What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Mitch Connor

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I see where you are coming from but the Vaccine at 5.4 has to refer to something. If that's not Initial Europe Doses, Optional Doses or Additional Doses as defined in the preceding clauses, what is it?

(I'm not a lawyer either by the way, I deal with contracts in a different industry)

Would Vaccine refer to all of that?

Pete_Cavan

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Would Vaccine refer to all of that?

That would seem logical to me but as others have said, a court could decide otherwise.

PhilOssophy

Sensible, rational, legal debate on boards - wtf am I reading!

Mitch Connor

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

That would seem logical to me but as others have said, a court could decide otherwise.

Even if it does mean that, I would struggle to understand why it would say only in section 5.4 does the EU include the UK.

Both 5.1 and 5.4 talk about manufacturing in the EU - so it isn't that 5.4 is making a distinction between manufactuing in the EU (inc. UK) and delivery to the EU (not inc. UK)

It may also be possible to argue that 5.1 says best reasonable effort to manufacture in the EU to deliver. They have failed to manufacture in the EU to deliver the contracted amount so they could/should use other locations (as allowed for in other clauses of the contract).

Hurrache

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Sensible, rational, legal debate on boards - wtf am I reading!

Well the vaccine experts have appear to have all retired from that industry as that's doing splendidly now, and have moved into international contract law

PhilOssophy

Hurrache wrote: »

Well the vaccine experts have appear to have all retired from that industry as that's doing splendidly now, and have moved into international contract law

I am probably wrong but the above posts seem to be by people who have at least some idea what they are talking about!!!

celt262

Hurrache wrote: »

Well the vaccine experts have appear to have all retired from that industry as that's doing splendidly now, and have moved into international contract law

Brillant ! :pac:

Mitch Connor

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Would Vaccine refer to all of that?

I would hazard a guess that lawyers are going to make a lot of money arguing that.

MarkR

Down to the important issue. Even if they are in breach of contract, what then? Are there set out financial repercussions? I presume the EU can't "make" them provide the drugs, just bring them to court? They could stop the export from the EU, but would still have their UK production facilities.

Psychedelic Hedgehog

Shots fired :eek:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55860540

Mitch Connor

My reading of 5.1 and 5.4 (again) doesn't point to 5.1 not including the UK for manufacture.

5.1 is specifically talking about the Initial Doses and the supply of them - ie. the 300million ordered.
5.2 then talks about Optional Doses
5.3 then talks about Additional Doses beyond the 100million Optional ones.
5.4 then talks about manufacture of the 'Vaccine', and includes the UK as part of the manufacturing process.

Initial Doses is reference to an order
Optional Doses is reference to an optional order
Additonal Doses is reference to any orders they might make in the future.
Vaccine is ALL of the above.

So my reading of it would say 5.4 says best resonable efforts to manufacture and supply ID (and all other orders placed or not yet placed) from within the EU (inc. UK).

Pablo Escobar

EMA approval granted.

https://twitter.com/EMA_News/status/1355171602531569664?s=20

Mitch Connor

Aegir wrote: »

I would hazard a guess that lawyers are going to make a lot of money arguing that.

Having read the document after posting that (and not just quotes here) it is clear that is what it means.

Vaccine covers the Vaccine itself.

Initial (300m), Optional (100m) and Additional Doses refer to quantities and orders of the Vaccine.

brickster69

You know the redacted contract on the EU website, now the unredacted one is flying around the internet.

https://twitter.com/peterinprg/status/1355163351521914882

Donald Trump

brickster69 wrote: »

You know the redacted contract on the EU website, now the unredacted one is flying around the internet.

https://twitter.com/peterinprg/status/1355163351521914882

That's not quite unredacted. A mess up alright, but not fully unredacted.

brickster69

Donald Trump wrote: »

A mess up alright,

What are they going to say to AZ ? We tried our best to publish what we agreed but fuc.ed it up a bit

Hurrache

Pablo Escobar wrote: »

EMA approval granted.

https://twitter.com/EMA_News/status/1355171602531569664?s=20

With no age limitation other than to say there wasn't enough evidence presented for those over 55 but protection is expected.

josip

So now AZ could in theory sue the EU for breach of confidentiality?
Or at least use the threat of it as a bargaining chip.

realdanbreen

If AstraZeneca cannot be trusted to honour a contract they signed up to(which basically is what the EU are saying) then I'm not sure I could put much trust in the vaccine they are producing.

Mitch Connor

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Having read the document after posting that (and not just quotes here) it is clear that is what it means.

Vaccine covers the Vaccine itself.

Initial (300m), Optional (100m) and Additional Doses refer to quantities and orders of the Vaccine.

yeah, so I have read it again and I think we agree

AZ have to use their best efforts to produce the initial doses in the EU (not including the UK). That's it, end of.

However, they can make the vaccine in the EU (Including the UK) or Non EU if required. If they make it in a non EU country then they need to get approval.
So this isn't just about the EU saying they should have/could have used UK produced vaccines, they could also use vaccines produced in India or elsewhere if required, but they just need to get the OK first.
But, if they want to use non EU factories, the EU has the option to suggest other EU factories that could be used.

So to me, this is about the EU clearly wanting the vaccines produced in the EU, or the UK at a push. As a last resort they can be made elsewhere, but the EU would like them to explore other options first.

Pete_Cavan

Aegir wrote: »

yeah, so I have read it again and I think we agree

AZ have to use their best efforts to produce the initial doses in the EU (not including the UK). That's it, end of.

