about the third person to suggest this but no one can come up with a post in the last three days that does anything but criticise the EU’s handling of their crisis.

There is however a theme amongst the Brexit fans to use the EU’s incompetence in this particular issue as absolute justification that they were right all along about Brexit.

The reality is that the EU fucked up badly on vaccines but it is really nothing to do with Brexit.
 
meltonblue said:
Yeah but add up all the member states contributions too, surely.

I edited my post as that US figure too - I thought they opted out? I imagine Biden will change that but didn’t think they’d announced anything yet
Click to expand...
One of first things he did.

the eu member states who have individually contributed is out of embarrassment. Odd that eu defenders say it’s right that they act collectively to acquire doses but that makes sense they don’t when it comes to donations.
 
ctwrd said:
One of first things he did.

the eu member states who have individually contributed is out of embarrassment. Odd that eu defenders say it’s right that they act collectively to acquire doses but that makes sense they don’t when it comes to donations.
Click to expand...

Just checked and they haven’t pledged anything yet though, just saying they will look to join it now (which is great news). Where did you get 2 billion from?

I’m not particularly an Eu defender, I don’t think there is a defence of their vaccine procurement strategy. I don’t get your logic though , why would they act collectively on donations when it’s the member states that are donating directly rather than the EU? Out of embarrassment of what too, they’ve always donated to Gavi and other organisations independently as well as whatever the EU donates and the big member states joined Covax before we did.

I’m not saying any of that to detract from us btw, we’re leaders in all of this and it’s something for us to be incredibly proud of, I just don’t think it’s the stick you think it is for beating others in this particular case though.

Procurements different as that’s about economies of scale and shared distribution, so there’s at least an argument for doing it. It’s fucked them up in this case (aside from cost per vaccine, but that should never have been a driver), I really don’t get the comparison between the two though.
 
Last edited:
Vic said:
Well, that's been my question all weekend. How does AZ's agreement to supply the UK first fit with their warranty that they had no obligation that would stop them fulfilling the EU contract? Forget the "best reasonable efforts", unless both parties know the reasonable efforts are after you've fulfilled a conflicting deal with someone else.
Click to expand...
I don't see that Warranty. Clause 5.1 (e) is the member states warranting to AZ that they aren't under any conflicting obligations, not AZ saying that. Pretty fundamental misunderstanding.

Clause 5.4 of the contract says what happens if there is a difficulty with supply. They can manufacture outside the EU / UK, or at another AZ site if they notify the EU first. And if it can't make the doses in the EU / UK then the EU can propose CMO partners for them to work with. Standard stuff.

Page 40 of the contract is an estimated delivery schedule. says "Final delivery subject to agreement of delivery schedule and regulatory approval" Again, perfectly reasonable.

The only reason that AZ got the Oxford vaccine is because they gave the UK guarantees. The original partner was going to be Merck (who have a long relationship with Oxford).
There were 2 issues with Merck as a partner,
1) Access for poorer countries to get the vaccine cheap - this was a worry for the academics at the uni
2) Guarantees over supply of the vaccine for the UK - because Merck were going to make it in the US and there were fears the orange one would stop exports (the EU did, so a fair call) A certain Mr Hancock, much maligned, refused to give permission for the Merck deal, so we ended up with AZ. And presumably Mr Hancock got the guarantees he wanted.

And "best reasonable efforts" is a standard contract term. Lawyers know what it means, it is different to "best efforts". It is the sort of thing that you spend ages arguing about, non-lawyers go "what are you on about, why does it matter", but it matters a lot. Taking supply ordered by the UK 3 months earlier and manufactured in UK plants isn't "reasonable".
 
Last edited:
UVL chatting to the German Press...think the romance with Johnson is back on.

‘UVL on Johnson "I was glad that he guaranteed that the two factories who produce Astrazeneca will of course supply to europe just as european vaccine doses for example from biontech are being delivered to Britain." @ZDF
 
Kazzydeyna said:
Add my voice to the list of those committed leavers who would have voted remain if the EU was only a trading bloc, as the nation was told it would only ever be when we voted in the earlier referendum in the 70s.

Early days yet of course, but if the new trading bloc across the Asia-Pacific accept our application to join and were then to also accept the USA we would have in effect left behind a corrupt, fetid bloc who’s only tangible benefit was “we will make it easier for your rich business owners to employ you on zero hour contracts and depress your wages by flooding your economy with cheaper labour from poorer nations (at the same time stripping these poorer nations of their own life’s blood). Double-bubble neo-liberal style” and replaced it with a dynamic, young trading bloc, looking out into the world, not looking inwards parochially.

The UK, going out into the wider world.

All thanks to me and you and millions like us.

You’re welcome remainers. Very very welcome.
Click to expand...
Absolutely spot on - and what thanks do we get from some of the Remainers....!!!

Good job we are altruistic and not in need of gratitude

The EU were desperate to keep the UK in - and if not at least tied to their regulations - or at the very least secure a dragging out of the negotiations for years

Great thing is - even though we have ended up with a poor deal due to the misfortune of having a Remainer led government between 2016-2019 - we have the best part of 4 years to progress - before those unable to see what you, I and millions find so obvious - can again exercise their folly

By which time there will be no appetite for 'more EU debate' - and eventually the most diehard Remainers will be reduced to being simply lost and lonely voices wailing in their despair

If we join the TTP during those 4 years that, at a stroke, will likely put an end to any prospect of any form of rejoining

This is where some of the more myopic Remainers fail to understand Leavers:

We are not at all against being part of a trading bloc - just against being part of the bloated and bureaucratic monstrosity that the EU has/is morphing into
 
Last edited:
smudgedj said:
PMSL

So she’s accepted last weeks ‘unacceptable’ offer.

