Yes, maybe I'm being an idiot and someone can correct me but if the UK is only deemed part of the EU in section 5.4 it removes any ambiguity for all the other sections as the UK is definitely not included for 5.1 or anywhere else.
I expected the EU to fight this based on the ambiguity of whether the UK counted as being in the EU or not during the transition period but that's surely not possible now.
Yes, it's completely unambiguous. Spectacularly bad drafting, but not ambiguous drafting. I'm sure they didn't mean to exclude the UK manufacturing facility from 5.1, but that's what they've done. In fact, AZ would have been in breach of the contract if they'd been trying to manufacture the Initial Doses in the UK rather than in the EU.
Yes, actually that's a good point. If the UK is considered an acceptable manufacturing site for the purposes of 5.4 but isn't listed in 5.1 then what mechanism exists for the EU to ask for supplies to be redirected?
This does seem somewhat of an own goal, but I don't speak legalese so maybe my reading is wrong.
5.1 seems to completely absolve AZN of any responsibility to manufacture the doses outside of the EU, regardless of what 5.4 says.
No, as there is a plausible ambiguity within 5.1, too. AZN is to use its BRE to manufacture within the EU, and to use its BRE to deliver the (redacted) number of doses. If the second part of the obligation meant to deliver only those doses manufactured within the EU, there wouldn't be a need for clause 5.4.
Yes there would because 5.4 is not about obligation. It is about where the EU will accept vaccine production without further checks/permission. It does not give the EU rights to production from the UK, only says that if AZN chooses to supply from the UK that is acceptable for the EU.
Hence the reason explicitly states it applies only to 5.4.
It is also about obligation: ...If AstraZeneca is unable to deliver on its intention to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses and/or Optional Doses under this Agreement in the EU, the Commission or the Participating Member States may present to AstraZeneca, CMOs within the EU capable of manufacturing the Vaccine Doses, and AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to contract with such proposed CMOs to increase the available manufacturing capacity within the EU. ...
The EU is actually hindering the world's response to the plague with this bullshit.
The head honchos at AZ should be spending their time working out ways of maximising current vaccine production, and planning ahead for next year's new vaccines. Instead they're wasting their time dealing with their worst customer and her insane and selfish ranting.
This. As I said yesterday - who thinks that any communication from AZN is not now going through a filter consisting of
- 10ks per hour of lawyers - 10ks per hour of political consultants - 10ks per hour of PR experts
Getting anything through such a filter will be somewhere between slow and impossible.
To be fair, none of those people are likely to be much involved with either strategy, or managing the day-to-day delivery. It'll likely occupy a lot of senior management time, but it's debateable whether that hinders or helps those underneath them actually doing the work.
The concern I have is that if you have 2 organisations co-operating on a friendly basis, then the lower level people can contact each other. So AZN middle manger can phone up an EU contact to get some paperwork on the import of set of new widgets expedited. etc etc
In legal lock down mode, all such communication gets cut off. The information has to flow to the filter structure, be processed by it, go through. When an answer is received, it has to be filtered back.
The result is much slower communication, and the risk that information is lost/not delivered.
Some of the people on the road to Brexit Damascus on here should reflect that Brexit, in the wider context, is anti-globalist.
Its anti-WHO, anti-critical race theory, anti detente with China, climate change agnostic, anti mass immigration, anti overseas aid and thinks Donald Trump was a 'breath of fresh air.'
Just sayin'
I'm reflecting on which bodily orifice you might be talking through.
5.1 relates just to the initial doses and instructs AZ to use best efforts to make them in the EU - not including the UK.
5.4 relates to making the vaccine longer term, initial and beyond. It instructs AZ to use best efforts to make them in the EU or UK but they can go outside that with EC permission.
5.5 says the AZ must inform the EC when they have selected their initial manufacturing sites.
So, AZ conclude that despite best efforts they will not be able to fulfill the 5.1 initial doses purely from EU sites. They therefore need to include the UK sites too. They inform the EC of this under 5.5.
Ergo the UK sites are explicitly included in the manufacture of the initial dose. 5.1 does not preclude this.
No drafting error.
(caveat: so long as "initial manufacturing sites" equates to "sites where the initial doses are manufactured")
Crux question -
Are AZ using best efforts to fill the EC order (inc from the UK sites)? Or are they using unjustifiably "bester" efforts to fill the UK's?
Unjustifiably bester? Unjustifiably as in the uk and the us financing 7 times greater? Unjustifibly as the eu contract isn't even with the firm that runs the UK plant?
5.1 relates just to the initial doses and instructs AZ to use best efforts to make them in the EU - not including the UK.
5.4 relates to making the vaccine longer term, initial and beyond. It instructs AZ to use best efforts to make them in the EU or UK but they can go outside that with EC permission.
5.5 says the AZ must inform the EC when they have selected their initial manufacturing sites.
So, AZ conclude that despite best efforts they will not be able to fulfill the 5.1 initial doses purely from EU sites. They therefore need to include the UK sites too. They inform the EC of this under 5.5.
Ergo the UK sites are explicitly included in the manufacture of the initial dose. 5.1 does not preclude this.
No drafting error.
(caveat: so long as "initial manufacturing sites" equates to "sites where the initial doses are manufactured")
Crux question -
Are AZ using best efforts to fill the EC order (inc from the UK sites)? Or are they using unjustifiably "bester" efforts to fill the UK's?
But you're contradicting yourself, the best reasonable efforts only applies to EU supply which as you rightly say doesn't include the UK.
The EU can't retroactively change the meaning of EU to include the UK because of transition status ambiguity because this is dealt with in 5.4 where it says the definition of EU is expanded to include the UK limited only to section 5.4, meaning sections not 5.4 don't include the UK within the definition of EU.
5.5 is irrelevant because we don't know what AZ informed the EC of wrt manufacturing sites for the order. 5.1 says EU and 5.4 says the UK isn't in the EU for anything other than 5.4, I think the AZ lawyers have played lawyerly tricks on the EC.
The key question is whether 5.1 can be read as:
"AstraZeneca shall use its Beast Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses within the EU for distribution AND AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to deliver to the Distribution Hubs..."
The comma is the key I think, and European legal systems seem to be much more willing construct contracts as they believe the parties intended it rather than exactly what was written, at least in my limited experience.
As a reminder the actual wording:
"AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses within the EU for distribution, and to deliver to the Distribution Hubs, following EU marketing authorisation..."
Lab's Education policy is all over the place at the moment.
This isn't going to get schools open more quickly, particularly in Secondary, as the issue is the mass mixing of households and community transmission.
My colleague has a compromised immune system, and is on the list of conditions that get vaccinated next. Plenty of my colleagues are over 50, so will be vaccinated in this programme. They need it more than I do (under 50, no serious health conditions). If I cop this thing, I've got more chance of survival than they do. That is literally where we are right now.
I need my old mum to be vaccinated, I need your old mum to be vaccinated. The mass vaccination of teachers, TAs etc instead of the older population and the unwell is not a sound policy, it's just a simplistic headline grabber. The goal here is to minimise deaths.
5.1 relates just to the initial doses and instructs AZ to use best efforts to make them in the EU - not including the UK.
5.4 relates to making the vaccine longer term, initial and beyond. It instructs AZ to use best efforts to make them in the EU or UK but they can go outside that with EC permission.
5.5 says the AZ must inform the EC when they have selected their initial manufacturing sites.
So, AZ conclude that despite best efforts they will not be able to fulfill the 5.1 initial doses purely from EU sites. They therefore need to include the UK sites too. They inform the EC of this under 5.5.
Ergo the UK sites are explicitly included in the manufacture of the initial dose. 5.1 does not preclude this.
No drafting error.
(caveat: so long as "initial manufacturing sites" equates to "sites where the initial doses are manufactured")
Crux question -
Are AZ using best efforts to fill the EC order (inc from the UK sites)? Or are they using unjustifiably "bester" efforts to fill the UK's?
But you're contradicting yourself, the best reasonable efforts only applies to EU supply which as you rightly say doesn't include the UK.
