[Heisenberg]

I'm deeply shocked and surprised that it took the EU less than a month to attempt to violate the sacred Good Friday Agreement.

But in fairness to the EU, I guess tough measures need to be taken to ensure that *checks notes* little old ladies in the UK aren't being vaccinated against a potentially deadly pathogen.

[B0ycey]

But in fairness to the EU, I guess tough measures need to be taken to ensure that *checks notes* little old ladies in the UK aren't being vaccinated against a potentially deadly pathogen.

But what about the little old ladies in the EU?

This action isn't surpring given the situation. But until there is a global strategy everyone looks after themselves. And the EU will do what is needed to look after their citizens. But at some point there is a bottleneck and vaccination nationalism has drawbacks. Which then goes back to what the WHO says. Because by mid February all the vulnerable groups will be vaccinated and we can then prioritise their second vaccinations. There isn't a real need then to vaccinate everyone given they aren't at risk so we can actually help. But being we have just spent the last few months saying everyone should be behind closed doors, that is a problem. We haven't been honest. So everyone expects a vaccination ASAP. So we now see this race to the bottom.

[Atlantis]

AstraZeneca didn't guarantee a delivery schedule in its contract. The company isn't "diverting" anything, it's fulfilling its contractual obligations.

That just goes to show that you are bullshitting. The EU is not responsible for AstraZeneca dragging out the negotiations about the legal terms. At least read the contract. There is a fixed delivery schedule: 80 million doses to be delivered to the EU in the first quarter. The EU took a risk by pre-financing the British vaccine. The money went into vaccine production in the UK.

All that counts are the terms and conditions of the contract. AstraZeneca is clearly in default of its contractual obligations towards the EU, period.

Defaulting at such a crucial moment means that the company is finished in Europe. But that doesn't get us the vaccines now. We can sue later, but to get the vaccines now the EU will have to halt exports to the UK.

@Heisenberg, People are dying now. Portugal has the world's highest death rate after British tourists spread the new virus variant in the country. A friend of mine has already died of Covid. Maybe you think that is funny, but I don't dying because your lung collapses is very funny

As to NI, I don't know why they want vaccines from the EU, they are already getting the vaccines the UK has stolen from the EU.

[Heisenberg]

But what about the little old ladies in the EU?

Like you said in an earlier post, I'm sure a solution could be found on the basis of diplomacy and goodwill. Maybe go through back channels to figure out an equitable distribution of vaccines.

But acting unilaterally to enforce a hard border in Ireland, after piously saying for the last four years that this was an inviolable, sacred no-go area, is the sort ot buffoonery I'd expect from Donald Trump.

@Atlantis Accusing the UK of deliberately infecting Portugal and "stealing" vaccines is pretty unhinged, even by your standards. Get over yourself.

[wat0n]

Where can one read the contract between the EU and AstraZeneca? IIRC it's not public and this is also a clause in it.

[B0ycey]

Like you said in an earlier post, I'm sure a solution could be found on the basis of diplomacy and goodwill. Maybe go through back channels to figure out an equitable distribution of vaccines.

Indeed. In fact it is the only solution. Otherwise this problem remains until production is increased in the EU. And that isn't only a factor for Astrazenica at the moment. It is true with for Pfizer as well. We can debate what best efforts mean until the cows come home. Only the EU is confused here on what that means it seems. They aren't getting any support from anyone on that point. Even the WHO is siding against them on them on that. But whatever, that is an issue with the supplier and buyer. Until then we should work together given our border cannot open fully until both sides are vaccinated. And that is what you seem to imply. So why aren't we?

[B0ycey]

Where can one read the contract between the EU and AstraZeneca? IIRC it's not public and this is also a clause in it.

The EU published it. Easily found on the Internet. There is an issue on the wording "best efforts" apparently.

[Rugoz]

All that counts are the terms and conditions of the contract. AstraZeneca is clearly in default of its contractual obligations towards the EU, period.

Oh look it's in bold, Atlantis must be right.

But that doesn't get us the vaccines now. We can sue later, but to get the vaccines now the EU will have to halt exports to the UK.

That's not how the rule of law works you fool.

[ingliz]

That's not how the rule of law works you fool.

The English believe it is.

Politico again:

This step would also be sanctioned by health care provisions in international trade law. Restricting exports would be allowed under public health and national security exemptions detailed in Article 20 and 21 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, a foundation of international trade law that the EU and U.K. are party to.

[noemon]

Where can one read the contract between the EU and AstraZeneca? IIRC it's not public and this is also a clause in it.

It's supposed to be published here:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pressco ... /ip_21_302

While clicking the links in the page, I could not find the contract per se. Perhaps I missed something.

[wat0n]

@B0ycey @noemon thanks, I'm asking partly because my understanding is that the EC doesn't have much experience in procurement (this was probably not the best moment to learn though).

[noemon]

Found the contract here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/fi ... zeneca.pdf



The contract is ok, AstraZeneca is prioritising the UK based on the order being made earlier, since before the EU had authorised the money.

Q&A EU
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pressco ... nda_21_308

[noemon]

The commission, which prides itself on its legal expertise and respect for the rule of law, turned the screws on AstraZeneca, accusing it of breaching its contract with Brussels.

Mrs von der Leyen gave Pascal Soriot, the CEO of AstraZeneca, a dressing down in a morning phone call. It was the first of three grillings for the boss, who was summoned to further two video conference meetings with the EU and national officials later that day.

Stella Kyriakides, the EU’s Health Commissioner, left the meeting and addressed the press. AstraZeneca’s explanations for the shortfall in supplies were “unsatisfactory”.

She demanded AstraZeneca provided a list of how many vaccines it had provided to each country, which the company, and the British government, has been desperate to keep secret.

The Cypriot commissioner dropped a bombshell. Brussels would introduce an “export transparency mechanism” by the end of the week, Ms Kyriakides said.

Cyprus’s EU commissioner said that manufacturers in the EU would have to ask Brussels for permission before exporting vaccines out of the bloc.

The threat of an EU export ban was clear. Britain, less than a month out of the Brexit transition period and expecting almost 3.5 million vaccines from Pfizer’s Belgian plant, was in the firing line.

It was the first of many signals that, as far as the commission was concerned, British public opinion of Brussels simply no longer mattered.

In Germany, Mr Spahn broadcast his approval of the plans for the export ban. Although German government sources strongly deny it, many suspect his ministry was responsible for incorrect stories in the Handelsblatt newspaper that the AstraZeneca jab was only 8 per cent effective in the over 65’s.

On Tuesday, AstraZeneca’s CEO hit back. There was no contractual obligation to supply the vaccines beyond an obligation on the company to make “best reasonable efforts” to provide it, he said.

The company’s two production plants in Britain could help with the EU supply but, under the terms of the supply contract with the UK, only after a British order of 100 million jabs had been supplied.

An infuriated Brussels hit back hard on Wednesday. It demanded that AstraZeneca divert supplies of millions of UK-manufactured vaccines to the bloc and accused Mr Soriot of breaching confidentiality by revealing details of the contract.

It called on Mr Soriot, who endured another EU meeting that day, to agree to the publication of the bloc’s Advance Purchase Agreement.

Ms Kyriakides said the firm had "contractual, societal and moral obligations" to use all its facilities to make up the shortfall, and that there was "no hierarchy of factories".

MEPs began to talk of a vaccine trade war unless the pharma company caved to the demands. Britain made clear its vaccines were going nowhere.

AstraZeneca was under intense pressure and huge reputational risk in the EU. Boris Johnson wisely refused to be drawn into the row, insisting it was purely between AstraZeneca and his EU allies.


The prime minister, long ridiculed on the Continent for his support of Brexit, was looking like the only adult in the room as the commission grew more and more shrill in its demands. In contrast, the Government called for constructive dialogue to solve the issue.

On Thursday, Belgian authorities, acting on a European Commission request, raided AstraZeneca’s plant in the French-speaking region in Wallonia.

The reason was to see if the company’s explanation of production problems was genuine but another motivation was to keep the pressure on the company.

Having secured AstraZeneca’s permission to release a redacted version of the contract, Mrs von der Leyen had a devastating salvo planned for Friday.

After the contract was released, the commission pointed to clauses that supported its arguments.

In one, AstraZeneca appeared to confirm that no other agreement would interfere with its supplies. Another clause said that, for the purposes of the deal, the two UK factories should be considered part of the EU.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/0 ... y-exposed/

[Atlantis]

@Atlantis Accusing the UK of deliberately infecting Portugal and "stealing" vaccines is pretty unhinged, even by your standards. Get over yourself.

Why don't you comment about what I wrote instead of your usual ad hominem when you run out of arguments?

1) It's a fact that British tourists have been spreading the new virus variant because they just don't care as long as they can party. I have seen crowds of British tourists in my local supermarket without masks and without distancing. I did not say "the UK deliberately infected Portugal". The result is that we have spiraling death rates and no more ICUs a month later.

British variant will account for 65% of all Covid cases in Portugal within three weeks

They do that everywhere where they are still allowed to go.

Hundreds of British tourists flee quarantine in Switzerland

2) It's a fact that AstraZeneca continues to supply the UK while cutting supplies to the EU by two thirds. The British weasel company is in breach of contract with the connivance of the British government.

Thousands will die as a consequence.

@Rugoz, the rule of law provides that companies defaulting on their contractual obligations can be prosecuted and punished in accordance with law.

Don't make bold statements when you don't know what you are talking about.

[noemon]

The CEO of Astra Zeneca is open about the company's prioritisation of the UK. He says that he has a contractual obligation to the UK government to 'supply it first'.

The EU retorts that the company has a clause that no other contractual obligations will restrict the delivery of its order which the company has reneged twice now.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brit ... SKBN29Z0GO

The export measures will be introduced to count what and where is being delivered.

To address this very serious and immediate public health issue, the Commission has adopted a temporary export transparency and export authorisation mechanism on the basis of Regulation 2015/479 on common rules for exports.

This is not an export ban. This measure would specifically target exports of COVID-19 vaccines covered by an Advance Purchase Agreement (APA) with the EU. These exports will be subject to an early notification and authorisation before they are effectively shipped outside the EU.