Fucking amateur.
Click to expand...
This will be the start of all parties dressing things up to resemble some form of rapprochement

Only the diehard acolytes will fail to see the truth of it
 
GH64 said:
I don't see that Warranty. Clause 5.1 (e) is the member states warranting to AZ that they aren't under any conflicting obligations, not AZ saying that. Pretty fundamental misunderstanding.

Clause 5.4 of the contract says what happens if there is a difficulty with supply. They can manufacture outside the EU / UK, or at another AZ site if they notify the EU first. And if it can't make the doses in the EU / UK then the EU can propose CMO partners for them to work with. Standard stuff.

Page 40 of the contract is an estimated delivery schedule. says "Final delivery subject to agreement of delivery schedule and regulatory approval" Again, perfectly reasonable.

The only reason that AZ got the Oxford vaccine is because they gave the UK guarantees. The original partner was going to be Merck (who have a long relationship with Oxford).
There were 2 issues with Merck as a partner,
1) Access for poorer countries to get the vaccine cheap - this was a worry for the academics at the uni
2) Guarantees over supply of the vaccine for the UK - because Merck were going to make it in the US and there were fears the orange one would stop exports (the EU did, so a fair call) A certain Mr Hancock, much maligned, refused to give permission for the Merck deal, so we ended up with AZ. And presumably Mr Hancock got the guarantees he wanted.

And "best reasonable efforts" is a standard contract term. Lawyers know what it means, it is different to "best efforts". It is the sort of thing that you spend ages arguing about, non-lawyers go "what are you on about, why does it matter", but it matters a lot. Taking supply ordered by the UK 3 months earlier and manufactured in UK plants isn't "reasonable".
Click to expand...
Really well and patiently explained

Some were in a muddle a few days ago about whether "best reasonable efforts" would be in the contract with the EU - and in a muddle about what the clause means

Some still are and others unable to admit that they were

Not seen any sign of Hancock getting any kudos - have you?
 
BobKowalski said:
You pay to avoid the non tariff barriers. If you are happy with trade barriers and restrictions to trade then you don’t pay and accept suboptimal market conditions.

The other factor is that we do pay. It’s just different. Instead of the Govt paying to remove these barriers, individual businesses pay in terms of increased costs, administration and even loss of markets in some sectors and the Govt also pays for costs in customs ie personal, infrastructure, red tape etc.

Right now this country will pay more, to trade less and at greater cost. There is not one single economic argument that can be made for the route we have taken. Not one, which is why we will struggle to maintain this position.

You can make a non economic argument, but you have no economic rationale that makes sense. Which is why, Norway and Switzerland pay to be part of the Single Market. It’s cheaper and more efficient.
Click to expand...
When the inevitable massive job losses and a big spike in prices occurs because of your assessments, I’ll come on here and congratulate you on your perception. In 5 years none of the scenarios painted by you and yours, have occurred. “No chance of a free trade deal.” “Without the backing of the EU, trade deals will never be struck and the process takes years” “Boris the bastard won’t sign up to the European procurement scheme.” “Idiot Mackems vote to lose their jobs.”
I’ll list another half dozen of the results of your failed Mystic Meg training course if you like.
 
blueparrot said:
Because hardly anybody from from the government down thinks the arrangement we have, especially the Irish part, is either finished or perfect. You seem to be the only person either in this thread or from anywhere else that thinks everything is done and dusted nothing left to work on.
While I’m more than happy to debate where we are going or should go. Debating whether this is the finish point is pointless because it just isn’t. We haven’t even got to sorting out the services deal yet.
Click to expand...
We are not working to retrieve our SM and CU status, neither will we be joining EFTA anytime soon. That’s my Cristal ball forecast, if you want a bet against, I’m in.
 
Ancient Citizen said:
We are not working to retrieve our SM and CU status, neither will we be joining EFTA anytime soon. That’s my Cristal ball forecast, if you want a bet against, I’m in.
Click to expand...

Will you still be able to afford this with tariffs? Might have to swap to English sparkling wine...
 
smudgedj said:
PMSL

So she’s accepted last weeks ‘unacceptable’ offer.

Fucking amateur.
Click to expand...
That’s an understatement mate, she’s an incompetent that’s been deposited there, after years of rank inefficiency and scandal in the German Defence Ministry.
They put the failures in the top jobs, and the results are starkly revealed.
 
ctwrd said:
The covax scheme set up by countries working together to supply vaccines to poorer countries. Contributions by country:

us $2bn

uk £500m

eu €400m

those on here defending the eu over vaccines and painting the uk/az as the bad guys. Wake up and smell the coffee
Click to expand...


The UK Government has donated to COVAX in order to acquire and purchase additional vaccines in the future (which is an indicator that they think we may need an injection every year.) The Eu have not.... they have just donated.

You should also bear in mind that the UK Government intends to cut aid to the same countries by 70%

www.theguardian.com

UK diplomats told to cut up to 70% from overseas aid budget

Officials have just weeks to slash costs, prompting fears that speed of cuts could cost lives
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
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