But since they were so late in getting that contract signed AZ were only able to promise a best effort at delivery.
"And as POLITICO reported last week, the non-redacted version of the contract shows that the EU also waived its right to sue AstraZeneca in the event of delivery delays."
Quote from this article: https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...
Here’s the CEO of AZ explaining why the three month extra time was important.
> The UK signed off its deal with AstraZeneca in June 2020, three months before the EU did
So I’m not sure what to believe.
"However, the key lies in an earlier agreement that AstraZeneca made back in May with the U.K., which was a binding deal establishing “the development of a dedicated supply chain for the U.K.,” an AstraZeneca spokesperson said."
Quote is from this article: https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...
Except it didn't, the UK signed in august.
The link also says they wouldn't export EU manufactured vaccines, except Italy blocked an export to Australia a couple of weeks ago.
That's why it was considered "news" when it was reported that one particular contract was signed by the UK one day after the EU. But that's not the full story, since the UK had binding contracts with AZ well before that.
"The link also says they wouldn't export EU manufactured vaccines, except Italy blocked an export to Australia a couple of weeks ago." I haven't seen that claim in the article you linked.
AZ is selling at cost, so they are not making a profit from the vaccine atm. So that statement should be trivially true.
It seems the cost price differs from country to country because of different production costs and other factors (maybe shipping).
[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/astrazeneca-vaccine-cost-hig...
And press releases saying they are ready to go don't count as signing contracts.
All your links are rooted in AZ press releases, which means nothing.
I've seen the articles mention may, june and august as signing dates of the contract, so clearly there is some 'miscommunication'. And both the may and june date originates from AZ, while the actual date turns out to be august.
It's impossible to prove there wasn't a contract signed, it is however possible to prove a contract was signed. Your articles never provided evidence for the date the contract was signed.