Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

HalfAndHalf

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Seemingly it only took a phone call from the Taoiseach to reverse the decision to trigger Article 16.

As for the EU making a hash of the vaccine, I don't see why its the EU's fault that AZ has proved to be so unreliable.

Pfizer have been just as unreliable and they’re producing from Belgium as well and that was the exact same reason for delays. Clearly something amiss with the plant there.

A Dub in Glasgo

Seems very ham-fisted from the EU today

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1355259285681430530

Jizique

Amirani wrote: »

It's your understanding that just the relevant Commissioner and the Commission President make a decision on something like this alone? That the rest of the Commission isn't involved?

The role of a commissioner is not to represent the interests of the country from which she comes

Amirani

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

It’s worse than that. Remember the outrage at the proposed internal market bill from the Tories!! The EC have invoked article 16 and completely ignored the process. They should inform the U.K., they should then both sit down and discuss with the new joint committee to try to resolve before invoking it.

Effectively they’ve broken international law.

You can't "effectively" break international law. You either break it or you don't.

I'm sure you're well qualified to determine the legal nature of this based on the Tweets you've read and will clarify for us soon enough. Thanks in advance.

FrancieBrady

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Is there a link to this decision having been reversed?

Tony Connelly, and all the reliable EU journos on twitter reporting it is likely.

sondagefaux

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose it really depends on the details of the contracts signed between all the parties concerned, If Astrazeneca's legal team have screwed up by promising both parties the equivalent of over 100% of production then it's their mess to sort out.
The EU throwing the toys out of the pram by demanding product that was already destined for another customer is simply not on.

The contract between the EU and Astra Zeneca stipulates that AZ is not aware of any other contractual obligations that would prevent it performing its contract with the EU.

AZ has screwed up, it didn't anticipate the degree of differences between the different production sites, hasn't been upfront witb the EU, and hasn't acknowledged the contract with the EU specifically says that it will supply the EU with vaccine doses from UK production facilities with no caveats about proritising supply to the UK from these facilities.

When there were problems with supplying the UK from UK production facilities, Astra Zenreca used facilities in the EU, the Netherlands, to supply the UK.

yagan

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Staggering behaviour from the EU. No consultation with the Irish Government and they invoke Article 16 and bypass the cherished Northern Ireland Protocol in one rash decision. If the UK did this there would be outrage. People you need to wake up. The EU have shown in two seconds exactly how important Ireland and the peace process is......i.e not at all important in their eyes and only something to be used when it suits them (i.e during the Brexit negs to bash the UK).

UK are making serious progess with the vaccine roleout, EU have made a total hash of it and now throwing toys out of the pram.

Brand new account eh?

Anyhow this was about the UK knowingly inveighling a production portion that was contracted for the EU.

The way the DUP and Micheal Martin are crowing you'd swear NI wasn't still part of the UK.

ujjjjjjjjj

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

So what do you recommend that is done about this?

Try not acting like spoilt children, the EU needs to know acknowledge that it made serious mistakes with the vaccine role out. Sit down with AZ and rather than threating them work with them to assist them in getting their EURO factories up to speed. You heard AZ CEO there is a best endeavours clause in the supply contract so the EU can go nuts if they want but legally they haven't a leg to stand on. AZ is full steam ahead supplying the Brits as they got the finger out, took some chances, took some shortcuts and got the vaccine approved and rolling quickly. AZ is delighted to be moving as fast as possible in the UK and honouring that contract as they moved first and got behind AZ. Yes lots the UK has done has been less than ideal with COVID but Boris has got the vaccine roleout right. The uncomfortable truth for all the Euro lot is that the EU has made a total mess of this whole thing and it is going to delay the vaccine roleout in Ireland and the rest of Europe.

The EU is very slow with big decisions and always has been, the UK has shown that an independent country can act faster and take calculated risks that Brussels never will.

FrancieBrady

Jizique wrote: »

The role of a commissioner is not to represent the interests of the country from which she comes

Nobody said anything about representation. Communication seems to be the issue.

hotmail.com

The head of the Church of England has condemned the move.