However, they can make the vaccine in the EU (Including the UK) or Non EU if required. If they make it in a non EU country then they need to get approval.
So this isn't just about the EU saying they should have/could have used UK produced vaccines, they could also use vaccines produced in India or elsewhere if required, but they just need to get the OK first.
But, if they want to use non EU factories, the EU has the option to suggest other EU factories that could be used.

So to me, this is about the EU clearly wanting the vaccines produced in the EU, or the UK at a push. As a last resort they can be made elsewhere, but the EU would like them to explore other options first.

It also brings up the question, should "Best Reasonable Efforts" include at least asking about supplying from sites outside of EU? Someone here posted about SA ordering and receiving doses of AZ from SII. No doubt the EU will argue that AZ should have put forward doses from SII as soon as they knew they weren't going to meet delivery targets.

There should also be questions about why production from UK sites is higher than EU sites, particularly when early doses which the UK received actually came from EU sites.

Pete_Cavan

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

It also brings up the question, should "Best Reasonable Efforts" include at least asking about supplying from sites outside of EU? Someone here posted about SA ordering and receiving doses of AZ from SII. No doubt the EU will argue that AZ should have put forward doses from SII as soon as they knew they weren't going to meet delivery targets.

I think that is a reasonable question for the EU to be asking. Given they have made a big deal about AZ not prioritising customers though, it will be interesting to see what they do about it. Will they really insist that AZ divert a shipment of vaccine from South Africa to europe because we can shout louder?

Similarly, as they have just slapped on an export ban on vaccines, it would be understandable if the UK and India did the same thing.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

There should also be questions about why production from UK sites is higher than EU sites, particularly when early doses which the UK received actually came from EU sites.

that's the €336m question. why is the UK plant working and not the Belgian one, unless it is simply a case of it is getting there, but not as quick as they would like.

Mitch Connor

Aegir wrote: »

I think that is a reasonable question for the EU to be asking. Given they have made a big deal about AZ not prioritising customers though, it will be interesting to see what they do about it. Will they really insist that AZ divert a shipment of vaccine from South Africa to europe because we can shout louder?

Similarly, as they have just slapped on an export ban on vaccines, it would be understandable if the UK and India did the same thing.



that's the €336m question. why is the UK plant working and not the Belgian one, unless it is simply a case of it is getting there, but not as quick as they would like.

EU have not banned exports of vaccines. they have announced controls. You can still export, but additional docs and info are requrired.

Pete_Cavan

Aegir wrote: »

I think that is a reasonable question for the EU to be asking. Given they have made a big deal about AZ not prioritising customers though, it will be interesting to see what they do about it. Will they really insist that AZ divert a shipment of vaccine from South Africa to europe because we can shout louder?

Similarly, as they have just slapped on an export ban on vaccines, it would be understandable if the UK and India did the same thing.

The exact timeline would be interesting to see. If they knew of production issues at EU manufacturing sites before orders from SA, then I'd imagine they would at least be required to suggest SII for alternative supply. If they knew they couldn't fulfill EU orders but subsequently used capacity elsewhere to fulfill new orders, it would call into question their "Best Reasonable Efforts". The exact timeline is key here.

oharach7

EU has apparently invoked Article 16 of the NI Protocol to ensure that vaccine exports from EU to NI are caught by the new export regulations.

I can't actually find the original regulation on the Eur-Lex website so would be great if someone can share a link.

This is opening a can of worms... NI Unionists have been itching to invoke Article 16 given ongoing food supply issues from GB, now they have an excuse...

https://twitter.com/dijdowell/status/1355177972953739264

monkeybutter

oharach7 wrote: »

EU has apparently invoked Article 16 of the NI Protocol to ensure that vaccine exports from EU to NI are caught by the new export regulations.

I can't actually find the original regulation on the Eur-Lex website so would be great if someone can share a link.

This is opening a can of worms... NI Unionists have been itching to invoke Article 16 given ongoing food supply issues from GB, now they have an excuse...

https://twitter.com/dijdowell/status/1355177972953739264

how do you see them unionists using it exactly

hahashake

https://twitter.com/pietercleppe/status/1355154073381646337

oharach7

monkeybutter wrote: »

how do you see them unionists using it exactly

Article 16 allows the EU or the UK to “unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures” if the application of the NI Protocol leads to “serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist” or to diversion of trade.

The Unionist parties have asked the UK Government in recent weeks to suspend parts of the NI Protocol to allow food and other goods to enter NI without being subject to the full single market / customs union checks. The UK Government had basically been resisting that, although reserving their position should the situation worsen in order to placate the Unionists.

But basically any exercise of Article 16 by the UK would have been seen as explosive this early in the functioning of the new FTA. I find it astonishing that the EU is the party that has triggered it first.

IMHO the Irish government should have vetoed this bit of the regulation given the problems it will create for future operation of the NI Protocol.

Beechwoodspark

So just this casual observers question -

Can the EU more or less embargo any of the AZ vaccine doses destined to leave the eu if it wants?

And instead divert the doses to be used within the EU?

oharach7

oharach7 wrote: »

Article 16 allows the EU or the UK to “unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures” if the application of the NI Protocol leads to “serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist” or to diversion of trade.

The Unionist parties have asked the UK Government in recent weeks to suspend parts of the NI Protocol to allow food and other goods to enter NI without being subject to the full single market / customs union checks. The UK Government had basically been resisting that, although reserving their position should the situation worsen in order to placate the Unionists.

But basically any exercise of Article 16 by the UK would have been seen as explosive this early in the functioning of the new FTA. I find it astonishing that the EU is the party that has triggered it first.

IMHO the Irish government should have vetoed this bit of the regulation given the problems it will create for future operation of the NI Protocol.

The normally calm and measured EU commission seem to be in a state of panic.

This really is a time to sit and eat socially distanced popcorn.