[ness31]

I don’t understand the ‘raid’ story.

[noemon]

The EU "raided" Astrazeneca's Halix plant in the Netherlands to determine why the plant is not producing vaccines for the EU. The raid in the Halix plant in the Netherlands traced 29 million vaccines in a storage facility in Italy and the EU demanded explanations.

AZ came up with the story: "these vaccines were produced outside the EU and are intended for the EU".

Hoping that by telling the EU that "it's theirs", they will put a lid on it.

Their reply also intends to claim that these vaccines were not produced in the Halix plant which according to Astrazeneca is not supposed to be producing(but is evidently secretly producing for the UK despite being contracted by the EU and not the UK) but at another undisclosed location outside the EU.

The EU is now considering whether to pursue this further and take both AZ and the UK to court and drag them through the mud(which is precisely what they deserve after months of propaganda and lies) or simply take the vaccines and let it go.

[Rugoz]

No evidence provided by the article, all the statements made by unnamed "British experts" who can safely be dismissed as worthless.

Wtf are you even talking about? Most of the article quotes Sébastien De Rey, a contract law specialist at Leuven University.

The article is the best evidence we have so far. You are the one with an obvious agenda.

[noemon]

Wtf are you even talking about? Most of the article quotes Sébastien De Rey, a contract law specialist at Leuven University. The article is the best evidence we have so far. You are the one with an obvious agenda.

Lying proves beyond any doubt that you have an agenda and like all trolls with an agenda the uppermost you can achieve is mud-slinging.

The article cites Sebastien de Rey only once and that is in favour of the EU's argument that the 2 contracts are essentially the same with slightly more detail on the UK's one. When the article begins expanding on this 'detail', it stops citing De Rey(curious to see your explanation on that, why start with De Rey and not expand on his legal analysis?) and is instead citing:

officials with knowledge of the U.K. contract say the British government was a more active participant

One official close to the U.K. contract

This article is the best evidence of the details of the contract we have so far indeed but it does not mean that these unnamed officials count for anything whatsoever.

They count for nothing and if anything they count for the exact opposite of what they claim. And more importantly this article does not in any way justify either AZ's or the UK's behaviour even if we take everything on their word.

[Rugoz]

The article cites Sebastien de Rey only once and that is in favour of the EU's argument that the 2 contracts are essentially the same with slightly more detail on the UK's one. When the article begins expanding on this 'detail', it stops citing De Rey(curious to see your explanation on that, why start with De Rey and not expand on his legal analysis?) and is instead citing:

Sébastien De Rey is mentioned 3 times in the article and the article is even published on the website of his university, which suggests he was crucial in writing it:
https://www.law.kuleuven.be/home/onderz ... ommitments

[noemon]

Sébastien De Rey is mentioned 3 times in the article and the article is even published on the website of his university, which suggests he was crucial in writing it:
https://www.law.kuleuven.be/home/onderz ... ommitments

Quote the alleged 3 times Sebastien is cited, full sentence. Also it is obvious that even Sebastien is citing 'unnamed British officials' telling him what is what about the contract and not the contract itself even in this page you have linked which is identical to the Politico article(obscurity on the nth).

Do you want to see what else the article cites:

As with supply chains, the timeline is also disputed. But it does appear that the U.K. got an earlier start on the ground — even though that’s not clear on paper.

Obscurity is written across the entire page. As Sebastien tells us the important bits have been redacted.

And most importantly, the Brits claiming with obscurity that their contract is superior does not justify Astrazeneca's behaviour or the UK's in any way shape or form even if we take these "unnamed officials" cited at their word.

Astrazeneca failed to provide a delivery update on the EU's vaccines until its ghost plant in the EU was raided and 29 million vaccines were found sitting in a storage facility in Italy.

Nothing in the article justifies this, in any way shape or form.

The Commission has been asking the UK to talk about AZ vaccines for at least 2 months and not only she is being given the cold shoulder but is also outright ridiculed constantly, now Boris wants to talk.

Which part from the article justifies this behaviour?

[ness31]

Where are all the vaccines? One minute they’re being suspended, the next there’s a massive shortage and Italy is blocking 250 thousand doses to Australia.

What a weird time to be alive.

[Rugoz]

Quote the 3 times Sebastien is cited, full sentence.

Search for De Rey, it's even bold under the above link.

