Political relations between UK-EU

[metalblue]

Yep which would back up the EU saying that would be a breach of contract.

It doesn’t back that up at all though. The only time I have seem the UK explicitly mentioned is as an acceptable site for manufacture. The contract talks of competing agreements with participating member states and that these would be resolved on a best efforts basis. To treat non-participating members less favourably would surely be tested in a court as unfair and thus not a breach. No smoking guns and the only winners here will be the lawyers.

 

[meltonblue]

It doesn’t back that up at all though. The only time I have seem the UK explicitly mentioned is as an acceptable site for manufacture. The contract talks of competing agreements with participating member states and that these would be resolved on a best efforts basis. To treat non-participating members less favourably would surely be tested in a court as unfair and thus not a breach. No smoking guns and the only winners here will be the lawyers.

Its explicitly mentioned in the contract about any other agreements, think you need to reread it fully.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Still thinks it's the brexit thread, that's why.

I can see how it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other.

This will sour EU/UK relationship but the actual subject is Covid political and there are other questions that I would like it to spread to which, would stray it further from Brexit.

In the end it doesn’t matter where it’s discussed I suppose, but I still see the issue itself rather than how it may develop as not Brexit driven.

 

[Vic]

So whats the score here chaps, can the EU force AZ to divert the UKs vaccines to the EU? Ive not been following this closely the last couple of days.

The issue may be that the EU contracted to buy vaccines made in the UK (not the UK's vaccines) without knowing that AZ had already contracted to sell the same vaccines to the UK.

 

[andyhinch]

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.

I’m trying to understand why the EU didn’t ask what commitments AZ had made knowing that Britain had already made steps to procure the vaccine I’m assuming that they didn’t.

 

[meltonblue]

I’m trying to understand why the EU didn’t ask what commitments AZ had made knowing that Britain had already made steps to procure the vaccine I’m assuming that they didn’t.

They did, it’s in the contract that AZ were not under any obligation to anyone else that could impact on them fulfilling the order for the EU.

That is the breach they’re arguing - AZ can’t give the reason they have as justification for the delay.

 

[metalblue]

Its explicitly mentioned in the contract about any other agreements, think you need to reread it fully.

Which clause please? I may well have missed it

5.1.h refers to competing agreements on or behalf of participating member states

6.2 refers to competing agreements enter into or on behalf of the commission

 

[meltonblue]

Which clause please? I may well have missed it

5.1.h refers to competing agreements on or behalf of participating member states

6.2 refers to competing agreements enter into or on behalf of the commission

13.1.

 

[The perfect fumble]

If I'm reading this right and I believe I am, the EU is in the right.

If AstraZeneca has production problems and therefore cannot fulfil its contractual obligations to all parties, The EU is within its rights to expect that all parties take a hit.

Oh, by the way, this is very much about Brexit.

 

[The perfect fumble]

I’m trying to understand why the EU didn’t ask what commitments AZ had made knowing that Britain had already made steps to procure the vaccine I’m assuming that they didn’t.

That's not the point, If you commit to selling me a pint of milk, whatever commitments you have regarding supplying milk to the bloke down the road is immaterial.