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.
If necessary just livestream them without a crowd as they do now for Premiership Football or cricket for instance
Field athletes could just stay at home and do it on Zoom. No need to go to Tokyo.
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.
Indeed, the govt recognise its EU politicians being seen to do something, but actually doing nothing, and are far less concerned or bothered about it than most on here. They might get some doses a week or two earlier if its possible, little else will change, vaccine exports wont be banned. By the spring there will be enough vaccines around that it will cease to be a political issue. The UK govt have handled it well.
(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.
Poor show by AZ if so - why sign an agreement saying all your other contracted customers are screwed in favour of another who came in later? Receipe for many angry customers.
But I dont doubt lawyers will argue bith sides are right - its their job.
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?
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.
Thanks. Very interesting. Looking forward to some experts picking over this.
(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.
It says laws of Belgium for this one, presumably England for the UK version.
Makes sense to vaccinate teachers/key workers ahead of others in same risk category who can work from home.
But vaccinating all teachers - as I understand Keir is calling for - is unjustified and Mike is right that it would likely lead to further unnecessary deaths. Disastrous idea from Starmer.
Maybe it's popular, but it would be the wrong thing to do.
The only thing vaccinating teachers does is ensure they stay in school while the pupils spread it amongst themselves and potentially to their families.
It's a plan but it will be trading some teaching for some deaths.
Worse the teaching will be as stop start as it was last term as cohorts of children are forced to isolate and classes are 50% in school and 50% remote.
Then why have we vaccinated young nurses, doctors, care home staff etc?
There has been no bleating about them taking away jabs from the vulnerable, which is exactly what they have done?
Why is it different for teachers?
I don’t have to touch lots of people infected with Covid.
I don’t have to look into the mouths of people infected from Covid.
If I go off sick, the Vice Principal swears and picks up the phone to a supply agency who teaches work I set. If doctors and nurses go off sick, people die.
I’ve been very outspoken about all the issues in education, and I have considerable personal respect for you, but I am afraid you have drawn a false equivalence there.
Incidentally, and while we’re on this subject, on a hasty glance at a couple of threads I saw Foxy taking a bit of flak. Can I politely suggest we don’t pile in on him? None of us are having fun right now, but he’s got it far worse than the lot of us put together. He’s watching people die, including colleagues, is working huge numbers of extra hours, and is having to walk around like a refugee from a SciFi set.
If he needs to come on and randomly vent to a lot of strangers, can I suggest we extend some sympathy to him and cheer him up with some awesome puns and cricket commentary rather than slagging him of? Lots of people did that for me when I was a bit low before Christmas and I deeply appreciated it. How about a ‘be nice to Foxy day?’
(My autocorrect made that ‘nice beer for Foxy’ day, which may work too!)
Excellent post. I really couldn't agree more but I do think teachers dealing with kids face to face need protection. As you have pointed out before several have died already.
I want teachers protected as much as the next person (because that’s another teacher)
But it’s feck all use protecting teachers to reopen schools if the price is dead parents through in school transmission. And I have been consistent in saying that.
Education and teachers have had a rough ride through the pandemic. Quite frankly I thinks it’s fair enough to offer them a jab to standup in front of 30 snotty kids, breathing in a miasma of COVID farts.
I am conscious of my Australian teacher friend who has a son with cystic fibrosis.
I tend to agree. Teachers aren't a huge group either. They can be vaccinated without blowing a hug hole in over all sulpply.
(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.
Poor show by AZ if so - why sign an agreement saying all your other contracted customers are screwed in favour of another who came in later? Receipe for many angry customers.
But I dont doubt lawyers will argue bith sides are right - its their job.
Absolutely. But at the time this was signed, AZN had already signed a contract with the UK. Hence my questioning.
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
The 2024 Olympics are in Paris. Are we confident the French will have been vaccinated by then?
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 Foreign Office said it would set a precedent by treating an international body in the same way as a nation state. Other international organisations would apply leading to a proliferation of other such bodies seeking diplomatic status.
The EU gets offended by being referred to as an international organisation as they view themselves as a supranational union of Europeans (all for one and one for all) and an emerging federal state.
Under the skin, the issue is probably that the UK prefers to hold foreign, defence and security policy discussions with member states directly, and wants to deal with the EU institutions as little as possible.
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.
I know, it's completely ridiculous.
How dare the UK do a better job than us, we should all fail together "solidarity"
(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.
The contract is subject to Belgian law. I am not sure what grounds there are for identifying it as a warranty (why could it not be for instance a representation or a condition?), or for thinking AZ ever thought that, given that it was talking about best reasonable efforts to scale things up.
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?
In a ideal world you would indeed weigh up invididual risk and rank the entire population and then proceed in that order. In the middle of a pandemic that is bound to be far too slow a process, it's much better to pick broad segments of the population for vaccination to get the most people covered as quickly as possible.
(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?
They still only have promised reasonable efforts , so can easily claim production difficulties etc and they reasonably tried to fulfill. AZ will win easy.
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?
"Best Reasonable Effort" is a completely different thing.
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 Foreign Office said it would set a precedent by treating an international body in the same way as a nation state. Other international organisations would apply leading to a proliferation of other such bodies seeking diplomatic status.
The EU gets offended by being referred to as an international organisation as they view themselves as a supranational union of Europeans (all for one and one for all) and an emerging federal state.
Under the skin, the issue is probably that the UK prefers to hold foreign, defence and security policy discussions with member states directly, and wants to deal with the EU institutions as little as possible.
The latter part is definitely true. The UK government and wider establishment would much rather deal with countries directly either bilaterally or multilaterally.
Aiui, the EU isn't invited to the D10 summit during the G7 meetings but of course Germany, Italy and France are.
If/when the EU decides it's a country then those 27 embassies get downgraded and our EU presence is upgraded.
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.
Thanks G, so that has been out for some time , was in the trial and was Murrel , complainers and top civil servants , top SNP ,etc getting their plans in place etc and stupid enough to do on whatsapp
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?
"Best Reasonable Effort" is a completely different thing.
Or something.
I thought she was saying that to suggest that there wasn't a get out "best effort" clause for AZN to exploit. In reality it was much more forgiving.
(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?
Brings us back to what you mean by sufficient. I think the 100 are ringfenced, sacrosanct and nothing to do with 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.
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.
I think you are missing a crucial point in this Topping. And I absolutely accept that I am not a lawyer so this is just my impression.
The section 5.4 on Including the UK within the EU for the purposes of being an acceptable location for the production of vaccine for the EU is absolutely explicit that it applies only to that clause itself. The EU will accept vaccine produced within the UK without further question or need for confirmation from the EU.
But it does not apply to any other clause in the contract. That is made explicit. So the EU cannot lay claim to vaccine from the UK factories for the purposes of fulfilling the clause about assured delivery. It simply does not apply.
It is the only reason I can see that AZN have made sure that caveat is in the contract.
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 Foreign Office said it would set a precedent by treating an international body in the same way as a nation state. Other international organisations would apply leading to a proliferation of other such bodies seeking diplomatic status.
The EU gets offended by being referred to as an international organisation as they view themselves as a supranational union of Europeans (all for one and one for all) and an emerging federal state.
Under the skin, the issue is probably that the UK prefers to hold foreign, defence and security policy discussions with member states directly, and wants to deal with the EU institutions as little as possible.
Why not give diplomatic credentials to the EU and withdraw them from their regional satraps? It would be a lot cheaper with no obvious downside.
(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.
The contract is subject to Belgian law. I am not sure what grounds there are for identifying it as a warranty (why could it not be for instance a representation or a condition?), or for thinking AZ ever thought that, given that it was talking about best reasonable efforts to scale things up.
Obviously I am not qualified to opine on Belgian law.
It could be a representation, but the point would be the same. But at a basic level, it is a statement of fact, and not an obligation. As I say there may be other relevant obligations.
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.
Kenny MacAskill MP, who has made these allegations, is in hot water himself due to making trips from his holiday home in Speyside to his constituency in East Lothian. Makes you wonder how that came to be public knowledge. Ferrets in a bag.
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.
I searched on vietnam whatsapp and it looked like lists of porn sites so assumed that was not what G was referring to.
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?
"Best Reasonable Effort" is a completely different thing.
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?
"Best Reasonable Effort" is a completely different thing.
Or something.
I thought she was saying that to suggest that there wasn't a get out "best effort" clause for AZN to exploit. In reality it was much more forgiving.
Technically she is right though - I don't believe the phrase "Best Effort" is used anywhere.
(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.
Interesting. It asks AZN to specify a delivery date (so far as what I've read) and hence yes, AZN could say you will get your doses just not yet we have to fulfil XYZ's contract first.
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.
LOL - A post from Malcolm I can completely agree with.
(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.
Poor show by AZ if so - why sign an agreement saying all your other contracted customers are screwed in favour of another who came in later? Receipe for many angry customers.
But I dont doubt lawyers will argue bith sides are right - its their job.
Absolutely. But at the time this was signed, AZN had already signed a contract with the UK. Hence my questioning.
They're promising their best reasonable efforts to fulfill the EU contract. The issue is delays in the EU plants and that falls within the coverall of "best reasonable efforts". They will use their best reasonable efforts to fix the problems and get the coverage working.
Nothing in the UK's contracts prevents them from using their best reasonable efforts to get the EU's order filled as soon as they can. The reason its not getting filled is because the EU plant it was planned to come from has a low yield (having been started 3 months late), not the UK contract - since they never planned to use the UK plants to fill the EU's order at this stage the UK's contract preventing it isn't unreasonable.
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.
If necessary just livestream them without a crowd as they do now for Premiership Football or cricket for instance
Field athletes could just stay at home and do it on Zoom. No need to go to Tokyo.
waste of time and money anyway , just a bunch of numpties wanting to run about in shorts, who cares.
AZ presumably have a manufacturing process for EU vaccines whether that involves UK or EU facilities. Likewise they will have a process for UK vaccines.
These were put into place at the time of the contract, and if AZ has switched resources from one process to the other, then I don't think the contract will allow them to get out of that.
If the EU process is failing worse than the UK one is/did, then I have seen nothing which requires them to level the playing field.
@MaxPB Did you cash your Doge ? Price has pulled back to 5 cents now. I got my stake out with £20 profit and 1000 Doge left to ride
I won't be able to get that laptop for a while, I might go tomorrow morning if the price is still inflated. I think the holding would be worth well over six figures right now but by tomorrow it will be worthless again!
(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?
They still only have promised reasonable efforts , so can easily claim production difficulties etc and they reasonably tried to fulfill. AZ will win easy.
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.
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
The 2024 Olympics are in Paris. Are we confident the French will have been vaccinated by then?
Just a quickie. I'm not a lawyer but I've spent a lot of time in court. On both sides of the fence.