This surely must mean that Ursula will have to resign when this resolved. She is clearly a hot head.

Kermit.de.frog

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Seems very ham-fisted from the EU today

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1355259285681430530

It's embarrassing and has emboldened anti protocol unionist leaders. Needless own goal.

FrancieBrady

sondagefaux wrote: »

The contract between the EU and Astra Zeneca stipulates that AZ is not aware of any other contractual obligations that would prevent it performing its contract with the EU.

AZ has screwed up, it didn't anticipate the degree of differences between the different production sites, hasn't been upfront witb the EU, and hasn't acknowledged the contract with the EU specifically says that it will supply the EU with vaccine doses from UK production facilities with no caveats about proritising supply to the UK from these facilities.

When there were problems with supplying the UK from UK production facilities, Astra Zenreca used facilities in the EU, the Netherlands, to supply the UK.

The EU could shut them down if it goes to court.

Amirani

Jizique wrote: »

The role of a commissioner is not to represent the interests of the country from which she comes

Not suggesting that she should. Just curious of what role she may have had in the decision making process here...if any decision was actually made.

It's really not clear what happened here. Was there a decision made, or a precursor of a decision, or just some communications mess up?

FrancieBrady

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's embarrassing and has emboldened anti protocol unionist leaders. Needless own goal.

Actually, does their indignation not destroy their own calls for invoking ART 16?

HalfAndHalf

Amirani wrote: »

You can't "effectively" break international law. You either break it or you don't.

I'm sure you're well qualified to determine the legal nature of this based on the Tweets you've read and will clarify for us soon enough. Thanks in advance.

Wow, Thanks for the passive aggressive response. Appreciate it.

Here’s the article 16 process. As per my post all was ignored.

Please feel free to provide evidence to the contrary to prove your side. I assume you read the AZ contract published today and especially clause 5 and it’s subsections that state what I posted?

yagan

hotmail.com wrote: »

The head of the Church of England has condemned the move.

This surely must mean that Ursula will have to resign when this resolved. She is clearly a hot head.

Didn't anglican archbishops also disapprove of Brexit and the Iraq war?

The UK thinks its having a Belgrano moment when in reality they made off with an EU consignment in the back of Del and Rodney's Robin Reliant.

Lemming

RobMc59 wrote: »

No,its true I worked for a French pharmaceutical company that was manufacturing an intermediate for astra zeneca.

And what has your work for a French pharma company got to do with the price of fish?

Tell you what; go read the the article and then find a way to climb out of the - frankly bizarre - hole you've dug for yourself.

ujjjjjjjjj

yagan wrote: »

Brand new account eh?

Anyhow this was about the UK knowingly inveighling a production portion that was contracted for the EU.

The way the DUP and Micheal Martin are crowing you'd swear NI wasn't still part of the UK.

Yes - new account but so what - I am a proud Irishman, don't normally post on these forums but this has got me so annoyed that people need to understand what is going on here. Take off your Brexit bashing anti British nonsense for one minute and open your eyes. I am not some crank and horrified at how the EU is behaving. We have for years during the Brexit process looked at how to protect the Good Friday agreement and secure peace on this island which needs protecting. In one fell swoop the EU has given two fingers to that to cover up for their total incompetence. We also in Ireland are going to now have to live with restrictions for many months longer than needed due to EU incompetence. I know you won't like this but the best thing we can do now is talk to the British on the side and try and secure some AZ vaccine. Time for Irish politicians to step up for Ireland and do the right thing.

sondagefaux

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Tony Connelly, and all the reliable EU journos on twitter reporting it is likely.

Tony Connelly @tconnellyRTE
NEW: senior figure says a resolution to the Article 16 row is "in sight" and could come before the end of the evening.

Tony Connelly @tconnellyRTE
Second source says Commission is working on a solution and Article 16 is "unlikely to be triggered"

Tony Connelly @tconnellyRTE
Safe to say, IMHO, that the Commission made a mistake here and know it.

