What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

HalfAndHalf · 29-01-2021 09:53PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Eh?

Since we are in the EU and since the vaccines are not being distributed to Northern Ireland we will do better why would anybody be morto. Why wouldn't anybody not support this. Why are you hoping more Irish people in the Republic die?

You seem to be buying into all the bluster being whipped up by the EC, article 16 yes or no, restrictions on exports applied to all EU external pharma companies, publishing trade contracts that have been shot down by Belgian lawyers as being in favour of AZ........and ignoring the fact the EC have hugely ****ed up the procurement process. That’s why people are dying....

mick087 · 29-01-2021 09:54PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The contract is clear. Theres no provision in any contract for first come first served.

Why do you want more people in the Republic of Ireland to die?

No hence i want the EU Commission to be accountable for the delay in ordering.

29-01-2021 09:54PM

Donald Trump wrote: »

You're wasting your time.

If the EU had rushed and signed in June, the same posters would be on here criticising the EU for rushing into it and signing it too soon and explaining that the UK were able to get theirs first because they clearly took their time to negotiate the deal instead of rushing in

Where are they picking this up from? Imagine being so controlled by the British Tory and Tabloid press that you believe their lies against your own people. Sad.

mista11 · 29-01-2021 09:54PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You are saying that the contract has a first come first served clause in it? If so prove it.

No the contract says that the initial doses will come from astrazenca european plants - 5.1 in the contract

Answer me this - do you think when the EU signed the contract that they didnt know that the uk had reserved the first 100m doses from thier factories?

29-01-2021 09:56PM

mista11 wrote: »

No the contract says that the initial doses will come from astrazenca european plants - 5.1 in the contract

Answer me this - do you think when the EU signed the contract that they didnt know that the uk had reserved the first 100m doses from thier factories?

Yes, Nobody has to know anything about other contracts. Thats not the way contract law works. If I order 100 widgets for Q1, I don't have to know that some other customer has also ordered those. Again the misunderstanding of contract law is beyond a joke.

I doubt the contract says anything about 5-1 either.

mick087 · 29-01-2021 09:58PM

Donald Trump wrote: »

You're wasting your time.

If the EU had rushed and signed in June, the same posters would be on here criticising the EU for rushing into it and signing it too soon and explaining that the UK were able to get theirs first because they clearly took their time to negotiate the deal instead of rushing in

It would be nice if our EU representative on this matter, the EU commission would come and and explain this to us, us as in its citizens. My guess is your speculating this was the reason and like me are in the dark.

HalfAndHalf · 29-01-2021 09:58PM

Donald Trump wrote: »

You're wasting your time.

If the EU had rushed and signed in June, the same posters would be on here criticising the EU for rushing into it and signing it too soon and explaining that the UK were able to get theirs first because they clearly took their time to negotiate the deal instead of rushing in

If the EU had signed in June we’d have exactly what we have now, which is the contract the Inclusive Vaccine Alliance negotiated, only in June. It’s been stated that the EC didn’t change anything agreed in that original contract.

mista11 · 29-01-2021 09:58PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, Nobody has to know anything about other contracts. Thats not the way contract law works. If I order 100 widgets for Q1, I don't have to know that some other customer has also ordered those. Again the misunderstanding of contract law is beyond a joke.

I doubt the contract says anything about 5-1 either.

In every supply chain contract you will always ask if i can get supply from this factory and you will be told yes or no, not the details of other peoples contracts

Why do you think that clause is written like that?

29-01-2021 09:58PM

mick087 wrote: »

No hence i want the EU Commission to be accountable for the delay in ordering.

It;s like mole hunting here. There was no "delay" in ordering. It doesn't affect the contract. If you sign a contract you are obliged to fulfil it regardless of other orders, there is no implicit first come first served in contracts, unless it is explicitly called out.

oharach7 · 29-01-2021 10:01PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You are saying that the contract has a first come first served clause in it? If so prove it.

Just read the thread from page 86 onwards (when the contract was published). There's plenty of debate on the meaning of the contract.

