• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.

Isn't it time to let this go?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #41
    Liz Truss on LBC sounds uncomfortable justifying businesses going under because of red tape caused by Brexit.
    Last edited by BlasterBates; 31 January 2021, 10:55.
    I'm alright Jack

    Comment


      #42
      Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
      Yes but it was under EU law, so it's completely ridiculous to suggest this was possible because of Brexit.

      The fact that this is trumpeted as the main benefit of Brexit demonstrates the futility Brexit.
      Do you concede that the way the UK handled vaccine procurement was more probable due to brexit?

      Declaring it a benefit of brexit is a bit silly, as brexiteers didn't know about covid in 2016, however it sure will invigorate the narrative that the EU is an ineffective bureaucracy.

      Comment


        #43
        Originally posted by TheGreenBastard View Post
        Do you concede that the way the UK handled vaccine procurement was more probable due to brexit?

        Declaring it a benefit of brexit is a bit silly, as brexiteers didn't know about covid in 2016, however it sure will invigorate the narrative that the EU is an ineffective bureaucracy.
        Well if all countries had done what Britain has done there would have been multiple acrimonious battles between different EU countries as they all scrambled for first "dibbs". The Brexiteers would then have pointed to this as a failure of the EU.

        The fact is that the disadvantages of a combined bureacracy still outweighs the disadvantages of 27 countries scrapping with each other.

        If Astra-Zeneca had been upfront about the UK having precedence then the EU could have ramped up orders with Pfizer, rather than learning about this without notice 6 months after ordering the vaccines. The UK manufacturing sites were listed in the contract.
        I'm alright Jack

        Comment


          #44
          The UK are paying nearly 3 times the price per dose from AZ than the EU as they insisted on a clause in the contract that they would get all their doses to the detriment of everyone else. This is why Johnson cites 'national security' over the contents of the UK-AZ contract
          Brexit is having a wee in the middle of the room at a house party because nobody is talking to you, and then complaining about the smell.

          Comment


            #45
            Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
            Well if all countries had done what Britain has done there would have been multiple acrimonious battles between different EU countries as they all scrambled for first "dibbs". The Brexiteers would then have pointed to this as a failure of the EU.

            The fact is that the disadvantages of a combined bureacracy still outweighs the disadvantages of 27 countries scrapping with each other.

            If Astra-Zeneca had been upfront about the UK having precedence then the EU could have ramped up orders with Pfizer, rather than learning about this without notice 6 months after ordering the vaccines. The UK manufacturing sites were listed in the contract.
            The "precedence" afforded to the UK is entirely due to first come first served contractual obligations; do you believe EU has no responsibility in this regard, when negotiating with AZ? AZ should have exposed prior contractual agreements on the table, just to favour the EU? Why should EU be favoured? Context is important here, EU does still have favourable terms in terms of cost.

            The Hungarians managed to procure vaccines (albeit on their terms, e.g. the Chinese vaccine), the big 5 (which contract the EU stalled, but subsequently used) would have got something in place 3 months prior than what the EU-proper was able to do. Having said that, I do concede from a UK perspective, it was useful to have a bumbling bureaucracy to compete against with regards to procurement.

            Originally posted by darmstadt View Post
            The UK are paying nearly 3 times the price per dose from AZ than the EU as they insisted on a clause in the contract that they would get all their doses to the detriment of everyone else. This is why Johnson cites 'national security' over the contents of the UK-AZ contract
            Got a source for that? All I can find is Covid-19: Countries are learning what others paid for vaccines | The BMJ which is nowhere near x3.

            Comment


              #46
              Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
              Yes but it was under EU law, so it's completely ridiculous to suggest this was possible because of Brexit.

              The fact that this is trumpeted as the main benefit of Brexit demonstrates the futility Brexit.
              Brexiters are now asserting that the vaccine was one of the reasons they voted for Brexit; I don't remember seeing that on the side of a bus.
              "A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices," George Orwell

              Comment


                #47
                Originally posted by TheGreenBastard View Post
                The "precedence" afforded to the UK is entirely due to first come first served contractual obligations; do you believe EU has no responsibility in this regard, when negotiating with AZ? AZ should have exposed prior contractual agreements on the table, just to favour the EU? Why should EU be favoured? Context is important here, EU does still have favourable terms in terms of cost.

                The Hungarians managed to procure vaccines (albeit on their terms, e.g. the Chinese vaccine), the big 5 (which contract the EU stalled, but subsequently used) would have got something in place 3 months prior than what the EU-proper was able to do. Having said that, I do concede from a UK perspective, it was useful to have a bumbling bureaucracy to compete against with regards to procurement.



                Got a source for that? All I can find is Covid-19: Countries are learning what others paid for vaccines | The BMJ which is nowhere near x3.
                Astra Zeneca never mentioned the first come first served principle, why did they list UK manufacturing locations when it must have been clear that they wouldn't be used. If the EU had known clearly they would have invested elsewhere. The UK government have played a blinder with their somewhat devious approach.

                Pfizer don't have a first come first served strategy. Anyway it looks like the EU will get round the problem because other manufacturers are stepping in. All could have been avoided by Astra-Zeneca being up front about it. If all countries had taken the same approach the vaccination programmes would have become prohibitively expensive for poorer countries. The EU is exporting to these countries, whilst the UK is hogging the vaccines for domestic political gain of being able to "gloat" about having put one over on the EU.
                I'm alright Jack

                Comment


                  #48
                  Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
                  Astra Zeneca never mentioned the first come first served principle, why did they list UK manufacturing locations when it must have been clear that they wouldn't be used. If the EU had known clearly they would have invested elsewhere. The UK government have played a blinder with their somewhat devious approach.

                  Pfizer don't have a first come first served strategy. Anyway it looks like the EU will get round the problem because other manufacturers are stepping in. All could have been avoided by Astra-Zeneca being up front about it. If all countries had taken the same approach the vaccination programmes would have become prohibitively expensive for poorer countries. The EU is exporting to these countries, whilst the UK is hogging the vaccines for domestic political gain of being able to "gloat" about having put one over on the EU.
                  The first come principle is contractual law, did you think (maybe want) the EU to be able to override previous contracts?

                  UK manufactured vaccines are still part of EU procurement, do you have a source claiming no vaccinations will be EU bound from UK plants?

                  "The UK government have played a blinder with their somewhat devious approach"

                  You clearly have a narrative that must be upheld at all costs; AZ/EU contract is just that, a contract between AZ and the EU.

                  Pfizer do have "first served" contractual obligations as it's a mechanism of contractual law; BTW the number of Pfizer vaccines to the EU is also less than agreed.

                  UK isn't hogging anything, they had a very aggressive vaccine approval (which was criticised previously). It's interesting from both sides it's spun as UK vs. EU - something I suspect the EU wanted, but has backfired in spectacular fashion and has likely invigorated the brexit sentiment (thanks!...)

                  Coronavirus: WHO criticises EU over vaccine export controls - BBC News

                  Comment


                    #49
                    Originally posted by TheGreenBastard View Post
                    The first come principle is contractual law, did you think (maybe want) the EU to be able to override previous contracts?

                    [/url]
                    No, but I would expect them to be honest and up front so the EU knew where they stood, rather than pocketing the money, the EU paid. Why didn't they simply list the EU manufacturing plants?

                    Can you point to a case where a customer lost a case for breach of contract because of the supplier delivering to another customer instead using the "first come first served" principle?
                    Last edited by BlasterBates; 31 January 2021, 12:21.
                    I'm alright Jack

                    Comment


                      #50
                      Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
                      No, but I would expect them to be honest and up front so the EU knew where they stood, rather than pocketing the money, the EU paid. Why didn't they simply list the EU manufacturing plants?

                      Can you point to a case where a customer lost a case for breach of contract because of the supplier delivering to another customer instead using the "first come first served" principle?
                      The production sources were negotiated by the EU, and they have access to the UK production, AZ failed (not the "UK") if any volume doesn't meet expectations. EU secured killer pricing on the vaccine, but clearly there's a cost to that now, one that people like yourself cannot and will not accept, no matter what, the EU is in the right here.

                      Why would I waste my time looking that up; you're the one posting hypotheticals, why are you putting such extreme requirements of evidence on others? I'm yet to see evidence for your claim UK locations won't be used to supply the EU.

                      Can you point to a procurement process where favouritism is given to later agreements for the same procurement? (This doesn't provide anything of value, just highlight the absurdity of the question...)

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X