Pfizer warns EU to back down on Covid vaccine threats to UK

[cromwell]

Suggest you catch up Gerry, you clearly don't know what you're precious EU is up to.

https://europeanlawblog.eu/2020/06/22/macrons-call-for-a-european-army-still-echoing-or-forgotten/

And as usual you just ignore the bits that you don't like: So again I ask you, how will the EU stop a country from exporting anything if they decide they are going to ignore them? Simple question.

Yep you wont get an answer unless it's the lying English media falsified that vid.

[Nick]

First the EU doesn't want it's own army, more Brexiteer "project fear".

Second cast your memory back and the fuss over the EU using the NI protocol to stop shipments of vaccines to the UK, this was quickly withdrawn. Well the EU recgonised that was the wrong way to go about it so they introduced legislation to allow the EU, acting on behalf of it's members to prevent the export of vaccines in limited circumstances. Which means the EU, can very easily, stop the export of vaccines from the block. So again your wrong. Your lack of understanding of what the EU is and how it works is never to be underestimated.
https://www.euronews.com/2021/03/24/uk-may-face-harder-job-getting-eu-vaccines-after-brussels-tightens-export-rules

Just like the UK bans the export of medicines, ironic how people in the UK were outraged at the EU suggesting it may take a course of action that the UK is taking.
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-coronavirus-vaccine-astrazeneca-export-boris-johnson/

Suggest you catch up Gerry, you clearly don't know what you're precious EU is up to.

https://europeanlawblog.eu/2020/06/22/macrons-call-for-a-european-army-still-echoing-or-forgotten/

And as usual you just ignore the bits that you don't like: So again I ask you, how will the EU stop a country from exporting anything if they decide they are going to ignore them? Simple question.

[GerryT]

Well that's where you're wrong Gerry. If a country wants to ship anything there is not a thing the EU can do to stop it. They can levy a fine but the country can not pay it. They can try and enforce economic sanctions but the surrounding countries can tell them to whistle.

Do you get it now? The EU relies on rules and if a country decides to ignore them there is nothing they can do.

The UK however can physically stop things by using the police, army and put people in jail if they wish, that is the difference. Why do you think the EU wants its own army? It's cause they think they will be able to control the members.

First the EU doesn't want it's own army, more Brexiteer "project fear".

Second cast your memory back and the fuss over the EU using the NI protocol to stop shipments of vaccines to the UK, this was quickly withdrawn. Well the EU recgonised that was the wrong way to go about it so they introduced legislation to allow the EU, acting on behalf of it's members to prevent the export of vaccines in limited circumstances. Which means the EU, can very easily, stop the export of vaccines from the block. So again your wrong. Your lack of understanding of what the EU is and how it works is never to be underestimated.
https://www.euronews.com/2021/03/24/uk-may-face-harder-job-getting-eu-vaccines-after-brussels-tightens-export-rules

Just like the UK bans the export of medicines, ironic how people in the UK were outraged at the EU suggesting it may take a course of action that the UK is taking.
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-coronavirus-vaccine-astrazeneca-export-boris-johnson/

[Nick]

The UK contract has no clause that states the uk should get delivery first.
The UK seems to think uk law and their contract is superior. Now where have we heard that before, exceptionalist uk thinking. I pretty much dismantled that politico article. Pity you didnt use those superior negotiators to look after johnsons trade deal, those lads needed alot of help. Hows that border down the middle of the uk working out ?
Many companies are making vaccines in the eu and if the eu wants to stop them being shipped out of the eu then the eu will, and you know what the uk can do about that, nothing.

Do you think its right that the uk are barring exports of vaccines from the uk ?

Well that's where you're wrong Gerry. If a country wants to ship anything there is not a thing the EU can do to stop it. They can levy a fine but the country can not pay it. They can try and enforce economic sanctions but the surrounding countries can tell them to whistle.

Do you get it now? The EU relies on rules and if a country decides to ignore them there is nothing they can do.

The UK however can physically stop things by using the police, army and put people in jail if they wish, that is the difference. Why do you think the EU wants its own army? It's cause they think they will be able to control the members.

[GerryT]

It's called having a contract that is backed by English law and not some wishy washy contract that says best effort.

You still haven't pointed to what makes these jabs manufactured by the EU.

The UK contract has no clause that states the uk should get delivery first.
The UK seems to think uk law and their contract is superior. Now where have we heard that before, exceptionalist uk thinking. I pretty much dismantled that politico article. Pity you didnt use those superior negotiators to look after johnsons trade deal, those lads needed alot of help. Hows that border down the middle of the uk working out ?
Many companies are making vaccines in the eu and if the eu wants to stop them being shipped out of the eu then the eu will, and you know what the uk can do about that, nothing.