I think it's fair to summarise that the EU does not have as watertight a case as it has been briefing.

HalfAndHalf · 29-01-2021 10:01PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes, Nobody has to know anything about other contracts. Thats not the way contract law works. If I order 100 widgets for Q1, I don't have to know that some other customer has also ordered those. Again the misunderstanding of contract law is beyond a joke.

I doubt the contract says anything about 5-1 either.

You misunderstand; clause 5.1 of the AZ contract as released by the EC today states that the first orders for the vaccine will come exclusively from the EU AZ plants specifically for the EU countries.

The contract is available online if you’d like to read it. A fair few contract lawyers, especially Belgian lawyers which is what will apply here have said that it very much leans in AZ’s favour and not the EC.

29-01-2021 10:01PM

Imagine if we didn't have the E.U. fighting for us. The British would be letting the Irish muddle through with no vaccine. If they were feeling charitable they might allow enough to filter through to cover those over 80 in Ireland but not before they had the Taoiseach doffing his cap after being summoned to Downing Street to grovel for a few thousand doses.
Ireland is so lucky to have escaped the GB Hegmony.

29-01-2021 10:01PM

mista11 wrote: »

In every supply chain contract you will always ask if i can get supply from this factory and you will be told yes or no, not the details of other peoples contracts

Why do you think that clause is written like that?

What clause are you talking about. That is not how contracts work, and I can not understand how anybody think it could be. If I order 100 candles I expect 100 candles, not 50 candles because someone else ordered first. Don't be stupid. It is up to the provider to work out his own supply not the customer to second guess it.

The only exception is if manufacturing was curtailed due to unforeseen circumstances and in that case the order should be equally reduced to all customers.

Pete_Cavan · 29-01-2021 10:02PM

mista11 wrote: »

They dont care about ireland, as long as they are making money, thats clear, screwed up, cant belive how many cant see the truth in this - the UK and european manufacturing deals with astrazenca were the same - our factory our supply but the uk factory had a three month head start to sort output out - this is all eu politics trying to save itself

This is bull. AZ themselves confirmed in June that they had agreed to supply 400m doses to EU and were gearing up production for that, the press release is on their website. It is clear date of signing the contract has had nothing to do with the delay.

The first few million doses the UK got came from the Netherlands ffs!

ThePanjandrum · 29-01-2021 10:03PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The EU ordered in August and paid the money. They are due these vaccines. The EU needs to push as hard as possible against the Johnson regime.

The pro Tories on here are a joke.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Nothing has been paid for vaccines which have not been delivered. Two-thirds of the agreed funding for upfront costs was paid at the end of August, not 100%. Read the APA 7.2 (a).

At this point, according to the Agreement the Commission is supposed to be sourcing other contract manufacturing organisations. Whether it's doing this or throwing its toys at of the pram to make it appear hard done to is another question. APA 5.4.

By the way, 5.4 also allows the vaccine to be made and supplied at the UK plants without further authorisation being required by the EU. Nowhere does it say that they should or will be used in this way.

29-01-2021 10:04PM

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

You misunderstand; clause 5.1 of the AZ contract as released by the EC today states that the first orders for the vaccine will come exclusively from the EU AZ plants specifically for the EU countries.

The contract is available online if you’d like to read it. A fair few contract lawyers, especially Belgian lawyers which is what will apply here have said that it very much leans in AZ’s favour and not the EC.

Yeh, who exactly?

Clause 5.4 says that the UK is to be considered as part of the EU. Which clearly overrides whatever you think was happening there.

mick087 · 29-01-2021 10:04PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It;s like mole hunting here. There was no "delay" in ordering. It doesn't affect the contract. If you sign a contract you are obliged to fulfil it regardless of other orders, there is no implicit first come first served in contracts, unless it is explicitly called out.

Ok you sound like your happy with the service we the EU citizens have received from our EU commission on the this particular batch of vaccines.

mista11 · 29-01-2021 10:07PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeh, who exactly?

