Liz Truss on LBC sounds uncomfortable justifying businesses going under because of red tape caused by Brexit.
- 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.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Isn't it time to let this go?
Collapse
X
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by BlasterBates View PostYes 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.
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
-
Originally posted by TheGreenBastard View PostDo 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.
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 JackComment
-
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
-
Originally posted by BlasterBates View PostWell 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 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 PostThe 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 contractComment
-
Originally posted by BlasterBates View PostYes 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."A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices," George OrwellComment
-
Originally posted by TheGreenBastard View PostThe "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.
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 JackComment
-
Originally posted by BlasterBates View PostAstra 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.
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 NewsComment
-
Originally posted by TheGreenBastard View PostThe first come principle is contractual law, did you think (maybe want) the EU to be able to override previous contracts?
[/url]
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 JackComment
-
Originally posted by BlasterBates View PostNo, 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?
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
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment