EU and AstraZeneca

[PILTDOWN MAN]

With all due respect, everything you have written may or may not be true, but with absolutely no knowledge of what is in any of the contracts, nobody knows. The only thing we do know is that the EU are at a disadvantage having signed the contract later but, as I pointed out above, my experience of contract law (in very different fields) is that makes very little difference to the detail of the contract

As I said earlier, I suspect more will come to light over the next few weeks and hopefully the AstraZeneca/EU dispute will not require a re-examination of the UK/AstraZeneca contract

There must have been so many caveats in all the contracts regarding this. When signed no one was sure the vaccine worked or was safe. The EU still haven't passed it. There has to have been many grey areas.

 

[WATFORD zero]

There must have been so many caveats in all the contracts regarding this. When signed no one was sure the vaccine worked or was safe. The EU still haven't passed it. There has to have been many grey areas.

I suspect they are all very complex, and I have no idea what court would rule on any aspect of it.

The one thing I do know for certain is I'm now dying for a bloody pie

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

AstraZeneca has published its contract with the EU, showing the clause committing to make "best reasonable efforts" to make and supply 300m doses of its vaccine to the bloc.

The drugs giant was under pressure to release the document, after Ursula von der Leyen threatened to do so herself, as she claimed it contained "binding orders" for a set amount of Covid vaccine doses.

However the redacted contract, which does not reveal how much was paid, states that "AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts... to build capacity to manufacture 300 million Doses of the Vaccine, at no profit and no loss to AstraZeneca, at the total cost currently estimated to be [redacted] Euros for distribution within the EU, with an option for the Commission, acting on behalf of the Participating Member States, to order an additional 100 million Doses."

Earlier this week AstraZeneca boss Pascal Soriot said the EU contract was based on a "best-effort" clause and did not commit the company to a specific timetable for deliveries.

This morning the Spectator reports that when ministers saw a similar offer in the UK contract, Alok Sharma and Matt Hancock "insisted on a legally binding promise to serve Britain first", which they later received.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...ockdown-end-sturgeon-scotland-vaccine-brexit/

Looks like another fail on the part of the EU, slow to act and didn't nail down the contract delivery timetable ...

Presumably if the UK had a contract to get the first 100 million doses then we would have had to have signed away that right for any following contract to claim them.

This will take years in the courts...

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

AstraZeneca has published its contract with the EU, showing the clause committing to make "best reasonable efforts" to make and supply 300m doses of its vaccine to the bloc.

The drugs giant was under pressure to release the document, after Ursula von der Leyen threatened to do so herself, as she claimed it contained "binding orders" for a set amount of Covid vaccine doses.

However the redacted contract, which does not reveal how much was paid, states that "AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts... to build capacity to manufacture 300 million Doses of the Vaccine, at no profit and no loss to AstraZeneca, at the total cost currently estimated to be [redacted] Euros for distribution within the EU, with an option for the Commission, acting on behalf of the Participating Member States, to order an additional 100 million Doses."

Earlier this week AstraZeneca boss Pascal Soriot said the EU contract was based on a "best-effort" clause and did not commit the company to a specific timetable for deliveries.

This morning the Spectator reports that when ministers saw a similar offer in the UK contract, Alok Sharma and Matt Hancock "insisted on a legally binding promise to serve Britain first", which they later received.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...ockdown-end-sturgeon-scotland-vaccine-brexit/

Looks like another fail on the part of the EU, slow to act and didn't nail down the contract delivery timetable ...

But that goes back to what Pascal Soriot was originally saying. Nailing down the contract timetable was not on offer to the EU because they were too late with their order. Quite simply there needed to be time and investment for delivery of the scaling up process, something that did happen with the UK order because it was placed 3 months earlier. AZ were not prepared to commit to something with the EU that might go wrong and were straightforward with the EU in negotiation of the contract. Given the EUs recent behavior the company were right to be cautious.

 

[beorhthelm]

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_302

Enjoy

Manufacturing and Supply, on page 11. does seem to use "Best Reasonable Efforts" a lot.

 

[Eeyore]

I agree with most of that but not your metaphor about two aristocrats fighting over caviar. The UK is not involved. Whilst a couple of posters on NSC may be indulging in vaccine nationalism our Government has simply placed orders and is now rolling out the programme. Journalists have tried to stir the pot at the daily press conference but the reality is this is an EU decision making issue, further complicated by their unseemly spat with a pharmaceutical company. Nothing more.