Clause 5.4 says that the UK is to be considered as part of the EU. Which clearly overrides whatever you think was happening there.

Clause 5.1
"Astrazeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses within the EU for distribution, and to deliver to the Distribution Hubs, following EU marketing authorization, as set forth more fully in Section 7.1, approximately [redacted] 2020 [redated] Q1 2021, and (iii) the remainder of the Initial Europe Doses by the end of [redacted]"

Note that the EU does not include the UK for the purposes of Clause 5.1. Effectively this clause seems to be giving the EU priority access to the EU manufacturing facilities.

The legal eagale are saying that this clause takes precendence over 5.4

29-01-2021 10:07PM

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Sorry, but you're wrong. Nothing has been paid for vaccines which have not been delivered. Two-thirds of the agreed funding for upfront costs was paid at the end of August, not 100%. Read the APA 7.2 (a)

By the way, 5.4 also allows the vaccine to be made and supplied at the UK plants without further authorisation being required by the EU. Nowhere does it say that they should or will be used in this way.

None of this refutes anything. I didn't say anything about full upfront payment. A downpayment, and a large one as in this case, is enough to make the contract enforceable.

At this point, according to the Agreement the Commission is supposed to be sourcing other contract manufacturing organisations. Whether it's doing this or throwing its toys at of the pram to make it appear hard done to is another question. APA 5.4.

eh? Why would the contract talk about the EU's obligations to get other vaccines from other manufacturers.

mista11 · 29-01-2021 10:09PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

This is bull. AZ themselves confirmed in June that they had agreed to supply 400m doses to EU and were gearing up production for that, the press release is on their website. It is clear date of signing the contract has had nothing to do with the delay.

The first few million doses the UK got came from the Netherlands ffs!

Clause 5.1
"Astrazeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses within the EU for distribution, and to deliver to the Distribution Hubs, following EU marketing authorization, as set forth more fully in Section 7.1, approximately [redacted] 2020 [redated] Q1 2021, and (iii) the remainder of the Initial Europe Doses by the end of [redacted]"

Note that the EU does not include the UK for the purposes of Clause 5.1. Effectively this clause seems to be giving the EU priority access to the EU manufacturing facilities.

They said their best reasonable effort - not guarateed

The EU is distracting you like they wanted to, so your looking to the UK as the issue not at them

mista11 · 29-01-2021 10:11PM

Deleted User wrote: »

None of this refutes anything. I didn't say anything about full upfront payment. A downpayment, and a large one as in this case, is enough to make the contract enforceable.

eh? Why would the contract talk about the EU's obligations to get other vaccines from other manufacturers.

Best Resoanble efforts - the courts will decide but the lawyers are leaning in AZ favour online

Donald Trump · 29-01-2021 10:13PM

mista11 wrote: »

Best Resoanble efforts - the courts will decide but the lawyers are leaning in AZ favour online

The boards.ie online lawyers who are taking a break from the Brexit thread?

mista11 · 29-01-2021 10:14PM

Donald Trump wrote: »

The boards.ie online lawyers who are taking a break from the Brexit thread?

ThePanjandrum · 29-01-2021 10:17PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Just pray that your aged or vulnerable friends and relations don't catch the virus while waiting for delayed immunization because the UK diverted doses that were due to reach Ireland. The E.U. are serving the best interests of their member countries and deserve support.

What gives you the idea that the UK diverted doses which would have gone to Ireland?

This is a British vaccine being produced in British funded factories to supply Britain. Britain has arranged through Astra-Zeneca to licence the vaccine to other factories so that the vaccine can be sold at cost. Britain can supply the EU or others with excess vaccine and in the case of the EU this needs no further certification but it is under no compunction to do so. Where do you get the idea that you are entitled to this?