The EU can't retroactively change the meaning of EU to include the UK because of transition status ambiguity because this is dealt with in 5.4 where it says the definition of EU is expanded to include the UK limited only to section 5.4, meaning sections not 5.4 don't include the UK within the definition of EU.
5.5 is irrelevant because we don't know what AZ informed the EC of wrt manufacturing sites for the order. 5.1 says EU and 5.4 says the UK isn't in the EU for anything other than 5.4, I think the AZ lawyers have played lawyerly tricks on the EC.
The key question is whether 5.1 can be read as:
"AstraZeneca shall use its Beast Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses within the EU for distribution AND AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to deliver to the Distribution Hubs..."
The comma is the key I think, and European legal systems seem to be much more willing construct contracts as they believe the parties intended it rather than exactly what was written, at least in my limited experience.
As a reminder the actual wording:
"AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses within the EU for distribution, and to deliver to the Distribution Hubs, following EU marketing authorisation..."
All very interesting stuff, and I would love for an Oxford comma to be the reason the EU get nowhere with this bizarre fight
But doesn't the final clause in the sentence ALSO let AZ off the hook until marketing authorisation has been given? Iis that approval from the EMA?
5.1 relates just to the initial doses and instructs AZ to use best efforts to make them in the EU - not including the UK.
5.4 relates to making the vaccine longer term, initial and beyond. It instructs AZ to use best efforts to make them in the EU or UK but they can go outside that with EC permission.
5.5 says the AZ must inform the EC when they have selected their initial manufacturing sites.
So, AZ conclude that despite best efforts they will not be able to fulfill the 5.1 initial doses purely from EU sites. They therefore need to include the UK sites too. They inform the EC of this under 5.5.
Ergo the UK sites are explicitly included in the manufacture of the initial dose. 5.1 does not preclude this.
No drafting error.
(caveat: so long as "initial manufacturing sites" equates to "sites where the initial doses are manufactured")
Crux question -
Are AZ using best efforts to fill the EC order (inc from the UK sites)? Or are they using unjustifiably "bester" efforts to fill the UK's?
But you're contradicting yourself, the best reasonable efforts only applies to EU supply which as you rightly say doesn't include the UK.
The EU can't retroactively change the meaning of EU to include the UK because of transition status ambiguity because this is dealt with in 5.4 where it says the definition of EU is expanded to include the UK limited only to section 5.4, meaning sections not 5.4 don't include the UK within the definition of EU.
5.5 is irrelevant because we don't know what AZ informed the EC of wrt manufacturing sites for the order. 5.1 says EU and 5.4 says the UK isn't in the EU for anything other than 5.4, I think the AZ lawyers have played lawyerly tricks on the EC.
The key question is whether 5.1 can be read as:
"AstraZeneca shall use its Beast Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses within the EU for distribution AND AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to deliver to the Distribution Hubs..."
The comma is the key I think, and European legal systems seem to be much more willing construct contracts as they believe the parties intended it rather than exactly what was written, at least in my limited experience.
As a reminder the actual wording:
"AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses within the EU for distribution, and to deliver to the Distribution Hubs, following EU marketing authorisation..."
It's all part of the same commitment to manufacture initiant Europe doses within the EU and we know definition doesn't include the UK as part of the EU as section 5.4 makes very clear.
I think the EC have been flummoxed by lawyers ensuring that the UK's status was clearly defined somewhere in the contract to remove ambiguity.
Lab's Education policy is all over the place at the moment.
This isn't going to get schools open more quickly, particularly in Secondary, as the issue is the mass mixing of households and community transmission.
My colleague has a compromised immune system, and is on the list of conditions that get vaccinated next. Plenty of my colleagues are over 50, so will be vaccinated in this programme. They need it more than I do (under 50, no serious health conditions). If I cop this thing, I've got more chance of survival than they do. That is literally where we are right now.
I need my old mum to be vaccinated, I need your old mum to be vaccinated. The mass vaccination of teachers, TAs etc instead of the older population and the unwell is not a sound policy, it's just a simplistic headline grabber. The goal here is to minimise deaths.
This isn't the same as the crisis in the first lockdown. Vulnerable kids are back in school. Online teaching has had the chance to be structured and rolled out. So I don't see the urgency to force schools to fully reopen at this stage. Plan for after Easter, with so many people vaccinated by then that kids are no longer passing it from one household to another.
Lab's Education policy is all over the place at the moment.
This isn't going to get schools open more quickly, particularly in Secondary, as the issue is the mass mixing of households and community transmission.
My colleague has a compromised immune system, and is on the list of conditions that get vaccinated next. Plenty of my colleagues are over 50, so will be vaccinated in this programme. They need it more than I do (under 50, no serious health conditions). If I cop this thing, I've got more chance of survival than they do. That is literally where we are right now.
I need my old mum to be vaccinated, I need your old mum to be vaccinated. The mass vaccination of teachers, TAs etc instead of the older population and the unwell is not a sound policy, it's just a simplistic headline grabber. The goal here is to minimise deaths.
This isn't the same as the crisis in the first lockdown. Vulnerable kids are back in school. Online teaching has had the chance to be structured and rolled out. So I don't see the urgency to force schools to fully reopen at this stage. Plan for after Easter, with so many people vaccinated by then that kids are no longer passing it from one household to another.
My experience is almost as simple as:
1) Parents who work in the private sector want their kids back at school 2) Parents who work in the public sector are less vocal about it
The UK believes it will receive enough doses of vaccines to meet its targets, despite possible export restrictions being imposed on supplies made in the EU, Downing Street says.
The prime minister's official spokesman says “EU policy is a matter for them" but stresses Boris Johnson's "confidence" in the supply "and the fact we remain committed to vaccinating the most vulnerable groups by the middle of February, the rest of phase one by the spring and offer a dose to all adults by September”.
Asked whether the stance on sending doses made in the UK to the EU had altered, No 10 says: “I think the public would expect us to continue to vaccinate as many people as possible, and that’s what we will do.”
He declines to comment on the amount of vaccines the UK possesses.
But he says: “The deals we have in place with the seven vaccine developers will ensure our supply continues to grow as we rapidly expand the rollout of the plan in the weeks and months ahead.”
-------
The Guardian will still spin this as the UK government threatening the EU.
The UK believes it will receive enough doses of vaccines to meet its targets, despite possible export restrictions being imposed on supplies made in the EU, Downing Street says.
The prime minister's official spokesman says “EU policy is a matter for them" but stresses Boris Johnson's "confidence" in the supply "and the fact we remain committed to vaccinating the most vulnerable groups by the middle of February, the rest of phase one by the spring and offer a dose to all adults by September”.
Asked whether the stance on sending doses made in the UK to the EU had altered, No 10 says: “I think the public would expect us to continue to vaccinate as many people as possible, and that’s what we will do.”
He declines to comment on the amount of vaccines the UK possesses.
But he says: “The deals we have in place with the seven vaccine developers will ensure our supply continues to grow as we rapidly expand the rollout of the plan in the weeks and months ahead.”
-------
The Guardian will still spin this as the UK government threatening the EU.
Yes, maybe I'm being an idiot and someone can correct me but if the UK is only deemed part of the EU in section 5.4 it removes any ambiguity for all the other sections as the UK is definitely not included for 5.1 or anywhere else.
I expected the EU to fight this based on the ambiguity of whether the UK counted as being in the EU or not during the transition period but that's surely not possible now.
Yes, it's completely unambiguous. Spectacularly bad drafting, but not ambiguous drafting. I'm sure they didn't mean to exclude the UK manufacturing facility from 5.1, but that's what they've done. In fact, AZ would have been in breach of the contract if they'd been trying to manufacture the Initial Doses in the UK rather than in the EU.
Yes, actually that's a good point. If the UK is considered an acceptable manufacturing site for the purposes of 5.4 but isn't listed in 5.1 then what mechanism exists for the EU to ask for supplies to be redirected?
