Coronavirus

[Anastasius]

What I find surprising is the lack of prior communication between Astrazeneca and the EU - surely there was enough past history (eg from UK) of the difficulty of ramping up production of a new vaccine especially given the normal development time is measured in years not a few months - my guess is that the commercial arm of the EU attempted to force price down which doesn't help increase the company's desire to be forthcoming and that communication on a technical level was lacking - the UK somehow made the great decision, possibly the only one that BJ has made throughout the covid fiasco, to temporarily appoint someone highly technically qualified from a life-science venture fund to both 'spot' and help fund by early orders and in case of Oxford to help organise an industrial partner, for a number of likely vaccine successes. It paid off - the EU is actually now crying foul yet it was entirely in their own interests to do the same but they didn't.

Absolutely. Kate Bingham did a cracking job, IMO.

[Anastasius]

I'm not disputing that the EU has been lumberingly wrong-footed. The per capita comparison is what troubled me. I think it was Simon B who mentioned (on the Brexit thread?) that the UK might have the advantage of being more nimble-footed in some circumstances (the Guardian analysis yesterday said that we have now bought the equivalent of 5.5 jabs per person, putting us near the top of the league, which in itself must have increased the early pressure on manufacturers). But a relatively small, rich country is less burdened by the necessity for subsidy than a sprawling union, seven times the size where separate, relatively populous countries with fewer resources have an equal right, as members, to the same service.

Whether the UK is therefore 'better off' out of the EU in this case is somewhat moot, given that individual member countries are still able to negotiate their own deals as Hungary (?) has with Russia. In terms of 'unacceptable behaviour', the EU carries a huge responsibility towards the union and each individual state. Few states/unions come out of any of this covered with glory (though those governed by women seemed to have come out of it better than most ).

That will depend on the terms of the contract, delivery schedules etc. In this instance, yes, I do think that the UK was 'better out of the EU' as it enabled us to decide our strategy without looking over our shoulder at Nanny.

[Anastasius]

Yes, excuse me. Just a character flaw to try and understand both sides in a dispute. I was not thinking of the risk as about production capacity. I have nil knowledge of whether or to what degree the EU put cost pressures on the manufacturers.

As for the UK making the excess available to others when they find they don't need it, I'm sure they will. Even perhaps donate it to Africa which has been worst provided for with only 0.2 jabs per person

Of course, the EU will have tried to negotiate the price down. Just accept that the UK put its money where its mouth is. It was a considered 'gamble' to bet on all the horses. It's worked.

[teamsaint]

Source please.

See post 4836 on this thread.

[french frank]

See post 4836 on this thread.

Yes, I suppose the query was whether the EU had invested billions in the development of the vaccine?

I think even supporters of the EU are justified in being angry and disappointed at the action the Commission took in this matter. I just pointed out, as devil's advocate, that the EU was having to send vaccines manufactured in the EU to other countries, while not getting the vaccines it had ordered from the UK. I described that as 'galling'.

But, all the while condemning the EU, if you will, you have at least to give some credit to them for backtracking very quickly, as well as admitting they were wrong.

But I also described it as 'ironic' that some were condemning the EU for invoking Art 16 while people in Northern Ireland who supported Brexit (eg Ian Paisley Jnr) were urging the government - at the beginning of this month - to invoke Art 16 because of the difficulties caused by Brexit.

[teamsaint]

Yes, I suppose the query was whether the EU had invested billions in the development of the vaccine?

I think even supporters of the EU are justified in being angry and disappointed at the action the Commission took in this matter. I just pointed out, as devil's advocate, that the EU was having to send vaccines manufactured in the EU to other countries, while not getting the vaccines it had ordered from the UK. I described that as 'galling'.

But, all the while condemning the EU, if you will, you have at least to give some credit to them for backtracking very quickly, as well as admitting they were wrong.

But I also described it as 'ironic' that some were condemning the EU for invoking Art 16 while people in Northern Ireland who supported Brexit (eg Ian Paisley Jnr) were urging the government - at the beginning of this month - to invoke Art 16 because of the difficulties caused by Brexit.

It does seem a bit strange ( at best) about those in NI wanting Article 16 changed but only on their terms , but I certainly wasn’t aware of that previously. NI politics is never a place for the unwary.

As I mentioned earlier, in this situation politicians need to be exceptionally well briefed , and on this occasion the commission gave a good impression of being either poorly briefed, or not paying attention. Because of time frames, you would assume that the row with AZ was always going to come down to some bargaining. And that apart from anything else, AZ default to the moral high ground, with their “ not for profit” deal. But yes, they did at least take quick corrective action, thankfully.
We have to hope that lessons have been learned all round.

[Frances_iom]

... while not getting the vaccines it had ordered from the UK. I described that as 'galling'.

they had not ordered from the UK - they had ordered from Astrazeneca who in their 'best efforts' contract mentioned that their plants included those in the UK - but which were of course already committed full time to satisfy the UK's prior order and at a better price than that apparently paid by the EU.
As I have said I'm amazed that communication between the EU and the company was so bad and so mistrustful that they required the Belgian police to 'raid' the plant - if I were any other company in the risky business of starting production of a novel vaccine which is not like the mass production of biscuits I'd be very wary of future EU contracts

[Frances_iom]

It does seem a bit strange ( at best) about those in NI wanting Article 16 changed but only on their terms ....

The whole difficulty with the NI agreement was the insistence by all parties that a hard border was to be avoided at all costs as it was thought that the gunmen on both sides would otherwise take back up their arms - hence the contortions + at times utter stupidities built into the agreement and of course the great condemnation heaped upon BJ when he threatened a mechanism allowing the UK to keep a normal trade with a part of the UK.
The EU in its moment of unconsidered madness decided unilaterally that it needed to re-impose a land border to prevent any possible transfer of vaccine to reach the UK via a conduit thru Eire into NI - this demonstrated that they did not believe their years of preaching that such a border would undo the Belfast agreement and that they were happy in order to spite the UK to impose such a border - that is the key consideration that will now plague future agreements.

[LHC]

they had not ordered from the UK - they had ordered from Astrazeneca who in their 'best efforts' contract mentioned that their plants included those in the UK - but which were of course already committed full time to satisfy the UK's prior order and at a better price than that apparently paid by the EU.
As I have said I'm amazed that communication between the EU and the company was so bad and so mistrustful that they required the Belgian police to 'raid' the plant - if I were any other company in the risky business of starting production of a novel vaccine which is not like the mass production of biscuits I'd be very wary of future EU contracts

Looking at the Advance Purchase Agreement between AZ and the EU, it’s not at all clear that AZ committed to supplying any vaccines from the UK. The main clauses only mention supplies from the EU; indeed, one of the stipulations in the contract is that AZ should only supply vaccines from facilities within the EU, and must seek express permission from the EU before using supplies from anywhere else. There is some ambiguity in that AZ don’t have to get permission to supply from the UK, but the analysis I have seen from contract lawyers suggests the contract supports AZ’s interpretation, and not the statements made by Ursula van der Leyen.

[kernelbogey]

I received my first jab (Pfizer) yesterday. I asked the doctor about the discrepancy between the Government's 'up to 12 weeks' interval before the second jab and the manufacturers' observation that they had clinical experience only of a three weeks' interval. Although I can't recall her precise words, she said that a longer interval between jabs was considered clinically to improve immunity; I think she may have mentioned 8 weeks as optimal. (And perhaps that 3-week interval may reflect the urgency of the manufacturing process.)

[french frank]

There is some ambiguity in that AZ don’t have to get permission to supply from the UK, but the analysis I have seen from contract lawyers suggests the contract supports AZ’s interpretation, and not the statements made by Ursula van der Leyen.

On the other hand , today's report in The Observer says: "AstraZeneca has said that it has a contractual obligation to fulfil the UK’s order of 100 million doses from the plants in Oxford and Staffordshire before diverting vaccine to the EU." Which seems like a watertight legal requirement to do what the EU attempted to do: having received (allegedly) nothing from AZ for European citizens, the EU faces having all vaccine being withheld until the UK finds it has a surplus. The problem seems to be the lack of trust and cooperation in the face of the pandemic.

The reality of the idea of the Europen Union is that you win some, you lose some. It's lost this one, and given up rather more promptly than others seem to do.

[Frances_iom]

...
The reality of the idea of the Europen Union is that you win some, you lose some. It's lost this one, and given up rather more promptly than others seem to do.

I was, and in many ways still am, very unhappy with Brexit however the response of the EU here smacks more of the jackboot than of sensible 'lets talk and see if the problems can be overcome' - the triggering of article 16 was both stupid re the Irish sensitivities and vindictive re the UK as well as showing significant ignorance among the current EU commissioners as to the interdependence of vaccine supplies.

[french frank]

I was, and in many ways still am, very unhappy with Brexit however the response of the EU here smacks more of the jackboot than of sensible 'lets talk and see if the problems can be overcome' - the triggering of article 16 was both stupid re the Irish sensitivities and vindictive re the UK as well as showing significant ignorance among the current EU commissioners as to the interdependence of vaccine supplies.

Well, I never like to impute motives such as 'vindictiveness' if an alternative explanation is offered. Overhasty and not very clever is more objective.That doesn't mean accepting the alternative. The EU said they suspected that importing vaccine via Ireland might lead to using the border as a 'backdoor' into the UK. The protocol was established primarily to ease trade between the ROI and NI, not to be an easy way to beat EU-UK trade delays (or even EU-NI trade). If NI needed vaccine, why wasn't it treated like a 'region' of the UK and supplied by the same routes? There may be an explanation, but I think the EU has now at least put in place some sort of check that the vaccine will be used in NI - being technically still part of the single market.

I'm not denying that this was a serious misstep, but language like 'jackboot' and 'vindictiveness' seem unnecessary. There have been serious miscalculations in most parts of the world: the UK has done well on vaccination, less well on saving lives.

The WHO which castigated the EU for its attempt to protect its own citizens at the expense of others, is now calling on the UK to halt its vaccination programme once those in the most vulnerable groups have been treated, and look to supplying vaccine to poorer countries where vaccination hasn't even begun. Will we do that?

[Cockney Sparrow]

According to the Times, Johnson has ordered there is to be no comments about the relative success as against other countries and the EU - no crowing. And the Whips messaging the ERG loons & others to keep quiet.

The most it seems that has been said is at PM Questions in reply to Peter Bone (stealing our vaccine):
"a great pity”.... if the UK had signed up to EU’s vaccine initiative... “I do think that we’ve been able to do things differently, and better in some ways”.

It seems this line has been held and confined in polite rebuttals of mischief making remarks from Macron and other EU national politicians. Its the EU who are picking a fight with the UK government, and apart from the NI debacle, the line has been to point to Astra Zeneca and the EU having a contractual relationship which is for them; and we have our contractual arrangement and (like a cracked record) re-state that we expect the programme to be fulfilled.

At last - in one respect at least, Johnson & Co are acting like a competent government.

[oddoneout]

According to the Times, Johnson has ordered there is to be no comments about the relative success as against other countries and the EU - no crowing. And the Whips messaging the ERG loons & others to keep quiet.

The most it seems that has been said is at PM Questions in reply to Peter Bone (stealing our vaccine):
"a great pity”.... if the UK had signed up to EU’s vaccine initiative... “I do think that we’ve been able to do things differently, and better in some ways”.

It seems this line has been held and confined in polite rebuttals of mischief making remarks from Macron and other EU national politicians. Its the EU who are picking a fight with the UK government, and apart from the NI debacle, the line has been to point to Astra Zeneca and the EU having a contractual relationship which is for them; and we have our contractual arrangement and (like a cracked record) re-state that we expect the programme to be fulfilled.

At last - in one respect at least, Johnson & Co are acting like a competent government.

Let's hope they can keep it up. It's so out of character I don't quite believe it.