Do you think its right that the uk are barring exports of vaccines from the uk ?

[Nick]

The UK only gave £65.5m for the development. The EU gave €336m and the USA gave $1b last May. [HIGHLIGHT]WHy is it AZ want to give the UK priority, would love to know the "special" backhander deal Johnson gave AZ[/HIGHLIGHT], most be well worth AZ's undying priority.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/21/coronavirus-us-gives-astrazenena-1-billion-for-oxford-vaccine.html

It's called having a contract that is backed by English law and not some wishy washy contract that says best effort.

You still haven't pointed to what makes these jabs manufactured by the EU.

[GerryT]

Care to share the name of the facility and where it is that is making these Jabs?

The UK only gave £65.5m for the development. The EU gave €336m and the USA gave $1b last May. WHy is it AZ want to give the UK priority, would love to know the "special" backhander deal Johnson gave AZ, most be well worth AZ's undying priority.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/21/coronavirus-us-gives-astrazenena-1-billion-for-oxford-vaccine.html

[Nick]

Pfizers

Pfizer Inc. is an American multinational pharmaceutical corporation. Pfizer is one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies, and was ranked 64th on the 2020 Fortune 500 list of the largest U.S. corporations by total revenue, at $47.644 billion as of December 31, 2020.

AstraZeneca plc is a British-Swedish multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology company with its headquarters at the Cambridge Biomedical Campus in Cambridge, England.

Moderna, Inc is an American pharmaceutical and biotechnology company based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. It focuses on drug discovery, drug development, and vaccine technologies based on messenger RNA.

Care to point to how any of these companies constitute being the E.U?

[GerryT]

Care to share the name of the facility and where it is that is making these Jabs?

It's not 1 there's many. No just AZ but Pfizers, Moderna etc...

[Nick]

What you don't realise is the supply chain can involve up to 20 different countries and if all countries manufacturing did what the UK and USA did, that is ban the export of vaccines then the global effort to combat CV19 would be hampered.
But the EU can do exactly that if it wishes, but being the adult in the room it's not playing vaccine nationalism like the UK are.

[HIGHLIGHT]The Uk has got over 20m vaccines from the EU, that's right, the EU. Not a company in the EU and not a country in the EU but the EU.[/HIGHLIGHT] And if the EU wants to stop that flow it can do it tomorrow.

Care to share the name of the facility and where it is that is making these Jabs?

[GerryT]

Agh you can't beat loads of personal comments to win an argument around here

[GerryT]

Don't think he realises the raw materials come from Yackshire and any disturbance in our direction will result in a similar disturbance going their way. #Newton

What you don't realise is the supply chain can involve up to 20 different countries and if all countries manufacturing did what the UK and USA did, that is ban the export of vaccines then the global effort to combat CV19 would be hampered.
But the EU can do exactly that if it wishes, but being the adult in the room it's not playing vaccine nationalism like the UK are.

The Uk has got over 20m vaccines from the EU, that's right, the EU. Not a company in the EU and not a country in the EU but the EU. And if the EU wants to stop that flow it can do it tomorrow.

[GerryT]

Who is talking about courts? Not me.

https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-the-eu-and-uk-astrazeneca-contracts/

A bit sloppy that article, lets examine it, or if you want just jump to the last point and that sums it up:
First claim
The U.K. contract is written in English law, which will judge whether both parties delivered the goods based on the exact wording of the contract. The EU contract is written in Belgian law, which focuses on whether both parties tried their best to deliver the goods and acted in good faith.
This would seem to go against the UK and not for the UK. The contract is written on "best efforts", AZ in an English court could just say we are making our best efforts and that should be good enough, whereas in the EU court a AZ would have to show they tried their best. Hard to do that when one customer gets 100% delivery and the other 30%.
Next
..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
So the EU has no clause to sue AZ while the UK does, so what, by the time a court case happened we will be all vaccinated. And some news for you, under contract law if one party is negligent in delivery of their part of the contract then that party cannot seek the protection of the contract, in other words if AZ say don't meet their delivery schedule as agreed then the EU could sue. This should have been pointed out by Politico. What was also not mentioned is the UK gave AZ full immunity for protection in the event there are side affects and future cases, this is something the contract would give AZ protection as they wouldn't be failing in their contract with the UK as they don't say there are no side affects. Again why is this not mentioned.
Next
Furthermore, officials with knowledge of the U.K. contract say the British government was a more active participant in the manufacturing of the home-grown vaccine — even though the U.K. contract was signed just a day after the one with the EU. This aggressive approach gave London a lead in securing AstraZeneca's doses.
This is waffle, as said above the UK court will look at the wording in the contract and not look at the fluffy bits. Who's to say what country played a more active role, the EU certainly gave a lot more money to AZ to develop the vaccine. But the point being AZ contract with the EU and UK are separate, it's not a competition. If AZ fails with the EU they can be sued and the EU can stop EU made vaccines being shipped to the UK, FACT.
Next
The U.K. contract makes it clear that London had thought through the entire Oxford/AstraZeneca supply chain, rather than just focusing on the delivery of the vaccines. The EU, by comparison, was more unclear, even as to where its plants would be.
Now that's a lie, the EU contract specifically mentions EU manufacturing sites and by name 2 in the UK. In comparison the UK doesn't do that. There is spin in the article, saying shortages in the UK supply would come from the EU sites but that didn't happen the other way!! the EU contracts specifically mentions the UK sites. Even the AZ MD said the EU contract was for manufacturing from only the EU sites, that was also a Lie uncovered with the publication of the contracts by the EU
Next
AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soriot made the argument that the U.K. had better vaccine supply because the U.K. signed an agreement for vaccines months earlier than the EU. Formally, this isn't true: The U.K. contract was signed on August 28, while the EU's was signed a day earlier on August 27.
Need I say any more, another lie from the AZ MD, he must be friends with Johnson. But importantly here he states the UK should get it's delivery first because the UK contract came first. SO following that logic, the AZ MD should be now prioritising EU deliveries seen as the EU contract was signed first.
Next
On the fact the Uk gave 65.5m in May and so helping AZ develop the drug the author comes up with this gem
"Protecting the U.K.'s supply was a central objective ... as that was being negotiated from April onwards," the official said. Even though this isn't explicitly stated in the contract, the official said that the government's role in the early stages of the vaccine meant "there is absolutely no way that AstraZeneca would have been able to enter a contract which gave away equal priority of access to the U.K. doses."
But somehow forgets to also point out 2 very important points.
First the EU gave AZ 336m, far more to the UK for both vaccine development and manufacturing sites, and NOT just manufacturing sites as the article suggested. Another lie, it could be said without the 336m AZ might still not have developed anything.
Second, when AZ signed the contract with the EU, the above quote suggests that AZ in signing that contract knew it wouldn't supply to the EU before first supplying the UK. If that were true then that's a very damming fact for AZ, while taking 336m from the EU and a order for 300m vaccines it was keeping to itself that it wouldn't in any way meet the delivery schedule as it prioritised an order with another country. If that were known from the start the EU would in all possibility backed another horse, and not one that lie's and schemes such as AZ.
Next
English contract law also has much more literal interpretation — what's on paper is what counts, lawyers say.
Again it points out the UK contract was based on "best efforts" and relies on whats in the contract that counts. Well that contract DOES NOT give the UK any priority over any other order with another country. So UK courts would seem to be a big disadvantage for the UK govt, wouldn't it.
Next
And this just rips apart any thought that the UK contract is better
The EU contract, by contrast, doesn't go into this level of detail about notification when manufacturing plans change. But it does have another remedy in the Belgian system, De Rey explains: If a company is in breach of a contract, the other party can appoint another producer to do the job at the expense of the company in breach.
Rather than suing AZ, which may come to nothing the EU has the power to throw many companies at manufacturing the AZ vaccine, with zero cost spared, pump billions into it and get the deliveries on time. No cost spared. Then at the end of the day when the dust settles the EU sends the bill to AZ, billions. That has to be far more powerful a measure that suing a company when all you really want are vaccines. Seems to me the EU negotiators were far better than the UK. But what's new, you only have to look at the Brexit negotiations and the UK trade deals with other countries to see who has the better people.

[cromwell]

Nor is Gerry. According to him Ursula Leyen can simply issue a fatwa and all exports from the EU cease.

A good lad our Gerry, but this fantasy of his about strapping Frauleins cracking the whip and him trembling in delighted anticipation is a tad worrying.

[Nick]

Nor is Gerry. According to him Ursula Leyen can simply issue a fatwa and all exports from the EU cease.

A good lad our Gerry, but this fantasy of his about strapping Frauleins cracking the whip and him trembling in delighted anticipation is a tad worrying.

Don't think he realises the raw materials come from Yackshire and any disturbance in our direction will result in a similar disturbance going their way. #Newton