From the other AZ thread:
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1372897635577761803
In summary: UK (and US) screwed EU. Now EU is screwing UK back.
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1372897635577761803
In summary: UK (and US) screwed EU. Now EU is screwing UK back.
This has been especially difficult for us in Canada where our dependant relationship with the US ("sleeping with an elephant") has screwed us not just on vaccine supply but on other geopolitical issues (China imprisoning our citizens as proxy conflict with the US, trade conflict over steel and aluminum and dairy, etc.).
If you traveled back 15-20 years and told people at the time that there would be a situation where Canada would be poor in vaccine supply while the US was drowning in it, people would be a bit shocked. During the Clinton/Chretien era this kind of lack of cooperation would be unheard of, continental integration was the agenda of the day.
Some of this is now alleviating with Biden at the helm, but it's still not a good situation. We just "borrowed" 1.5M doses of AstraZeneca from the US that they weren't using, but that's really a drop in the bucket.
So yeah, it's not just EU vs UK, it's a whole situation, the breakdown of the neo-liberal concensus. It's not clear what replaces it.
Was that retaliatory for Canada imprisoning a Chinese citizen in the name of US sanctions against Iran? I am curious which came first since I haven't followed it closely.(no justifying, just wondering why this is the example you brought up)
How is that "screwing" the EU?
In the meantime the EU has worked hard to try to destroy AZ vaccine's reputation...
If France's vaccine had worked and AZ failed, the tables would have been turned. This also completely ignores that the Oxford/AZ vaccine is what is driving vaccinations around the world right now for ~$3 a pop.
Somehow UK is both the devil and an angel in this scenario.
Did US export vaccine doses to its neighbours or anyone else?
Did UK export vaccine doses to the EU?
I'm not commenting on Dave as I've no idea what he said/wrote, I'm replying to the above as it's a commonly held point that the EU shipped does to the UK and the UK has not reciprocated. And this is very much not true.
The EU does not make any vaccine, and so by definition has not shipped any doses to the UK.
A private company (AZ) has contracts that include manufacturing in the EU and shipping into the UK.
This has nothing to do with the EU as an entity at all; it is simple private trade. If the EU couldn't come up with an enforcable private contract going the other way, that's on them. And even if AZ are somehow in the wrong on the EU contract, it's still private contracts between them and the EU and has nothing to do with the UK government, so why should it be 'obliged' to send any back? After all, the UK (as an entity) also doesn't produce vaccines and so has none to send in any event.
Essentially whether the UK contract has been fulfilled is pretty black and white where the EU one is significantly less so.
See below:
> "The level of specificity is partially due to the legal systems they're based on. The U.K. contract is written in English law, which will judge whether both parties delivered the goods based on the exact wording of the contract. The EU contract is written in Belgian law, which focuses on whether both parties tried their best to deliver the goods and acted in good faith.
It's these extra details that give the U.K. more leverage to ensure its contract is delivered effectively. While both contracts say all parties will make their “best reasonable effort” to deliver the vaccine, the U.K. government is clearer in asserting its oversight of the agreement.
This core difference, according to a lawyer familiar with the development of the U.K. text, can be chalked up to the fact that the contract sealed with London was written by people with significant experience of purchasing agreements, specifically drug-buying deals. The European Commission’s contract, by contrast, shows a lack of commercial common sense, in the lawyer’s view.
The starkest example of this difference is a clause in the U.K. contract stating that if any party tries to force or persuade AstraZeneca or its subcontractors to do anything that could hold up the supply of the vaccine doses, the government may terminate the deal and invoke what appear to be punishment clauses — although these are largely redacted. "[1]
https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...
Screwing someone in writing is still screwing them. By your same logic, the EU hasn't screwed anyone, since it's within legal powers to do what it's doing - i.e. it's in the contract of being in the EU.
IANAL though.
Does that sound like "screwing" anyone?
The EU has handled the pandemic badly overall, and especially the vaccine. They are making noise as a way to distract and deflect and apparently their public opinion is buying it.
They are also complaining about supply of AZ vaccine while, at the same time, trying hard to destroy that vaccine's reputation (so that some people don't want it). This is incomprehensible.
Just being Pro-EU doesn't mean the reporting on this vaccine-drama is inaccurate. It means we probably need to be careful of what they are saying, but doesn't automatically mean it's wrong.
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1351129930264948748
1 tweet is not evidence of bias in itself, though, if you've been following along since Brexit it's pretty obvious. I invite you to spent 10 minutes looking through his twitter feed and judge for yourself.
Assuming that is true, which it isn't, on what basis did the EU assume good behaviour?
Also, it is not illegal for the EU to be banning exports of this vaccine product. Plus, where did the tax subsidies come from? In this case it is from an EU member state. This is how pharmaceutical companies work; they plant themselves where the subsides are.
The biggest mistake that the EU made was that they trusted free market forces too much.
Either way, this is a good read, from the Global Commission of Post-Pandemic Policy: Why States Should Invest in Vaccine Capacity: https://globalcommissionforpostpandemicpolicy.org/states-and...
It talks about the EU vaccine situation well, too.
Two wrongs do not a right make.
The UK screwed nobody, they just wrote a good contract independent of EU.
If the UK knew there were not going to be able to manufacture there, they would have made it elsewhere.
Nationalizing exports is a massive problem, and it may very well be illegal.
Nobody screwed the EU or Canada, they just failed to take appropriate action.
I don't see how the UK insisting on a British partner for Oxford is 'screwing' the EU, given the fact we were leaving the EU around this time and Trump was not known for his globalist worldview at the time.
"What mistakes did EU make? To me it seems obvious.
EU took decisions based on an assumption of a free market and good faith from its partners. They didn’t think forcing an EU partner on BioNTech was essential, or EU plants should be for Europeans 1st.
That now appears naive.
EU assumed good behavior. US & UK manoeuvred to benefit themselves."
The first duty of a nation is to its people.
The moment that politicians forget that is the moment they find themselves in predicaments like this.
That's incompatible.
I could see them making a good faith assumption. Free market assumption is basically, everyone is out to earn most money they can.
The list of bad decisions goes on and on. Face masks, open borders, vaccine development, suspension of AZ vaccine, etc. This is bad management and probably dangerous political games.
Now, the UK did not do much better but at least they did manage to develop a vaccine (which is sold at cost) and to understand that vaccination had to happen early and as fast as possible and they went all in (800k+ injections just yesterday).
When I say "the EU" it means as much the EU as an institution as it means most member states individually.