The EU v UK vaccine tussle

[Mrr T]

don'tbesilly said:

It's interesting that the EU is demanding that AZ publish the contract, the contract that the EC had sight of, and was the contract the EC signed off with AZ.

Why doesn't the EU just ask the EC to publish the contract, they (EC) surely must have a copy of the contract they signed.

According to the accounts in the press the contract contains non disclosure clauses.

[anonymous-user]

It’s a bit strange that the EU are complaining that they don’t yet have vaccine which they haven’t yet approved!.
But say it will be approved at the end of the month..
Why not approve it now? All very odd.

A fair chunk of our oldies have had their first Pfizer dose, i’m sure that the government are taking steps to bank their second doses.

Then we can crack on with the OxfordAz etc

Once we have covered the first 15 million it’ll almost time for their round 2.

For balance ,we can’t do a China (selfishly buying up all of the PPE before anyone else got a look in..)

[anonymous-user]

chrispmartha said:

And the Express, Mail etc are no different but in the opposite direction, it just seems a bit weird to criticise a neutral media report, when that seems to be what people want more of rather than biased output.

The Anti EU media are spinning this as a EU V UK issue when it really isn't its an EU V AZ issue.

Its actually an EU member state v EU commision issue that might affect UK supplies.

[Iamnotkloot]

don'tbesilly said:

Interesting read from Politico:

https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-coronavirus...

Yep, a good read that. Whilst the speed of action of the UK (and the US) is fantastic, there could yet be hazards on the way if, for example, there are some bad side effects, or lower effectiveness, to any of the vaccines. Then the EU's approach (greater accountability/liability to the producers) will look inspired. However, if that doesn't happen, they'll look overly bureaucratic and incompetent, and having cost lives.

Interesting trade off's.

[anonymous-user]

Iamnotkloot said:

Yep, a good read that. Whilst the speed of action of the UK (and the US) is fantastic, there could yet be hazards on the way if, for example, there are some bad side effects, or lower effectiveness, to any of the vaccines. Then the EU's approach (greater accountability/liability to the producers) will look inspired. However, if that doesn't happen, they'll look overly bureaucratic and incompetent, and having cost lives.

Interesting trade off's.

Are you suggesting the EU would sue AZ if the vaccine doesn't work as expected?

[don'tbesilly]

Mrr T said:

don'tbesilly said:

It's interesting that the EU is demanding that AZ publish the contract, the contract that the EC had sight of, and was the contract the EC signed off with AZ.

Why doesn't the EU just ask the EC to publish the contract, they (EC) surely must have a copy of the contract they signed.

According to the accounts in the press the contract contains non disclosure clauses.

So Stella Kyriakides who is the European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety and is the one demanding that AZ publish the contracts doesn't know what the T's & C's are in the contracts the EC signed of on?

I'd imagine Stella Kyriakides will have some responsibility for those contracts and she wants AZ to publish contracts that breach the T's & C's AZ signed up to.

If the EC wants the contracts they signed up to published, it might be a good idea the EC breach their own NDA's as opposed to AZ breaching them.

[ruggedscotty]

jsf said:

chrispmartha said:

And the Express, Mail etc are no different but in the opposite direction, it just seems a bit weird to criticise a neutral media report, when that seems to be what people want more of rather than biased output.

The Anti EU media are spinning this as a EU V UK issue when it really isn't its an EU V AZ issue.

Its actually an EU member state v EU commision issue that might affect UK supplies.

This, and we should be telling Europe in no uncertain terms,

Comparing it to the butcher shop.... ? Like get over yourself, if the shoe was on the other foot do you think they would be as understanding.

Nope.

Should not be allowed to do what they are trying to do and be told exactly that. it is what it is.

[Mrr T]

don'tbesilly said:

Mrr T said:

don'tbesilly said:

It's interesting that the EU is demanding that AZ publish the contract, the contract that the EC had sight of, and was the contract the EC signed off with AZ.

Why doesn't the EU just ask the EC to publish the contract, they (EC) surely must have a copy of the contract they signed.

According to the accounts in the press the contract contains non disclosure clauses.

So Stella Kyriakides who is the European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety and is the one demanding that AZ publish the contracts doesn't know what the T's & C's are in the contracts the EC signed of on?

I'd imagine Stella Kyriakides will have some responsibility for those contracts and she wants AZ to publish contracts that breach the T's & C's AZ signed up to.

If the EC wants the contracts they signed up to published, it might be a good idea the EC breach their own NDA's as opposed to AZ breaching them.

If both sides agree to waive the NDC then the clauses no longer apply. The EU asking AZ to publish the contract shows the EU agree to waive the NDC its then up to AZ to publish.

If the EU publishes the contract without AZ agreement then the EU is in breach of contract. The implications of such a breach would depend on the contract. At the extreme it could void the contract.

[superlightr]

could be a great opportunity for the UK to house Phama companies/production plants - if the EU fek around too much then why should phama risk production in the EU in the future.

[anonymous-user]

superlightr said:

could be a great opportunity for the UK to house Phama companies/production plants - if the EU fek around too much then why should phama risk production in the EU in the future.

