The EU v UK vaccine tussle

[JeffreyD]

rdjohn said:

frisbee said:

Born in the USAEU?

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/jun/18/bruc...

Bizarre!

Not really
They are just saying you need to have a US approved vaccine.

[JeffreyD]

All I can say is that at this stage it doesn't seem bizarre to favour vaccines your own medical authority has approved

I'm sure things will develop over time.

[Biggy Stardust]

FiF said:

I cannot get my head round how the EU have the brass neck to declare this as a win. Even the penalty in the unlikely event AZ don't deliver the mandated doses is reduced to 10euro per dose, as opposed to their ridiculous demand of 10euro per dose per day of delay.

Frankly they went out of their way to destroy only AZ as opposed to any other company which didn't deliver everything, in some cases nothing, because of? Well, what was the underlying motivation exactly?

Fear is the father of many children. Foremost amongst them is anger.

[turbobloke]

FiF said:

I cannot get my head round how the EU have the brass neck to declare this as a win. Even the penalty in the unlikely event AZ don't deliver the mandated doses is reduced to 10euro per dose, as opposed to their ridiculous demand of 10euro per dose per day of delay.

Frankly they went out of their way to destroy only AZ as opposed to any other company which didn't deliver everything, in some cases nothing, because of? Well, what was the underlying motivation exactly?

The Court's mandate to do less than was likely without any legal beagling is all about keeping face on the end of a brass neck, it gives the incompetents running the EU an opportunity to claim victory and thus hide yet another defeat from their useful bipeds, who won't want to see it as it is anyway, while everybody else will (and does). Don't mention the war brexit.

[loafer123]

turbobloke said:

The Court's mandate to do less than was likely without any legal beagling is all about keeping face on the end of a brass neck, it gives the incompetents running the EU an opportunity to claim victory and thus hide yet another defeat from their useful bipeds, who won't want to see it as it is anyway, while everybody else will (and does). Don't mention the war brexit.

Whilst I agree with you, I am not entirely sure that saving face for one party is supposed to be within the remit of a proper court of law.

[turbobloke]

loafer123 said:

turbobloke said:

The Court's mandate to do less than was likely without any legal beagling is all about keeping face on the end of a brass neck, it gives the incompetents running the EU an opportunity to claim victory and thus hide yet another defeat from their useful bipeds, who won't want to see it as it is anyway, while everybody else will (and does). Don't mention the war brexit.

Whilst I agree with you, I am not entirely sure that saving face for one party is supposed to be within the remit of a proper court of law.

Well, there's them there words, 'remit' and 'proper', which are indeed apt, usually, but this is the EU we're talking about, together with its multifarious and independent good orifices.

[Vanden Saab]

loafer123 said:

turbobloke said:

The Court's mandate to do less than was likely without any legal beagling is all about keeping face on the end of a brass neck, it gives the incompetents running the EU an opportunity to claim victory and thus hide yet another defeat from their useful bipeds, who won't want to see it as it is anyway, while everybody else will (and does). Don't mention the war brexit.

Whilst I agree with you, I am not entirely sure that saving face for one party is supposed to be within the remit of a proper court of law.

As with all EU countries, EU law is superior and all other law has to follow its dictates.

[Vasco]

Vanden Saab said:

loafer123 said:

turbobloke said:

The Court's mandate to do less than was likely without any legal beagling is all about keeping face on the end of a brass neck, it gives the incompetents running the EU an opportunity to claim victory and thus hide yet another defeat from their useful bipeds, who won't want to see it as it is anyway, while everybody else will (and does). Don't mention the war brexit.

Whilst I agree with you, I am not entirely sure that saving face for one party is supposed to be within the remit of a proper court of law.

As with all EU countries, EU law is superior and all other law has to follow its dictates.

Yet another reason (as if we needed any more!) to be delighted that we got out at the earliest opportunity.

[anonymous-user]

It was a Belgium court.

If the EU got a proper slap they would have gone running to the ECJ.

VDL and here cronies are a disgusting bunch.

[Muddle238]

Although both sides feel that they’ve won, really the EU is the loser here. They may have taken it all the way to court and for AZ to be told that there was a breach of contract; which certain EU characters are frothing at the mouth about as they relish the moment, but the EU seems to forget that they’d pinned much on their vaccination programme on AZ.

