Political relations between UK-EU

[Ancient Citizen]

I've had Jab One today - the Tizer one. Not only am I 80% Covid immune I suspect that I would be 80% immune to anything I might catch on a visit to the Swamp. I'm still recovering from the last visit - the second leg of the Youth Cup when George Best turned in a bit of a show!

I only ever went to Old Trafford to watch England play the West Indies, or Lancashire twatting the Tykes in the John Player cup.

 

[Shadz69]

Surely someone could conduct a poll

In that case they can fuck right off.
You can take my freedom but you'll never take my Vimto.

I'm thinking that's one thing you don't have to worry about. @)

 

[west didsblue]

You perfectly illustrate my point

It's a bit sad that some people feel the need to latch on to any bit of negative news, even if it is speculative, about the EU to justify their Brexit stance. At the same time as this perceived vaccine problem, which most likely will be resolved between the manufacturers and the EU agency responsible for procurement without involving us, there are real tangible negative effects that Brexit is having on numerous sectors of our economy which are being written off as teething problems or minor inconveniences. The fact that this vaccine issue is treated as a good news story for Brexit is pathetic when you consider that all our procurement decisions were taken while we were following EU rules and we didn't break any of them to do what we did. It is certainly a good news story for the UK which we are in dire need of, and equally a bad news story for much of the EU, but it really isn't a consequence of Brexit however much people like to think it is.

 

[metalblue]

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.

Opinions are like arseholes, everyone’s got one.

Usually you have remedies rather than penalties on although those remedies can include compensation so yes agree on the principle.

You are correct that most contractual breaches do not need to go to court but it is still a matter of law not for arbitrary action by one of the parties. Breaches and causes for breaches are also often spelt out but breaches are either resolved with said remedies or cause termination.

This is usually all set out in the Master Agreement and the actual deliveries will be included in the CQA or similar and this may also include additional responsibilities. Typically the MA remedy for shortfall is “make up shortfall as soon as reasonably practicable”. Whilst AZ may be not for profit if the EU has paid for something it has not received it would likely be entitled to a refund on this shortfall along with AZ being on the hook to supply at their own cost.

Whilst you are correct I don’t know what is in the specific contract with the EU, like you don’t or anyone else on here, I do know what other AZ (including the wording of shortfall remedy at their own cost and expense above) and Pharma contracts look like so am basing my opinion and assumptions on that. They may of course be wrong.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Opinions are like arseholes, everyone’s got one.

Usually you have remedies rather than penalties on although those remedies can include compensation so yes agree on the principle.

You are correct that most contractual breaches do not need to go to court but it is still a matter of law not for arbitrary action by one of the parties. Breaches and causes for breaches are also often spelt out but breaches are either resolved with said remedies or cause termination.

This is usually all set out in the Master Agreement and the actual deliveries will be included in the CQA or similar and this may also include additional responsibilities. Typically the MA remedy for shortfall is “make up shortfall as soon as reasonably practicable”. Whilst AZ may be not for profit if the EU has paid for something it has not received it would likely be entitled to a refund on this shortfall along with AZ being on the hook to supply at their own cost.

Whilst you are correct I don’t know what is in the specific contract with the EU, like you don’t or anyone else on here, I do know what other AZ (including the wording of shortfall remedy at their own cost and expense above) and Pharma contracts look like so am basing my opinion and assumptions on that. They may of course be wrong.

Depends who you are dealing with and what their normal approach to contracts are. I dealt with a number of large FTSE and Global suppliers and they are all quite different. Some 'insisted' that the contract follows their standard templates, others are more open to stuff like penalty clauses. With the most difficult, the best you will get is a 'best endeavour' which is almost meaningless. On others, particularly those that are transaction based then its altogether possible to get penalty clauses. My guess would be that the supply of a certain volume of vaccine by a certain date involving brand new production capacity would always carry very significant risk so the chances of AZ agreeing to be commercially bound to deliver will be slight. A best endeavour clause would seem appropriate to me. I am sure they will do everything they can to accelerate the fix of any production problem they have.

 

[meltonblue]

Depends who you are dealing with and what their normal approach to contracts are. I dealt with a number of large FTSE and Global suppliers and they are all quite different. Some 'insisted' that the contract follows their standard templates, others are more open to stuff like penalty clauses. With the most difficult, the best you will get is a 'best endeavour' which is almost meaningless. On others, particularly those that are transaction based then its altogether possible to get penalty clauses. My guess would be that the supply of a certain volume of vaccine by a certain date involving brand new production capacity would always carry very significant risk so the chances of AZ agreeing to be commercially bound to deliver will be slight. A best endeavour clause would seem appropriate to me. I am sure they will do everything they can to accelerate the fix of any production problem they have.

There is best endeavours around the supply of the vaccine. The EU are arguing that there isn’t around some of the manufacture provision though. That and about the primary locations of the supply being used as a reason. Think they’re pretty pissed off at the lateness of AZ telling the revision to the schedule too.

I haven’t seen anything from them challenging whether AZ failed on any of the best endeavours aspects, although if it is like my company’s contract with AZ, it will still be defined within it to make it slightly less meaningless (emphasis on the word slightly!). Tends to be very obvious when companies fail with that though so it hardly ever gets to court.

Agree with your last point and I don’t think this will be an issue for long.

 

[Saddleworth2]

There is best endeavours around the supply of the vaccine. The EU are arguing that there isn’t around some of the manufacture provision though. That and about the primary locations of the supply being used as a reason. Think they’re pretty pissed off at the lateness of AZ telling the revision to the schedule too.

I haven’t seen anything from them challenging whether AZ failed on any of the best endeavours aspects, although if it is like my company’s contract with AZ, it will still be defined within it to make it slightly less meaningless (emphasis on the word slightly!). Tends to be very obvious when companies fail with that though so it hardly ever gets to court.

Agree with your last point and I don’t think this will be an issue for long.

I agree. The EU will work with them on the problem and it will be fixed. Neither party can afford to really damage the relationship.

 

[Ban-jani]

It's a bit sad that some people feel the need to latch on to any bit of negative news, even if it is speculative

Can you honestly, hand on heart, say that this hasn’t happened regarding Brexit since New Year’s Day?

Every day I’ve dipped in it’s been endless Tweets from FBPE accounts, talking about a coffee shop going bust in Somerset and blaming Brexit.

It’s part of the reason I’ve now become someone who’s ended up defending the position I actually disagree with.

 

[Tb1981]

It's a bit sad that some people feel the need to latch on to any bit of negative news, even if it is speculative, about the EU to justify their Brexit stance. At the same time as this perceived vaccine problem, which most likely will be resolved between the manufacturers and the EU agency responsible for procurement without involving us, there are real tangible negative effects that Brexit is having on numerous sectors of our economy which are being written off as teething problems or minor inconveniences. The fact that this vaccine issue is treated as a good news story for Brexit is pathetic when you consider that all our procurement decisions were taken while we were following EU rules and we didn't break any of them to do what we did. It is certainly a good news story for the UK which we are in dire need of, and equally a bad news story for much of the EU, but it really isn't a consequence of Brexit however much people like to think it is.

So it’s ok for you lot to latch onto anything that puts brexit in a negative light, but if the shoe is in the other foot it’s totally different.
Makes perfect sense

 

[Tb1981]

The real question here is will the world renowned Simon Rattle be relocating to the EU before or after he is due his uk vaccine?