The most relevant part to me is this:

The starkest example of this difference is a clause in the U.K. contract stating that if any party tries to force or persuade AstraZeneca or its subcontractors to do anything that could hold up the supply of the vaccine doses, the government may terminate the deal and invoke what appear to be punishment clauses — although these are largely redacted.

The EU, on the other hand, can only withhold payments until the company delivers the goods, or until it helps find more producers to make the vaccine. And as POLITICO reported last week, the non-redacted version of the contract shows that the EU also waived its right to sue AstraZeneca in the event of delivery delays.

The UK seems to have the legal means to punish AZ for delays while the EU does not.

Which part from the article justifies this behaviour?

As far as I can tell AZ is simply trying to avoid legal problems with both the EU and the UK. That's what any company would do in that situation.

Besides, I don't trust the commission under Von der Leyen any more than I do trust Johnson.

[noemon]

Search for De Rey, it's even bold under the above link.

So you cannot cite the 3 instances you allege he was cited. Cool.

The most relevant part to me is this

Of course it is and as I told you several posts ago and you protested, it is attributed to "British experts" and not to Sebastien.

You willingly forgot to post the whole paragraph:

This core difference, according to a lawyer familiar with the development of the U.K. text...

So to recap:

1) The claim by "British experts" is weak according to the Politico itself: https://www.politico.eu/article/astrazeneca-best-efforts-defense-coronavirus-vaccine-fallout/

2) It's unattributed.

3) You should read the Politico's article why AZ hiding behind "best efforts" is nonsense.

As far as I can tell AZ is simply trying to avoid legal problems with both the EU and the UK. That's what any company would do in that situation.

That doesn't cut it. The UK would never take AZ to court but if it did that is between them.

Try explaining to the world that the UK will take AZ to court for prioritising the UK and for acting as of part of it's government.

Do you even believe your own nonsense? I doubt it.

The fact remains that AZ has been factually lying and using EU factories to supply the UK with vaccines made in the EU while refusing these vaccines from the EU all the while Boris and the British press are publishing uber nationalist articles praising the AZ affair for Brexit.

Besides, I don't trust the commission under Von der Leyen any more than I do trust Johnson.

I was with Johnson on this one for the past few months in here until it became crystal obvious that the UK and Astrazeneca have been lying through their teeth.

Italy is blocking 250 thousand doses to Australia.

The EU has taken full control of all exports from the continent and will not authorise any AZ vaccine export to countries that are ahead of itself on a per capita basis as stated repeatedly by EU officials and cheered by the European public who are being treated like 'useful idiots'.

These export controls are the direct result of AZ's and the UK's behaviour and were being threatened for a long time before they actually got activated in case the UK and AZ changed their tune.

[Rugoz]

So you cannot cite the 3 instances you allege he was cited. Cool.

So you cannot search for De Rey in a page? Cool.

Of course it is and as I told you several posts ago and you protested, it is attributed to "British experts" and not to Sebastien.

The article doesn't always make it clear what be attributed to whom, but to me this is statement of fact, not opinion:

The starkest example of this difference is a clause in the U.K. contract stating that if any party tries to force or persuade AstraZeneca or its subcontractors to do anything that could hold up the supply of the vaccine doses, the government may terminate the deal and invoke what appear to be punishment clauses — although these are largely redacted.

So unless the journalists fucked up, I take this for a fact.

That doesn't cut it. The UK would never take AZ to court but if it did that is between them.

The fact remains that AZ has been factually lying and using EU factories to supply the UK with vaccines made in the EU while refusing these vaccines from the EU all the while Boris and the British press are publishing uber nationalist articles praising the AZ affair for Brexit.

I don't read the British press. I read the German press and it's mostly dumb EU propaganda.

[noemon]

So you cannot search for De Rey in a page? Cool.

Your failure to produce evidence for your claim is noted.

The article doesn't always make it clear what be attributed to whom, but to me this is statement of fact, not opinion:
So unless the journalists fucked up, I take this for a fact.

And to me both yourself and the unnamed British experts you cite are worthless sources. Beyond my own opinion it's a fact, and as long as this fabled UK contract remains intentionally unpublished you do not have any leg to stand on, literally.

Beyond that, it's merely a distraction, even if we take them on their word, it's still irrelevant to the fact that Astrazeneca has been blatantly lying to the EU.