'Reasonable' is a disastrous word for the EU. It's open to massive interpretation. It's a word I have myself encountered vis a vis a big piece I wrote in a newspaper. 'Reasonable' is the kind of word which would take years to argue over through the courts and there will almost certainly be only one loser ... the EU. This is an unprecedented pandemic situation so, frankly, I doubt the EU have a prayer.
I wrote above, 'only one loser.' That's not entirely true.
Prof Peston now a contract law specialist....he is the Paul Nutall of the media.
He's looking at the contract in a mirror. Confusing stuff.
On a real note - seen several statements from the EU saying that UK production has been unaffected. As in fully delivered. Hence the demand for 75 million doses.
Are they unaware that the UK delivery is behind as well, or is this playing to the peanut gallery?
As a matter of interest - which vaccine production pipelines *are* on schedule, worldwide? From what I have heard, just about everyone is having production difficulties.
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.
I searched on vietnam whatsapp and it looked like lists of porn sites so assumed that was not what G was referring to.
Suddenly starts to pay more attention ** innocent face **
(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.
I think you are missing a crucial point in this Topping. And I absolutely accept that I am not a lawyer so this is just my impression.
The section 5.4 on Including the UK within the EU for the purposes of being an acceptable location for the production of vaccine for the EU is absolutely explicit that it applies only to that clause itself. The EU will accept vaccine produced within the UK without further question or need for confirmation from the EU.
But it does not apply to any other clause in the contract. That is made explicit. So the EU cannot lay claim to vaccine from the UK factories for the purposes of fulfilling the clause about assured delivery. It simply does not apply.
It is the only reason I can see that AZN have made sure that caveat is in the contract.
Again, interesting. As I said one of the comments on David Allen Green's blog said the following.
"Another possibility is that particular facilities were intended to supply the product for different buyers, with each buyer bearing the risk that his allocated production facilities might incur delays; this is the reading the UK seems to advocate, the idea being that production of UK facilities gives priority to UK buyers. Again, that would seem to require explicit contract provisions; if it were merely AZ’s ‘intention’ to link particular facilities with particular buyers, rather than a contractual term accepted by the buyers, that would not in my view be enough."
I am looking forward to reading his (and his followers') view on 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.
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.
I think you are missing a crucial point in this Topping. And I absolutely accept that I am not a lawyer so this is just my impression.
The section 5.4 on Including the UK within the EU for the purposes of being an acceptable location for the production of vaccine for the EU is absolutely explicit that it applies only to that clause itself. The EU will accept vaccine produced within the UK without further question or need for confirmation from the EU.
But it does not apply to any other clause in the contract. That is made explicit. So the EU cannot lay claim to vaccine from the UK factories for the purposes of fulfilling the clause about assured delivery. It simply does not apply.
It is the only reason I can see that AZN have made sure that caveat is in the contract.
This is exactly the point I made above. The U.K. is in the EU for 5.4 ONLY. And 5.4 explicitly only relates to acceptable places for manufacture, not that the EU has any claims over vaccines manufactured there.
(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.
I think you are missing a crucial point in this Topping. And I absolutely accept that I am not a lawyer so this is just my impression.
The section 5.4 on Including the UK within the EU for the purposes of being an acceptable location for the production of vaccine for the EU is absolutely explicit that it applies only to that clause itself. The EU will accept vaccine produced within the UK without further question or need for confirmation from the EU.
But it does not apply to any other clause in the contract. That is made explicit. So the EU cannot lay claim to vaccine from the UK factories for the purposes of fulfilling the clause about assured delivery. It simply does not apply.
It is the only reason I can see that AZN have made sure that caveat is in the contract.
Again, interesting. As I said one of the comments on David Allen Green's blog said the following.
"Another possibility is that particular facilities were intended to supply the product for different buyers, with each buyer bearing the risk that his allocated production facilities might incur delays; this is the reading the UK seems to advocate, the idea being that production of UK facilities gives priority to UK buyers. Again, that would seem to require explicit contract provisions; if it were merely AZ’s ‘intention’ to link particular facilities with particular buyers, rather than a contractual term accepted by the buyers, that would not in my view be enough."
I am looking forward to reading his (and his followers') view on it.
Well the contract does specify that AZN will inform the EU of the production facilities.
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?
"Best Reasonable Effort" is a completely different thing.
Or something.
I think people accept they would mean different things, not necessarily to her advantage , but it's a very politician thing to do to make a categorical denial over a difference of one word.
(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.
The document says "laws of Belgium".
That's correct Matt which I have highlighted below.
I don't think it changes the conclusion but obviously terms like "warranty" are very much English law. I'm not even sure they extend north of the border.
(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.
The document says "laws of Belgium".
What remedy is the EU seeking? Specific performance? Damages? Surely regardless of this dispute they will struggle to enforce anything in reality, regardless of any legal merits?
I'm unsure over whether AZ will suffer negative commercial consequences over this. They have the kudos of having a working vaccine after all, and they will deliver eventually.
(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.
I think you are missing a crucial point in this Topping. And I absolutely accept that I am not a lawyer so this is just my impression.
The section 5.4 on Including the UK within the EU for the purposes of being an acceptable location for the production of vaccine for the EU is absolutely explicit that it applies only to that clause itself. The EU will accept vaccine produced within the UK without further question or need for confirmation from the EU.
But it does not apply to any other clause in the contract. That is made explicit. So the EU cannot lay claim to vaccine from the UK factories for the purposes of fulfilling the clause about assured delivery. It simply does not apply.
