Political relations between UK-EU

[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.