[ness31]

The EU has taken full control of all exports from the continent and will not authorise any AZ vaccine export to countries that are ahead of itself on a per capita basis as stated repeatedly by EU officials and cheered by the European public who are being treated like 'useful idiots'.

These export controls are the direct result of AZ's and the UK's behaviour and were being threatened for a long time before they actually got activated in case the UK and AZ changed their tune.

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

This is the website I’m using to compare countries, so I understand the EUs frustration.

Scarcity of vaccines...what a novel idea.

[Rugoz]

Your failure to produce evidence for your claim is noted.

What the holy fuck. It's Ctrl+F, type De Rey. Voila. 3 hits.

And to me both yourself and the unnamed British experts you cite are worthless sources. Beyond my own opinion it's a fact, and as long as this fabled UK contract remains intentionally unpublished you do not have any leg to stand on, literally.

Who said it was unpublished?
https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov ... 99aecc753d

The paragraph in the article refers to 9.4 respectively 23. Why would they mention the redaction of a part otherwise .

[noemon]

What the holy fuck. It's Ctrl+F, type De Rey. Voila. 3 hits.

You claimed Sebastien was cited 3 times, quote the 3 times and prove yourself. However irrelevant it may be, it's your claim, so prove it.

Who said it was unpublished?
https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov ... 99aecc753d

The paragraph in the article refers to 9.4 respectively 23. Why would they mention the redaction of a part otherwise .

All the papers in the UK citing "national security" concerns.

From a quick view one can clearly see:

“Best Reasonable Efforts” means the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar
size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake
or use at the relevant stage of development or commercialisation, having regard to the urgent
need for a vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues,
restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into
account efficacy and safety;

Identical to the EU's.

Date signed redacted as well. Most important parts redacted.

The date was after the EU's as reported by Politico further trashing the UK's claims of "first come first served".

[Rugoz]

You claimed Sebastien was cited 3 times, quote the 3 times and prove yourself. However irrelevant it may be, it's your claim, so prove it.

Troll someone else.

From a quick view one can clearly see:

That's not 9.4, nor 23.

The date was after the EU's as reported by Politico further trashing the UK's claims of "first come first served".

I suppose Politico is only trustworthy if it trashes UK claims.

[noemon]

Troll someone else.

Not only you are the one who insulted me in the first place but now you fail to do a simple thing, like quote the 3 instances you claim exist.

I suppose Politico is only trustworthy if it trashes UK claims.

Politico is absolutely fine, the 'unnamed British experts' are not.

That's not 9.4, nor 23.

Do you have a point that you want to elaborate or that has not already been addressed?

If you do let it out.

What is it now? The UK ordered first, the EU was too late? As we both know it's factually false.

What other? That the UK will take AZ to court for prioritising the UK and behaving like the official Department of Health of the country?

Nice one.

How will you justify that Astrazeneca has delivered only 17 million doses out of 100 million contracted?

How will you justify the blatant lies?

With your silence and insulting snipes?

Get over yourself.

[Rugoz]

Do you have a point that you want to elaborate or that has not already been addressed?

If you do let it out.

That's the part the article was referring to, the fact you claimed was just an opinion of a British expert.

This is absolutely hopeless.

[noemon]

That's the part the article was referring to, the fact you claimed was just an opinion of a British expert.
This is absolutely hopeless.

It is hopeless when you cannot even speak for yourself or even prove your own claims however simple those may be.

Make your case if you believe you have one. Elaborate it clearly so that we know what you are talking about. I will respond to something and then you will claim, "no I meant something else" like all trolls who fail and go around in circles.

If you have a point to make, do it.

[noemon]

New tone Telegraph article and comments battle:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... s-oxfords/

Astrazeneca should sue the Telegraph and the British government for politicising its vaccines, preventing it from making any deliveries from 3 out of 4 of the contracted plants and for turning the company into a Brexit firecracker.

[JohnRawls]

New tone Telegraph article and comments battle:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... s-oxfords/

Astrazeneca should sue the Telegraph and the British government for politicising its vaccines, preventing it from making any deliveries from 3 out of 4 of the contracted plants and for turning the company into a Brexit firecracker.

UK did 27 million vaccinations and 21 million of those came from the EU. If we block the shipments then UK vaccination program will grind to an almost stand still.