It is the only reason I can see that AZN have made sure that caveat is in the contract.
This is exactly the point I made above. The U.K. is in the EU for 5.4 ONLY. And 5.4 explicitly only relates to acceptable places for manufacture, not that the EU has any claims over vaccines manufactured there.
Unless you are reading the contract with rose tinted specs and praying clause 5.4 is a get out clause.
Heck you only have to look at Robert Peston to see how stupid none lawyers can be when clutching at straws in a legal agreement.
I dont think she's invincible, I just think at present her position, or rather the SNPs, is strong enough to shrug off things that would imperil others.
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.
And a big yes to all that. Must admit these are exciting PB times, though, with this EU/AZ dispute. Feelings running high. My hunch - and I freely admit it's no more - is that the EU do have a case and they will get a bipartite resolution which helps them out a bit. Vaccine war with the UK coming? No, I sense not. Certainly hope not. God, can you imagine?
And amongst the noise of the more strident europhobes calling it a slam dunk for AZ, with the EU behaving in a way that is "simply intolerable", what do we get on here? We get a couple of desiccated coconuts - Topping and Ishmael - coolly live litigating the matter using the actual contract!
(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.
I think you are missing a crucial point in this Topping. And I absolutely accept that I am not a lawyer so this is just my impression.
The section 5.4 on Including the UK within the EU for the purposes of being an acceptable location for the production of vaccine for the EU is absolutely explicit that it applies only to that clause itself. The EU will accept vaccine produced within the UK without further question or need for confirmation from the EU.
But it does not apply to any other clause in the contract. That is made explicit. So the EU cannot lay claim to vaccine from the UK factories for the purposes of fulfilling the clause about assured delivery. It simply does not apply.
It is the only reason I can see that AZN have made sure that caveat is in the contract.
Again, interesting. As I said one of the comments on David Allen Green's blog said the following.
"Another possibility is that particular facilities were intended to supply the product for different buyers, with each buyer bearing the risk that his allocated production facilities might incur delays; this is the reading the UK seems to advocate, the idea being that production of UK facilities gives priority to UK buyers. Again, that would seem to require explicit contract provisions; if it were merely AZ’s ‘intention’ to link particular facilities with particular buyers, rather than a contractual term accepted by the buyers, that would not in my view be enough."
I am looking forward to reading his (and his followers') view on it.
Well the contract does specify that AZN will inform the EU of the production facilities.
And another point made on AZN's blog is that surely the EU would have asked for details of prior contracts also.
(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.
I think you are missing a crucial point in this Topping. And I absolutely accept that I am not a lawyer so this is just my impression.
The section 5.4 on Including the UK within the EU for the purposes of being an acceptable location for the production of vaccine for the EU is absolutely explicit that it applies only to that clause itself. The EU will accept vaccine produced within the UK without further question or need for confirmation from the EU.
But it does not apply to any other clause in the contract. That is made explicit. So the EU cannot lay claim to vaccine from the UK factories for the purposes of fulfilling the clause about assured delivery. It simply does not apply.
It is the only reason I can see that AZN have made sure that caveat is in the contract.
This is exactly the point I made above. The U.K. is in the EU for 5.4 ONLY. And 5.4 explicitly only relates to acceptable places for manufacture, not that the EU has any claims over vaccines manufactured there.
Unless you are reading the contract with rose tinted specs and praying clause 5.4 is a get out clause.
Heck you only have to look at Robert Peston to see how stupid none lawyers can be when clutching at straws in a legal agreement.
5.4 does say it specifically only refers to 5.4, they can't apply it to the whole agreement and specifically to 5.1, it seems that the EU is trying to do this but the contract is extremely specific that the UK only applies in 5.4 and not elsewhere.
(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.
I think you are missing a crucial point in this Topping. And I absolutely accept that I am not a lawyer so this is just my impression.
The section 5.4 on Including the UK within the EU for the purposes of being an acceptable location for the production of vaccine for the EU is absolutely explicit that it applies only to that clause itself. The EU will accept vaccine produced within the UK without further question or need for confirmation from the EU.
But it does not apply to any other clause in the contract. That is made explicit. So the EU cannot lay claim to vaccine from the UK factories for the purposes of fulfilling the clause about assured delivery. It simply does not apply.
It is the only reason I can see that AZN have made sure that caveat is in the contract.
This is exactly the point I made above. The U.K. is in the EU for 5.4 ONLY. And 5.4 explicitly only relates to acceptable places for manufacture, not that the EU has any claims over vaccines manufactured there.
Fucking lazy drafting. A properly drafted law says
Dogs must be carried on the Underground Cats must be carried on the Underground
Not
Dogs must be carried on the Underground Cats are deemed to be dogs for the purposes of this rule.
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.
All rather grubby and hard to follow this story. I can't figure out at what point Salmond became persona non grata to others in the party
It's complicated, but supposedly there were fears at the top of the SNP that Salmond would try to make a comeback after he lost his Westminster seat in 2017. The theory then goes that they made the new Holyrood complaints procedure about sexual harassment retrospective so it would ensnare him. But that's just one element in the whole unsavoury affair. The whole thing has grown legs and arms.
As long as AZN stick to their interpretation of the contract isn't a lot of all this moot? It would take months to argue this through the courts, by which time production across all the plants should be at full speed and AZN will be able to meet obligations?
(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.
The document says "laws of Belgium".
What remedy is the EU seeking? Specific performance? Damages? Surely regardless of this dispute they will struggle to enforce anything in reality, regardless of any legal merits?
