The EU v UK vaccine tussle
Discussion
Stu T said:
"I'll add my two cents as a UK and EU qualified lawyer (not Belgian qualified so can't add any nuances there) after an initial read.
It's clear from Clauses 5.1 and 5.4 that the obligation to establish both the manufacturing facilities and then deliver the vaccines are "best reasonable efforts". This term is defined in the contract, but certainly is not strict liability. I.e. AZ just has to reasonably try it's best. I'll chalk that as a win for AZ.
Clause 5.4 does refer to AZ using best reasonable efforts to establish manufacturing facilities in both the EU AND UK. However, Clause 5.1 (which is the relevant provision regarding actually delivery of the vaccine doses), only refers to those doses being manufactured within the EU (and not UK). So basically there is no commitment for AZ to deliver any doses from outside the EU. I'll chalk that as a win for AZ too.
TLDR: contract looks bad for the Commission, not even sure what their arguments even are at this point. AZ's position seems like a slam dunk to me from an initial read.
Edit: corrected to remove reference to Clause 6.2 as people have rightly pointed out that refers to EU agreements"
from:
https://old.reddit.com/r/CoronavirusUK/comments/l7...
edit, added quotes to clarify that isn't my comment
Thanks very much. I'd agree with the clarification on location of manufacturing. It's not terribly smart drafting. It's clear from Clauses 5.1 and 5.4 that the obligation to establish both the manufacturing facilities and then deliver the vaccines are "best reasonable efforts". This term is defined in the contract, but certainly is not strict liability. I.e. AZ just has to reasonably try it's best. I'll chalk that as a win for AZ.
Clause 5.4 does refer to AZ using best reasonable efforts to establish manufacturing facilities in both the EU AND UK. However, Clause 5.1 (which is the relevant provision regarding actually delivery of the vaccine doses), only refers to those doses being manufactured within the EU (and not UK). So basically there is no commitment for AZ to deliver any doses from outside the EU. I'll chalk that as a win for AZ too.
TLDR: contract looks bad for the Commission, not even sure what their arguments even are at this point. AZ's position seems like a slam dunk to me from an initial read.
Edit: corrected to remove reference to Clause 6.2 as people have rightly pointed out that refers to EU agreements"
from:
https://old.reddit.com/r/CoronavirusUK/comments/l7...
edit, added quotes to clarify that isn't my comment
vikingaero said:
So does this explain the forceful rhetoric by many MEPs and leaders? We're screwed so let's use shouty politics.
Reading many of the comments by German MEPs etc, a lot of the language such as "we will not allow you to treat us as second class citizens" etc, is this a European trait that someone could explain.
Everything you are hearing from politicians is exactly what you would expect to hear from politicians.Reading many of the comments by German MEPs etc, a lot of the language such as "we will not allow you to treat us as second class citizens" etc, is this a European trait that someone could explain.
We've f
ked up - "It's someone else's fault!"We've lucked in and done something right - "It's not our problem, but we'll happily consider helping if we can"
Stu T said:
"I'll add my two cents as a UK and EU qualified lawyer (not Belgian qualified so can't add any nuances there) after an initial read.
It's clear from Clauses 5.1 and 5.4 that the obligation to establish both the manufacturing facilities and then deliver the vaccines are "best reasonable efforts". This term is defined in the contract, but certainly is not strict liability. I.e. AZ just has to reasonably try it's best. I'll chalk that as a win for AZ.
Clause 5.4 does refer to AZ using best reasonable efforts to establish manufacturing facilities in both the EU AND UK. However, Clause 5.1 (which is the relevant provision regarding actually delivery of the vaccine doses), only refers to those doses being manufactured within the EU (and not UK). So basically there is no commitment for AZ to deliver any doses from outside the EU. I'll chalk that as a win for AZ too.
TLDR: contract looks bad for the Commission, not even sure what their arguments even are at this point. AZ's position seems like a slam dunk to me from an initial read.
Edit: corrected to remove reference to Clause 6.2 as people have rightly pointed out that refers to EU agreements"
from:
https://old.reddit.com/r/CoronavirusUK/comments/l7...
edit, added quotes to clarify that isn't my comment
That reddit link is very interesting, thanks for that.It's clear from Clauses 5.1 and 5.4 that the obligation to establish both the manufacturing facilities and then deliver the vaccines are "best reasonable efforts". This term is defined in the contract, but certainly is not strict liability. I.e. AZ just has to reasonably try it's best. I'll chalk that as a win for AZ.