This does seem somewhat of an own goal, but I don't speak legalese so maybe my reading is wrong.
5.1 seems to completely absolve AZN of any responsibility to manufacture the doses outside of the EU, regardless of what 5.4 says.
No, as there is a plausible ambiguity within 5.1, too. AZN is to use its BRE to manufacture within the EU, and to use its BRE to deliver the (redacted) number of doses. If the second part of the obligation meant to deliver only those doses manufactured within the EU, there wouldn't be a need for clause 5.4.
Yes there would because 5.4 is not about obligation. It is about where the EU will accept vaccine production without further checks/permission. It does not give the EU rights to production from the UK, only says that if AZN chooses to supply from the UK that is acceptable for the EU.
Hence the reason explicitly states it applies only to 5.4.
It is also about obligation: ...If AstraZeneca is unable to deliver on its intention to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses and/or Optional Doses under this Agreement in the EU, the Commission or the Participating Member States may present to AstraZeneca, CMOs within the EU capable of manufacturing the Vaccine Doses, and AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to contract with such proposed CMOs to increase the available manufacturing capacity within the EU. ...
"Within the EU" and section 5.4 clearly defined that EU doesn't include UK within that definition outside of section 5.4.
This really seems like a really big own goal by the EU, they're becoming the "who the fuck what's to deal with this shit" type of client.
Lab's Education policy is all over the place at the moment.
This isn't going to get schools open more quickly, particularly in Secondary, as the issue is the mass mixing of households and community transmission.
My colleague has a compromised immune system, and is on the list of conditions that get vaccinated next. Plenty of my colleagues are over 50, so will be vaccinated in this programme. They need it more than I do (under 50, no serious health conditions). If I cop this thing, I've got more chance of survival than they do. That is literally where we are right now.
I need my old mum to be vaccinated, I need your old mum to be vaccinated. The mass vaccination of teachers, TAs etc instead of the older population and the unwell is not a sound policy, it's just a simplistic headline grabber. The goal here is to minimise deaths.
This isn't the same as the crisis in the first lockdown. Vulnerable kids are back in school. Online teaching has had the chance to be structured and rolled out. So I don't see the urgency to force schools to fully reopen at this stage. Plan for after Easter, with so many people vaccinated by then that kids are no longer passing it from one household to another.
My experience is almost as simple as:
1) Parents who work in the private sector want their kids back at school 2) Parents who work in the public sector are less vocal about it
You may be right overall but my wife and I are absolutely loving having my son at home. And he seems to be thriving as well. All round win in the Tyndall household.
South Africa are paying about 3x what the EU are, so it's clearly possible. Pretty sure we're paying more than the EU, too. (Though that was demanded rather than offered, I think.)
But it's a stupid, disingenuous argument, given we funded the development from the start.
5.1 relates just to the initial doses and instructs AZ to use best efforts to make them in the EU - not including the UK.
5.4 relates to making the vaccine longer term, initial and beyond. It instructs AZ to use best efforts to make them in the EU or UK but they can go outside that with EC permission.
5.5 says the AZ must inform the EC when they have selected their initial manufacturing sites.
So, AZ conclude that despite best efforts they will not be able to fulfill the 5.1 initial doses purely from EU sites. They therefore need to include the UK sites too. They inform the EC of this under 5.5.
Ergo the UK sites are explicitly included in the manufacture of the initial dose. 5.1 does not preclude this.
No drafting error.
(caveat: so long as "initial manufacturing sites" equates to "sites where the initial doses are manufactured")
Crux question -
Are AZ using best efforts to fill the EC order (inc from the UK sites)? Or are they using unjustifiably "bester" efforts to fill the UK's?
But you're contradicting yourself, the best reasonable efforts only applies to EU supply which as you rightly say doesn't include the UK.
The EU can't retroactively change the meaning of EU to include the UK because of transition status ambiguity because this is dealt with in 5.4 where it says the definition of EU is expanded to include the UK limited only to section 5.4, meaning sections not 5.4 don't include the UK within the definition of EU.
5.5 is irrelevant because we don't know what AZ informed the EC of wrt manufacturing sites for the order. 5.1 says EU and 5.4 says the UK isn't in the EU for anything other than 5.4, I think the AZ lawyers have played lawyerly tricks on the EC.
The key question is whether 5.1 can be read as:
"AstraZeneca shall use its Beast Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses within the EU for distribution AND AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to deliver to the Distribution Hubs..."
The comma is the key I think, and European legal systems seem to be much more willing construct contracts as they believe the parties intended it rather than exactly what was written, at least in my limited experience.
As a reminder the actual wording:
"AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses within the EU for distribution, and to deliver to the Distribution Hubs, following EU marketing authorisation..."
It's all part of the same commitment to manufacture initiant Europe doses within the EU and we know definition doesn't include the UK as part of the EU as section 5.4 makes very clear.
I think the EC have been flummoxed by lawyers ensuring that the UK's status was clearly defined somewhere in the contract to remove ambiguity.
But, at least in my opinion, it isn't part of the same commitment to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses within the EU IF 5.1 can be read as my edit, with the Best Reasonable Efforts applying to both manufacture in the EU and to delivery in general.
I may be overcomplicating it but that's one ambiguity I noticed as a possibility, and may be something I'd argue if this was part of a contract law assessment.
Lab's Education policy is all over the place at the moment.
This isn't going to get schools open more quickly, particularly in Secondary, as the issue is the mass mixing of households and community transmission.
My colleague has a compromised immune system, and is on the list of conditions that get vaccinated next. Plenty of my colleagues are over 50, so will be vaccinated in this programme. They need it more than I do (under 50, no serious health conditions). If I cop this thing, I've got more chance of survival than they do. That is literally where we are right now.
I need my old mum to be vaccinated, I need your old mum to be vaccinated. The mass vaccination of teachers, TAs etc instead of the older population and the unwell is not a sound policy, it's just a simplistic headline grabber. The goal here is to minimise deaths.
This isn't the same as the crisis in the first lockdown. Vulnerable kids are back in school. Online teaching has had the chance to be structured and rolled out. So I don't see the urgency to force schools to fully reopen at this stage. Plan for after Easter, with so many people vaccinated by then that kids are no longer passing it from one household to another.
My experience is almost as simple as:
1) Parents who work in the private sector want their kids back at school 2) Parents who work in the public sector are less vocal about it
That simply reflects the difference in defining ‘work from home’ in the private and public sectors. The former tends to actually involve a fair amount of work.
5.1 relates just to the initial doses and instructs AZ to use best efforts to make them in the EU - not including the UK.
5.4 relates to making the vaccine longer term, initial and beyond. It instructs AZ to use best efforts to make them in the EU or UK but they can go outside that with EC permission.
5.5 says the AZ must inform the EC when they have selected their initial manufacturing sites.
So, AZ conclude that despite best efforts they will not be able to fulfill the 5.1 initial doses purely from EU sites. They therefore need to include the UK sites too. They inform the EC of this under 5.5.
Ergo the UK sites are explicitly included in the manufacture of the initial dose. 5.1 does not preclude this.
No drafting error.
(caveat: so long as "initial manufacturing sites" equates to "sites where the initial doses are manufactured")
Crux question -
Are AZ using best efforts to fill the EC order (inc from the UK sites)? Or are they using unjustifiably "bester" efforts to fill the UK's?
But you're contradicting yourself, the best reasonable efforts only applies to EU supply which as you rightly say doesn't include the UK.
The EU can't retroactively change the meaning of EU to include the UK because of transition status ambiguity because this is dealt with in 5.4 where it says the definition of EU is expanded to include the UK limited only to section 5.4, meaning sections not 5.4 don't include the UK within the definition of EU.
5.5 is irrelevant because we don't know what AZ informed the EC of wrt manufacturing sites for the order. 5.1 says EU and 5.4 says the UK isn't in the EU for anything other than 5.4, I think the AZ lawyers have played lawyerly tricks on the EC.