I'm unsure over whether AZ will suffer negative commercial consequences over this. They have the kudos of having a working vaccine after all, and they will deliver eventually.
That is absolutely true. They will surely not expect the UK to divert vaccines to the EU. And by the time this gets to court as @MaxPB has noted about teacher vaccinations, we will be swimming in vaccines and, if it takes as long as EU court cases usually do, we might be onto Covid24 by then.
That clause covers the scenario such as the EU contracting with two different suppliers intending to use the same factory or facility. As opposed to AZ contracting with another country.
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?
"Best Reasonable Effort" is a completely different thing.
Or something.
I thought she was saying that to suggest that there wasn't a get out "best effort" clause for AZN to exploit. In reality it was much more forgiving.
Technically she is right though - I don't believe the phrase "Best Effort" is used anywhere.
Exactly my point
As we all know technically correct is the best form of correct.
As long as AZN stick to their interpretation of the contract isn't a lot of all this mute? It would take months to argue this through the courts, by which time production across all the plants should be at full speed and AZN will be able to meet obligations?
(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.
I think you are missing a crucial point in this Topping. And I absolutely accept that I am not a lawyer so this is just my impression.
The section 5.4 on Including the UK within the EU for the purposes of being an acceptable location for the production of vaccine for the EU is absolutely explicit that it applies only to that clause itself. The EU will accept vaccine produced within the UK without further question or need for confirmation from the EU.
But it does not apply to any other clause in the contract. That is made explicit. So the EU cannot lay claim to vaccine from the UK factories for the purposes of fulfilling the clause about assured delivery. It simply does not apply.
It is the only reason I can see that AZN have made sure that caveat is in the contract.
This is exactly the point I made above. The U.K. is in the EU for 5.4 ONLY. And 5.4 explicitly only relates to acceptable places for manufacture, not that the EU has any claims over vaccines manufactured there.
Unless you are reading the contract with rose tinted specs and praying clause 5.4 is a get out clause.
Heck you only have to look at Robert Peston to see how stupid none lawyers can be when clutching at straws in a legal agreement.
5.4 does say it specifically only refers to 5.4, they can't apply it to the whole agreement.
It says that for the purpose of manufacturing the UK is within the EU for supply purposes.
I hope she has good lawyers after what she said this morning, or she's going to be like a stepmom on (insert TSE's favourite comment here) once AZN get after her.
Edit - actually, I'm being unfair. I suspect that was drafted by AZN's lawyers. The moron was the person who checked it.
As long as AZN stick to their interpretation of the contract isn't a lot of all this mute? It would take months to argue this through the courts, by which time production across all the plants should be at full speed and AZN will be able to meet obligations?
I dont think she's invincible, I just think at present her position, or rather the SNPs, is strong enough to shrug off things that would imperil others.
(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.
The document says "laws of Belgium".
What remedy is the EU seeking? Specific performance? Damages? Surely regardless of this dispute they will struggle to enforce anything in reality, regardless of any legal merits?
I'm unsure over whether AZ will suffer negative commercial consequences over this. They have the kudos of having a working vaccine after all, and they will deliver eventually.
The only remedy they seem to be seeking is specific performance with AZN delivering the UK manufactured vaccines (which are in the EU due to clause 5.4) to the EU.
Crikey EU officials talking about "war" now (albeit in context of vaccine not an actual one... yet) the eurocrats really have gone nuts haven't they?
Seriously I know we have the fact they fucked up and Brexit in a potent combination but they are acting deranged right now
And setting back re-join in the process........
After this re-join isn't going to be an popular option.
I know people keep saying this but I would ask how much penetration this whole argument is really having into the public consciousness. I agree that if the EU really started insisting on vaccines coming from UK plants which affected UK supply then it would certainly become a major public issue but right now I don't see that the public as a whole are really aware of this whole argument to the extent that it would change anyone's view overall of the EU.
For the record I know many EU supporters on here are unhappy with the way the EU has behaved and it may even change some minds about any rejoin campaign on here. But of course we are not normal people.
As long as AZN stick to their interpretation of the contract isn't a lot of all this mute? It would take months to argue this through the courts, by which time production across all the plants should be at full speed and AZN will be able to meet obligations?
Up to the Belgians, but courts will expedite things if failing to do so means that any remedy will be too late to help.
Presumably all this posturing is for EU domestic consumption, have we seen any polling within Europe as to the public view of the responsibility for delays to the vaccine programme?
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.
That might have been true but the key issue for most big pharmaceutical companies is the availability of highly trained and qualified staff.
The UK is generally not seen as a place where professionals want to settle at the moment. It is seen as unwelcoming and insular and therefore attracting the right people is going to be very difficult.
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.
Not having a lengthy auction for the 2032 Olympics will mightily piss off some IOC members looking forward to their "freebies"..... Tragedy.
There are binding orders and the contract is crystal clear," Mrs von der Leyen said in Friday morning's radio interview. Best effort' was valid while it was still unclear whether they could develop a vaccine. That time is behind us. The vaccine is there.
(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.
I think you are missing a crucial point in this Topping. And I absolutely accept that I am not a lawyer so this is just my impression.
The section 5.4 on Including the UK within the EU for the purposes of being an acceptable location for the production of vaccine for the EU is absolutely explicit that it applies only to that clause itself. The EU will accept vaccine produced within the UK without further question or need for confirmation from the EU.
But it does not apply to any other clause in the contract. That is made explicit. So the EU cannot lay claim to vaccine from the UK factories for the purposes of fulfilling the clause about assured delivery. It simply does not apply.
