It looks like the future of television will just be broadcasting people shouting at the TV to each other.
Tbf it seemed to be Carole ‘do my lips look big in this’ Malone doing most of the shouting.
‘Treacherous!’
Fatso Ferrari on LBC was whining like a big jessie boy about Sturgeon to be done for Treason if she published the numbers. Tories really are cretins.
More to the point, traitors really are cretins.
Now - let's have none of that traitor stuff. It's wrecking PB. And you might not realise it, but when Alistair described Davie Clegg as 'noted cybernat' he was using something called Scottish Irony. Mr Clegg is not. That's the whole point.
(e) it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;
(a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and
(b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issue.
Interesting.
Also:
The Commission and the Participating Member States shall use their Best Reasonable Efforts to support, within the framework of their competencies, AstraZeneca in its Best Reasonable Efforts to achieve for the Vaccine fast access to the European population through pan-European access mechanisms, including accelerated regulatory approval processes.
(e) it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;
I wish the EU's political bureaucrats would make up their mind. Are they trying to enforce their malign interpretation of their legal contract rights in order to appropriate production of AZ jabs from UK plants, or are they trying to throw undisputed legal contract rights out of the window in order to seize Pfizer jabs destined for the UK from EU-based Pfizer plants? They seem to want both. Saying that they want to have their cake and eat it is too generous to them, because it's not even their cake.
And let's bear in mind that neither set of jabs would be there to seize in the first place if the UK had not acted many months before the EU and born the risks to get production off the ground.
They are playing politics, it is not about the law. It is pressure on the drug companies, and to show their public "something is being done". Politicians playing politics is hardly surprising, its generally bad and unhelpful as it is in this case, but if the tables were flipped our government would be doing the same.
The tables were flipped in December, both AZ and Pfizer failed to supply anywhere near their original contracted supply estimates. Pfizer missed by 60% and AZ missed 80%. I'm sure Novavax will miss by somewhere around that number too initially.
You know what we did? The government asked AZ what they needed to get things moving and arranged for the Wrexham bottling plant to increase capacity earlier and helped fly over the remaining doses from the failed German bottling plant to Wales. No law suits, no "unity", no threatening export bans unless Pfizer made up for the difference with EU destined supply.
The EU is acting like Dick Turpin thinking it can steal supplies destined for other countries. It can't and it needs to work with AZ, Pfizer and others to see what expertise it can offer to help with the bottlenecks. Not raid production plants hoping to catch boxes with Union Flags on them.
In addition, we can see the same failed strategy popping up again, Novavax just reported a 90% efficacy vaccine that works against the major variant sweeping through Europe (Kent COVID). Where is the EU purchase agreement, they make it in Czechia for export to RoW clients at the moment and over here for the UK government. Why hasn't the EU signed any kind of contract for 200m doses of it? Where are the production subsidies to get the Czechia manufacturing up to speed faster and capacity ramped up for 30m doses per month to supply the people of Europe etc...
Sorry for the rant, I'm just annoyed at the idea that we would do the same. We didn't.
The tables werent turned in December, the consensus was the UK was ahead of the vaccination numbers game back then. Tables turned would be UK on track for vaccination 6 months after the EU and the govt under enormous political pressure to do something about it - it is absurd to suggest that was the case in December here.
Yes the EU have made a series of big errors, and are continuing to do so, and the UK have made some good and early calls - that should not stop objective analysis of what is happening and have it replaced with a constant narrative of EU terrible and duplicitous and UK great and principled, the world is not so simple.
Err, were you awake in December when we were doing 100k per day or less and the weekly updates were pathetic and all of the panic over only 500k doses being certified out of the 100m order? The tables were absolutely turned, the reason you don't remember properly is because the government worked with AZ to find a way through the difficulties and got stuff mostly back on track.
In December I was regularly discussing with my parents when they would get vaccinated, I thought mid January, they still havent been done yet, but must be close. Expectations were pretty good back then, most of my sources would have been from here, including yourself.
(a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and
(b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issue.
Interesting.
Also:
The Commission and the Participating Member States shall use their Best Reasonable Efforts to support, within the framework of their competencies, AstraZeneca in its Best Reasonable Efforts to achieve for the Vaccine fast access to the European population through pan-European access mechanisms, including accelerated regulatory approval processes.
(e) it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;
Whoo-wee!
THAT is the clause.
IMHO.
Could you explain please for those of us with lesser contractese?
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below)
Best Reasonable Efforts” means (a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and (b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world.
Wasn't VdL saying "best efforts" didn't appear in the contract just this morning?
Strictly correct. It is best reasonable efforts.
Unfortunately for VdL, that is on even weaker obligation than best efforts.
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below)
Best Reasonable Efforts” means (a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and (b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world.
Wasn't VdL saying "best efforts" didn't appear in the contract just this morning?
I just cannot understand why the EU have decided to enter a very public and nasty fight with a leading pharmaceutical company and thus show them, and most every business looking to invest in Europe, that they are not a place to do business with.
It is a an open goal of 'Ratner' proportions and I imagine here in the UK the idea we want anything to do with membership of such a cartel must be growing daily
(e) it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;
Whoo-wee!
THAT is the clause.
IMHO.
Which as I said is why clause 5.4 is so important
5.1 says initial doses manufactured within the EU 5.4 says the EU includes the UK for that definition
(e) it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;
Whoo-wee!
THAT is the clause.
IMHO.
Could you explain please for those of us with lesser contractese?
Well first I've no idea - ask a lawyer.
But it really, really seems to me that this is saying that no other contract (with the UK, for example) is allowed to get in the way of the supplies promised in this contract.
I love that the first PDF linked on that page, labelled "Contract between European Commission and AstraZeneca" is not the contract (as you say, it's the second link)
I wish the EU's political bureaucrats would make up their mind. Are they trying to enforce their malign interpretation of their legal contract rights in order to appropriate production of AZ jabs from UK plants, or are they trying to throw undisputed legal contract rights out of the window in order to seize Pfizer jabs destined for the UK from EU-based Pfizer plants? They seem to want both. Saying that they want to have their cake and eat it is too generous to them, because it's not even their cake.
And let's bear in mind that neither set of jabs would be there to seize in the first place if the UK had not acted many months before the EU and born the risks to get production off the ground.
They are playing politics, it is not about the law. It is pressure on the drug companies, and to show their public "something is being done". Politicians playing politics is hardly surprising, its generally bad and unhelpful as it is in this case, but if the tables were flipped our government would be doing the same.
The tables were flipped in December, both AZ and Pfizer failed to supply anywhere near their original contracted supply estimates. Pfizer missed by 60% and AZ missed 80%. I'm sure Novavax will miss by somewhere around that number too initially.
You know what we did? The government asked AZ what they needed to get things moving and arranged for the Wrexham bottling plant to increase capacity earlier and helped fly over the remaining doses from the failed German bottling plant to Wales. No law suits, no "unity", no threatening export bans unless Pfizer made up for the difference with EU destined supply.
The EU is acting like Dick Turpin thinking it can steal supplies destined for other countries. It can't and it needs to work with AZ, Pfizer and others to see what expertise it can offer to help with the bottlenecks. Not raid production plants hoping to catch boxes with Union Flags on them.
In addition, we can see the same failed strategy popping up again, Novavax just reported a 90% efficacy vaccine that works against the major variant sweeping through Europe (Kent COVID). Where is the EU purchase agreement, they make it in Czechia for export to RoW clients at the moment and over here for the UK government. Why hasn't the EU signed any kind of contract for 200m doses of it? Where are the production subsidies to get the Czechia manufacturing up to speed faster and capacity ramped up for 30m doses per month to supply the people of Europe etc...
Sorry for the rant, I'm just annoyed at the idea that we would do the same. We didn't.
The tables werent turned in December, the consensus was the UK was ahead of the vaccination numbers game back then. Tables turned would be UK on track for vaccination 6 months after the EU and the govt under enormous political pressure to do something about it - it is absurd to suggest that was the case in December here.
Yes the EU have made a series of big errors, and are continuing to do so, and the UK have made some good and early calls - that should not stop objective analysis of what is happening and have it replaced with a constant narrative of EU terrible and duplicitous and UK great and principled, the world is not so simple.
Err, were you awake in December when we were doing 100k per day or less and the weekly updates were pathetic and all of the panic over only 500k doses being certified out of the 100m order? The tables were absolutely turned, the reason you don't remember properly is because the government worked with AZ to find a way through the difficulties and got stuff mostly back on track.
In December I was regularly discussing with my parents when they would get vaccinated, I thought mid January, they still havent been done yet, but must be close. Expectations were pretty good back then, most of my sources would have been from here, including yourself.
(a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and
(b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issue.
Interesting.
Also:
The Commission and the Participating Member States shall use their Best Reasonable Efforts to support, within the framework of their competencies, AstraZeneca in its Best Reasonable Efforts to achieve for the Vaccine fast access to the European population through pan-European access mechanisms, including accelerated regulatory approval processes.
Have they approved it yet?
The EU would be hard pressed to demonstrate they have accelerated it!
(e) it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;
Whoo-wee!
THAT is the clause.
IMHO.
Could you explain please for those of us with lesser contractese?
Well first I've no idea - ask a lawyer.
But it really, really seems to me that this is saying that no other contract (with the UK, for example) is allowed to get in the way of the supplies promised in this contract.
Thanks - that was what it seemed to me but it is so contrary to the picture pushed on PB that I just wanted to be sure.
The EU need to f*ck off with this desperate nonsense and actually do something productive.
Such as sign a contract with Novavax and invest in the Czechia manufacturing to ramp up o 30m doses per month? Nah, that would mean spending money on it.
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below)
Best Reasonable Efforts” means (a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and (b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world.
Wasn't VdL saying "best efforts" didn't appear in the contract just this morning?
Strictly correct. It is best reasonable efforts.
Unfortunately for VdL, that is on even weaker obligation than best efforts.
It only relates to the manufacturing process. Nothing about "commitments to other purchasers".
(e) it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;
Whoo-wee!
THAT is the clause.
IMHO.
Which as I said is why clause 5.4 is so important
5.1 says initial doses manufactured within the EU 5.4 says the EU includes the UK for that definition
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below)
Best Reasonable Efforts” means (a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and (b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world.
Wasn't VdL saying "best efforts" didn't appear in the contract just this morning?
It doesn't it is "best reasonable efforts" which is completely different, bit like saying some means same as all
(e) it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;
Whoo-wee!
THAT is the clause.
IMHO.
Could you explain please for those of us with lesser contractese?
Well first I've no idea - ask a lawyer.
But it really, really seems to me that this is saying that no other contract (with the UK, for example) is allowed to get in the way of the supplies promised in this contract.
Thanks - that was what it seemed to me but it is so contrary to the picture pushed on PB that I just wanted to be sure.
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below)
Best Reasonable Efforts” means (a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and (b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world.
Not that most people in Britain will be following the fine print as this just looks like atrocious behaviour by the EU, but the EU really haven't a prayer based on that.
Were this to go through the courts it would take about 10 years and the EU would lose.
(e) it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;
Whoo-wee!
THAT is the clause.
IMHO.
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below) to build capacity to manufacture 300 million Doses of the Vaccine, at no profit and no loss to AstraZeneca, at the total cost currently estimated to be Euros for distribution within the EU (the “Initial Europe Doses”), with an option for the Commission, acting on behalf of the Participating Member States, to order an additional 100 million Doses (the “Optional Doses”). WHEREAS, AstraZeneca will supply the Initial Europe Doses to the Participating Member States according to the terms of this Agreement.
That does *not* say that there are no commitments that rank above/prior to the “Initial Europe Doses.” In fact it imoplies that there are, because if you are talking about scaling up/increasing capacity that implies that you were already making vaccines for someone else. This doesn't help them.
Mr and Mrs Wicks need to alternative between the two of them who is doing their morning PE classes....
Longer nights than the first lockdown is a factor in that I reckon.
Yep - going out to exercise when it's dark and peeing down with rain is a lot harder than going out when the sun is out and it's a blue sky.
I've largely given up. I'm bored of the same handful of routes and apart from a few times a week where I can go on a long walk the weather has been Godawful when I've actually had the time.
So until I move to Scotland week after next exercise can wait. Or is that weight...?
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below)
Best Reasonable Efforts” means (a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and (b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world.
Not that most people in Britain will be following the fine print as this just looks like atrocious behaviour by the EU, but the EU really haven't a prayer based on that.
Were this to go through the courts it would take about 10 years and the EU would lose.
What would they lose?
They are saying that AZN is in breach of its contract to supply them with the ("initial") doses.
And it seems that they are right if AZN is saying they need to supply someone else first/instead.
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below)
Best Reasonable Efforts” means (a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and (b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world.
Wasn't VdL saying "best efforts" didn't appear in the contract just this morning?
It doesn't it is "best reasonable efforts" which is completely different, bit like saying some means same as all
You are honestly trying to suggest that 'best efforts' and 'best reasonable efforts' are very different phrases?
Thank goodness you're not a lawyer.
Anyway, it's moot. AZ are beautifully covered by the phrase 'best reasonable efforts.'
Let's take the politics out of this. The EU are having a stinker. All to cover up their manifest failures.
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below)
Best Reasonable Efforts” means (a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and (b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world.
Wasn't VdL saying "best efforts" didn't appear in the contract just this morning?
It doesn't it is "best reasonable efforts" which is completely different, bit like saying some means same as all
Isn't it a weaker version, since you've now added the caveat "reasonable" to it?
(e) it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;
Whoo-wee!
THAT is the clause.
IMHO.
Could you explain please for those of us with lesser contractese?
Well first I've no idea - ask a lawyer.
But it really, really seems to me that this is saying that no other contract (with the UK, for example) is allowed to get in the way of the supplies promised in this contract.
Thanks - that was what it seemed to me but it is so contrary to the picture pushed on PB that I just wanted to be sure.
People have been making guesses based on the public statements of parties involved and typical contract inclusions. it's hardly pushing a picture as it was before the picture was revealed. People will react if the facts alter the initial estimate.
If the EU lawyers have managed to pull the wool over AZ's lawyers when drafting the contract that does change the picture, but hardly makes the sinister accusations of diverting supplies or lying about supplies true and reasonable.
It looks like the future of television will just be broadcasting people shouting at the TV to each other.
Tbf it seemed to be Carole ‘do my lips look big in this’ Malone doing most of the shouting.
‘Treacherous!’
Fatso Ferrari on LBC was whining like a big jessie boy about Sturgeon to be done for Treason if she published the numbers. Tories really are cretins.
More to the point, traitors really are cretins.
Now - let's have none of that traitor stuff. It's wrecking PB. And you might not realise it, but when Alistair described Davie Clegg as 'noted cybernat' he was using something called Scottish Irony. Mr Clegg is not. That's the whole point.
crapping himself that the person who leaked the classified government info to his newspaper will be unmasked..........ooops his "friend" has already been daubed in
Still think we should offer up now a million jabs - although maybe half a million of the one jab Johnson and Johnson would be easier - to Olympic athletes and officials around the globe, so they can go ahead.
Surely Japan should do that?
I am puzzled as to why the Olympics can't be delayed, as opposed to cancelled or go ahead. I don't get it.
5.1 says, in non-legal English, that AZ will used best efforts to manufacture and distribute the vaccine, following authorisation.
Given the authorisation hasn’t arrived yet, why are they expecting the manufacturing to have started?
Oh, and doses paid for some redacted number of days in arrears, really? Didn’t UK a give them a nine-digit cheque up front?
Also, don’t forget the arguments about manufacture, QA, bottling, batch authorisation and delivery, each of which gave different numbers for the U.K. “deliveries” a month or two back...
(e) it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;
Whoo-wee!
THAT is the clause.
IMHO.
"in respect of the Initial Europe Doses"
It doesn't say anything about obligations, contractual or otherwise, to any Person on third party that existed prior to this contract that aren't part of the Initial Europe Doses.
If it did, then this contract would effectively override all other contracts AZN signed with other clients, which would be legal chaos and those clients would have a field day in suing AZN.
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below)
Best Reasonable Efforts” means (a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and (b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world.