Safe to say they do now, after 'robust' discussions with Dublin!

I'd love to know where Mairead McGuinness was on this, if she was in the loop at all?

A Dub in Glasgo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Actually, does their indignation not destroy their own calls for invoking ART 16?

It does actually. If the EU has pulled back (looks likely) then it makes it harder for the UK to invoke it

HalfAndHalf

yagan wrote: »

Didn't anglican archbishops also disapprove of Brexit and the Iraq war?

The UK thinks its having a Belgrano moment when in reality they made off with an EU consignment in the back of Del and Rodney's Robin Reliant.

Proof of this reality?

Bit cynical

seamus wrote: »

It's inflammatory perhaps, but necessary given all the messing that's been going on with Astrazeneca.

They haven't "broken" the Brexit agreement, or otherwise overstepped the bounds.

Article 16 is designed to permit either side to take emergency action to protect economic or social interests, AND it triggers both parties to engage in discussions to rectify the problem.

In effect the EU are twisting Johnson's arm. The UK has so far refused to get involved in the Astrazeneca mess, presumably because it benefits the UK.

I don't see how they are twisting Johnson's arm. The whole open border thing was driven from the EU side. This episode is only confirming the Eurosceptic's view that the border issue was merely a stick to beat the UK with, not something held to be important in its own right.

Amirani

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Actually, does their indignation not destroy their own calls for invoking ART 16?

Yeah, does Arlene seem to be calling for some sort of retaliatory Article 16 invocation? Or had she said that beforehand?

She's not very coherent.

Amirani

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Wow, Thanks for the passive aggressive response. Appreciate it.

Here’s the article 16 process. As per my post all was ignored.

Please feel free to provide evidence to the contrary to prove your side. I assume you read the AZ contract published today and especially clause 5 and it’s subsections that state what I posted?

Please tell us more about the difference between the EU breaking international law and the EU effectively breaking international law.

That's all I'm asking for. I'm not sure they have done either, but interested to know how you've come to this conclusion.

hotmail.com

If the Commission reverses this decision tonight, then it was a clear cut mistake.

It shouldn't have happened.

No defence of it.

FrancieBrady

Amirani wrote: »

Yeah, does Arlene seem to be calling for some sort of retaliatory Article 16 invocation? Or had she said that beforehand?

She's not very coherent.

They've been calling for Art 16 to invoked for a while now.

Bit cynical

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The EU could shut them down if it goes to court.

However the goal at the moment is to get the vaccine out to EU citizens not prevent the supply of vaccines as shutting down would do. And of course AZ would still be able to manufacture and supply in the UK to UK citizens.

sondagefaux

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

It’s worse than that. Remember the outrage at the proposed internal market bill from the Tories!! The EC have invoked article 16 and completely ignored the process. They should inform the U.K., they should then both sit down and discuss with the new joint committee to try to resolve before invoking it.

Effectively they’ve broken international law.

And let’s not forget it’s looking like we weren’t even informed!!

And as you say, if the Brits has done it they’d be outrage, especially from old Bernie and the impact of effectively creating a border and the GFA.

It’s gone very wrong at the moment!

The Protocol allows for emergency application of the provision in question without the requirement to follow thd normal procedures.

This is a political screw up, not a legal one.

VDL sacked Hogan for breaches of Ireland's Covid regulations, a legal breach.

She might want to decide if she should resign over this political screw up.

After all, she and the entire Commission can be sacked by the European Parliament...

Amirani

hotmail.com wrote: »

If the Commission reverses this decision tonight, then it was a clear cut mistake.

It shouldn't have happened.

No defence of it.

It's not really clear whether a decision was actually made. What are you basing that on, a few journalist tweets or someone uploading something on a website that they shouldn't have?

hotmail.com

Amirani wrote: »

It's not really clear whether a decision was actually made. What are you basing that on, a few journalist tweets or someone uploading something on a website that they shouldn't have?

They are about to issue a statement clearing up the matter.