And, of course, as Britain has a higher death rate than other countries it makes sense to use the vaccine in Britain first rather than countries with a lower rate.

brickster69 · 29-01-2021 10:19PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Imagine if we didn't have the E.U. fighting for us. The British would be letting the Irish muddle through with no vaccine. If they were feeling charitable they might allow enough to filter through to cover those over 80 in Ireland but not before they had the Taoiseach doffing his cap after being summoned to Downing Street to grovel for a few thousand doses.
Ireland is so lucky to have escaped the GB Hegmony.

Well Serbia, Hungary and Iceland don't seem to be hanging around getting supplies.

Dempo1 · 29-01-2021 10:20PM

mista11 wrote: »

Clause 5.1
"Astrazeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses within the EU for distribution, and to deliver to the Distribution Hubs, following EU marketing authorization, as set forth more fully in Section 7.1, approximately [redacted] 2020 [redated] Q1 2021, and (iii) the remainder of the Initial Europe Doses by the end of [redacted]"

Note that the EU does not include the UK for the purposes of Clause 5.1. Effectively this clause seems to be giving the EU priority access to the EU manufacturing facilities.

They said their best reasonable effort - not guarateed

The EU is distracting you like they wanted to, so your looking to the UK as the issue not at them

Seems pretty clear cut to me and the majority of legal experts interviewed today. Ursula denied best reasonable effort was mentioned in the contract, just amazed she didn't have that juicy bit redacted. Bottom line, AZ are the driving seat, nothing beyond those reasonable efforts is relevant and the EU"S quite disgraceful behaviour might just result in best reasonable efforts being dragged out. Just astonishing their Childish reaction and now to jeopardise the Brexit agreement is just beggars belief, no wonder Meehole having a serious panick attack, those Garda 5km checks near the border may end up being a few metres and become a little more permanent.

29-01-2021 10:20PM

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

What gives you the idea that the UK diverted doses which would have gone to Ireland?

This is a British vaccine being produced in British funded factories to supply Britain. Britain has arranged through Astra-Zeneca to licence the vaccine to other factories so that the vaccine can be sold at cost. Britain can supply the EU or others with excess vaccine and in the case of the EU this needs no further certification but it is under no compunction to do so. Where do you get the idea that you are entitled to this?

And, of course, as Britain has a higher death rate than other countries it makes sense to use the vaccine in Britain first rather than countries with a lower rate.

There are about 440 million people who don't believe your version of the truth.

Pete_Cavan · 29-01-2021 10:20PM

mista11 wrote: »

Clause 5.1
"Astrazeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses within the EU for distribution, and to deliver to the Distribution Hubs, following EU marketing authorization, as set forth more fully in Section 7.1, approximately [redacted] 2020 [redated] Q1 2021, and (iii) the remainder of the Initial Europe Doses by the end of [redacted]"

Note that the EU does not include the UK for the purposes of Clause 5.1. Effectively this clause seems to be giving the EU priority access to the EU manufacturing facilities.

They said their best reasonable effort - not guarateed

The EU is distracting you like they wanted to, so your looking to the UK as the issue not at them

So the EU should just accept that AZ made "Best Reasonable Efforts" despite them only offering less than a third of their original supply target for Q1 21? What happened to the €300m that they got in August to allow them to scale up for the necessary level of production? Why has it come out so late in the day that they were so far behind, they seem to have no issues supply the UK? Why didn't they offer product from another plant, like from India, which the contract does allow?

Saying Best Reasonable Efforts doesn't absolve them of their obligations. They will have to prove they made Best Reasonable Efforts which will be a hard task given their pitiful output so far.

hmmm · 29-01-2021 10:23PM

Dempo1 wrote: »

the EU"S quite disgraceful behaviour

I'm happy for the EU to fight our side, and not roll over on this. We want the vaccines we paid for. The border is a complete sideshow.

If the EU are worried about the vaccines entering Ireland and transiting into NI, we should intercept them.

29-01-2021 10:24PM

brickster69 wrote: »

Well Serbia, Hungary and Iceland don't seem to be hanging around getting supplies.

God bless Sinopharm. In other news it has been reported that if you can't get Whiskey then wood alcohol is almost as effective.

What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Comments