Clause 5.4 does refer to AZ using best reasonable efforts to establish manufacturing facilities in both the EU AND UK. However, Clause 5.1 (which is the relevant provision regarding actually delivery of the vaccine doses), only refers to those doses being manufactured within the EU (and not UK). So basically there is no commitment for AZ to deliver any doses from outside the EU. I'll chalk that as a win for AZ too.
TLDR: contract looks bad for the Commission, not even sure what their arguments even are at this point. AZ's position seems like a slam dunk to me from an initial read.
Edit: corrected to remove reference to Clause 6.2 as people have rightly pointed out that refers to EU agreements"
from:
https://old.reddit.com/r/CoronavirusUK/comments/l7...
edit, added quotes to clarify that isn't my comment
don'tbesilly said:
Pretty much this.
The EU is planning on introducing export licenses for vaccines today.
The EU will just say their right, everyone else is wrong, and if AZ doesn't play ball, they'll enforce their export licence on Pfizer, forcing Pfizer to breach their contract with the UK.
Yes. If I was Boris Johnson right now I'd be quietly checking to see what the impact will be of the Pfizer deliveries to UK being halted. If, in cooperation with AZ and the other UK based providers, I could see a way to minimise the impact of the EU restrictions on Pfizer such that we could still hit our targets then I would be announcing publicly TODAY that as a goodwill gesture, and because we are so much better prepared, the UK is willing to forego it's deliveries from Pfizer at this point so that vulnerable EU citizens could be vaccinated. I'd then sit back, look to the south east and wait for the mushroom cloud to appear over Brussels....The EU is planning on introducing export licenses for vaccines today.
The EU will just say their right, everyone else is wrong, and if AZ doesn't play ball, they'll enforce their export licence on Pfizer, forcing Pfizer to breach their contract with the UK.
don'tbesilly said:
Pretty much this.
The EU is planning on introducing export licenses for vaccines today.
The EU will just say their right, everyone else is wrong, and if AZ doesn't play ball, they'll enforce their export licence on Pfizer, forcing Pfizer to breach their contract with the UK.
They will of course have fun with that given they're suppling Pfizer to the US and Israel from Germany. Going to be tricky to maintain some sort of moral position while applying the rules in a discriminatory way.The EU is planning on introducing export licenses for vaccines today.
The EU will just say their right, everyone else is wrong, and if AZ doesn't play ball, they'll enforce their export licence on Pfizer, forcing Pfizer to breach their contract with the UK.
Leithen said:
We've lucked in and done something right - "It's not our problem, but we'll happily consider helping if we can"
Is it luck when one party gets on with things and spends whatever was necessary to get a vaccine developed and supplied and the other spends a sixth of that amount, fannies about chiselling the price for months, and then gets into a spat over a vaccine they haven't approved that they say doesn't work anyway?Seems like the more effort you put in, the luckier you get don't you think.
Given the usual interpretive dance of the contract, I think it is worth taking a step back and looking at the EU argument.
Fundamentally, they are saying that they demand specific performance of their contract and that the EU demands doses made in the UK in order to fulfil that, as one of their agreed manufacturing locations.
Their problem is that stance implies primacy over the UK contract and that, ultimately, they could demand that all doses made in the UK are delivered to the EU if needed.
This is clearly a nonsense in the context of the sprinkling of best endeavours and get out clauses.
Fundamentally, they are saying that they demand specific performance of their contract and that the EU demands doses made in the UK in order to fulfil that, as one of their agreed manufacturing locations.
Their problem is that stance implies primacy over the UK contract and that, ultimately, they could demand that all doses made in the UK are delivered to the EU if needed.
This is clearly a nonsense in the context of the sprinkling of best endeavours and get out clauses.
Edited by loafer123 on Friday 29th January 12:44
Stu T said:
"I'll add my two cents as a UK and EU qualified lawyer (not Belgian qualified so can't add any nuances there) after an initial read.
It's clear from Clauses 5.1 and 5.4 that the obligation to establish both the manufacturing facilities and then deliver the vaccines are "best reasonable efforts". This term is defined in the contract, but certainly is not strict liability. I.e. AZ just has to reasonably try it's best. I'll chalk that as a win for AZ.