This measure applies from 30 January 2021 and runs until 31 March 2021.

A large number of exports will be exempted from the mechanism.

Does the Commission measure cover trade between the EU Member States?

An export authorisation foreseen in the Regulation is required for exports outside the Union market (whether or not originating in the Union).

Such authorisation shall be granted by the competent authorities of the Member State where the vaccines are manufactured and shall be issued in writing or by electronic means.

[Seeker8]

I'm deeply shocked and surprised that it took the EU less than a month to attempt to violate the sacred Good Friday Agreement.

Don't think that's true.

[Atlantis]

@noemon, @B0ycey, "best effort" clauses are common in high-risk business. I have worked on dozens of contracts with best effort clauses in the space industry.

In this case, the best effort clause means that AstraZeneca will make its best effort to develop and produce the vaccine and get it approved. If it fails, like GSK/Sanofi, it's no longer bound by the terms of the contract. If it succeeds, as AstraZeneca, it has to deliver as per contract.

What the "best effort" clause does not mean is that AstraZeneca has to make its best efforts for the UK and its worst effort for the EU. That is not what it means!

It also does not mean that the EU's agreement with AstraZeneca is in any way limited by agreements AZ may have with other parties such as the UK. There is nothing in the contract giving priority to the UK. The contract specifically mentions four AZ production facilities, two in the EU and two in the UK, from which the vaccine can be supplied.

AstraZeneca is in breach of contract if it does not supply 80 million doses to the EU by March 2021.

All of this is crystal clear and unambiguous. There is no way AstraZeneca can wiggle its way out of this one.

The Commissioner made that quite clear:

Remarks by Commissioner Stella Kyriakides on vaccines

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

I last communicated with you on Monday to express our serious concerns regarding the intention of AstraZeneca to supply considerably fewer doses in the coming weeks than agreed and announced.

Since then, we have been making all efforts to resolve the situation.

We convened a third meeting of the Steering Board on Monday night, which resulted again in insufficient explanations from the company, and deep dissatisfaction among the Member States.

Let me be crystal clear: the 27 European Union Member States are united that AstraZeneca needs to deliver on its commitments in our agreement.

We are in a pandemic. We lose people every day.

These are not numbers. They are not statistics. These are persons, with families, with friends and colleagues that are all affected as well.

Pharmaceutical companies, vaccine developers, have moral, societal and contractual responsibilities, which they need to uphold.

The view that the company is not obliged to deliver because we signed a ‘best effort' agreement is neither correct nor is it acceptable.

We signed an Advance Purchase Agreement for a product which at the time did not exist, and which still today is not yet authorised. And we signed it precisely to ensure that the company builds the manufacturing capacity to produce the vaccine early, so that they can deliver a certain volume of doses the day that it is authorised.

The logic of these agreements was as valid then as it is now: we provide a de-risking investment up front, in order to get a binding commitment from the company to pre-produce, even before it gets authorisation.

Not being able to ensure manufacturing capacity is against the letter and the spirit of our agreement.

We reject the logic of first come, first served. That may work at the neighbourhood butchers, but not in contracts. And not in our Advance Purchase Agreements.

There's no priority clause in the Advance Purchase Agreement.

And there's also no hierarchy of the four production plants named in the Advance Purchase Agreement. Two are located in the EU and two are located in UK.

We intend to defend the integrity of our investments and the taxpayers' money that has been invested.

We remain always open to engage with the company to resolve any outstanding issues in the spirit of true collaboration and responsibility.

That was always the spirit of our engagement with vaccine manufacturers since last spring.

This evening, at 18:30, the Steering Board will convene again.

I call on AstraZeneca to engage fully, to rebuild trust, to provide complete information and to live up to its contractual, societal and moral obligations.

[Atlantis]

Don't think that's true.

True, but that doesn't fit the narrative of the jingoistic British media which has worked itself into an EU-bashing frenzy.

Article 16 of the Ireland/NI protocol allows for unilateral export controls in response to an unexpected negative effect arising from the agreement. Vaccines being smuggled to the UK via a NI backdoor would certainly qualify.

[B0ycey]

@noemon, @B0ycey, "best effort" clauses are common in high-risk business. I have worked on dozens of contracts with best effort clauses in the space industry.

That's for the lawyers to decide I suspect. But the way I read it the best effort is in regards to delivery shipment on first quarter. Although that is separate to the UK contract and as such a internal affair between Astrazenica and the EU. Which means the UK has stolen no vaccines from the EU and are a bystander who are expecting their own contract to be honoured so you were wrong on that point. But I am not surprised by the EUs position and support their action on disclosure actually. But that isn't going to resolve this issue and ultimately if you want to get anywhere fast perhaps its time for diplomacy.

[wat0n]

Found the contract here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/fi ... zeneca.pdf



The contract is ok, AstraZeneca is prioritising the UK based on the order being made earlier, since before the EU had authorised the money.

Q&A EU
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pressco ... nda_21_308

I wonder if the confidential/sensitive parts of the contract may actually be relevant for assessing whether AstraZeneca has carried out its "best effort" to deliver the vaccines.