Ok. But I don't think it's a contradiction. Best efforts to make the initial order in the EU (5.1) does not to me mean that using sites outside the EU is prohibited. It means make it in the EU if you can. If you can't, it is allowable to expand to the UK. 5.4 specifically covers this. 5.5 then instructs the choice of the actual initial sites (under 5.1. as expanded by 5.4) to be confirmed by AZ. Which AZ did (I understand) and they included the UK sites. My only caveat is, does "initial manufacturing sites" equate to "sites where the initial dose is to be manufactured"? If that's a yes, I think the crux question becomes the one I framed. Are they using best efforts to fill the EU from the initial (inc UK) sites? Or are they unfairly prioritizing the UK?
Good afternoon. My mum received a letter this morning and she's already managed to book a slot for tomorrow afternoon at one of the mega vaccination centres. Very efficient.
Lab's Education policy is all over the place at the moment.
This isn't going to get schools open more quickly, particularly in Secondary, as the issue is the mass mixing of households and community transmission.
My colleague has a compromised immune system, and is on the list of conditions that get vaccinated next. Plenty of my colleagues are over 50, so will be vaccinated in this programme. They need it more than I do (under 50, no serious health conditions). If I cop this thing, I've got more chance of survival than they do. That is literally where we are right now.
I need my old mum to be vaccinated, I need your old mum to be vaccinated. The mass vaccination of teachers, TAs etc instead of the older population and the unwell is not a sound policy, it's just a simplistic headline grabber. The goal here is to minimise deaths.
This isn't the same as the crisis in the first lockdown. Vulnerable kids are back in school. Online teaching has had the chance to be structured and rolled out. So I don't see the urgency to force schools to fully reopen at this stage. Plan for after Easter, with so many people vaccinated by then that kids are no longer passing it from one household to another.
My experience is almost as simple as:
1) Parents who work in the private sector want their kids back at school 2) Parents who work in the public sector are less vocal about it
Today is the day when a lot of journalists and others who have never drafted, interpreted or litigated a commercial contract in their lives and have no understanding of EU law or contract law suddenly claim to be experts and write the most immense twaddle about the AZ contract.
South Africa are paying about 3x what the EU are, so it's clearly possible. Pretty sure we're paying more than the EU, too. (Though that was demanded rather than offered, I think.)
But it's a stupid, disingenuous argument, given we funded the development from the start.
That is for other vaccines, part of the deal with uk funding was AZ had to be sold at cost
5.1 relates just to the initial doses and instructs AZ to use best efforts to make them in the EU - not including the UK.
5.4 relates to making the vaccine longer term, initial and beyond. It instructs AZ to use best efforts to make them in the EU or UK but they can go outside that with EC permission.
5.5 says the AZ must inform the EC when they have selected their initial manufacturing sites.
So, AZ conclude that despite best efforts they will not be able to fulfill the 5.1 initial doses purely from EU sites. They therefore need to include the UK sites too. They inform the EC of this under 5.5.
Ergo the UK sites are explicitly included in the manufacture of the initial dose. 5.1 does not preclude this.
No drafting error.
(caveat: so long as "initial manufacturing sites" equates to "sites where the initial doses are manufactured")
Crux question -
Are AZ using best efforts to fill the EC order (inc from the UK sites)? Or are they using unjustifiably "bester" efforts to fill the UK's?
But you're contradicting yourself, the best reasonable efforts only applies to EU supply which as you rightly say doesn't include the UK.
The EU can't retroactively change the meaning of EU to include the UK because of transition status ambiguity because this is dealt with in 5.4 where it says the definition of EU is expanded to include the UK limited only to section 5.4, meaning sections not 5.4 don't include the UK within the definition of EU.
5.5 is irrelevant because we don't know what AZ informed the EC of wrt manufacturing sites for the order. 5.1 says EU and 5.4 says the UK isn't in the EU for anything other than 5.4, I think the AZ lawyers have played lawyerly tricks on the EC.
Ok. But I don't think it's a contradiction. Best efforts to make the order in the EU (5.1) does not to me mean that using sites outside the EU is prohibited. It means make it in the EU if you can. If you can't, it is allowable to expand to the UK. 5.4 specifically covers this. 5.5 then instructs the choice of the actual initial sites (under 5.1. as expanded by 5.4) to be confirmed by AZ. Which AZ did (I understand) and they included the UK sites. My only caveat is, does "initial manufacturing sites" equate to "sites where the initial dose is to be manufactured"? If that's a yes, I think the crux question becomes the one I framed. Are they using best efforts to fill the EU from the initial (inc UK) sites? Or are they unfairly prioritizing the UK?
I agree that 5.1 states that AZ will do their best to manufacture within the EU (excluding the UK) and that 5.4 separately allows AZ to manufacture within the UK without them offering manufacture to EU based CMOs.
I don't think its particularly relevant to the dispute though.
What matters next is what AZN say...if they say hands up, EU is right, well Boris has some big decisions. If AZN says that is not our interpretation of the contract, its then up to the EU to decide if they really want to drag this through the courts.
How does publishing a confidential contract that explicitly says you can't publish it in the public domain leave the EU?
Yes, maybe I'm being an idiot and someone can correct me but if the UK is only deemed part of the EU in section 5.4 it removes any ambiguity for all the other sections as the UK is definitely not included for 5.1 or anywhere else.
I expected the EU to fight this based on the ambiguity of whether the UK counted as being in the EU or not during the transition period but that's surely not possible now.
Yes, it's completely unambiguous. Spectacularly bad drafting, but not ambiguous drafting. I'm sure they didn't mean to exclude the UK manufacturing facility from 5.1, but that's what they've done. In fact, AZ would have been in breach of the contract if they'd been trying to manufacture the Initial Doses in the UK rather than in the EU.
Yes, actually that's a good point. If the UK is considered an acceptable manufacturing site for the purposes of 5.4 but isn't listed in 5.1 then what mechanism exists for the EU to ask for supplies to be redirected?
This does seem somewhat of an own goal, but I don't speak legalese so maybe my reading is wrong.
5.1 seems to completely absolve AZN of any responsibility to manufacture the doses outside of the EU, regardless of what 5.4 says.
No, as there is a plausible ambiguity within 5.1, too. AZN is to use its BRE to manufacture within the EU, and to use its BRE to deliver the (redacted) number of doses. If the second part of the obligation meant to deliver only those doses manufactured within the EU, there wouldn't be a need for clause 5.4.
Yes there would because 5.4 is not about obligation. It is about where the EU will accept vaccine production without further checks/permission. It does not give the EU rights to production from the UK, only says that if AZN chooses to supply from the UK that is acceptable for the EU.
Hence the reason explicitly states it applies only to 5.4.
It is also about obligation: ...If AstraZeneca is unable to deliver on its intention to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses and/or Optional Doses under this Agreement in the EU, the Commission or the Participating Member States may present to AstraZeneca, CMOs within the EU capable of manufacturing the Vaccine Doses, and AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to contract with such proposed CMOs to increase the available manufacturing capacity within the EU. ...
"Within the EU" and section 5.4 clearly defined that EU doesn't include UK within that definition outside of section 5.4.
This really seems like a really big own goal by the EU, they're becoming the "who the fuck what's to deal with this shit" type of client.
It seems to me that neither party really thought about the situation they've ended up in, otherwise the contract would have been more tightly drafted.
Any ambiguities which exist all seem to be in AZN's favour - but I'm 100% sure that they didn't expect to be involved in such a public war with the EU.
5.1 relates just to the initial doses and instructs AZ to use best efforts to make them in the EU - not including the UK.
5.4 relates to making the vaccine longer term, initial and beyond. It instructs AZ to use best efforts to make them in the EU or UK but they can go outside that with EC permission.
5.5 says the AZ must inform the EC when they have selected their initial manufacturing sites.
So, AZ conclude that despite best efforts they will not be able to fulfill the 5.1 initial doses purely from EU sites. They therefore need to include the UK sites too. They inform the EC of this under 5.5.
Ergo the UK sites are explicitly included in the manufacture of the initial dose. 5.1 does not preclude this.
