Political relations between UK-EU

[Vic]

He’s just described you, Vic and the rest to an absolute tee mate, just sit back and digest it because that’s exactly what you are like.

It’s a cult.

I really can't recall posting anything from twitter so I think you are not telling the truth through your teeth.

 

[BobKowalski]

It’s highly unlikely the contract will stipulate such to permit that, they could argue they are entitled to. It would also be a strange contract where the delivery schedule is entirely binding with no best endeavour clause.

Irrespective, contract disputes should be resolved in a court of law not by arbitrary action of one party to the contact particularly when that action is against a 3rd party simply on the grounds that they also have a contract with same. AZ could of course avoid court by offering to settle and rip the contract up delivering exactly 0 vaccines. Now that wouldn’t be unethical of course because it is contract law right?

That the UK may send the vaccine to Germany for placement into vials and that the EU threaten to withhold that would do huge damage to the EUs reputation as a safe place to do business.... what was it they said when the UK passed a rightful law allowing for it to change part of the WA?

Of course tensions are high because the EU is behind the curve here and probably getting asked questions about that. Best form of defence is attack and all that but rather than having the CEO of AZ spend energy fighting off the media and trade barbs with the EU surely the more prudent action would be to just let him get on with fixing the issues that are causing their delays. Every country has experienced delays between promised doses and available ones, they undoubtedly didn’t like it but they just got on with it - there is a lesson there for the EU.

Pretty much this, although I would recommend the AZ CEO also not give media interviews and concentrate on resolving the issues and ensuring the vaccine data is sufficiently robust to allow full authorisation in Europe and the US.

 

[Chris in London]

It’s highly unlikely the contract will stipulate such to permit that, they could argue they are entitled to. It would also be a strange contract where the delivery schedule is entirely binding with no best endeavour clause.

Irrespective, contract disputes should be resolved in a court of law not by arbitrary action of one party to the contact particularly when that action is against a 3rd party simply on the grounds that they also have a contract with same. AZ could of course avoid court by offering to settle and rip the contract up delivering exactly 0 vaccines. Now that wouldn’t be unethical of course because it is contract law right?

That the UK may send the vaccine to Germany for placement into vials and that the EU threaten to withhold that would do huge damage to the EUs reputation as a safe place to do business.... what was it they said when the UK passed a rightful law allowing for it to change part of the WA?

Of course tensions are high because the EU is behind the curve here and probably getting asked questions about that. Best form of defence is attack and all that but rather than having the CEO of AZ spend energy fighting off the media and trade barbs with the EU surely the more prudent action would be to just let him get on with fixing the issues that are causing their delays. Every country has experienced delays between promised doses and available ones, they undoubtedly didn’t like it but they just got on with it - there is a lesson there for the EU.

Your opinion on what is likely to be in the contract is your opinion.

Most contractual breaches do not come within miles of a courtroom because the consequences for breach are usually stipulated in the contract. If you don’t do X by Y date there is a penalty clause.

It is extremely unlikely that there will be a penalty clause in the present contract because AZ are supplying the drugs IIRC on a not-for-profit basis so a clause that penalises them by reducing their profit is impossible, and I doubt AZ would sign a contract that compels them, in effect, to subsidise the EU vaccination programme if a delay in supply arises that is not their fault.

So who knows what other mechanisms there are in the contract that can be invoked in the event of breach.

You certainly don’t.

 

[stonerblue]

The forum would be miles better if only one side of the argument inhabited every thread, you’re absolutely right.

How dare people come on and disagree with you.

Hey BJ, i was worried about them as they've been away for days now and we've had so much to discuss.

NOw nowhere in my original and very short post have i said or implied that brexiteers should stay away or not disagree with me. How you've managed to come to that conclusion is beyond me. or are you just looking for a row, sorry, debate...?

 

[BobKowalski]

Your opinion on what is likely to be in the contract is your opinion.

Most contractual breaches do not come within miles of a courtroom because the consequences for breach are usually stipulated in the contract. If you don’t do X by Y date there is a penalty clause.

It is extremely unlikely that there will be a penalty clause in the present contract because AZ are supplying the drugs IIRC on a not-for-profit basis so a clause that penalises them by reducing their profit is impossible, and I doubt AZ would sign a contract that compels them, in effect, to subsidise the EU vaccination programme if a delay in supply arises that is not their fault.

So who knows what other mechanisms there are in the contract that can be invoked in the event of breach.

You certainly don’t.

I am going to like this and @metalblue post because contractual law is well above my pay grade.

 

[stonerblue]

Increasingly coming across like a bunch of dodgy cunts by the day.

You got a sub with the telegraph? Won't let me read the link.

 

[Ban-jani]

Hey BJ, i was worried about them as they've been away for days now and we've had so much to discuss.

NOw nowhere in my original and very short post have i said or implied that brexiteers should stay away or not disagree with me. How you've managed to come to that conclusion is beyond me. or are you just looking for a row, sorry, debate...?

Looks like I’m not the only one who thought it.

 

[stonerblue]

No-one is allowed to question the narrative, comrade.

NO fucker, despite @Ban-jani s made up response to my original post, has said or done what he claims.
So for the fucking hard of thinking i will repeat it and you and all those who 'liked' ban janis baseless claims can try again at making stuff up.

''At least its got the brexiteers back on the thread''

So come on, show me where in that line does it say, suggest or imply that i want only remainers or people that agree with me to post?
if you can't find anything you could ask @Mëtal Bikër , @Psychedelic Casual and @Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese .

 

[west didsblue]

NO fucker, despite @Ban-jani s made up response to my original post, has said or done what he claims.
So for the fucking hard of thinking i will repeat it and you and all those who 'liked' ban janis baseless claims can try again at making stuff up.

''At least its got the brexiteers back on the thread''

So come on, show me where in that line does it say, suggest or imply that i want only remainers or people that agree with me to post?
if you can't find anything you could ask @Mëtal Bikër , @Psychedelic Casual and @Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese .

It was a blatant non sequitur

 

[stonerblue]

Not in the minds of people who only have one way of thinking. You can see it on here what’s happened to a few of them. There are some that continually post links from Twitter. When you have a look these Twitter accounts posted, they are fanatical/extreme EU supporters/support groups. Once you’re enticed in by that kind of thing on social media, you’ll be bombarded with that side of thinking all the time and then you get trapped in the echo chamber. When you’re in there, you’re exposed to so much of one way of thinking that anything that’s not part of that view appears extreme on the other end.

That leads to that train of thought where if you were a remainer, you have to hold a pro-EU position over every single aspect and sinew of any topic, you cannot welcome opposing views, you certainly can’t find anything agreeable in them, and you have to find ways to shout them down if they pop up. And it puzzles them when people who also voted Remain don’t think the same as them. They probably even don’t believe someone was a remainer if they don’t follow their same stance on it all, because they can’t fathom that there are different ways of thinking than just one extreme or the other.

That’s where, when something that isn’t even about Remain/Leave and is actually about a top UK Pharma company and university being used as a pawn in a tactic, that’s half way between a playground bully and a stroppy toddler throwing their toys out of the pram, being played out in the media for a bit of point scoring while thousands of people are dying... they still automatically jump to the pro-EU position and it wouldn’t even have crossed their mind to back one of our own.

They’ve gone so far down the rabbit hole that they’ve just become EU fanboys.

You wanna show me some examples of remainers telling others they have 'no right to express an opinion? I'm here all day.