It is the only reason I can see that AZN have made sure that caveat is in the contract.
Again, interesting. As I said one of the comments on David Allen Green's blog said the following.
"Another possibility is that particular facilities were intended to supply the product for different buyers, with each buyer bearing the risk that his allocated production facilities might incur delays; this is the reading the UK seems to advocate, the idea being that production of UK facilities gives priority to UK buyers. Again, that would seem to require explicit contract provisions; if it were merely AZ’s ‘intention’ to link particular facilities with particular buyers, rather than a contractual term accepted by the buyers, that would not in my view be enough."
I am looking forward to reading his (and his followers') view on it.
Well the contract does specify that AZN will inform the EU of the production facilities.
And another point made on AZN's blog is that surely the EU would have asked for details of prior contracts also.
(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.
I think you are missing a crucial point in this Topping. And I absolutely accept that I am not a lawyer so this is just my impression.
The section 5.4 on Including the UK within the EU for the purposes of being an acceptable location for the production of vaccine for the EU is absolutely explicit that it applies only to that clause itself. The EU will accept vaccine produced within the UK without further question or need for confirmation from the EU.
But it does not apply to any other clause in the contract. That is made explicit. So the EU cannot lay claim to vaccine from the UK factories for the purposes of fulfilling the clause about assured delivery. It simply does not apply.
It is the only reason I can see that AZN have made sure that caveat is in the contract.
This is exactly the point I made above. The U.K. is in the EU for 5.4 ONLY. And 5.4 explicitly only relates to acceptable places for manufacture, not that the EU has any claims over vaccines manufactured there.
Fucking lazy drafting. A properly drafted law says
Dogs must be carried on the Underground Cats must be carried on the Underground
Not
Dogs must be carried on the Underground Cats are deemed to be dogs for the purposes of this rule.
Well in an ideal world in my opinion it would say "Animals must be carried on the Underground". With "Animals" defined in a schedule to include both "Cats" and "Dogs".
"More particularly, while the EU are spinning that the agreement means that they are entitled to a share of the doses manufactured in the UK, a top legal boffin tells Guido that it is plainly wrong – to the point of being not really arguable."
(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.
I think you are missing a crucial point in this Topping. And I absolutely accept that I am not a lawyer so this is just my impression.
The section 5.4 on Including the UK within the EU for the purposes of being an acceptable location for the production of vaccine for the EU is absolutely explicit that it applies only to that clause itself. The EU will accept vaccine produced within the UK without further question or need for confirmation from the EU.
But it does not apply to any other clause in the contract. That is made explicit. So the EU cannot lay claim to vaccine from the UK factories for the purposes of fulfilling the clause about assured delivery. It simply does not apply.
It is the only reason I can see that AZN have made sure that caveat is in the contract.
This is exactly the point I made above. The U.K. is in the EU for 5.4 ONLY. And 5.4 explicitly only relates to acceptable places for manufacture, not that the EU has any claims over vaccines manufactured there.
Fucking lazy drafting. A properly drafted law says
Dogs must be carried on the Underground Cats must be carried on the Underground
Not
Dogs must be carried on the Underground Cats are deemed to be dogs for the purposes of this rule.
But what happens if one presents oneself at the ticvket barrier sans pooch AND pussy?
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.
That might have been true but the key issue for most big pharmaceutical companies is the availability of highly trained and qualified staff.
The UK is generally not seen as a place where professionals want to settle at the moment. It is seen as unwelcoming and insular and therefore attracting the right people is going to be very difficult.
Which was exactly why all of the MRHA staff rushed off to the new EMA centre in Amsterdam, and we got so far behind with vaccine approvals.
Yes, maybe I'm being an idiot and someone can correct me but if the UK is only deemed part of the EU in section 5.4 it removes any ambiguity for all the other sections as the UK is definitely not included for 5.1 or anywhere else.
I expected the EU to fight this based on the ambiguity of whether the UK counted as being in the EU or not during the transition period but that's surely not possible now.
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.
I searched on vietnam whatsapp and it looked like lists of porn sites so assumed that was not what G was referring to.
No it was not Malc.
I would not want to introduce such a topic into the debate
(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.
The document says "laws of Belgium".
What remedy is the EU seeking? Specific performance? Damages? Surely regardless of this dispute they will struggle to enforce anything in reality, regardless of any legal merits?
I'm unsure over whether AZ will suffer negative commercial consequences over this. They have the kudos of having a working vaccine after all, and they will deliver eventually.
The only remedy they seem to be seeking is specific performance with AZN delivering the UK manufactured vaccines (which are in the EU due to clause 5.4) to the EU.
Clause 5.4 does not say that UK manufactured vaccines are prioritised for the EU. It says that they will accept UK manufactured vaccines without further question as if they had come from EU factories.
But that clause specifically states that it does not apply to any other part of the contract. All it means is that UK vaccines are acceptable to the EU. It does not mean they are supposed to be available for them any more than vaccines produced in Israel, the US or Australia.
(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.
I think you are missing a crucial point in this Topping. And I absolutely accept that I am not a lawyer so this is just my impression.
The section 5.4 on Including the UK within the EU for the purposes of being an acceptable location for the production of vaccine for the EU is absolutely explicit that it applies only to that clause itself. The EU will accept vaccine produced within the UK without further question or need for confirmation from the EU.