Clause 5.4 does refer to AZ using best reasonable efforts to establish manufacturing facilities in both the EU AND UK. However, Clause 5.1 (which is the relevant provision regarding actually delivery of the vaccine doses), only refers to those doses being manufactured within the EU (and not UK). So basically there is no commitment for AZ to deliver any doses from outside the EU. I'll chalk that as a win for AZ too.
TLDR: contract looks bad for the Commission, not even sure what their arguments even are at this point. AZ's position seems like a slam dunk to me from an initial read.
Edit: corrected to remove reference to Clause 6.2 as people have rightly pointed out that refers to EU agreements"
from:
https://old.reddit.com/r/CoronavirusUK/comments/l7...
edit, added quotes to clarify that isn't my comment
I'm not a lawyer, but based on the initial reading it seems very puzzling as to why they wanted the contract published - it seems pretty concrete that the EU messed up here. As you mention 5.1 seems to remove the supplies having to come from the UK, and 13e is about the European Initial Doses, not if there is any competing contract. It's clear from Clauses 5.1 and 5.4 that the obligation to establish both the manufacturing facilities and then deliver the vaccines are "best reasonable efforts". This term is defined in the contract, but certainly is not strict liability. I.e. AZ just has to reasonably try it's best. I'll chalk that as a win for AZ.
Clause 5.4 does refer to AZ using best reasonable efforts to establish manufacturing facilities in both the EU AND UK. However, Clause 5.1 (which is the relevant provision regarding actually delivery of the vaccine doses), only refers to those doses being manufactured within the EU (and not UK). So basically there is no commitment for AZ to deliver any doses from outside the EU. I'll chalk that as a win for AZ too.
TLDR: contract looks bad for the Commission, not even sure what their arguments even are at this point. AZ's position seems like a slam dunk to me from an initial read.
Edit: corrected to remove reference to Clause 6.2 as people have rightly pointed out that refers to EU agreements"
from:
https://old.reddit.com/r/CoronavirusUK/comments/l7...
edit, added quotes to clarify that isn't my comment
Nickgnome said:
crankedup said:
Stay in Bed Instead said:
crankedup said:
U.K. population 65 million
EU population 330 million.
So?EU population 330 million.
If you have a question perhaps you can state it.
Whats is the purpose of the two numbers in the context of this discussion?
andymadmak said:
don'tbesilly said:
Pretty much this.
The EU is planning on introducing export licenses for vaccines today.
The EU will just say their right, everyone else is wrong, and if AZ doesn't play ball, they'll enforce their export licence on Pfizer, forcing Pfizer to breach their contract with the UK.
Yes. If I was Boris Johnson right now I'd be quietly checking to see what the impact will be of the Pfizer deliveries to UK being halted. If, in cooperation with AZ and the other UK based providers, I could see a way to minimise the impact of the EU restrictions on Pfizer such that we could still hit our targets then I would be announcing publicly TODAY that as a goodwill gesture, and because we are so much better prepared, the UK is willing to forego it's deliveries from Pfizer at this point so that vulnerable EU citizens could be vaccinated. I'd then sit back, look to the south east and wait for the mushroom cloud to appear over Brussels....The EU is planning on introducing export licenses for vaccines today.
The EU will just say their right, everyone else is wrong, and if AZ doesn't play ball, they'll enforce their export licence on Pfizer, forcing Pfizer to breach their contract with the UK.
It also seriously impacts those who are expecting the jab in the next two weeks, and having to make a choice in which one to accept, given that the supply of one of the vaccines is now seriously in doubt.
paulrockliffe said:
Leithen said:
We've lucked in and done something right - "It's not our problem, but we'll happily consider helping if we can"
Is it luck when one party gets on with things and spends whatever was necessary to get a vaccine developed and supplied and the other spends a sixth of that amount, fannies about chiselling the price for months, and then gets into a spat over a vaccine they haven't approved that they say doesn't work anyway?Seems like the more effort you put in, the luckier you get don't you think.
crankedup said:
?
If you have a question perhaps you can state it.
The population size isn't necessarily relevant to the money spent at any given point in the pandemic. Any vaccine program will be dependent the cost to create a vaccine and the supplies subsequently available, and when that is paid for.If you have a question perhaps you can state it.
Ultra Sound Guy said:
It would be far more productive for all concerned if the EU asked AZ what help they could give to help ramp up production of the vaccine instead of all this totally non-productive political posturing!
That's easy, all they need is the two months the EC spent not signing the contract.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff