What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Deleted User wrote: »

You cannot casually dismiss his points.

By all means shoot the messenger, but his points still stand.

You have to demonstrate that his points are wrong. From my analysis of his article, I fail to find one - not one error.

On your ancillary point re: ministers and second salaries, I agree.

I'll give it a go. I realise this is pointless but I'm waiting for a shower to pass.

Let’s start with the bare facts. Brussels is in dispute with AstraZeneca, the British-Swedish pharmaceutical company, over the late delivery of some Covid vaccines.

Yes correct his point to use your phrase stands.

For what it’s worth, the EU seems to have a staggeringly weak case. It published its contract with the firm but, far from being any kind of “gotcha”, that contract showed that AstraZeneca had simply promised to use its “reasonable best efforts” to fulfil the order, the same form of words it used with the UK, which also saw some late deliveries.

This is at best opinion. Certainly not a fact as it is being presented.

The rights and wrongs of that dispute, though, are beside the point. The EU’s quarrel is with AstraZeneca, not with Britain.

This also would appear to be correct.

In pursuit of its quarrel, Brussels announced plans to block the export of vaccines from a completely unrelated company, the American corporation Pfizer, to Britain – vaccines which no one disputed that the UK had purchased, and on which the EU did not pretend to have any legal claim.

Correct to a point. The EU announced plans to have a mechanism to give national regulator the power to reject export requests. An unamed offiacial is quoted in the Guardian as saying “There is a possibility in certain circumstances not to allow the export to come forward,” an official said. “Indeed, that would be the final option.”

However the gentleman assigns a motive to this act that again is at best opinion.

In other words, Brussels was threatening to halt the sale of life-saving drugs to a neighbouring country, not in response to any provocation, but simply because it was cross that that country was further advanced in its vaccination programme.

Again the motive of the EU is clear to the author and stated as fact

It gets worse. In order to deflect criticism from its hopeless record in ordering vaccines, the European Commission aimed its law expressly at Britain. Its export ban did not apply to other neighbouring states, such as Iceland, Morocco, Egypt, Syria, Ukraine or Belarus. The only country in the vicinity to be targeted was the UK.

This point is the potential curtailing of drug exports from the EU is designed to deflect criticism. This is again opinion and no attempt is made to examine it.

It gets worse still. To make sure that no vaccines could enter the UK, the Commission announced that it was excluding Northern Ireland from the single market arrangements which it had previously insisted were so critical to the peace process. Incredibly, it didn’t notify Britain or Ireland in advance, and its move united every party in Dublin and Belfast against it (as well, for that matter, as every party at Westminster except the SNP), eventually forcing it to back down. Still, a point was made – a point that cannot now be unmade. For four years, EU negotiators claimed that the merest possibility of a border in Ireland would risk a return to terrorism, and worked to convince the world that this was a risk that Britain was somehow prepared to run. Yet it took precisely 29 days before the EU itself announced such a border.

Broadly correct you would have to say but the author appears to both scoff at the idea that 'the merest possiblity of a border could risk a return to terrorism' and while oddly impying that there was no way that Britain would have risked it.

It gets even worse than that. Annoyed at Britain’s success,

This is again just opinion, presented as fact.

European leaders started casting doubt on the efficacy of the AstraZeneca product. Engaging in the kind of nuttiness which gets people banned from social media, Emmanuel Macron claimed that the vaccine “didn’t work”. In other words,

The above is a an outright lie. Macron said of the AZ vaccine "We’re waiting for the EMA [European Medicines Agency] results, but today everything points to thinking it is quasi-ineffective on people older than 65, some say those 60 years or older."

the EU is breaking every norm of civilised behaviour and threatening expropriation over a vaccine which, from sheer sour grapes, its leaders claim is ineffective.

Firstly this is sheer hyperbole. Every norm of civilised behaviour . Then again the EU motive is assumed and presented as fact.


Let’s summarise. The European Commission elbowed aside its member states, which had begun their own procurement programmes, and insisted on negotiating en bloc for the 27.

I'm not even sure what 'elbowed aside' means here. In fairness I didn't follow the procurement process so I may be ignorant here.

It moved slowly and bureaucratically,

True

reportedly because it was holding out for vaccines produced by Continental firms.

Sheer conjecture.

In the end, three months after Britain, it signed a contract with AstraZeneca

True

similar to that which some of its nations had tried to sign earlier.

So a different contract? Again I'm ignorant here but his use of the word similar when he could say same is interesting.

As criticism mounted, it panicked and lashed out – smashing the principles of due process, private property and free trade in the process.

There may well be an element of panic. I'm pretty sure free trade, provate proerty and due process will continue much as they have though.

Still raining...:rolleyes:

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Under the new rule made pregnant by the EU, pharmaceutical companies will have to seek permission before supplying doses beyond the EU. Its 27 member states will be able to vet those export applications.

This is the very definition of vaccine nationalism. Withholding vaccines for oneself.

In fact, the former Prime Minister of Sweden, Carl Bildt, commented that he "had hoped not to see the EU leading the world down the destructive path of vaccine nationalism".

The WHO chief, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, commented that the EU's newly introduced regulation to implement vaccine nationalism would cause a "protracted recovery" from the pandemic.

This isn't the UK acting as nationalists; it's the EU - and forces hitherto aligned with the EU are now some of its most vocal critics.

Can you direct me to the new rule please.

Good old beaurocratic EU will have a real link now. Any link be great

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Precisely.

Even if the EU admitted wrong, I believe many posters here would still defend the position that the EU was right - such is the level of religious obedience to this ailing, failing political project.

One good thing did come from the EU's actions yesterday, though - namely, it has hastened the resolve of many people to follow in Britain's lead, to leave the European Union and become independent, self-governing states that make more efficient, less bureaucratic, and more democratic decisions in the interests of their people.

Brexit meant brexit. Brexit meant loss of control over pharma production.

Seems a good reason to stay in for me. Hahaha

Loving this guy/girl/bot

Deleted User wrote: »

You are confusing two different things.

The EU has a personal problem with AstraZeneca over contract etc.

But the EU has proposed banning exports of the Pfizer vaccine to the UK (as they are manufactured in Belgium) to which the EU had no legal basis in acquiring whatsoever.

The EU has no right to be acting in such a flagrantly nationalistic, belligerent, and hostile manner.

I have to say I agree with you in the sense that appears the EU are being hostile & belligerent. What I'm wondering is why?

I don't quite buy the idea that they're 'cross' or suffering from 'Brexit envy'. It will be interesting to see what come out.

Deleted User wrote: »

Under the new rule made pregnant by the EU, pharmaceutical companies will have to seek permission before supplying doses beyond the EU. Its 27 member states will be able to vet those export applications.

This is the very definition of vaccine nationalism. Withholding vaccines for oneself.

In fact, the former Prime Minister of Sweden, Carl Bildt, commented that he "had hoped not to see the EU leading the world down the destructive path of vaccine nationalism".

The WHO chief, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, commented that the EU's newly introduced regulation to implement vaccine nationalism would cause a "protracted recovery" from the pandemic.

This isn't the UK acting as nationalists; it's the EU - and forces hitherto aligned with the EU are now some of its most vocal critics.

You are comoletely incorrect. The eu had instigated a notification procedure for export, it has not blocked exports, can you show us where the eu has blocked the export of a vaccine please ?

— The U.K. government has sought legal advice on preventing coronavirus vaccines or their ingredients being exported, suggesting that ministers are actively considering countermeasures they could deploy if other countries start restricting cross-border movements of vaccines.

The highlighted part is important in this context as a British based company manufactures the one of the key ingredients for the Pfizer jab, I am unaware if it's an easily replaced product though.

Really hope tensions reduce soon as this is going to help nobody.

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-weighs-coronavirus-vaccine-export-restrictions/

Deleted User wrote: »

Not at all, I don't mind.

If anyone else would like to enjoy my paragraph against the backdrop of Land of Hope and Glory, here is the paragraph:



And here is the decided upon background theme:

Splendid. Surely the Union flag would be more appropriate though?

political analyst wrote: »

Well, it was on at 10:23, actually, because of the 2 Coronation Street episodes back-to-back and the repeat showing of a drama.

By the way, it's not like Fox News because regulation of broadcasting is stricter in the UK than in the US.

Were they not EU rules??????

Haha - how many of their own rules do the UK even have anymore.

030802 wrote: »

Daily Express might be looking for new talent. Just send them this post. You'll be hired.

Not even a weak attempt to discuss and argue the point.

I don't think that requiring notifications for vaccine exports is anything like "vaccine nationalism". It's interesting if true that the proposed rules are specifically directed at the UK, I'd like to see some decent discussion about the logic of that, not recommendations on which poster would make the best Daily Express journalist.

hahashake wrote: »

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

I asked a Dutch friend to translate that tweet, the translation offered prior to that doesn't match up with what I was told, which was "it can't be decided", not "on the contrary".