But it does not apply to any other clause in the contract. That is made explicit. So the EU cannot lay claim to vaccine from the UK factories for the purposes of fulfilling the clause about assured delivery. It simply does not apply.
It is the only reason I can see that AZN have made sure that caveat is in the contract.
This is exactly the point I made above. The U.K. is in the EU for 5.4 ONLY. And 5.4 explicitly only relates to acceptable places for manufacture, not that the EU has any claims over vaccines manufactured there.
Fucking lazy drafting. A properly drafted law says
Dogs must be carried on the Underground Cats must be carried on the Underground
Not
Dogs must be carried on the Underground Cats are deemed to be dogs for the purposes of this rule.
But what happens if one presents oneself at the ticvket barrier sans pooch AND pussy?
Crikey EU officials talking about "war" now (albeit in context of vaccine not an actual one... yet) the eurocrats really have gone nuts haven't they?
Seriously I know we have the fact they fucked up and Brexit in a potent combination but they are acting deranged right now
And setting back re-join in the process........
After this re-join isn't going to be an popular option.
I know people keep saying this but I would ask how much penetration this whole argument is really having into the public consciousness. I agree that if the EU really started insisting on vaccines coming from UK plants which affected UK supply then it would certainly become a major public issue but right now I don't see that the public as a whole are really aware of this whole argument to the extent that it would change anyone's view overall of the EU.
For the record I know many EU supporters on here are unhappy with the way the EU has behaved and it may even change some minds about any rejoin campaign on here. But of course we are not normal people.
It's all over today's Grauniad, doubtless reinforcing the view that Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbyn were right all along.
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.
That might have been true but the key issue for most big pharmaceutical companies is the availability of highly trained and qualified staff.
The UK is generally not seen as a place where professionals want to settle at the moment. It is seen as unwelcoming and insular and therefore attracting the right people is going to be very difficult.
Crikey EU officials talking about "war" now (albeit in context of vaccine not an actual one... yet) the eurocrats really have gone nuts haven't they?
Seriously I know we have the fact they fucked up and Brexit in a potent combination but they are acting deranged right now
And setting back re-join in the process........
After this re-join isn't going to be an popular option.
I know people keep saying this but I would ask how much penetration this whole argument is really having into the public consciousness. I agree that if the EU really started insisting on vaccines coming from UK plants which affected UK supply then it would certainly become a major public issue but right now I don't see that the public as a whole are really aware of this whole argument to the extent that it would change anyone's view overall of the EU.
For the record I know many EU supporters on here are unhappy with the way the EU has behaved and it may even change some minds about any rejoin campaign on here. But of course we are not normal people.
Absurd anecdote time, but the lady on the till at M&S this morning started - unprompted - about the EU trying to grab our vaccines.... I would say this issue is cutting through.
(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.
I think you are missing a crucial point in this Topping. And I absolutely accept that I am not a lawyer so this is just my impression.
The section 5.4 on Including the UK within the EU for the purposes of being an acceptable location for the production of vaccine for the EU is absolutely explicit that it applies only to that clause itself. The EU will accept vaccine produced within the UK without further question or need for confirmation from the EU.
But it does not apply to any other clause in the contract. That is made explicit. So the EU cannot lay claim to vaccine from the UK factories for the purposes of fulfilling the clause about assured delivery. It simply does not apply.
It is the only reason I can see that AZN have made sure that caveat is in the contract.
This is exactly the point I made above. The U.K. is in the EU for 5.4 ONLY. And 5.4 explicitly only relates to acceptable places for manufacture, not that the EU has any claims over vaccines manufactured there.
Unless you are reading the contract with rose tinted specs and praying clause 5.4 is a get out clause.
Heck you only have to look at Robert Peston to see how stupid none lawyers can be when clutching at straws in a legal agreement.
5.4 does say it specifically only refers to 5.4, they can't apply it to the whole agreement.
It says that for the purpose of manufacturing the UK is within the EU for supply purposes.
But only to 5.4, not to any other section. So section 5.1 doesn't include the UK.
(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.
I think you are missing a crucial point in this Topping. And I absolutely accept that I am not a lawyer so this is just my impression.
The section 5.4 on Including the UK within the EU for the purposes of being an acceptable location for the production of vaccine for the EU is absolutely explicit that it applies only to that clause itself. The EU will accept vaccine produced within the UK without further question or need for confirmation from the EU.
But it does not apply to any other clause in the contract. That is made explicit. So the EU cannot lay claim to vaccine from the UK factories for the purposes of fulfilling the clause about assured delivery. It simply does not apply.
It is the only reason I can see that AZN have made sure that caveat is in the contract.
This is exactly the point I made above. The U.K. is in the EU for 5.4 ONLY. And 5.4 explicitly only relates to acceptable places for manufacture, not that the EU has any claims over vaccines manufactured there.
Fucking lazy drafting. A properly drafted law says
Dogs must be carried on the Underground Cats must be carried on the Underground
Not
Dogs must be carried on the Underground Cats are deemed to be dogs for the purposes of this rule.
Well in an ideal world in my opinion it would say "Animals must be carried on the Underground". With "Animals" defined in a schedule to include both "Cats" and "Dogs".
Just as long as Section 1 says "This Act may be cited as the Carrying Animals on the Underground Act."
Comments
But I dont doubt lawyers will argue bith sides are right - its their job.
The EU gets offended by being referred to as an international organisation as they view themselves as a supranational union of Europeans (all for one and one for all) and an emerging federal state.
Under the skin, the issue is probably that the UK prefers to hold foreign, defence and security policy discussions with member states directly, and wants to deal with the EU institutions as little as possible.