In a sense I agree with your correction. This current crisis is bound in contractual law. I should have separated the two, as I feel my wider point needs empahsis.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

But that goes back to what Pascal Soriot was originally saying. Nailing down the contract timetable was not on offer to the EU because they were too late with their order. Quite simply there needed to be time and investment for delivery of the scaling up process, something that did happen with the UK order because it was placed 3 months earlier. AZ were not prepared to commit to something with the EU that might go wrong and were straightforward with the EU in negotiation of the contract. Given the EUs recent behavior the company were right to be cautious.

The way the EU was carrying on it seemed like they had a nailed on, legally enforceable delivery timetable for a set number of vaccines .... not so.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Manufacturing and Supply, on page 11. does seem to use "Best Reasonable Efforts" a lot.

Indeed - there is at least two mentions of the phrase. Equally, as far as I can see from a quick scan, there is no mention of the UK manufacturing sites or the requirement for them to be included in any delivery. Me thinks Miss Stroppy Knickers might be ... well .... a liar. Incredible that the EU are that stupid they persuade a company to publish a contract that then proves the EU to be liars

 

[Guinness Boy]

[MENTION=616]Guinness Boy[/MENTION] ?
Are we able to request a poster purge of this thread ? It has certainly gone downhill over the past several pages and many of us would like to keep the civil discussion going.

If you see stuff you don't like report it rather than tagging people please. I don't moderate this place on my own, in fact that would be a really bad idea. Ultimately it's [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] 's site and frankly I agree with every word in his post just below yours.

 

[DIFFBROOK]

On page 11 - it does mention UK manufacturing sites. So, dependent on UK Govt having a legally enforced deal to receive first allocation of vaccines.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Indeed - there is at least two mentions of the phrase. Equally, as far as I can see from a quick scan, there is no mention of the UK manufacturing sites or the requirement for them to be included in any delivery. Me thinks Miss Stroppy Knickers might be ... well .... a liar. Incredible that the EU are that stupid they persuade a company to publish a contract that then proves the EU to be liars

It does mention just for purposes of section 5.4 only included UK sites for manufacture, however with caveat Best Reasonable Efforts. Now given there is a contract in place some three months earlier currently being fulfilled by the UK sites, surely those sites will only be available for the EU production after that contract is finished. **** off EU

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

For the last time, if we had been in the EU still we would still have had absolute authority to buy any amount of vaccine from wherever. MHRA rules, always did.

I haven't read so much fake news in a long time

The BBC states that member countries cannot order vaccines from companies which are going through negotiations with the bloc. If so, wouldn't that stop independent buying save from Russia and China? I have read that Hungary are buying from the Russians and that they also have Oxford vaccine lined up but that the Oxford deal has angered the rest of the EU.

 

[beorhthelm]

On page 11 - it does mention UK manufacturing sites. So, dependent on UK Govt having a legally enforced deal to receive first allocation of vaccines.

its a contract dispute between EU and AstraZeneca, any agreement with UK is external and under a separate jurisdiction. they could chose to ignore the EU and carry on their current deliveries, by the time this comes to a court either we'll have completed the vaccination or they'll have increased capacity in EU, UK or elsewhere, or both. in the meantime the EU can embargo vaccine supply exports to countries to make up the shortfall, impacting UK, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Brazil that im aware of. they did this for PPE and some other restricted drugs. likewise the UK could embargo exports of vaccine too. lets hope it doesnt come that.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

On page 11 - it does mention UK manufacturing sites. So, dependent on UK Govt having a legally enforced deal to receive first allocation of vaccines.

AZ say ‘ The UK agreement was reached in June, three months before the European one. As you could imagine, the UK government said the supply coming out of the UK supply chain would go to the UK first. Basically, that's how it is. In the EU agreement it is mentioned that the manufacturing sites in the UK were an option for Europe, but only later.’ (Pascal Soriot).
This has all been very clear from from the beginning of this dispute despite attempts to muddy the waters.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I am sure there must be plenty of EU 'figures' hell bent in milking this as a means of getting back at the UK for our flounce.

The correct response, however, is to shrug our shoulders. We have done nothing wrong, and nothing different from Germany who have also bought vaccine outside the EU purchasing cartel. They haven't used it much yet though because they operate a different set of standards to us over burden of proof, safety etc. I could tell a few tales about Germans and their hygeine

I would suggest what we have done is nothing like what Germany has done;

‘ Berlin struck the separate deal in September, when it was “trumpeting the virtues” of a common EU purchasing strategy during its tenure as rotating president of the European Union, The Telegraph reports.’