No drafting error.
(caveat: so long as "initial manufacturing sites" equates to "sites where the initial doses are manufactured")
Crux question -
Are AZ using best efforts to fill the EC order (inc from the UK sites)? Or are they using unjustifiably "bester" efforts to fill the UK's?
But you're contradicting yourself, the best reasonable efforts only applies to EU supply which as you rightly say doesn't include the UK.
The EU can't retroactively change the meaning of EU to include the UK because of transition status ambiguity because this is dealt with in 5.4 where it says the definition of EU is expanded to include the UK limited only to section 5.4, meaning sections not 5.4 don't include the UK within the definition of EU.
5.5 is irrelevant because we don't know what AZ informed the EC of wrt manufacturing sites for the order. 5.1 says EU and 5.4 says the UK isn't in the EU for anything other than 5.4, I think the AZ lawyers have played lawyerly tricks on the EC.
The key question is whether 5.1 can be read as:
"AstraZeneca shall use its Beast Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses within the EU for distribution AND AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to deliver to the Distribution Hubs..."
The comma is the key I think, and European legal systems seem to be much more willing construct contracts as they believe the parties intended it rather than exactly what was written, at least in my limited experience.
As a reminder the actual wording:
"AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses within the EU for distribution, and to deliver to the Distribution Hubs, following EU marketing authorisation..."
It's all part of the same commitment to manufacture initiant Europe doses within the EU and we know definition doesn't include the UK as part of the EU as section 5.4 makes very clear.
I think the EC have been flummoxed by lawyers ensuring that the UK's status was clearly defined somewhere in the contract to remove ambiguity.
But, at least in my opinion, it isn't part of the same commitment to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses within the EU IF 5.1 can be read as my edit, with the Best Reasonable Efforts applying to both manufacture in the EU and to delivery in general.
I may be overcomplicating it but that's one ambiguity I noticed as a possibility, and may be something I'd argue if this was part of a contract law assessment.
Possibly. I think this all stems from the EU not subsidising manufacturing because they wanted to operate a low cost programme. As I said yesterday, AZ are ultimately answerable to shareholders and they aren't going to sign a contract that commits them to huge investment in manufacturing for a contract with zero or negative returns.
The whole approach from the EU has been awful and the more they talk about "moral obligations", "unity" and "solidarity" the weaker it makes them look.
It's time for them to just pay up and get more manufacturing capacity built.
Today is the day when a lot of journalists and others who have never drafted, interpreted or litigated a commercial contract in their lives and have no understanding of EU law or contract law suddenly claim to be experts and write the most immense twaddle about the AZ contract.
Welcome back. Hope everyone is better...
How much do we have to pay you for an opinion on this one?
What matters next is what AZN say...if they say hands up, EU is right, well Boris has some big decisions. If AZN says that is not our interpretation of the contract, its then up to the EU to decide if they really want to drag this through the courts.
But what can a court (which court?) actually do? Would the EU have to bring a case in a UK court if they want to get access to vaccines being manufactured here?
5.1 relates just to the initial doses and instructs AZ to use best efforts to make them in the EU - not including the UK.
5.4 relates to making the vaccine longer term, initial and beyond. It instructs AZ to use best efforts to make them in the EU or UK but they can go outside that with EC permission.
5.5 says the AZ must inform the EC when they have selected their initial manufacturing sites.
So, AZ conclude that despite best efforts they will not be able to fulfill the 5.1 initial doses purely from EU sites. They therefore need to include the UK sites too. They inform the EC of this under 5.5.
Ergo the UK sites are explicitly included in the manufacture of the initial dose. 5.1 does not preclude this.
No drafting error.
(caveat: so long as "initial manufacturing sites" equates to "sites where the initial doses are manufactured")
Crux question -
Are AZ using best efforts to fill the EC order (inc from the UK sites)? Or are they using unjustifiably "bester" efforts to fill the UK's?
We know the EU think the latter is the case, but proving it may be harder.
It would be complex and subjective, I'm sure. But I do think many posters here are being premature in calling this 100% for AZ. Of course I empathize with why. I too hope our supply does not take a serious hit. Personally, I think they'll sort it out without any of the more silly threats coming to pass. Let us hope so.
Today is the day when a lot of journalists and others who have never drafted, interpreted or litigated a commercial contract in their lives and have no understanding of EU law or contract law suddenly claim to be experts and write the most immense twaddle about the AZ contract.
They all scrabble to be first to comment of course. Not much time to check if things mean what they appear, to a layman, to mean.
In fairness AZ and the EU have had months and disagree what the contract means.
What would be embarrassing would be if the Commission have done what amateurs do, and find one para that seems to support their case but dont consider it in overall context.
"AstraZeneca has also explicitly assured us in this contract that no other obligations would prevent the contract from being fulfilled" according to VDL.
Did she seriously believe that the much later EU contract automatically superseded every other agreement that AZ had made because, well, EU?
What matters next is what AZN say...if they say hands up, EU is right, well Boris has some big decisions. If AZN says that is not our interpretation of the contract, its then up to the EU to decide if they really want to drag this through the courts.
But what can a court (which court?) actually do? Would the EU have to bring a case in a UK court if they want to get access to vaccines being manufactured here?
This is what i wondered down thread. If they go this route, how long will it take. No good winning if it takes a year.
South Africa are paying about 3x what the EU are, so it's clearly possible. Pretty sure we're paying more than the EU, too. (Though that was demanded rather than offered, I think.)
But it's a stupid, disingenuous argument, given we funded the development from the start.
That is for other vaccines, part of the deal with uk funding was AZ had to be sold at cost
By offering to pay for more manufacturing capacity to be built.
If you want your own bespoke manufacturing capacity then that will add costs to the project. If you just want to freeride on existing capacity, or other people's capacity when they're done with it, then at cost is cheaper.
South Africa are paying about 3x what the EU are, so it's clearly possible. Pretty sure we're paying more than the EU, too. (Though that was demanded rather than offered, I think.)
But it's a stupid, disingenuous argument, given we funded the development from the start.
That is for other vaccines, part of the deal with uk funding was AZ had to be sold at cost
Today is the day when a lot of journalists and others who have never drafted, interpreted or litigated a commercial contract in their lives and have no understanding of EU law or contract law suddenly claim to be experts and write the most immense twaddle about the AZ contract.
Have you not seen their science coverage?
The entire last year has been the year when a bunch of people with zero understanding of science or maths or data have hit themselves repeatedly with a rubber hammer.
On topic, I really hope the government does not fall for this sort of pressure.
Those in groups 5 and 6 are still vulnerable and much more vulnerable than younger groups. Clinical need should be the priority. Abandoning this is making the same mistake as easing restrictions too early. Yes - the vaccination programme is going well but it is too early to start acting as if we've beaten this thing.
I have 3 underlying health conditions: 2 lung ones and a blood one. I don't want to be pushed even further back in the queue just because some 30 year old wants the vaccine, even if they are a teacher. My chest consultant told me a few years back that it was imperative that I avoided any further lung infections, given the damage already sustained. And I have. So I really don't want to fall prey to this one now, especially not after hearing what it has done to son and husband. (Former now on the mend, thank God. Latter still with it but seems to be getting through it.)
South Africa are paying about 3x what the EU are, so it's clearly possible. Pretty sure we're paying more than the EU, too. (Though that was demanded rather than offered, I think.)
But it's a stupid, disingenuous argument, given we funded the development from the start.
Isn't South Africa's agreement also with the manufacturing plant in India, rather than with AZ per se?
South Africa are paying about 3x what the EU are, so it's clearly possible. Pretty sure we're paying more than the EU, too. (Though that was demanded rather than offered, I think.)
But it's a stupid, disingenuous argument, given we funded the development from the start.
That is for other vaccines, part of the deal with uk funding was AZ had to be sold at cost
At cost means different things depending upon what you pay for.
If you say "I want x output when you can make it as cheaply as possible" that's viable at cost using existing failities.
If you say "I was 5x output ASAP, create new facilities to get it done urgently" then at cost will be more expensive.
What matters next is what AZN say...if they say hands up, EU is right, well Boris has some big decisions. If AZN says that is not our interpretation of the contract, its then up to the EU to decide if they really want to drag this through the courts.
But what can a court (which court?) actually do? Would the EU have to bring a case in a UK court if they want to get access to vaccines being manufactured here?
The EU contract is signed under Belgian law and, aiui, Belgian law is very forgiving for pharma which is one of the reasons they have such an outsized industry.
Tbh, if this was going to go to court it already would have. I think the EC lawyers have already told the commission that they'd lose which is why they are resorting to the court of public opinion to apply political pressure on AZ.
South Africa are paying about 3x what the EU are, so it's clearly possible. Pretty sure we're paying more than the EU, too. (Though that was demanded rather than offered, I think.)
But it's a stupid, disingenuous argument, given we funded the development from the start.
That is for other vaccines, part of the deal with uk funding was AZ had to be sold at cost
Quiz question. You’re a large pharma company and you now have to decide where to build a new manufacturing facility. Noting recent events, do you locate said facility inside the EU? Where is the strategic thinking in the commission?
"AstraZeneca has also explicitly assured us in this contract that no other obligations would prevent the contract from being fulfilled" according to VDL.
Did she seriously believe that the much later EU contract automatically superseded every other agreement that AZ had made because, well, EU?
South Africa are paying about 3x what the EU are, so it's clearly possible. Pretty sure we're paying more than the EU, too. (Though that was demanded rather than offered, I think.)
But it's a stupid, disingenuous argument, given we funded the development from the start.
That is for other vaccines, part of the deal with uk funding was AZ had to be sold at cost
“Cost” can vary of course, especially if it’s defined as local to each supply chain and implies making no loss within that specific chain.
Good afternoon. My mum received a letter this morning and she's already managed to book a slot for tomorrow afternoon at one of the mega vaccination centres. Very efficient.
Great news Andy J
I have mine in booked for mid Feb so down to over 60 years up here, and from all the noise I thought Scotland was jabbing hardly anyone, just keeping it all in cupboards to upset Westminster, Dross and his pals must be at the fibbing again. Wife will get hers at GP centre as shielding.
Today is the day when a lot of journalists and others who have never drafted, interpreted or litigated a commercial contract in their lives and have no understanding of EU law or contract law suddenly claim to be experts and write the most immense twaddle about the AZ contract.
I'm not even a journalist, but I'm certainly having a go.
Today is the day when a lot of journalists and others who have never drafted, interpreted or litigated a commercial contract in their lives and have no understanding of EU law or contract law suddenly claim to be experts and write the most immense twaddle about the AZ contract.
Welcome back. Hope everyone is better...
How much do we have to pay you for an opinion on this one?
By offering to pay for more manufacturing capacity to be built.
If you want your own bespoke manufacturing capacity then that will add costs to the project. If you just want to freeride on existing capacity, or other people's capacity when they're done with it, then at cost is cheaper.
Exactly. UK gov paid up front for the facility to make the vaccines, and at the end of the process there will be a pharmaceutical production facility in the UK.
South Africa are paying about 3x what the EU are, so it's clearly possible. Pretty sure we're paying more than the EU, too. (Though that was demanded rather than offered, I think.)
But it's a stupid, disingenuous argument, given we funded the development from the start.
That is for other vaccines, part of the deal with uk funding was AZ had to be sold at cost
AZN will not make an overall profit, but the process of individual country pricing seems somewhat obscure.
It could be due to local manufacturing, shipping, delivery and regulatory considerations. There's loads of factors that go into it. As you say, the UK is paying more per dose to AZ but that's because our agreement was for domestic manufacturing, and now we can see why the government paid a premium for it. That doesn't mean AZ are making a profit, the government is just taking on the investment cost.
Can't help thinking its a good job the vaccines were two months early, and all this nonsense was going off at the same time as the nonsense of sorting the trade deal...
Off-topic but why the fuck did the UK negotiating team insist on 3rd country status without at least considering the products where we would want a variance agreement?
"“You’re going to need export certificates for tinned rice pudding,” said FDF CEO Ian Wright. “When that comes it will be a showstopper for many businesses.”"
EDIT - as so many of us have found out after the event, the government's guidance doesn't mention any of this. Its as if they were clueless about what their deal meant in practice.
"Little Moons is a London-based mochi producer benefiting from the current exemptions. Co-founder Howard Wong said he had monitored the UK government’s ‘Brexit transition’ help page but that it contained no information about the upcoming change. It was, rather, his German distributor who told him of the issue. “It would never have been on our radar from just looking at the UK government guidance,” he said."
Today is the day when a lot of journalists and others who have never drafted, interpreted or litigated a commercial contract in their lives and have no understanding of EU law or contract law suddenly claim to be experts and write the most immense twaddle about the AZ contract.
Have you not seen their science coverage?
The entire last year has been the year when a bunch of people with zero understanding of science or maths or data have hit themselves repeatedly with a rubber hammer.
That is a terrible thing to say. They are using metal hammers.
Quiz question. You’re a large pharma company and you now have to decide where to build a new manufacturing facility. Noting recent events, do you locate said facility inside the EU? Where is the strategic thinking in the commission?
You'll probably still build your new manufacturing facility in Ireland on a nice and cheap green field site where the language spoken is English, there's a plentiful supply of suitably educated workers from both Ireland and the UK, and you have a favourable tax regime.
Today is the day when a lot of journalists and others who have never drafted, interpreted or litigated a commercial contract in their lives and have no understanding of EU law or contract law suddenly claim to be experts and write the most immense twaddle about the AZ contract.
I had some drafting I was part of a team on which was litigated. Our interpretation was upheld.
By the House of Lords.
The party trying to wriggle of a £250 million hook?
South Africa are paying about 3x what the EU are, so it's clearly possible. Pretty sure we're paying more than the EU, too. (Though that was demanded rather than offered, I think.)
But it's a stupid, disingenuous argument, given we funded the development from the start.
That is for other vaccines, part of the deal with uk funding was AZ had to be sold at cost
A few serious EU politicians need to step into this - it could get very bad if idiotic statements like the Croatian PMs are seen as reasonable - I agonised about my referendum vote and voted remain because I saw more good in the EU than bad (for the UK) - but now despite living in an EU country and soon acquiring Danish citizenship I am embarrassed at the EU Commission and the German government. I worry about where this is going .
Today is the day when a lot of journalists and others who have never drafted, interpreted or litigated a commercial contract in their lives and have no understanding of EU law or contract law suddenly claim to be experts and write the most immense twaddle about the AZ contract.
Welcome back. Hope everyone is better...
How much do we have to pay you for an opinion on this one?
Squillions. 🤑
I can offer you a consignment of indifferent plums.
Quiz question. You’re a large pharma company and you now have to decide where to build a new manufacturing facility. Noting recent events, do you locate said facility inside the EU? Where is the strategic thinking in the commission?
You'll probably still build your new manufacturing facility in Ireland on a nice and cheap green field site where the language spoken is English, there's a plentiful supply of suitably educated workers from both Ireland and the UK, and you have a favourable tax regime.
Surely Switzerland, a very favourable regulatory regime, a tariff and quota free deal with the global big markets and a highly educated workforce plus top level pharmaceutical research in the country.
Today is the day when a lot of journalists and others who have never drafted, interpreted or litigated a commercial contract in their lives and have no understanding of EU law or contract law suddenly claim to be experts and write the most immense twaddle about the AZ contract.
South Africa are paying about 3x what the EU are, so it's clearly possible. Pretty sure we're paying more than the EU, too. (Though that was demanded rather than offered, I think.)
But it's a stupid, disingenuous argument, given we funded the development from the start.
That is for other vaccines, part of the deal with uk funding was AZ had to be sold at cost
AZN will not make an overall profit, but the process of individual country pricing seems somewhat obscure.
Perhaps are infrastructure funding has been added to what we are paying then divided by number of doses?
But Europe doesn't appear to have funded any of that, and yet seems to be paying the lowest price. (Note the SA supply is coming from India's Serum Institute, produced under licence, so that complicates matters.)
Quiz question. You’re a large pharma company and you now have to decide where to build a new manufacturing facility. Noting recent events, do you locate said facility inside the EU? Where is the strategic thinking in the commission?
You'll probably still build your new manufacturing facility in Ireland on a nice and cheap green field site where the language spoken is English, there's a plentiful supply of suitably educated workers from both Ireland and the UK, and you have a favourable tax regime.
Still in the grasp of the EU though. Is that wise? Fudge it a bit - and build in NI....
Today is the day when a lot of journalists and others who have never drafted, interpreted or litigated a commercial contract in their lives and have no understanding of EU law or contract law suddenly claim to be experts and write the most immense twaddle about the AZ contract.
5.1 relates just to the initial doses and instructs AZ to use best efforts to make them in the EU - not including the UK.
5.4 relates to making the vaccine longer term, initial and beyond. It instructs AZ to use best efforts to make them in the EU or UK but they can go outside that with EC permission.
5.5 says the AZ must inform the EC when they have selected their initial manufacturing sites.
So, AZ conclude that despite best efforts they will not be able to fulfill the 5.1 initial doses purely from EU sites. They therefore need to include the UK sites too. They inform the EC of this under 5.5.
Ergo the UK sites are explicitly included in the manufacture of the initial dose. 5.1 does not preclude this.
No drafting error.
(caveat: so long as "initial manufacturing sites" equates to "sites where the initial doses are manufactured")
Crux question -
Are AZ using best efforts to fill the EC order (inc from the UK sites)? Or are they using unjustifiably "bester" efforts to fill the UK's?
But you're contradicting yourself, the best reasonable efforts only applies to EU supply which as you rightly say doesn't include the UK.
The EU can't retroactively change the meaning of EU to include the UK because of transition status ambiguity because this is dealt with in 5.4 where it says the definition of EU is expanded to include the UK limited only to section 5.4, meaning sections not 5.4 don't include the UK within the definition of EU.
5.5 is irrelevant because we don't know what AZ informed the EC of wrt manufacturing sites for the order. 5.1 says EU and 5.4 says the UK isn't in the EU for anything other than 5.4, I think the AZ lawyers have played lawyerly tricks on the EC.
Ok. But I don't think it's a contradiction. Best efforts to make the order in the EU (5.1) does not to me mean that using sites outside the EU is prohibited. It means make it in the EU if you can. If you can't, it is allowable to expand to the UK. 5.4 specifically covers this. 5.5 then instructs the choice of the actual initial sites (under 5.1. as expanded by 5.4) to be confirmed by AZ. Which AZ did (I understand) and they included the UK sites. My only caveat is, does "initial manufacturing sites" equate to "sites where the initial dose is to be manufactured"? If that's a yes, I think the crux question becomes the one I framed. Are they using best efforts to fill the EU from the initial (inc UK) sites? Or are they unfairly prioritizing the UK?
I agree that 5.1 states that AZ will do their best to manufacture within the EU (excluding the UK) and that 5.4 separately allows AZ to manufacture within the UK without them offering manufacture to EU based CMOs.
I don't think its particularly relevant to the dispute though.
Ok. But I was explaining why I don't see the contradiction between those 2 clauses that others here are seeing.
AZ told EC under 5.5 that in accordance with 5.4 they would be using best efforts to fill the initial EC doses under 5.1 using sites which included those in the UK.
Today is the day when a lot of journalists and others who have never drafted, interpreted or litigated a commercial contract in their lives and have no understanding of EU law or contract law suddenly claim to be experts and write the most immense twaddle about the AZ contract.
Welcome back. Hope everyone is better...
How much do we have to pay you for an opinion on this one?
Squillions. 🤑
I think someone here has some Dogecoins they could offer...
5.1 relates just to the initial doses and instructs AZ to use best efforts to make them in the EU - not including the UK.
5.4 relates to making the vaccine longer term, initial and beyond. It instructs AZ to use best efforts to make them in the EU or UK but they can go outside that with EC permission.
5.5 says the AZ must inform the EC when they have selected their initial manufacturing sites.
So, AZ conclude that despite best efforts they will not be able to fulfill the 5.1 initial doses purely from EU sites. They therefore need to include the UK sites too. They inform the EC of this under 5.5.
Ergo the UK sites are explicitly included in the manufacture of the initial dose. 5.1 does not preclude this.
No drafting error.
(caveat: so long as "initial manufacturing sites" equates to "sites where the initial doses are manufactured")
Crux question -
Are AZ using best efforts to fill the EC order (inc from the UK sites)? Or are they using unjustifiably "bester" efforts to fill the UK's?
But you're contradicting yourself, the best reasonable efforts only applies to EU supply which as you rightly say doesn't include the UK.
The EU can't retroactively change the meaning of EU to include the UK because of transition status ambiguity because this is dealt with in 5.4 where it says the definition of EU is expanded to include the UK limited only to section 5.4, meaning sections not 5.4 don't include the UK within the definition of EU.
5.5 is irrelevant because we don't know what AZ informed the EC of wrt manufacturing sites for the order. 5.1 says EU and 5.4 says the UK isn't in the EU for anything other than 5.4, I think the AZ lawyers have played lawyerly tricks on the EC.
Ok. But I don't think it's a contradiction. Best efforts to make the order in the EU (5.1) does not to me mean that using sites outside the EU is prohibited. It means make it in the EU if you can. If you can't, it is allowable to expand to the UK. 5.4 specifically covers this. 5.5 then instructs the choice of the actual initial sites (under 5.1. as expanded by 5.4) to be confirmed by AZ. Which AZ did (I understand) and they included the UK sites. My only caveat is, does "initial manufacturing sites" equate to "sites where the initial dose is to be manufactured"? If that's a yes, I think the crux question becomes the one I framed. Are they using best efforts to fill the EU from the initial (inc UK) sites? Or are they unfairly prioritizing the UK?
I agree that 5.1 states that AZ will do their best to manufacture within the EU (excluding the UK) and that 5.4 separately allows AZ to manufacture within the UK without them offering manufacture to EU based CMOs.
I don't think its particularly relevant to the dispute though.
Ok. But I was explaining why I don't see the contradiction between those 2 clauses that others here are seeing.
AZ told EC under 5.5 that in accordance with 5.4 they would be using best efforts to fill the initial EC doses under 5.1 using sites which included those in the UK.
That's my reading of it in a nutshell.
If they wanted it to be manufactured in the UK, they'd have included the UK as an EU member state (the arrogance) in Section 5.1.
By offering to pay for more manufacturing capacity to be built.
If you want your own bespoke manufacturing capacity then that will add costs to the project. If you just want to freeride on existing capacity, or other people's capacity when they're done with it, then at cost is cheaper.
Exactly. UK gov paid up front for the facility to make the vaccines, and at the end of the process there will be a pharmaceutical production facility in the UK.
A state-of-the-art one at that. With state-of-the-art expertise.
If only the daft buggers would do the same with tidal lagoon power stations. Tiny, tiny amounts in comparison - to get a similar state-of-the-art industry up and running.
Today is the day when a lot of journalists and others who have never drafted, interpreted or litigated a commercial contract in their lives and have no understanding of EU law or contract law suddenly claim to be experts and write the most immense twaddle about the AZ contract.
I had some drafting I was part of a team on which was litigated. Our interpretation was upheld.
By the House of Lords.
The party trying to wriggle of a £250 million hook?
Enron.
*buffs nails*
What's your take on this, such that you've read it?
This is surely the key point. Right now it looks like the EU has tried to be cute and get away with piggy-backing off of someone else's funding.
Yes, the EU is the guy who disappears to the gents when it's time for his round.
And then demands you buy him a super expensive drink the next round....while also eying up your drink, and then when you say if you wanted this drink you should have bought it, and they say you are starting a war.
Comments
...If AstraZeneca is unable to deliver on its intention to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses and/or Optional Doses under this Agreement in the EU, the Commission or the Participating Member States may present to AstraZeneca, CMOs within the EU capable of manufacturing the Vaccine Doses, and AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to contract with such proposed CMOs to increase the available manufacturing capacity within the EU. ...
In legal lock down mode, all such communication gets cut off. The information has to flow to the filter structure, be processed by it, go through. When an answer is received, it has to be filtered back.
The result is much slower communication, and the risk that information is lost/not delivered.
And with that...back to work.
Interesting.
Dschungel (jungle) is another.
This isn't going to get schools open more quickly, particularly in Secondary, as the issue is the mass mixing of households and community transmission.
My colleague has a compromised immune system, and is on the list of conditions that get vaccinated next. Plenty of my colleagues are over 50, so will be vaccinated in this programme. They need it more than I do (under 50, no serious health conditions). If I cop this thing, I've got more chance of survival than they do. That is literally where we are right now.
I need my old mum to be vaccinated, I need your old mum to be vaccinated. The mass vaccination of teachers, TAs etc instead of the older population and the unwell is not a sound policy, it's just a simplistic headline grabber. The goal here is to minimise deaths.
Found this - https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-gravy-train/on-demand/7476-001
For those who don't know, some of Alexi Sayles finest work.
I still laugh when I see a bowl of plums....
But doesn't the final clause in the sentence ALSO let AZ off the hook until marketing authorisation has been given? Iis that approval from the EMA?
I think the EC have been flummoxed by lawyers ensuring that the UK's status was clearly defined somewhere in the contract to remove ambiguity.
https://youtu.be/10LhHh0PR3I
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1355138498441977857?s=20
1) Parents who work in the private sector want their kids back at school
2) Parents who work in the public sector are less vocal about it
The prime minister's official spokesman says “EU policy is a matter for them" but stresses Boris Johnson's "confidence" in the supply "and the fact we remain committed to vaccinating the most vulnerable groups by the middle of February, the rest of phase one by the spring and offer a dose to all adults by September”.
Asked whether the stance on sending doses made in the UK to the EU had altered, No 10 says: “I think the public would expect us to continue to vaccinate as many people as possible, and that’s what we will do.”
He declines to comment on the amount of vaccines the UK possesses.
But he says: “The deals we have in place with the seven vaccine developers will ensure our supply continues to grow as we rapidly expand the rollout of the plan in the weeks and months ahead.”
-------
The Guardian will still spin this as the UK government threatening the EU.
What matters is what AZN think the contracts mean.
Not cheap though except for the EVGA (which is also probably the best option anyway)
https://twitter.com/dudsinbxls/status/1355146313822822402
This really seems like a really big own goal by the EU, they're becoming the "who the fuck what's to deal with this shit" type of client.
Both the US and UK gave money upfront to allow capacity to be built
(Though that was demanded rather than offered, I think.)
But it's a stupid, disingenuous argument, given we funded the development from the start.
I may be overcomplicating it but that's one ambiguity I noticed as a possibility, and may be something I'd argue if this was part of a contract law assessment.
Best efforts to make the initial order in the EU (5.1) does not to me mean that using sites outside the EU is prohibited. It means make it in the EU if you can.
If you can't, it is allowable to expand to the UK. 5.4 specifically covers this.
5.5 then instructs the choice of the actual initial sites (under 5.1. as expanded by 5.4) to be confirmed by AZ.
Which AZ did (I understand) and they included the UK sites.
My only caveat is, does "initial manufacturing sites" equate to "sites where the initial dose is to be manufactured"?
If that's a yes, I think the crux question becomes the one I framed. Are they using best efforts to fill the EU from the initial (inc UK) sites? Or are they unfairly prioritizing the UK?
I don't think its particularly relevant to the dispute though.
How does publishing a confidential contract that explicitly says you can't publish it in the public domain leave the EU?
Any ambiguities which exist all seem to be in AZN's favour - but I'm 100% sure that they didn't expect to be involved in such a public war with the EU.
The whole approach from the EU has been awful and the more they talk about "moral obligations", "unity" and "solidarity" the weaker it makes them look.
It's time for them to just pay up and get more manufacturing capacity built.
How much do we have to pay you for an opinion on this one?
How about Impfstoffkaufeseigentor?
i.e. 'Vaccine-purchasing-own goal'.
Hopefully not to be followed up by Impfstoffkaufeseigentorblitzkrieg ...
In fairness AZ and the EU have had months and disagree what the contract means.
What would be embarrassing would be if the Commission have done what amateurs do, and find one para that seems to support their case but dont consider it in overall context.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/
Did she seriously believe that the much later EU contract automatically superseded every other agreement that AZ had made because, well, EU?
If you want your own bespoke manufacturing capacity then that will add costs to the project. If you just want to freeride on existing capacity, or other people's capacity when they're done with it, then at cost is cheaper.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/22/south-africa-paying-more-than-double-eu-price-for-oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine
AZN will not make an overall profit, but the process of individual country pricing seems somewhat obscure.
The entire last year has been the year when a bunch of people with zero understanding of science or maths or data have hit themselves repeatedly with a rubber hammer.
Those in groups 5 and 6 are still vulnerable and much more vulnerable than younger groups. Clinical need should be the priority. Abandoning this is making the same mistake as easing restrictions too early. Yes - the vaccination programme is going well but it is too early to start acting as if we've beaten this thing.
I have 3 underlying health conditions: 2 lung ones and a blood one. I don't want to be pushed even further back in the queue just because some 30 year old wants the vaccine, even if they are a teacher. My chest consultant told me a few years back that it was imperative that I avoided any further lung infections, given the damage already sustained. And I have. So I really don't want to fall prey to this one now, especially not after hearing what it has done to son and husband. (Former now on the mend, thank God. Latter still with it but seems to be getting through it.)
If you say "I want x output when you can make it as cheaply as possible" that's viable at cost using existing failities.
If you say "I was 5x output ASAP, create new facilities to get it done urgently" then at cost will be more expensive.
Tbh, if this was going to go to court it already would have. I think the EC lawyers have already told the commission that they'd lose which is why they are resorting to the court of public opinion to apply political pressure on AZ.
"“You’re going to need export certificates for tinned rice pudding,” said FDF CEO Ian Wright. “When that comes it will be a showstopper for many businesses.”"
https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/hundreds-more-food-products-may-require-export-health-certificates-from-april/652628.article?utm_source=Daily News (The Grocer)&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2021-01-29&c=
EDIT - as so many of us have found out after the event, the government's guidance doesn't mention any of this. Its as if they were clueless about what their deal meant in practice.
"Little Moons is a London-based mochi producer benefiting from the current exemptions. Co-founder Howard Wong said he had monitored the UK government’s ‘Brexit transition’ help page but that it contained no information about the upcoming change. It was, rather, his German distributor who told him of the issue. “It would never have been on our radar from just looking at the UK government guidance,” he said."
By the House of Lords.
The party trying to wriggle of a £250 million hook?
Enron.
*buffs nails*
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-gravy-train/on-demand/7476-001
https://twitter.com/SpinningHugo/status/1355128817476644867?s=20
https://twitter.com/SpinningHugo/status/1355129436337807367?s=20
(Note the SA supply is coming from India's Serum Institute, produced under licence, so that complicates matters.)
AZ told EC under 5.5 that in accordance with 5.4 they would be using best efforts to fill the initial EC doses under 5.1 using sites which included those in the UK.
That's my reading of it in a nutshell.
If only the daft buggers would do the same with tidal lagoon power stations. Tiny, tiny amounts in comparison - to get a similar state-of-the-art industry up and running.
Muppets.
He has, as usual, issued the inevitable serving special pleading statement.
And, as inevitably, credulous journalists have fallen for it.
I'm a great believer in a free press but the quality of many journalists or people claiming to be journalists is really abysmal.
https://twitter.com/BarbaraRich_law/status/1355090740314071042?s=19