Wasn't VdL saying "best efforts" didn't appear in the contract just this morning?
It doesn't it is "best reasonable efforts" which is completely different, bit like saying some means same as all
You are honestly trying to suggest that 'best efforts' and 'best reasonable efforts' are very different phrases?
Thank goodness you're not a lawyer.
Anyway, it's moot. AZ are beautifully covered by the phrase 'best reasonable efforts.'
Let's take the politics out of this. The EU are having a stinker. All to cover up their manifest failures.
And thank goodness the contract defines for us what Best Reasonable Efforts means.
It means they will do their best to manufacture the vaccine. It says nothing about "with regard for other purchasers".
So if AZN has the doses then it looks like it would be in breach of this contract if they didn't supply them (the "initial doses") to the EU.
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below)
Best Reasonable Efforts” means (a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and (b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world.
Wasn't VdL saying "best efforts" didn't appear in the contract just this morning?
It doesn't it is "best reasonable efforts" which is completely different, bit like saying some means same as all
Isn't it a weaker version, since you've now added the caveat "reasonable" to it?
Yes. 'Best reasonable efforts' is even better for AZ. They would be able to cite 1000x reasons why the EU are being, under these circumstances exceedingly unreasonable.
The EU are in a deep hole. So what they do? They throw a JCB into it and dig themselves a whole heap deeper.
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below)
Best Reasonable Efforts” means (a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and (b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world.
Wasn't VdL saying "best efforts" didn't appear in the contract just this morning?
It doesn't it is "best reasonable efforts" which is completely different, bit like saying some means same as all
Isn't it a weaker version, since you've now added the caveat "reasonable" to it?
That's my understanding - otherwise "best efforts" could be interpreted as infinite effort.
If one's particularly likely to be a vector in the spread of the virus, then it's in everyone's interests that one should be vaccinated. And this is so, if the ambition is (as you say) to minimize deaths. For the fatality rate will decrease as the spread of the virus is stopped. Thus there could be a group such that it's in everyone's interests that its members don't stay at home. Police are evidently such a group: they have to be out and about to play their role in the rule of law, including specifically these days of ensuring that people stick to the rules that are in place to stop the spread. Schoolteachers may be thought to belong to another such group: as soon as schools are re-opened (which seems to be agreed on all hands to be a priority in relaxing restrictions), they come to belong to vectors of transmission. Risk of fatality from Covid increases _exponentially_ with age. So there may very well come a point at which groups other than those above a certain age might be considered for vaccination. I don't know what the right policy is. And I'm sure it isn't to be discovered by opinion polling. But I object to the idea that groups being argued to be higher priority than those in a certain age band need to be thought of as "special interest groups".
Still think we should offer up now a million jabs - although maybe half a million of the one jab Johnson and Johnson would be easier - to Olympic athletes and officials around the globe, so they can go ahead.
Surely Japan should do that?
I am puzzled as to why the Olympics can't be delayed, as opposed to cancelled or go ahead. I don't get it.
Because they've already delayed it once and a lot of things built for an olympics (the athletes village) are needed for housing etc.
EU Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders has warned of a "vaccine war".
Speaking on Belgian radio, he said: "The EU commission has pushed to co-ordinate the vaccines contracts on behalf of the 27 precisely to avoid a vaccines war between EU countries, but maybe the UK wants to start a vaccine war?
"Solidarity is an important principle of the EU. With Brexit, it's clear that the UK doesn't want to show solidarity with anyone."
That's darkly funny. The good news is that by coordinating the contracts they've avoided a vaccine war between the EU countries and aren't squabbling amongst themselves. The bad news is that by coordinating the contracts they don't actually have the vaccines to squabble over.
It made sense for the EU to opt for a joint programme across the continent. That is in theory better than 27 individual countries doing their own thing. The problem has come in the execution. It was too slow, too hardball, and it's backfired and left them in a bad place. From none of which does it follow they have no case in their dispute with AZ. I suggest people hang fire a little with their "losing their minds" and "no leg to stand on" comments. They come from a place of less than perfect knowledge and insight.
(e) it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;
Whoo-wee!
THAT is the clause.
IMHO.
Which as I said is why clause 5.4 is so important
5.1 says initial doses manufactured within the EU 5.4 says the EU includes the UK for that definition
Yep good point also.
5.5 says AZ will notify the EU on the selection of initial manufacturing sites.
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below)
Best Reasonable Efforts” means (a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and (b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world.
Not that most people in Britain will be following the fine print as this just looks like atrocious behaviour by the EU, but the EU really haven't a prayer based on that.
Were this to go through the courts it would take about 10 years and the EU would lose.
What would they lose?
They are saying that AZN is in breach of its contract to supply them with the ("initial") doses.
And it seems that they are right if AZN is saying they need to supply someone else first/instead.
They are going to lose pharmaceutical investment across the EU, and other businesses will be looking at this with great concern
It is foolish and time for UVDL to hold her hands up and resign as williamglenn has said
This is just false from the BBC...AZN have missed all their targets with us.
I don't think you can blame the BBC for reporting the EU position. This is absolutely extraordinary, though: ...Meanwhile, EU Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders has warned of a "vaccine war". Speaking on Belgian radio, he said: "The EU commission has pushed to co-ordinate the vaccines contracts on behalf of the 27 precisely to avoid a vaccines war between EU countries, but maybe the UK wants to start a vaccine war? "Solidarity is an important principle of the EU. With Brexit, it's clear that the UK doesn't want to show solidarity with anyone."..
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below)
Best Reasonable Efforts” means (a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and (b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world.
Wasn't VdL saying "best efforts" didn't appear in the contract just this morning?
It doesn't it is "best reasonable efforts" which is completely different, bit like saying some means same as all
I think, malc, that if Boris had said no best efforts and best reasonable efforts was in there youd flip your shit about what a liar he was and those defending him were relying on weasel word technicalities.
In any case it seems like the EU will want to rely on other sections not that one, as best reasonable effort may be less strong than best efforts.
The issue seems to be really if the contract means they are entitled to other supplies to make up the shortfall.
If they are, AZ will soon be yelled at by everyone else they've signed a contract with
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below)
Best Reasonable Efforts” means (a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and (b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world.
Wasn't VdL saying "best efforts" didn't appear in the contract just this morning?
It doesn't it is "best reasonable efforts" which is completely different, bit like saying some means same as all
Isn't it a weaker version, since you've now added the caveat "reasonable" to it?
Yes. 'Best reasonable efforts' is even better for AZ. They would be able to cite 1000x reasons why the EU are being, under these circumstances exceedingly unreasonable.
The EU are in a deep hole. So what they do? They throw a JCB into it and dig themselves a whole heap deeper.
Jeez you are misunderstanding this. And this will be my last time posting to you about it, O Great Author and Journalist (not investigative I hope).
The contract says "best reasonable efforts" which relates to AZN's ability to manufacture the vaccine. If AZN manages to manufacture the vaccine in sufficient quantity so as to satisfy the EU's order for its initial doses, then this contract appears to be saying that the EU should get those doses.
If the doses are not there then yes, they couldn't be manufactured so all is good for AZN as they used all reasonable efforts.
But if they are there (and are being sold to the UK, for example) then that is not so good contractually it appears for AZN.
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below)
Best Reasonable Efforts” means (a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and (b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world.
Not that most people in Britain will be following the fine print as this just looks like atrocious behaviour by the EU, but the EU really haven't a prayer based on that.
Were this to go through the courts it would take about 10 years and the EU would lose.
What would they lose?
They are saying that AZN is in breach of its contract to supply them with the ("initial") doses.
And it seems that they are right if AZN is saying they need to supply someone else first/instead.
Blimey. IANAL, and all that, but I've read and negotiated lots of contracts. Not only does the EU not have a leg to stand on, the contract doesn't even attempt to give them the least impression of a leg to stand on.
How can they conceivably have thought that contract meant what they've been saying it meant?
The only explanation for publishing it is to shut up the MEPs and others in the EU who have been making daft calls for the EU to 'insist' on AZ magicking up vaccines from nowhere.
(e) it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;
Whoo-wee!
THAT is the clause.
IMHO.