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....30-million-vaccine-jabs-outside-eu-scheme?amp

The UK had already bought and paid for its vaccine supply in transparent negotiations with AZ. Germany was undermining a position it was promoting and in the process upsetting fellow member states of the organization we were leaving.

 

[portlock seagull]

Your own entry puts itself on trial. It laments human society's standards but upholds them.

The vaccine is not a ticket to an away match with limited capacity in which a queue is to be formed and anyone who fails can listen on the radio. It is life and death for some. The poorer countries lose out the most- we get furloughed or claim benefits as well as accessible health care.

Sadly this thread has become all to predictable.

The [MENTION=11191]Pretty pink fairy[/MENTION] and [MENTION=35289]Baker lite[/MENTION] type members have inevitably resorted to Airfix patriotism. This, of course, is one situation where that could be set aside in reflection of a common good. But the vaccine is a useful addition to the two world wars and one World Cup. It's been a while.

[MENTION=22975]DavidinSouthampton[/MENTION] places the post worth most reflection. The one that anyone with reason or compassion would take most note of.

What we see in the AZ crisis is indeed a snapshot of vaccine nationalism. Like two aristocrats fighting over the last caviar portion in an upmarket shop whilst naked beggars, stripped of everything they have, huddle outside and peak in wishing.

The UK will probably be the first nation to complete the programme. An achievement in many different quarters of ingenuity. Proud science. But once we have our vaccines perhaps we should reflect on how fortunate we are. This pandemic has only served to highlight how the world does indeed work.

And many of us don't get brownie points for having seen it coming.

Slightly earnest, but think we’re on same page. In case not, I’m neither lamenting or upholding. Merely commenting by injecting a big fat solid dose of reality into situation. Because we are in a queue. Life’s a queue. It’s impossible to do everything at once. Start somewhere. In this respect it’s (ie the vaccination programme) has started in the UK and is being rolled out. At some point in the future everyone will be done and we will move onto helping other countries. Simple as. Inbetween people here in the UK and abroad will die. Nothing to do with selfishness. Just way it is. And always has been. I think you might be chasing Utopia. Not even Christopher Columbus found that.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

but with absolutely no knowledge of what is in any of the contracts, nobody knows. The only thing we do know is that the EU are at a disadvantage having signed the contract later
:

Well now we do, and the picture becomes more and more clear.

Best reasonable efforts is a phrase used more than once - it's all extremely loose.

The EU have failed miserably on this and are trying now desperately to blame anyone and everyone else for their failings.

The comments from the Belgium Commissioner this morning were quite disgraceful and do the EU no good whatsoever.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Well now we do, and the picture becomes more and more clear.

Best reasonable efforts is a phrase used more than once - it's all extremely loose.

The EU have failed miserably on this and are trying now desperately to blame anyone and everyone else for their failings.

The comments from the Belgium Commissioner this morning were quite disgraceful and do the EU no good whatsoever.

Excellent news that there is no case and it can't interrupt our roll out plans, any sort of protracted situation was going to be harmful to both the EU and AstraZeneca. Besides I'm hoping to get it soon

Agree completely on what the Belgium commissioner said, hope he gets slapped down for that. I would also hope this is only a short term issue anyway as yet another vaccine gets approved and they all ramp up capacity

(Maybe time for the Covid sub-forum now)

 

[Guinness Boy]

It does mention just for purposes of section 5.4 only included UK sites for manufacture, however with caveat Best Reasonable Efforts. Now given there is a contract in place some three months earlier currently being fulfilled by the UK sites, surely those sites will only be available for the EU production after that contract is finished. **** off EU

Even as a Remainer I think you've hit the nail on the head on this issue.

 

[Jim in the West]

It does mention just for purposes of section 5.4 only included UK sites for manufacture, however with caveat Best Reasonable Efforts. Now given there is a contract in place some three months earlier currently being fulfilled by the UK sites, surely those sites will only be available for the EU production after that contract is finished. **** off EU

That's my interpretation (for what it's worth!). The other key clause (I think) is 5.1, which obliges AZ to use its "Best Reasonable Efforts" (BRE) to manufacture the EU's order at EU sites. I think this pretty much completely undermines the EU's stance that AZ should be shipping stuff from the UK to the EU to make up the shortfall in the EU's supply. There is NO obligation on AZ to manufacture the EU's order in the UK. Clause 5.4 also has a BRE obligation, but it's a much wider clause about generally manufacturing the vaccine (as far as I can see)....so, although clause 5.4 refers to the UK, it doesn't oblige AZ to produce any of the EU's order at the UK plants.