Political relations between UK-EU

[Vic]

Just a thought, but maybe because we're not in the EU and we're being supplied from UK AstraZenica production facilities that are frankly F All to do with the EU.

You mean apart from their contract that says the UK plants are (for these purposes) in the EU?

 

[BlueAnorak]

You mean apart from their contract that says the UK plants are (for these purposes) in the EU?

You mean the contract that says "best endeavors" and that the vaccines are being supplied to the EU at cost price. With the 50% specialist EU lawyers who say the clause you state may be enforceable is pretty much unenforceable because of the first two clauses. Of course 50% of specialist EU lawyers say it isn't enforceable anyway.
Making vaccines is not manufacturing widgets. Identical plant equipment produces different results due to temperature, humidity water supply etc.
If the EU wanted the vaccines available at the required volumes earlier. They should also have approved the vaccine sooner and signed the contract a lot earlier so the production plant had a better chance of working.
UK production wasn't working properly till the end of December and they had 3 months longer to sort issues out.
Your precious EU has fucked up here big style.

 

[SWP's back]

Fair enough.
However there are a few actual facts that are unarguable. We have to have our own regulatory framework running in parallel with the EUs (around 30 agencies I believe) where we previously shared costs, we have new customs infrastructure which needs manning, there are slower delivery times due to checks at the border, businesses need to spend much more time filling in forms when preparing goods for despatch, subsidies for businesses affected by all of the above etc etc.
It certainly is opinion that this will cost more than the net £9bn it used to cost to be a member of the EU. However HMRC have estimated that the cost of additional paperwork alone will be £7.5bn for business. Regulatory agencies will cost an estimated £2bn per year once they're fully established. That's ignoring the initial costs which for example will be £1bn for the chemical industry alone. Then we come to the additional transport costs which are already leading to empty lorries doing return journeys. Assuming this eventually sorts itself out, there will still be customs delays which add time and hence cost. It is my opinion that there is not a cat in hells chance that we will get all of the above for less than £9bn.

Fish are happy though, so swings and roundabouts.

 

[GH64]

It wasn't a "procuration dogma". I can't offhand think of anything else where the EU centralises procurement. It was with the noble aim of fairly distributing vaccines according to the population of each country rather than a free-for-all that would see wealthier countries outbidding poorer countries and competing with other countries for priority deliveries. Put the clock back to April last year, and (with hindsight) see how the UK does if there is no EU co-operation, just a scramble to get in first, with possibly a bidding war for priority.

It's gone wrong for the EU, but without what you call a procurement dogma and I call a noble attempt at fair access, the UK might not be in such a good position. I'm not sure you're right about what Merkel and Macron wanted but, on your way of working, what would be the consequences for the UK if EU countries had not co-operated on supplying material for AstraZeneca?

And the "hate your country" stuff should stop. It's desperately shallow. Pride in Britain is fine (not least what Oxford has done) but it's still an international team with international money, and I certainly hope that in the end putting Britain first (so that less vulnerable people here have priority over more vulnerable people elsewhere) does not mean the virus is eradicated less quickly.

Put it this way - what's your priority? Getting vaccinated yourself, or eradicating Coronavirus?

(Maybe I'm the only person on here that listens to "The Moral Maze")

"Noble attempt at fair access"?
It was for EU countries only, not the folks in Africa and Asia. They are relatively all rich countries.
So - consequences: If the EU had been able to block materials going to the AZ UK plants then we wouldn't have been able to make the vaccines in the UK until we had got the materials for somewhere else. More people would die.
However, there would also be consequences for the EU, Assuming little old us wasn't able to retaliate, slowing their efforts even further, then at the very least all of the knowledge gained on how to optimise production learned in the UK plants for the last few months would not have been available to the Belgian plant. So they would get fewer EU made vaccines short term, and also wouldn't get the vaccines from the UK plants after the initial 100m doses are fulfilled. So it would be stupid, and more people would die.
Plus, what credibility would they have after that.

It's Hancock turning down advice on using Merck so that Britain could jump the vaccine queue. I'm sure most Brits will approve.

Are you just winding people up?
The other aspect was the Oxford Uni view they wanted the vaccine to be cheap and accessible - hence at cost. Not on offer form Merck.
But yes, people in Britain do expect better healthcare than most of the world. Like we do for other treatments
Put it another way, if the contract had allowed the EU to take all of the UK manufactured vaccines, you'd rightly want Hancock sacked if he was involved.

You're looking at the Order Form for vaccines under the contract, not the contract itself. Try 13.1(e) of the contract.

It's satisfying to know mcfc1632 thought it was good work, though.

It is the same document. I don't see an order form?
13.1(e) refers to "the initial Europe doses" which it commits to putting in capacity for, which post dates the UK plants which they were already doing. The UK kicks in as a supplier if they can't meet the deliveries. We can go round in circles on this, but I think the EU have realised that they don't have a legal case so I think that is more important.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

She could have agreed that without shooting herself in both feet.

And stirring the hornets nest up north.
I do hope the reconciliatory communications coming from Johnson recently are as much a way of putting Arlene back in her box as anything else.
There was a bit of agitation going on over the last week. Vile graffiti about Varadkar going up on Belfast walls.
Unionist extremists raising their heads above the parapets.

The actual problems that the North are facing through Brexit rather than Covid will have to be addressed. The accusations I’ve heard from traders in the North, on the news over here, is that if it doesn’t affect mainland Britain, only NI, then it isn’t being taken seriously.

 

[metalblue]

It is fact.

You put up trade barriers you inhibit trade. Which is why nations (usually) strive to reduce trade barriers to boost trade. If reducing trade barriers increases trade then (obviously) the existing barriers were inhibiting trade and raising barriers will do the same.

This Govt is keen to stress that all the EU rollover deals where done to ensure trade keeps flowing at current levels and not be inhibited by increased trade barriers. But putting up trade barriers to Europe is suddenly ‘the best of both worlds’. It’s like telling NI that remaining in the Single Market is a ‘tremendous opportunity’, yet removing the UK from the Single Market is a ‘great deal for us’. Both of these contradictory things are said in total earnest and people nod along quite happily.

This sort of cognitive dissonance isn’t healthy or wise and the amount of people willing to swallow this mind rotting shite in service of their political beliefs is disturbing.

Yes and no. Trade barriers in themselves don’t necessarily restrict trade in the longer term but rather redefine it. I get the point you are making and why you make it.

The brexit deal in itself still requires technical work and in my opinion the EU will continue to fight against an independent UK (hopeful of a future “more EU friendly” UK government) - this l know isn’t helpful for business now who are the collateral in this ....but we must give it more time before writing it off -the next 12 months are key to see if we can move away from the EU otherwise we will become increasingly closer. I hope it’s the former otherwise this has been a gigantic waste of everyone’s time.

 

[mcfc1632]

We have raised trade and cultural barriers with our biggest and closest export market.

That is protectionism.

That is a fact.

Bless - the reality (which does bite) is that the UK has enacted the outcome of the referendum that was promised ahead of the 2015 GE and (unusually for politicians) the promise was duly executed in 2016

The promise included that the UK would leave the SM and CU

Cheer up - some of us are glad to see democracy in action and electoral promises delivered on

 

[Ancient Citizen]

For once, address the points made in the post. You can’t keep squirming behind misrepresentations.

Nah, sack that, we've been answering the same sort of crap for 5 years,
and each time we do, it turns out that our perception of events is not only
proved correct, each and every one of yours isn't.

 

[metalblue]

Fair enough.
However there are a few actual facts that are unarguable. We have to have our own regulatory framework running in parallel with the EUs (around 30 agencies I believe) where we previously shared costs, we have new customs infrastructure which needs manning, there are slower delivery times due to checks at the border, businesses need to spend much more time filling in forms when preparing goods for despatch, subsidies for businesses affected by all of the above etc etc.
It certainly is opinion that this will cost more than the net £9bn it used to cost to be a member of the EU. However HMRC have estimated that the cost of additional paperwork alone will be £7.5bn for business. Regulatory agencies will cost an estimated £2bn per year once they're fully established. That's ignoring the initial costs which for example will be £1bn for the chemical industry alone. Then we come to the additional transport costs which are already leading to empty lorries doing return journeys. Assuming this eventually sorts itself out, there will still be customs delays which add time and hence cost. It is my opinion that there is not a cat in hells chance that we will get all of the above for less than £9bn.

I do absolutely accept the rationale of your argument. Your presumption here - not unreasonably in the absence of anything to the contrary - is our continued reliance on trade with the EU which we need to dilute in order to make a success of brexit.

Breakups are always hard but time gives great perspective.

 

[meltonblue]

"Noble attempt at fair access"?
It was for EU countries only, not the folks in Africa and Asia. They are relatively all rich countries.
So - consequences: If the EU had been able to block materials going to the AZ UK plants then we wouldn't have been able to make the vaccines in the UK until we had got the materials for somewhere else. More people would die.
However, there would also be consequences for the EU, Assuming little old us wasn't able to retaliate, slowing their efforts even further, then at the very least all of the knowledge gained on how to optimise production learned in the UK plants for the last few months would not have been available to the Belgian plant. So they would get fewer EU made vaccines short term, and also wouldn't get the vaccines from the UK plants after the initial 100m doses are fulfilled. So it would be stupid, and more people would die.
Plus, what credibility would they have after that.


Are you just winding people up?
The other aspect was the Oxford Uni view they wanted the vaccine to be cheap and accessible - hence at cost. Not on offer form Merck.
But yes, people in Britain do expect better healthcare than most of the world. Like we do for other treatments
Put it another way, if the contract had allowed the EU to take all of the UK manufactured vaccines, you'd rightly want Hancock sacked if he was involved.


It is the same document. I don't see an order form?
13.1(e) refers to "the initial Europe doses" which it commits to putting in capacity for, which post dates the UK plants which they were already doing. The UK kicks in as a supplier if they can't meet the deliveries. We can go round in circles on this, but I think the EU have realised that they don't have a legal case so I think that is more important.

Article 5, that you were quoting from before, is in the order form rather than in the agreement. You’re right it’s essentially one and the same though.

It’s not a smoking gun but there’s enough ambiguity in the contract for both parties to think they’ll have a case. I fully admit I have no idea if Belgian courts would interpret anything differently though!

Don’t think it was ever going to get to court though. The EU have got all they really could for it, which was an increase in the availability for the initial doses. How they’ve gone about it, I don’t think anyone can condone.