Political relations between UK-EU

[meltonblue]

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

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?

 

[ctwrd]

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.

100m euros to €500m

Uk is £548m

 

[BobKowalski]

‘Sky News reporting that UK ministers are saying their unpublished AstraZeneca contract “commits the pharmaceutical company to delivering UK doses first”.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

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

 

[meltonblue]

100m euros to €500m

Uk is £548m

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

 

[west didsblue]

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.

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.

 

[Vic]

‘Sky News reporting that UK ministers are saying their unpublished AstraZeneca contract “commits the pharmaceutical company to delivering UK doses first”.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

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

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.

 

[west didsblue]

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

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.

 

[ctwrd]

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

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.

 

[meltonblue]

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.

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.

 

[GH64]

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.

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".