Or something.
Aiui, the EU isn't invited to the D10 summit during the G7 meetings but of course Germany, Italy and France are.
If/when the EU decides it's a country then those 27 embassies get downgraded and our EU presence is upgraded.
https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/1355118502798102531?s=20
The section 5.4 on Including the UK within the EU for the purposes of being an acceptable location for the production of vaccine for the EU is absolutely explicit that it applies only to that clause itself. The EU will accept vaccine produced within the UK without further question or need for confirmation from the EU.
But it does not apply to any other clause in the contract. That is made explicit. So the EU cannot lay claim to vaccine from the UK factories for the purposes of fulfilling the clause about assured delivery. It simply does not apply.
It is the only reason I can see that AZN have made sure that caveat is in the contract.
It could be a representation, but the point would be the same. But at a basic level, it is a statement of fact, and not an obligation. As I say there may be other relevant obligations.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/kenny-macaskill-snp-mp-defends-200-mile-trips-between-constituency-and-second-home-3114714
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1355122390045499394
What has that got to do with anything.
I got my stake out with £20 profit and 1000 Doge left to ride
https://twitter.com/meljomur/status/1354862864356540419?s=20
Nothing in the UK's contracts prevents them from using their best reasonable efforts to get the EU's order filled as soon as they can. The reason its not getting filled is because the EU plant it was planned to come from has a low yield (having been started 3 months late), not the UK contract - since they never planned to use the UK plants to fill the EU's order at this stage the UK's contract preventing it isn't unreasonable.
AZ presumably have a manufacturing process for EU vaccines whether that involves UK or EU facilities.
Likewise they will have a process for UK vaccines.
These were put into place at the time of the contract, and if AZ has switched resources from one process to the other, then I don't think the contract will allow them to get out of that.
If the EU process is failing worse than the UK one is/did, then I have seen nothing which requires them to level the playing field.
And setting back re-join in the process........
'Reasonable' is a disastrous word for the EU. It's open to massive interpretation. It's a word I have myself encountered vis a vis a big piece I wrote in a newspaper. 'Reasonable' is the kind of word which would take years to argue over through the courts and there will almost certainly be only one loser ... the EU. This is an unprecedented pandemic situation so, frankly, I doubt the EU have a prayer.
I wrote above, 'only one loser.' That's not entirely true.
The other are the citizens of the EU.
Are they unaware that the UK delivery is behind as well, or is this playing to the peanut gallery?
As a matter of interest - which vaccine production pipelines *are* on schedule, worldwide? From what I have heard, just about everyone is having production difficulties.
"Another possibility is that particular facilities were intended to supply the product for different buyers, with each buyer bearing the risk that his allocated production facilities might incur delays; this is the reading the UK seems to advocate, the idea being that production of UK facilities gives priority to UK buyers. Again, that would seem to require explicit contract provisions; if it were merely AZ’s ‘intention’ to link particular facilities with particular buyers, rather than a contractual term accepted by the buyers, that would not in my view be enough."
I am looking forward to reading his (and his followers') view on it.
I don't think it changes the conclusion but obviously terms like "warranty" are very much English law. I'm not even sure they extend north of the border.
I'm unsure over whether AZ will suffer negative commercial consequences over this. They have the kudos of having a working vaccine after all, and they will deliver eventually.
Heck you only have to look at Robert Peston to see how stupid none lawyers can be when clutching at straws in a legal agreement.
And amongst the noise of the more strident europhobes calling it a slam dunk for AZ, with the EU behaving in a way that is "simply intolerable", what do we get on here? We get a couple of desiccated coconuts - Topping and Ishmael - coolly live litigating the matter using the actual contract!
That's special. You don't get that on 8chan.
Verdict eagerly awaited.
Dogs must be carried on the Underground
Cats must be carried on the Underground
Not
Dogs must be carried on the Underground
Cats are deemed to be dogs for the purposes of this rule.
I think it is a moral high ground thing.
That clause covers the scenario such as the EU contracting with two different suppliers intending to use the same factory or facility. As opposed to AZ contracting with another country.
As we all know technically correct is the best form of correct.
But even they are slightly brighter than UVDL.
I hope she has good lawyers after what she said this morning, or she's going to be like a stepmom on (insert TSE's favourite comment here) once AZN get after her.
Edit - actually, I'm being unfair. I suspect that was drafted by AZN's lawyers. The moron was the person who checked it.
For the record I know many EU supporters on here are unhappy with the way the EU has behaved and it may even change some minds about any rejoin campaign on here. But of course we are not normal people.
The UK is generally not seen as a place where professionals want to settle at the moment. It is seen as unwelcoming and insular and therefore attracting the right people is going to be very difficult.
BBC News - Covid: EU publishes disputed AstraZeneca Covid jab contract
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55852698
With "Animals" defined in a schedule to include both "Cats" and "Dogs".
"More particularly, while the EU are spinning that the agreement means that they are entitled to a share of the doses manufactured in the UK, a top legal boffin tells Guido that it is plainly wrong – to the point of being not really arguable."
Jog on EU, jog on.
I expected the EU to fight this based on the ambiguity of whether the UK counted as being in the EU or not during the transition period but that's surely not possible now.
I would not want to introduce such a topic into the debate
But that clause specifically states that it does not apply to any other part of the contract. All it means is that UK vaccines are acceptable to the EU. It does not mean they are supposed to be available for them any more than vaccines produced in Israel, the US or Australia.