EU Contract With AstraZeneca

Thankfully they went and did a Boris.

 

In all the noise of this thread there are some basic facts that need pulling out:

1. The EU has failed its citizens in relation to its vaccination program and should be held accountable

2. The EU politicised the AZ situation immediately by singling out the UK and attacking via article 16

3. The EU has “been forced into a humiliating u-turn” regarding Northern Ireland (quoted from the Guardian)

4. The EU has signed up for 17% of the global supply of the AZ vaccine despite accounting for 5% of the global population - that doesn’t really marry up with their rhetoric aimed at the UK and around thr myth that they are taking care of the world as well themselves over vaccines

 

Unless they read Sadbrewer's succinct summary of it.

 

Re 4., I think you ought to post the relative percentages for the UK in the interests of balance?

 

Haven't we been told that the supply issue in the UK is that they have the vaccine available but not enough vials to put them in and that it's not a UK lack of planning or competency issue but a worldwide problem?

That directly contradicts the AZ interview above which says that they've got millions of vials sat empty and no issues at that end in Europe.

So it's not a worldwide issue then it's a UK issue right?

 

I am not a lawyer either and indeed the EU/AZ contract does state that vaccine is to be supplied from EU factories and that it considers the UK part of the EU for this purpose. However although they are prepared to accept vaccine manufactured in the UK, it does not mean they are entitled to it.
For once the British have got their towels over the sun beds first and the Germans don’t like it

 

The UK has UK first supply from AZ written into its contract with AZ. The UK and AZ have made no secret of that fact and that the technology and manufacturing process for the UK supply chain was specifically developed by Oxford with support of the UK government for the UK.

Once certain volumes have been hit then a proportion of UK supply is diverted elsewhere across the world (not just to the EU).

If you read the article it explains it all.

 

Of course it does mean that. Forget countries in the ordering process for a second because they aren't really important here. Instead think of two companies Conservative PLC and Commission ltd. Conservative plc placed an order with AstraZeneca and a few months later Commission ltd placed an placed an order with AstraZeneca. The contract that AstraZeneca signed with Commission ltd stated that they (AZ) would supply them from their privately owned stocks manufactured throughout the EU and UK.

AZ own the stock of vaccines. They signed a contract stating that they would use the stocks manufactured here and the EU to supply commission ltd. It's legally binding and you can't say they aren't entitled to it. Why aren't they? AstraZeneca signed a contract stating they would use those stocks to supply commission ltd.

Now we haven't seen the conservative plc contract so it's quite possible that it contradicts commission ltd's contract and makes it impossible to fulfill both contracts but that is not the fault of commission ltd is it? That's solely the fault of AstraZeneca for signing two conflicting contracts that they knew would be impossible to fulfill due to the conflicting clauses.

 

My initial view regarding the AZ deal with the EU had nothing to do with my views on Brexit or the Tory party. Indeed, how could they given they both have zero relevance on events?

It's quite clear that the consequences of Brexit gave the UK a significant negotiating advantage compared to the EU in terms of getting contracts sorted quickly. The government got this part right aided by having a part UK based pharmaceutical company to work with. This clearly rankles with a bureaucratic EU who insisted that its members had to wait until they negotiated on behalf of everyone, much to their annoyance. The resulting Eire/N. Ireland debacle was pathetic and looked like an organisation hitting the panic button.

Having listened to various lawyers I've changed my initial view about the contract, it would seem that the EU wouldn't have put it in the public domain had it been clear cut that it was broken. They'd have just taken them to court.

What's most surprising is how the EU was so reliant on just a few places to manufacture the drug and its components.

Despite all that it's people getting a vaccine that's important and people will die because if it. I hope something can be sorted out for their sakes, especially when the UK has plenty of extra vaccinations not being used.

 

Which begs the question why did az sign a contract specifically saying that UK manufactured stocks would be used to supply the EU when they knew that was impossible due to the conflicting clause in the UK contract? Nobody has come out of this looking good really.

The UK looks bad because we don't have enough vials when millions sit empty in the EU.
EU look bad because they have millions of vials and nothing to put in them.
AstraZeneca look bad for signing two conflicting contracts which have caused that stupid situation while people die.

 

It was my initial opinion. I'm happy to admit I've changed my mind.

 

I'm sure you've misread that clause. It means they'd usage best reasonable efforts to only use EU/uk supplies not that they'd use best reasonable efforts to be allowed to use the UK supply

 

The issue is between the EU and AZ. The UK has a clear contract with AZ.

Clearly the EU has (at best) failed in its due dilligence when agreeing the contract with AZ. At worst it’s using AZ as a smokescreen for its incompetent handling of its own vaccination program.

The only organisation responsible and accountable for implementing an effective vaccination program for EU citizens is the EU itself.

 

I agree that it's a been a complete shambles on the EU's part, but then nobody ever said the EU was perfect, just better than the crap we've got now.

However, I still don't get why AZ gave preferential supply to the UK at a time when everyone needs the vaccine, particularly when we are commendably ahead of the game - not much leveling up going on. If there was a genuine reason for a shortage, the remaining supply should have been shared out equitably between AZ's customers. It's pretty obvious to me that our government has bean leaning on AZ.

 

Why do you say the UK has a clear contract but the EU doesn't? Why is ours automatically the clear one but the one stating uk supplies are part of the EU contract isn't clear?

I don't think it's even legal to force a company to show you it's contracts with other people in order to find out if they've signed something they know they can't provide.

And I'll say again the fact that AstraZeneca owns millions of vials sat empty in europe and the UK didn't sign a contract to take some looks very bad on the UK. At least the EU made sure it it that clause into their contract even if AstraZeneca are now backtracking on it.

 

I can only assume because that’s what the contract states due to the reasons laid out regarding the UK supply chain and R&D carried out by Oxford. It seems very specific.

It’s all well and good talking about sending UK supply elsewhere because we are ahead of the game but we are still vaccinating our most vulnerable age groups. It’s not like 18 year olds in the UK are getting it at the expense of elderly in other countries.

Would you give up your parent’s or grandparent’s dose to send it elsewhere at the moment?

 

Thank **** we are out of it.

 

If I’m wrong then the EU will take AZ to court and win.

 

The EU are in the wrong over this and they know it. It’s all a load of hot air to ‘justify’ them hijacking Phizer vaccines intended for the UK. You just watch them. In all probability the final impetus for it will be provided by Nicola Sturgeon when she publishes the UK vaccine stocks next week.

 

Not got any..
But you have a valid point, not many would. You have to bear in mind that for whatever reason, Europe has barely started vaccinating the elderly and vulnerable.