Could you explain please for those of us with lesser contractese?
Well first I've no idea - ask a lawyer.
But it really, really seems to me that this is saying that no other contract (with the UK, for example) is allowed to get in the way of the supplies promised in this contract.
No, it says there are no competing claims *on the supplies promised by this contract* not the same as saying there are no other supplies promised elsewhere.
One day, a long, long time from now we will be able to read pb and the word sclerotic will not appear all day.
The sclerotic/nimble dialectic is going to be with us for a very long time. It will make us yearn for the lost innocence of pb.com's âge d'or of endless J-class travel anecdotes.
Yes. I miss that so much and I wasn't even here for it.
This is just false from the BBC...AZN have missed all their targets with us.
I don't think you can blame the BBC for reporting the EU position. This is absolutely extraordinary, though: ...Meanwhile, EU Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders has warned of a "vaccine war". Speaking on Belgian radio, he said: "The EU commission has pushed to co-ordinate the vaccines contracts on behalf of the 27 precisely to avoid a vaccines war between EU countries, but maybe the UK wants to start a vaccine war? "Solidarity is an important principle of the EU. With Brexit, it's clear that the UK doesn't want to show solidarity with anyone."..
I don't understand, have these people been asleep for the last 4 years?
EU Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders has warned of a "vaccine war".
Speaking on Belgian radio, he said: "The EU commission has pushed to co-ordinate the vaccines contracts on behalf of the 27 precisely to avoid a vaccines war between EU countries, but maybe the UK wants to start a vaccine war?
"Solidarity is an important principle of the EU. With Brexit, it's clear that the UK doesn't want to show solidarity with anyone."
That's darkly funny. The good news is that by coordinating the contracts they've avoided a vaccine war between the EU countries and aren't squabbling amongst themselves. The bad news is that by coordinating the contracts they don't actually have the vaccines to squabble over.
It made sense for the EU to opt for a joint programme across the continent. That is in theory better than 27 individual countries doing their own thing. The problem has come in the execution. It was too slow, too hardball, and it's backfired and left them in a bad place. From none of which does it follow they have no case in their dispute with AZ. I suggest people hang fire a little with their "losing their minds" and "no leg to stand on" comments. They come from a place of less than perfect knowledge and insight.
This is just false from the BBC...AZN have missed all their targets with us.
I don't think you can blame the BBC for reporting the EU position. This is absolutely extraordinary, though: ...Meanwhile, EU Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders has warned of a "vaccine war". Speaking on Belgian radio, he said: "The EU commission has pushed to co-ordinate the vaccines contracts on behalf of the 27 precisely to avoid a vaccines war between EU countries, but maybe the UK wants to start a vaccine war? "Solidarity is an important principle of the EU. With Brexit, it's clear that the UK doesn't want to show solidarity with anyone."..
That’s an astonishing thing to say, basically blaming the U.K. for not joining in with the EU scheme, presumably so we could all be crap together, in EU peace and harmony.
(e) it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;
Whoo-wee!
THAT is the clause.
IMHO.
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below) to build capacity to manufacture 300 million Doses of the Vaccine, at no profit and no loss to AstraZeneca, at the total cost currently estimated to be Euros for distribution within the EU (the “Initial Europe Doses”), with an option for the Commission, acting on behalf of the Participating Member States, to order an additional 100 million Doses (the “Optional Doses”). WHEREAS, AstraZeneca will supply the Initial Europe Doses to the Participating Member States according to the terms of this Agreement.
That does *not* say that there are no commitments that rank above/prior to the “Initial Europe Doses.” In fact it imoplies that there are, because if you are talking about scaling up/increasing capacity that implies that you were already making vaccines for someone else. This doesn't help them.
But AZN has affirmed that there are no other contracts that would impede the delivery of this contract?
It looks like the future of television will just be broadcasting people shouting at the TV to each other.
Tbf it seemed to be Carole ‘do my lips look big in this’ Malone doing most of the shouting.
‘Treacherous!’
Fatso Ferrari on LBC was whining like a big jessie boy about Sturgeon to be done for Treason if she published the numbers. Tories really are cretins.
More to the point, traitors really are cretins.
Now - let's have none of that traitor stuff. It's wrecking PB. And you might not realise it, but when Alistair described Davie Clegg as 'noted cybernat' he was using something called Scottish Irony. Mr Clegg is not. That's the whole point.
crapping himself that the person who leaked the classified government info to his newspaper will be unmasked..........ooops his "friend" has already been daubed in
Hi Malc.
Surprised you are not explaining about the Vietnam Whats app group
(e) it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;
Whoo-wee!
THAT is the clause.
IMHO.
Could you explain please for those of us with lesser contractese?
Well first I've no idea - ask a lawyer.
But it really, really seems to me that this is saying that no other contract (with the UK, for example) is allowed to get in the way of the supplies promised in this contract.
I am not so sure , you would never be able to restrict a company to only deal with you using this, no court would count that as breach. Best I suspect is they could not take specific EU vaccines and give to someone else but they will have many similar contracts with dates and schedules. If they have made reasonable efforts then they are OK, and reasonable does not mean using all efforts or depriving other commercial clients, especially given AZ have cut UK numbers as well.
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below)
Best Reasonable Efforts” means (a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and (b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world.
Not that most people in Britain will be following the fine print as this just looks like atrocious behaviour by the EU, but the EU really haven't a prayer based on that.
Were this to go through the courts it would take about 10 years and the EU would lose.
What would they lose?
They are saying that AZN is in breach of its contract to supply them with the ("initial") doses.
And it seems that they are right if AZN is saying they need to supply someone else first/instead.
You're misinterpreting the word "initial".
Doesn't the "initial" in this context apply to the 300m order because the contract also includes an option for an extra 100m doses.
"Solidarity is an important principle of the EU. "
"Solidarity means we all go down in the sinking SS Covid together....apart from the Germans, obviously, who bought their own supply of vaccine outside the agreed EU scheme."
(a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and
(b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issue.
Interesting.
Companies having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic ... across the world ... could reasonably (in my view) decide to divide their fulfillment of orders between different countries and different orders, if capacity limitations mean that all the orders cannot be fulfilled immediately.
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below)
Best Reasonable Efforts” means (a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and (b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world.
Not that most people in Britain will be following the fine print as this just looks like atrocious behaviour by the EU, but the EU really haven't a prayer based on that.
Were this to go through the courts it would take about 10 years and the EU would lose.
What would they lose?
They are saying that AZN is in breach of its contract to supply them with the ("initial") doses.
And it seems that they are right if AZN is saying they need to supply someone else first/instead.
You're misinterpreting the word "initial".
Doesn't the "initial" in this context apply to the 300m order because the contract also includes an option for an extra 100m doses.
(e) it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;
Whoo-wee!
THAT is the clause.
IMHO.
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below) to build capacity to manufacture 300 million Doses of the Vaccine, at no profit and no loss to AstraZeneca, at the total cost currently estimated to be Euros for distribution within the EU (the “Initial Europe Doses”), with an option for the Commission, acting on behalf of the Participating Member States, to order an additional 100 million Doses (the “Optional Doses”). WHEREAS, AstraZeneca will supply the Initial Europe Doses to the Participating Member States according to the terms of this Agreement.
That does *not* say that there are no commitments that rank above/prior to the “Initial Europe Doses.” In fact it imoplies that there are, because if you are talking about scaling up/increasing capacity that implies that you were already making vaccines for someone else. This doesn't help them.
But AZN has affirmed that there are no other contracts that would impede the delivery of this contract?
That is a warranty, and under English law (unless modified in the contract) would only have to be correct at the time it is given, when presumably AZ believed it could meet all orders simulatenously.
(e) it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;
Whoo-wee!
THAT is the clause.
IMHO.
Could you explain please for those of us with lesser contractese?
Well first I've no idea - ask a lawyer.
But it really, really seems to me that this is saying that no other contract (with the UK, for example) is allowed to get in the way of the supplies promised in this contract.
I am not so sure , you would never be able to restrict a company to only deal with you using this, no court would count that as breach. Best I suspect is they could not take specific EU vaccines and give to someone else but they will have many similar contracts with dates and schedules. If they have made reasonable efforts then they are OK, and reasonable does not mean using all efforts or depriving other commercial clients, especially given AZ have cut UK numbers as well.