Now, having successfully pissed off AZ, for want of a better term, they’ve inadvertently created the situation whereby AZ has an easy route out of being involved with the EU by only having to deliver an easily achievable quantity of doses within the specified time frame.

To me, it reads as if the judge has given AZ a lifeline and legally binding way to escape VDL and her cronies, all while tossing the EU a ball to keep them happy/distracted while AZ freely leaves the stage and all the EU aggression behind.

Once the agreed delivery has been achieved, AZ could quite happily turn their backs on the EU, only then will the penny drop for VDL as she realises she’s alienated one of very few companies that can help her precious bloc in a pandemic. How that’s a win for the EU I have no idea, no doubt VDL will spin it under the values of trust or respecting contracts, all while Europeans face another wave of coronavirus.

[Jazzy Jag]

Muddle238 said:

, only then will the penny drop for VDL as she realises she’s alienated one of very few companies that can help her precious bloc in a pandemic..

I doubt she has the self awareness to realise.

[Mortarboard]

Muddle238 said:

Once the agreed delivery has been achieved, AZ could quite happily turn their backs on the EU, only then will the penny drop for VDL as she realises she’s alienated one of very few companies that can help her precious bloc in a pandemic. How that’s a win for the EU I have no idea, no doubt VDL will spin it under the values of trust or respecting contracts, all while Europeans face another wave of coronavirus.

I think Pfizer might have a little bit of capacity shortly

“Pissing off” AZ is immaterial if AZ can’t meet production numbers anyway.

M.

[NRS]

Mortarboard said:

Muddle238 said:

Once the agreed delivery has been achieved, AZ could quite happily turn their backs on the EU, only then will the penny drop for VDL as she realises she’s alienated one of very few companies that can help her precious bloc in a pandemic. How that’s a win for the EU I have no idea, no doubt VDL will spin it under the values of trust or respecting contracts, all while Europeans face another wave of coronavirus.

I think Pfizer might have a little bit of capacity shortly

“Pissing off” AZ is immaterial if AZ can’t meet production numbers anyway.

M.

If you look at the number of jabbed from different types of vaccines despite the big miss on productions numbers they're still clearly the most used. Since the other companies also happened to have had big misses too.

[Murph7355]

Mortarboard said:

I think Pfizer might have a little bit of capacity shortly

“Pissing off” AZ is immaterial if AZ can’t meet production numbers anyway.

M.

Who has been making "contractual" production numbers?

This has been a disgraceful affair by the EU, and shows that particular bunch of politicians for what they are (and why many kicked them into touch in the UK).

I think I read that AZ are confident they'll get the contractual minimum sorted much sooner than the court has noted. If this wasn't so serious for the people of Europe, I would be wishing very strongly that once the minimum product was met that AZ diverted all production to every other nation on the planet.

[NRS]

They won't - companies don't get revenge on a huge customer, particularly a customer who makes the rules.

The only people who could more control the EU are the US and China. Not even the people of Europe given the amount of layers now in the system.

[Muddle238]

Murph7355 said:

Mortarboard said:

I think Pfizer might have a little bit of capacity shortly

“Pissing off” AZ is immaterial if AZ can’t meet production numbers anyway.

M.

Who has been making "contractual" production numbers?

This has been a disgraceful affair by the EU, and shows that particular bunch of politicians for what they are (and why many kicked them into touch in the UK).

I think I read that AZ are confident they'll get the contractual minimum sorted much sooner than the court has noted. If this wasn't so serious for the people of Europe, I would be wishing very strongly that once the minimum product was met that AZ diverted all production to every other nation on the planet.

Exactly. I don’t think there’s a single vaccine manufacturer who has met their expected delivery schedule, I’m sure this didn’t escape the attention of the judge.

Once the contractual minimum is delivered, if I was AZ I’d drastically change tack with the European market; deal with the 27 EU members on an individual basis moving forwards if they wanted AZ vaccines, otherwise shift focus towards the nations that are desperate for doses.

That way, by not inviting VDL to the party, life is probably much easier for AZ and the European nations relying on it. Cut out the middle man, or clowns in this case.

[b0rk]

Muddle238 said:

Once the agreed delivery has been achieved, AZ could quite happily turn their backs on the EU, only then will the penny drop for VDL as she realises she’s alienated one of very few companies that can help her precious bloc in a pandemic.

Not really the September point in the ruling is a interim delivery milestone so IIRC by this point AZ must have delivered in total circa 80m doses, 30m of which where delivered prior to case starting and the remaining 50m "due" by end of sept. As is being pointed out at current rates AZ will achieve this in the next month of so.

However this figure is not contract completed, rather AZ still ultimately have to deliver all 300m contracted doses and I'd expect the final ruling to set out a timeline for AZ to achieve this. The interim ruling does make it pretty obvious the EC's claim on a right to all 300m by end of September wasn't valid. Yet come the point AZ achieve the 80m figure they will still have a further 220m doses to deliver by some point that is TBC.

There is still the potential for the final ruling to deliver a nasty sting in the tail for AZ around those outstanding 220m doses, as firstly the ruling does state that the UK factories are part of the agreed production network. So failure to deliver in accordance with agreements isn't best reasonable efforts if those factories haven't also been used. So far and for the interim period not a problem.

If the court rules that the contract should been fulfilled by end of Q4 '21, remeber the "contract / APA" had five redacted periods then I can see AZ struggling without also using UK production and even with UK production. On the other hand if the court rules that deliveries post September should be 35m doses per two months then the EC will have to all intents and purposes "lost" on the basis of every claim they made.

[Vanden Saab]

b0rk said:

Muddle238 said:

Once the agreed delivery has been achieved, AZ could quite happily turn their backs on the EU, only then will the penny drop for VDL as she realises she’s alienated one of very few companies that can help her precious bloc in a pandemic.

Not really the September point in the ruling is a interim delivery milestone so IIRC by this point AZ must have delivered in total circa 80m doses, 30m of which where delivered prior to case starting and the remaining 50m "due" by end of sept. As is being pointed out at current rates AZ will achieve this in the next month of so.

However this figure is not contract completed, rather AZ still ultimately have to deliver all 300m contracted doses and I'd expect the final ruling to set out a timeline for AZ to achieve this. The interim ruling does make it pretty obvious the EC's claim on a right to all 300m by end of September wasn't valid. Yet come the point AZ achieve the 80m figure they will still have a further 220m doses to deliver by some point that is TBC.

There is still the potential for the final ruling to deliver a nasty sting in the tail for AZ around those outstanding 220m doses, as firstly the ruling does state that the UK factories are part of the agreed production network. So failure to deliver in accordance with agreements isn't best reasonable efforts if those factories haven't also been used. So far and for the interim period not a problem.

If the court rules that the contract should been fulfilled by end of Q4 '21, remeber the "contract / APA" had five redacted periods then I can see AZ struggling without also using UK production and even with UK production. On the other hand if the court rules that deliveries post September should be 35m doses per two months then the EC will have to all intents and purposes "lost" on the basis of every claim they made.

We will be done with the Astra vaccine by the end of September at the very latest so if the EU want to take doses away from the poorer countries of the RoW to supply their own countries I am sure the UK will not object or put any barriers in their way.

[Mortarboard]

Vanden Saab said:

We will be done with the Astra vaccine by the end of September at the very latest so if the EU want to take doses away from the poorer countries of the RoW to supply their own countries I am sure the UK will not object or put any barriers in their way.

Pfizer excess post USA vaccination roll out is in the order of hundreds of millions just in US capacity alone.

I don’t think anyone is relying on AZ at this point.

For ROW, particularly those with poor distribution networks, the J&J version is by far the best option.

M.

[Vanden Saab]

Mortarboard said:

Vanden Saab said:

We will be done with the Astra vaccine by the end of September at the very latest so if the EU want to take doses away from the poorer countries of the RoW to supply their own countries I am sure the UK will not object or put any barriers in their way.

Pfizer excess post USA vaccination roll out is in the order of hundreds of millions just in US capacity alone.

I don’t think anyone is relying on AZ at this point.

For ROW, particularly those with poor distribution networks, the J&J version is by far the best option.

M.

Pfizer needs to be -70 even worse for much of the poorer RoW than Astra. We are a long, long way from providing 7 billion vaccines.