You can bet pharma company CEO's will be taking note of how the EU are slagging off a company doing its best to accommodate a 3 month delay impossed by the EU.

It's spectacularly short sighted management of a problem to try and cover their arses.

[FiF]

Just to clear up one bit of inaccurate scuttlebutt flying about, but it's going around that one issue with the EU delay is that they were insisting the labels on the vaccines were printed in all the official EU languages. Which is not exactly easy given the size of the labels / containers.

It's simply not true, in October they relented that was no longer required and just one official language would be sufficient, they chose errm English.

[Iamnotkloot]

jsf said:

Iamnotkloot said:

Yep, a good read that. Whilst the speed of action of the UK (and the US) is fantastic, there could yet be hazards on the way if, for example, there are some bad side effects, or lower effectiveness, to any of the vaccines. Then the EU's approach (greater accountability/liability to the producers) will look inspired. However, if that doesn't happen, they'll look overly bureaucratic and incompetent, and having cost lives.

Interesting trade off's.

Are you suggesting the EU would sue AZ if the vaccine doesn't work as expected?

The article I refer to above says:
"The result: lower prices, with higher accountability for drugmakers, and shots for the whole of the EU — but also delays in delivery and rising tensions among EU member countries resentful about the tradeoffs."
and
"The Commission’s strategy may yet be vindicated in the longer term. If there turns out to be problems with a vaccine, the insistence on holding drugmakers liable will look inspired."

I do not know if the above = being sued, it depends on what accountability/liability mean in this context

[CaptainSlow]

ruggedscotty said:

This, and we should be telling Europe in no uncertain terms,

Comparing it to the butcher shop.... ? Like get over yourself, if the shoe was on the other foot do you think they would be as understanding.

Nope.

Should not be allowed to do what they are trying to do and be told exactly that. it is what it is.

If the shoe was on the other foot we would have all the usual mouth pieces in the EU and on this forum crowing about how it was the UK's decision to leave the EU...and something about cake.

I hope the UK, despite the behaviour of the EU over the last 5 years, shares out surplus vaccinations once all the over 50's are done.

[anonymous-user]

Iamnotkloot said:

The article I refer to above says:
"The result: lower prices, with higher accountability for drugmakers, and shots for the whole of the EU — but also delays in delivery and rising tensions among EU member countries resentful about the tradeoffs."
and
"The Commission’s strategy may yet be vindicated in the longer term. If there turns out to be problems with a vaccine, the insistence on holding drugmakers liable will look inspired."

I do not know if the above = being sued, it depends on what accountability/liability mean in this context

What else can it mean other than something negative for the company is threatened?

I'd tell them to ps off and make their own vaccines if they want a punishment clause in a program like this.

[anonymous-user]

CaptainSlow said:

If the shoe was on the other foot we would have all the usual mouth pieces in the EU and on this forum crowing about how it was the UK's decision to leave the EU...and something about cake.

I hope the UK, despite the behaviour of the EU over the last 5 years, shares out surplus vaccinations once all the over 50's are done.

A 3 month delay should just about manage that.

[JagLover]

Someone raised an interesting point about this on another forum.

The information about the numbers of vaccines available in the UK is being kept secret, but the SNP published details in respect to this last week before being forced to take it down.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-po...

Have they been passing such information to the EU and hence the current row?. Is this highlighting once again a problem with devolution if the devolved administration has no loyalty to the central authority?

[Biggy Stardust]

Mrr T said:

If both sides agree to waive the NDC then the clauses no longer apply. The EU asking AZ to publish the contract shows the EU agree to waive the NDC its then up to AZ to publish.

If the EU publishes the contract without AZ agreement then the EU is in breach of contract. The implications of such a breach would depend on the contract. At the extreme it could void the contract.

I thought the EC wanted AZ to publish but it's not the EC's contract to waive?.

[amusingduck]

JagLover said:

Have they been passing such information to the EU and hence the current row?. Is this highlighting once again a problem with devolution if the devolved administration has no loyalty to the central authority?

Probably.

Take a peek in the Scottish indy thread to see just how deep the rot goes.

Spoiler: straight to the top. Govt/Police/Judiciary in collusion to stich up Salmond

[CaptainSlow]

JagLover said:

Someone raised an interesting point about this on another forum.

The information about the numbers of vaccines available in the UK is being kept secret, but the SNP published details in respect to this last week before being forced to take it down.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-po...

Have they been passing such information to the EU and hence the current row?. Is this highlighting once again a problem with devolution if the devolved administration has no loyalty to the central authority?

In this rare instance I don't think the SNP had any malicious intent, it was primarily due to them being complete morons.

[jshell]

JagLover said:

Someone raised an interesting point about this on another forum.

The information about the numbers of vaccines available in the UK is being kept secret, but the SNP published details in respect to this last week before being forced to take it down.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-po...

Have they been passing such information to the EU and hence the current row?. Is this highlighting once again a problem with devolution if the devolved administration has no loyalty to the central authority?

Pass it to the EU? It was all published openly for all to see before it was taken down.