They can deal with anyone and everyone. But this contract seems to say that no other deal should impede the delivery of the initial doses to the EU.
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below)
Best Reasonable Efforts” means (a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and (b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world.
Wasn't VdL saying "best efforts" didn't appear in the contract just this morning?
It doesn't it is "best reasonable efforts" which is completely different, bit like saying some means same as all
Isn't it a weaker version, since you've now added the caveat "reasonable" to it?
Yes. 'Best reasonable efforts' is even better for AZ. They would be able to cite 1000x reasons why the EU are being, under these circumstances exceedingly unreasonable.
The EU are in a deep hole. So what they do? They throw a JCB into it and dig themselves a whole heap deeper.
They must be confident or high on bluster to release the details.
I forget who suggested it, but I'd not be surprised if AZ manage to find some additional doses and the EU backs down, magnanimously, stating AZ accept their failing and thanks to unified action by the EU they have provided more.
Why haven't the German authorities forced these irresponsible bastards to take down this story yet?
Utterly remarkably, there seems to have been one change from when it was originally published. It now says that the vaccine's efficacy in >65s is 6.3%, down from their original 8%.
(a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and
(b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issue.
Interesting.
Companies having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic ... across the world ... could reasonably (in my view) decide to divide their fulfillment of orders between different countries and different orders, if capacity limitations mean that all the orders cannot be fulfilled immediately.
Very true. And I'm sure that will be what they say.
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below)
Best Reasonable Efforts” means (a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and (b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world.
Wasn't VdL saying "best efforts" didn't appear in the contract just this morning?
It doesn't it is "best reasonable efforts" which is completely different, bit like saying some means same as all
You are honestly trying to suggest that 'best efforts' and 'best reasonable efforts' are very different phrases?
Thank goodness you're not a lawyer.
Anyway, it's moot. AZ are beautifully covered by the phrase 'best reasonable efforts.'
Let's take the politics out of this. The EU are having a stinker. All to cover up their manifest failures.
You idiot , they are completely different as anyone who deals with contracts would know. Back to your knitting.
The EU is simultaneously threatening to block exports of one vaccine (Pfizer) to the UK whilst demanding we export another (AZ) to them, and apparently complaining *we're* trying to start a war over vaccines.
One thing the EU are probably achieving here is a reinforcing of the UK's attractiveness and desirability as a global pharmaceutical hub in future.
I could see consolidation and investment in the UK after this as various firms realise the EU is capable of playing politics with them and acting in bad faith.
Still think we should offer up now a million jabs - although maybe half a million of the one jab Johnson and Johnson would be easier - to Olympic athletes and officials around the globe, so they can go ahead.
Surely Japan should do that?
I am puzzled as to why the Olympics can't be delayed, as opposed to cancelled or go ahead. I don't get it.
I assume someone already has the 2024 games and they wont want to be too close to that, and they dont think autumn games works.
(e) it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;
Whoo-wee!
THAT is the clause.
IMHO.
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below) to build capacity to manufacture 300 million Doses of the Vaccine, at no profit and no loss to AstraZeneca, at the total cost currently estimated to be Euros for distribution within the EU (the “Initial Europe Doses”), with an option for the Commission, acting on behalf of the Participating Member States, to order an additional 100 million Doses (the “Optional Doses”). WHEREAS, AstraZeneca will supply the Initial Europe Doses to the Participating Member States according to the terms of this Agreement.
That does *not* say that there are no commitments that rank above/prior to the “Initial Europe Doses.” In fact it imoplies that there are, because if you are talking about scaling up/increasing capacity that implies that you were already making vaccines for someone else. This doesn't help them.
But AZN has affirmed that there are no other contracts that would impede the delivery of this contract?
Have they?
They promise 100 things to the UK and 50 things to the EU. What they are saying is that none of the 50 things is promised elsewhere, they are saying nothing about the (different) 100 things. Your interpretation assumes that either the EU had no idea, and AZN made no attempt to tell them, that AZN were making vaccines for the UK, or that the parties cheerfully concluded an agreement to shaft the UK. Unrealistic.
It looks like the future of television will just be broadcasting people shouting at the TV to each other.
Tbf it seemed to be Carole ‘do my lips look big in this’ Malone doing most of the shouting.
‘Treacherous!’
Fatso Ferrari on LBC was whining like a big jessie boy about Sturgeon to be done for Treason if she published the numbers. Tories really are cretins.
More to the point, traitors really are cretins.
Now - let's have none of that traitor stuff. It's wrecking PB. And you might not realise it, but when Alistair described Davie Clegg as 'noted cybernat' he was using something called Scottish Irony. Mr Clegg is not. That's the whole point.
crapping himself that the person who leaked the classified government info to his newspaper will be unmasked..........ooops his "friend" has already been daubed in
Hi Malc.
Surprised you are not explaining about the Vietnam Whats app group
Never heard of it G, is it about the Vietnam war, or are you talking about Murrel and his merry band of whatsappers planning their stitch up on whatsapp , as you do.
Beginning to see the issue here (h/t David Allen Green, obvs).
The issue is that as far as can be assumed, the agreement with the EU did have that best efforts clause but that related to manufacturing capacity. It likely made no mention of prioritisation of the product. It seems that AZN does have sufficient manufacturing capacity for the EU order in isolation.
Hence, the EU is behaving as though its agreement is the only one on the planet. AZN, meanwhile, probably realising that they didn't explicitly set out the allocation schedule, has said that the UK ordered first (which it did) and therefore the obligation is to the UK.
But the EU seemingly doesn't care about other contracts it cares about its own contract. AZN has the manufacturing ability hence the EU believes that as that is the only best efforts constraint, the EU should receive its full allocation.
I expect to repost this several times today so I shall label this v1.0.
But the best efforts definition used (according to DAG, in the other contract, so probably in this one too) explicitly did refer to commitments to others.
AZN's commitments to earlier contracts falls under that surely?
Well IANAL, obvs, but according to DAG that is the general description and then it is applied, specifically, to two scenarios which creates the actual obligation.
‘(i) to obtain EU marketing authorisation for the Product and (ii) to establish sufficient manufacturing capacities to enable the manufacturing and supply of the contractually agreed volumes of the Product to the participating Member States in accordance with the estimated delivery schedule set out below in Article I.11 once at least a conditional EU marketing authorisation has been granted.’
It is DAG's contention that the general description is without meaning or force unless it is further refined, as it is in 1.3 (i).
"sufficient" = "sufficient taking our other obligations into account."
DAG did a tweet in 2016 saying the NEC was going to win the challenge over eligibility to vote in the leadership elections, and (I paraphrase) "I know this because I am a Big Important Lawyer and the rest of you look like little ants to me." The NEC lost, the tweet got deleted. Ignore.
Well that is a bold claim to ignore his point. IANAL but do you/they really add phantom phrases to explicit contracts to suit their (client's) needs?
Well, you can't gloss everything in the contract. If the UK is entitled to 100 things a day and the EU also wants 100 things a day and I have one factory which can produce a maximum of 100 things a day, then on one view I have sufficient capacity to satisfy the EU and on another I haven't. So lawyers argue about which was really meant, and courts decide.
Yes absolutely - as I noted in my subsequent post. It is going to turn on exactly that.
AZN will say but we told you we would take into account other purchasers; and the EU will say we don't care about other purchasers, the "operative provision" relates only to manufacturing capacity alone.
I think it gets interesting if there is anything in the contract about where things will be manufactured - but for the moment it's an issue of "you can't have things that don't exist no matter how much you scream".
Furthermore, the EU claim to have been told "some of your vaccine will come from UK factories/you have a right to UK product"; were they also told in advance at the time "but the UK has bought up the initial batches, so you won't get UK stuff for ages"? Presumably AZ have seen both contracts, but the UK and EU haven't. And that's the basic plot structure for every farce ever written.
Had AZ's ability to produce vaccine matched their ability to sell it, that would all be fine. It hasn't, which is why there's a problem. And no, there's no good way out of this.
Yes there is, just ignore the EU, let them shout and scream for a bit and wait for them to calm down. Ultimately this is the result from EU underinvestment in vaccine procurement, they chose a very poor strategy of not subsidising production and now they need to deal with it. There's nothing more to it than that. This political posturing from them is pissing into the wind and the threat of an export ban is a joke as it would come with a gigantic international retaliation that means everyone loses.
I don't get it. Or your point.
The EU, on behalf of its Member States, agreed a contract to buy some vaccines from AZN. They are now arguing over whether AZN is in breach of that contract. There is merit in both sides according to what we know (as discussed above).
How is that proof if proof be needed of the sclerotic nature of the EU which has underinvested in vaccine programmes?
Plus of course "the EU" doesn't invest in vaccine programmes, its Member States do.
I would suggest you take up your argument with the FT who published the figures a couple of days ago showing that the UK and US had both invested 7 times more than the EU per capita in vaccine development.
Because the EU is not a state.
So you agree with the UK Gov not giving their ambassador equal weight with those of the member states then?
Excellent.
That seemed petty on the face of it. What do you think was the reason for it?
The EU is simultaneously threatening to block exports of one vaccine (Pfizer) to the UK whilst demanding we export another (AZ) to them, and apparently complaining *we're* trying to start a war over vaccines.
There's plenty our government has gotten wrong, but it's doing its best not to get involved in the EU/AZ contretemps.
"berates"....Boris and the rest of the UK government has be atypically very calm and quiet over all of this, simply stating they have orders and believe they will be unaffected.
One day, a long, long time from now we will be able to read pb and the word sclerotic will not appear all day.
The sclerotic/nimble dialectic is going to be with us for a very long time. It will make us yearn for the lost innocence of pb.com's âge d'or of endless J-class travel anecdotes.
Yes. I miss that so much and I wasn't even here for it.
English sparkling wine and minor celebrity name dropping is for ever though.
Blimey. IANAL, and all that, but I've read and negotiated lots of contracts. Not only does the EU not have a leg to stand on, the contract doesn't even attempt to give them the least impression of a leg to stand on.
How can they conceivably have thought that contract meant what they've been saying it meant?
The only explanation for publishing it is to shut up the MEPs and others in the EU who have been making daft calls for the EU to 'insist' on AZ magicking up vaccines from nowhere.
I’m not even sure what publishing the contract does for them - just doesn’t match their fury.
Oh well - ultimately says to me businesses should think twice about entering into contracts with the EU, because they’ll try to chuck you under the bus as soon as they feel threatened
(e) it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;
Whoo-wee!
THAT is the clause.
IMHO.
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below) to build capacity to manufacture 300 million Doses of the Vaccine, at no profit and no loss to AstraZeneca, at the total cost currently estimated to be Euros for distribution within the EU (the “Initial Europe Doses”), with an option for the Commission, acting on behalf of the Participating Member States, to order an additional 100 million Doses (the “Optional Doses”). WHEREAS, AstraZeneca will supply the Initial Europe Doses to the Participating Member States according to the terms of this Agreement.
That does *not* say that there are no commitments that rank above/prior to the “Initial Europe Doses.” In fact it imoplies that there are, because if you are talking about scaling up/increasing capacity that implies that you were already making vaccines for someone else. This doesn't help them.
But AZN has affirmed that there are no other contracts that would impede the delivery of this contract?
That is a warranty, and under English law (unless modified in the contract) would only have to be correct at the time it is given, when presumably AZ believed it could meet all orders simulatenously.
Interesting. So they could say "you're our only customer" on June 10th and sign this commitment and then on June 11th (or June 5th have) signed 100 other contracts for the same supply.
In fact, as this (famously and much trumpetedly on PB) was signed after the UK contract, were they right to affirm that then?
Still think we should offer up now a million jabs - although maybe half a million of the one jab Johnson and Johnson would be easier - to Olympic athletes and officials around the globe, so they can go ahead.
Surely Japan should do that?
I am puzzled as to why the Olympics can't be delayed, as opposed to cancelled or go ahead. I don't get it.
I assume someone already has the 2024 games and they wont want to be too close to that, and they dont think autumn games works.
Paris 2024 LA 2028
Tokyo I believe has been offered 2032 on the quiet.
Sorry if this has been discussed - I've been too busy to read the comments.
The prioritisation list does not take into account the risk of exposure, just the risk of serious illness or death if you do catch the virus.
Who has a greater risk of becoming seriously ill - a 45 year old classroom teacher/police officer/factory worker, or a 53 year old working from home and getting all of their groceries dropped off at the front door?
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below)
Best Reasonable Efforts” means (a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and (b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world.
Wasn't VdL saying "best efforts" didn't appear in the contract just this morning?
It doesn't it is "best reasonable efforts" which is completely different, bit like saying some means same as all
You are honestly trying to suggest that 'best efforts' and 'best reasonable efforts' are very different phrases?
Thank goodness you're not a lawyer.
Anyway, it's moot. AZ are beautifully covered by the phrase 'best reasonable efforts.'
Let's take the politics out of this. The EU are having a stinker. All to cover up their manifest failures.
Er, they are very, very different terms under Engliash law. "Best endeavours" has case law that says, essentially "do it, whatever the cost and inconvience to you". It is something you would almost never agree to in a contract, unless a) you were a muppet or b) you were in such a weak negotiating position you were grasping your ankles and assuming the position....
This is just false from the BBC...AZN have missed all their targets with us.
I don't think you can blame the BBC for reporting the EU position. This is absolutely extraordinary, though: ...Meanwhile, EU Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders has warned of a "vaccine war". Speaking on Belgian radio, he said: "The EU commission has pushed to co-ordinate the vaccines contracts on behalf of the 27 precisely to avoid a vaccines war between EU countries, but maybe the UK wants to start a vaccine war? "Solidarity is an important principle of the EU. With Brexit, it's clear that the UK doesn't want to show solidarity with anyone."..
That’s an astonishing thing to say, basically blaming the U.K. for not joining in with the EU scheme, presumably so we could all be crap together, in EU peace and harmony.
It implies that even outside the EU the UK ought to join with and cooperate with the EU most or even all of the time. It's like he hasn't even grasped the point of leaving the EU.
(e) it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;
Whoo-wee!
THAT is the clause.
IMHO.
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below) to build capacity to manufacture 300 million Doses of the Vaccine, at no profit and no loss to AstraZeneca, at the total cost currently estimated to be Euros for distribution within the EU (the “Initial Europe Doses”), with an option for the Commission, acting on behalf of the Participating Member States, to order an additional 100 million Doses (the “Optional Doses”). WHEREAS, AstraZeneca will supply the Initial Europe Doses to the Participating Member States according to the terms of this Agreement.
That does *not* say that there are no commitments that rank above/prior to the “Initial Europe Doses.” In fact it imoplies that there are, because if you are talking about scaling up/increasing capacity that implies that you were already making vaccines for someone else. This doesn't help them.
But AZN has affirmed that there are no other contracts that would impede the delivery of this contract?
It doesn't say that. They will be able to deliver the contract, the timetable is uncertain though and that was accounted for in the contract so it will still be delivered.
The UK's contract doesn't prevent the EU's contract being honoured, the EU's contract will be honoured just after the UK's if need be.
It looks like the future of television will just be broadcasting people shouting at the TV to each other.
Tbf it seemed to be Carole ‘do my lips look big in this’ Malone doing most of the shouting.
‘Treacherous!’
Fatso Ferrari on LBC was whining like a big jessie boy about Sturgeon to be done for Treason if she published the numbers. Tories really are cretins.
More to the point, traitors really are cretins.
Now - let's have none of that traitor stuff. It's wrecking PB. And you might not realise it, but when Alistair described Davie Clegg as 'noted cybernat' he was using something called Scottish Irony. Mr Clegg is not. That's the whole point.
crapping himself that the person who leaked the classified government info to his newspaper will be unmasked..........ooops his "friend" has already been daubed in
Hi Malc.
Surprised you are not explaining about the Vietnam Whats app group
Never heard of it G, is it about the Vietnam war, or are you talking about Murrel and his merry band of whatsappers planning their stitch up on whatsapp , as you do.
It seems to be that the U.K. site is in the EU for the purposes of 5.4 (which just expresses a generalised desire to manufacture in the EU) but NOT for the purposes of 5.1 (which is the clause which imposes serious obligations on AZ).
It looks like the future of television will just be broadcasting people shouting at the TV to each other.
Tbf it seemed to be Carole ‘do my lips look big in this’ Malone doing most of the shouting.
‘Treacherous!’
Fatso Ferrari on LBC was whining like a big jessie boy about Sturgeon to be done for Treason if she published the numbers. Tories really are cretins.
More to the point, traitors really are cretins.
Now - let's have none of that traitor stuff. It's wrecking PB. And you might not realise it, but when Alistair described Davie Clegg as 'noted cybernat' he was using something called Scottish Irony. Mr Clegg is not. That's the whole point.
crapping himself that the person who leaked the classified government info to his newspaper will be unmasked..........ooops his "friend" has already been daubed in
Hi Malc.
Surprised you are not explaining about the Vietnam Whats app group
Never heard of it G, is it about the Vietnam war, or are you talking about Murrel and his merry band of whatsappers planning their stitch up on whatsapp , as you do.
Had a look at the Sky report. Looks pretty familiar stuff except for the explanation, or speculation, about the derivation of the name Vietnam for this purpose, but as PBers have shown there are various possibilities.
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below)
Best Reasonable Efforts” means (a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and (b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world.
Wasn't VdL saying "best efforts" didn't appear in the contract just this morning?
It doesn't it is "best reasonable efforts" which is completely different, bit like saying some means same as all
Isn't it a weaker version, since you've now added the caveat "reasonable" to it?
Yes. 'Best reasonable efforts' is even better for AZ. They would be able to cite 1000x reasons why the EU are being, under these circumstances exceedingly unreasonable.
The EU are in a deep hole. So what they do? They throw a JCB into it and dig themselves a whole heap deeper.
Jeez you are misunderstanding this. And this will be my last time posting to you about it, O Great Author and Journalist (not investigative I hope).
The contract says "best reasonable efforts" which relates to AZN's ability to manufacture the vaccine. If AZN manages to manufacture the vaccine in sufficient quantity so as to satisfy the EU's order for its initial doses, then this contract appears to be saying that the EU should get those doses.
If the doses are not there then yes, they couldn't be manufactured so all is good for AZN as they used all reasonable efforts.
But if they are there (and are being sold to the UK, for example) then that is not so good contractually it appears for AZN.
Knocking your head off a brick wall there I think Topping, must be some books this clown writes.
(e) it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;
Whoo-wee!
THAT is the clause.
IMHO.
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below) to build capacity to manufacture 300 million Doses of the Vaccine, at no profit and no loss to AstraZeneca, at the total cost currently estimated to be Euros for distribution within the EU (the “Initial Europe Doses”), with an option for the Commission, acting on behalf of the Participating Member States, to order an additional 100 million Doses (the “Optional Doses”). WHEREAS, AstraZeneca will supply the Initial Europe Doses to the Participating Member States according to the terms of this Agreement.
That does *not* say that there are no commitments that rank above/prior to the “Initial Europe Doses.” In fact it imoplies that there are, because if you are talking about scaling up/increasing capacity that implies that you were already making vaccines for someone else. This doesn't help them.
But AZN has affirmed that there are no other contracts that would impede the delivery of this contract?
Have they?
They promise 100 things to the UK and 50 things to the EU. What they are saying is that none of the 50 things is promised elsewhere, they are saying nothing about the (different) 100 things. Your interpretation assumes that either the EU had no idea, and AZN made no attempt to tell them, that AZN were making vaccines for the UK, or that the parties cheerfully concluded an agreement to shaft the UK. Unrealistic.
But doesn't this change when they supply 100 things to the UK and 25 things to the EU?
Would the EU be right in thinking that they had sufficient to give us 50 (because they manufactured 125) and they told us that no other contract would get in the way of that and hence they should give us 50?
(e) it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;
Whoo-wee!
THAT is the clause.
IMHO.
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below) to build capacity to manufacture 300 million Doses of the Vaccine, at no profit and no loss to AstraZeneca, at the total cost currently estimated to be Euros for distribution within the EU (the “Initial Europe Doses”), with an option for the Commission, acting on behalf of the Participating Member States, to order an additional 100 million Doses (the “Optional Doses”). WHEREAS, AstraZeneca will supply the Initial Europe Doses to the Participating Member States according to the terms of this Agreement.
That does *not* say that there are no commitments that rank above/prior to the “Initial Europe Doses.” In fact it imoplies that there are, because if you are talking about scaling up/increasing capacity that implies that you were already making vaccines for someone else. This doesn't help them.
But AZN has affirmed that there are no other contracts that would impede the delivery of this contract?
That is a warranty, and under English law (unless modified in the contract) would only have to be correct at the time it is given, when presumably AZ believed it could meet all orders simulatenously.
Interesting. So they could say "you're our only customer" on June 10th and sign this commitment and then on June 11th (or June 5th have) signed 100 other contracts for the same supply.
In fact, as this (famously and much trumpetedly on PB) was signed after the UK contract, were they right to affirm that then?
You draft the contract so that: 1. The warranty is repeated, i.e. I have to notify you if it becomes false; 2. I am obliged by separate obligation not to enter into a contract which might have that effect. But even then it would depend on the sequence of events.
Really I would expect this more to be a due diligence thing. Do AZ have the systems in place? What are he risk factors? How dependent are they on other people? A response to that inquiry could be the ringfencing.
I haven't read the rest of the contract, maybe it does one or more of those things.
Still think we should offer up now a million jabs - although maybe half a million of the one jab Johnson and Johnson would be easier - to Olympic athletes and officials around the globe, so they can go ahead.
Surely Japan should do that?
I am puzzled as to why the Olympics can't be delayed, as opposed to cancelled or go ahead. I don't get it.
I assume someone already has the 2024 games and they wont want to be too close to that, and they dont think autumn games works.
Paris 2024 LA 2028
Tokyo I believe has been offered 2032 on the quiet.
By August, I confidently predict we will have a raft of posters asking "Why the hell couldn't the Olympics have gone ahead?"
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below)
Best Reasonable Efforts” means (a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and (b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world.
Wasn't VdL saying "best efforts" didn't appear in the contract just this morning?
It doesn't it is "best reasonable efforts" which is completely different, bit like saying some means same as all
Isn't it a weaker version, since you've now added the caveat "reasonable" to it?
Yes. 'Best reasonable efforts' is even better for AZ. They would be able to cite 1000x reasons why the EU are being, under these circumstances exceedingly unreasonable.
The EU are in a deep hole. So what they do? They throw a JCB into it and dig themselves a whole heap deeper.
They must be confident or high on bluster to release the details.
I forget who suggested it, but I'd not be surprised if AZ manage to find some additional doses and the EU backs down, magnanimously, stating AZ accept their failing and thanks to unified action by the EU they have provided more.
They should deliver say 100,000 doses to the EU Commission headquarters in Brussels, in boxes with GPS trackers. Let’s see how many leave the city...
Still think we should offer up now a million jabs - although maybe half a million of the one jab Johnson and Johnson would be easier - to Olympic athletes and officials around the globe, so they can go ahead.
Surely Japan should do that?
I am puzzled as to why the Olympics can't be delayed, as opposed to cancelled or go ahead. I don't get it.
By August most of the vulnerable should have been vaccinated and no reason at all why the Olympics cannot go ahead. Athletes can quarantine before and after.
If necessary just livestream them without a crowd as they do now for Premiership Football or cricket for instance
Sorry if this has been discussed - I've been too busy to read the comments.
The prioritisation list does not take into account the risk of exposure, just the risk of serious illness or death if you do catch the virus.
Who has a greater risk of becoming seriously ill - a 45 year old classroom teacher/police officer/factory worker, or a 53 year old working from home and getting all of their groceries dropped off at the front door?
Figuring all of that out is very bureaucratic though, it's better to just ramp up capacity and get to everyone faster.
Comments
(e) it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;
Whoo-wee!
The Commission and the Participating Member States shall use their Best Reasonable Efforts to support, within the framework of their competencies, AstraZeneca in its Best Reasonable Efforts to achieve for the Vaccine fast access to the European population through pan-European access mechanisms, including accelerated regulatory approval processes.
IMHO.
Unfortunately for VdL, that is on even weaker obligation than best efforts.
It is a an open goal of 'Ratner' proportions and I imagine here in the UK the idea we want anything to do with membership of such a cartel must be growing daily
5.1 says initial doses manufactured within the EU
5.4 says the EU includes the UK for that definition
But it really, really seems to me that this is saying that no other contract (with the UK, for example) is allowed to get in the way of the supplies promised in this contract.
The EU hasn't even paid up front?
cf the CureVac APA.
Were this to go through the courts it would take about 10 years and the EU would lose.
Reasonable Efforts (as defined below) to build capacity to manufacture 300 million Doses of
the Vaccine, at no profit and no loss to AstraZeneca, at the total cost currently estimated to be
Euros for distribution within the EU (the “Initial
Europe Doses”), with an option for the Commission, acting on behalf of the Participating
Member States, to order an additional 100 million Doses (the “Optional Doses”).
WHEREAS, AstraZeneca will supply the Initial Europe Doses to the Participating
Member States according to the terms of this Agreement.
That does *not* say that there are no commitments that rank above/prior to the “Initial
Europe Doses.” In fact it imoplies that there are, because if you are talking about scaling up/increasing capacity that implies that you were already making vaccines for someone else. This doesn't help them.
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355116295176515584
So until I move to Scotland week after next exercise can wait. Or is that weight...?
They are saying that AZN is in breach of its contract to supply them with the ("initial") doses.
And it seems that they are right if AZN is saying they need to supply someone else first/instead.
Thank goodness you're not a lawyer.
Anyway, it's moot. AZ are beautifully covered by the phrase 'best reasonable efforts.'
Let's take the politics out of this. The EU are having a stinker. All to cover up their manifest failures.
If the EU lawyers have managed to pull the wool over AZ's lawyers when drafting the contract that does change the picture, but hardly makes the sinister accusations of diverting supplies or lying about supplies true and reasonable.
Given the authorisation hasn’t arrived yet, why are they expecting the manufacturing to have started?
Oh, and doses paid for some redacted number of days in arrears, really? Didn’t UK a give them a nine-digit cheque up front?
Also, don’t forget the arguments about manufacture, QA, bottling, batch authorisation and delivery, each of which gave different numbers for the U.K. “deliveries” a month or two back...
It doesn't say anything about obligations, contractual or otherwise, to any Person on third party that existed prior to this contract that aren't part of the Initial Europe Doses.
If it did, then this contract would effectively override all other contracts AZN signed with other clients, which would be legal chaos and those clients would have a field day in suing AZN.
It means they will do their best to manufacture the vaccine. It says nothing about "with regard for other purchasers".
So if AZN has the doses then it looks like it would be in breach of this contract if they didn't supply them (the "initial doses") to the EU.
But of course let's get a lawyer to look at it.
The EU are in a deep hole. So what they do? They throw a JCB into it and dig themselves a whole heap deeper.
Thus there could be a group such that it's in everyone's interests that its members don't stay at home. Police are evidently such a group: they have to be out and about to play their role in the rule of law, including specifically these days of ensuring that people stick to the rules that are in place to stop the spread. Schoolteachers may be thought to belong to another such group: as soon as schools are re-opened (which seems to be agreed on all hands to be a priority in relaxing restrictions), they come to belong to vectors of transmission.
Risk of fatality from Covid increases _exponentially_ with age. So there may very well come a point at which groups other than those above a certain age might be considered for vaccination.
I don't know what the right policy is. And I'm sure it isn't to be discovered by opinion polling. But I object to the idea that groups being argued to be higher priority than those in a certain age band need to be thought of as "special interest groups".
It is foolish and time for UVDL to hold her hands up and resign as williamglenn has said
...Meanwhile, EU Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders has warned of a "vaccine war".
Speaking on Belgian radio, he said: "The EU commission has pushed to co-ordinate the vaccines contracts on behalf of the 27 precisely to avoid a vaccines war between EU countries, but maybe the UK wants to start a vaccine war?
"Solidarity is an important principle of the EU. With Brexit, it's clear that the UK doesn't want to show solidarity with anyone."..
In any case it seems like the EU will want to rely on other sections not that one, as best reasonable effort may be less strong than best efforts.
The issue seems to be really if the contract means they are entitled to other supplies to make up the shortfall.
If they are, AZ will soon be yelled at by everyone else they've signed a contract with
The contract says "best reasonable efforts" which relates to AZN's ability to manufacture the vaccine. If AZN manages to manufacture the vaccine in sufficient quantity so as to satisfy the EU's order for its initial doses, then this contract appears to be saying that the EU should get those doses.
If the doses are not there then yes, they couldn't be manufactured so all is good for AZN as they used all reasonable efforts.
But if they are there (and are being sold to the UK, for example) then that is not so good contractually it appears for AZN.
How can they conceivably have thought that contract meant what they've been saying it meant?
The only explanation for publishing it is to shut up the MEPs and others in the EU who have been making daft calls for the EU to 'insist' on AZ magicking up vaccines from nowhere.
Surprised you are not explaining about the Vietnam Whats app group
I forget who suggested it, but I'd not be surprised if AZ manage to find some additional doses and the EU backs down, magnanimously, stating AZ accept their failing and thanks to unified action by the EU they have provided more.
Utterly remarkably, there seems to have been one change from when it was originally published. It now says that the vaccine's efficacy in >65s is 6.3%, down from their original 8%.
https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/pandemie-bekaempfung-corona-impfstoff-diskussion-um-wirksamkeit-von-astra-zeneca-vakzin-bei-senioren/26849788.html
The EU is simultaneously threatening to block exports of one vaccine (Pfizer) to the UK whilst demanding we export another (AZ) to them, and apparently complaining *we're* trying to start a war over vaccines.
Got to say I found this, from the BBC's gone native EU editor, a steaming mountain of horse manure:
https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1354713420197732358
There's plenty our government has gotten wrong, but it's doing its best not to get involved in the EU/AZ contretemps.
I could see consolidation and investment in the UK after this as various firms realise the EU is capable of playing politics with them and acting in bad faith.
They promise 100 things to the UK and 50 things to the EU. What they are saying is that none of the 50 things is promised elsewhere, they are saying nothing about the (different) 100 things. Your interpretation assumes that either the EU had no idea, and AZN made no attempt to tell them, that AZN were making vaccines for the UK, or that the parties cheerfully concluded an agreement to shaft the UK. Unrealistic.
Oh well - ultimately says to me businesses should think twice about entering into contracts with the EU, because they’ll try to chuck you under the bus as soon as they feel threatened
In fact, as this (famously and much trumpetedly on PB) was signed after the UK contract, were they right to affirm that then?
LA 2028
Tokyo I believe has been offered 2032 on the quiet.
The prioritisation list does not take into account the risk of exposure, just the risk of serious illness or death if you do catch the virus.
Who has a greater risk of becoming seriously ill - a 45 year old classroom teacher/police officer/factory worker, or a 53 year old working from home and getting all of their groceries dropped off at the front door?
The UK's contract doesn't prevent the EU's contract being honoured, the EU's contract will be honoured just after the UK's if need be.
http://news.sky.com/story/snp-faces-fresh-claims-that-high-ranking-party-figures-conspired-against-former-leader-alex-salmond-12201748
Would the EU be right in thinking that they had sufficient to give us 50 (because they manufactured 125) and they told us that no other contract would get in the way of that and hence they should give us 50?
1. The warranty is repeated, i.e. I have to notify you if it becomes false;
2. I am obliged by separate obligation not to enter into a contract which might have that effect. But even then it would depend on the sequence of events.
Really I would expect this more to be a due diligence thing. Do AZ have the systems in place? What are he risk factors? How dependent are they on other people? A response to that inquiry could be the ringfencing.
I haven't read the rest of the contract, maybe it does one or more of those things.
If necessary just livestream them without a crowd as they do now for Premiership Football or cricket for instance