Printable View
The EC will propose a selective export ban that doesn't mention any country or company but pretty much means that AZ cannot send any doses to the UK. At least not legally. This policy should not affect exports to other countries. Since the old policy was introduced 1 out of 382 applications was rejected.
So the EC is showing itself to have no respect for the law and not to be a safe place to invest in.
The UK funded the Oxford vaccine and Oxford with Astrazeneca PLC signed up the Halix plant about six months before the EU got involved in signing contracts. So lets just void all that because the EU couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.
So you have an opinion about how we run our Union. Remember Brexit? It's about taking back control. ��
Your deal with AstraZeneca is worth exactly zero lives of EU citizens.
I have opinions about most of the world. Some of it is law abiding nations that respect contracts. Some of it is not and is not somewhere you would want to invest. The EU have revealed themselves to be the latter all because they fucked up royally by underinvesting and can't own their mistakes.
Twitter Link
Congratulations dickheads. The plant is a fill and finish plant which is legally obliged to store vaccines pending testing and distribution, nothing surprising about that. 29 million doses of which 13 million doses meant for Covax, 16 million meant for the EU.
So what's your plan? Steal the Covax 13 million? What's the next step here geniuses? What a farce.
Astrazeneca deserve tremendous credit not only for the service they are doing in doing this on a not-for-profit basis in coordination with Oxford and much of the globe, but for the tremendous patience they've shown with the EU trying time after time to pin their own failures on AZN. The EU once again owes a serious apology to Astrazeneca but no doubt they'll continue to dig their heals in and scream and scream instead.
Its all so unfair isn't it? Nothing to do with the fact that you chose not to invest in vaccines whatsoever?
In the last three months with the UK there at all, the EU have devolved before our eyes into Venezuela.
So, what are you whining about? They weren't going to export to you anyway so we don't reject their applications to do so.
Like the UK we don't block any exports. ��
The EU have already blocked a quarter of a million doses legally bought and paid for by Australia actually.
The UK doesn't have any of these doses but did pay for doses from the Halix plant in the Netherlands which we signed up a year ago. Lets see if contracts with Europe are worth their salt, or if the rule of law doesn't apply in the EU anymore.
Very selective... basically a mechanism for restricting shipments to countries that don't reciprocate and/or have a much less urgent need from an epidemic control standpoint—case-by-case decisions at the Commission's discretion. Should not be used against COVAX beneficiaries though—would be both unjust and stupid. It's an interesting way to deter vaccine nationalism outside the bloc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
All countries are having companies within their nations reciprocally fulfilling contracts that have been signed as and when they are contractually due.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
The EU doesn't want reciprocity on that basis since the EU knows they are not due the supplies. Stealing supplies bought and paid for by others, just because you didn't buy or pay for any that are due yet elsewhere, is not reciprocity.
The only blockade of vaccines in the western world so far is the 250,000 due to Australia that the EU blocked. Nobody else is blocking vaccines to the EU, you simply didn't purchase them first.
Who made you the police of the world? Australia didn't complain. And AZ said these doses weren't to go to the UK anyway. Mind your own business and stop bothering us.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I thought it was targeting the UK and/or AZ. But given that AZ wasn't planning to send the Halix production to the UK I guess it's just something that could be useful in case AZ turns out to be run by borderline criminals once again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Everyone has an interest when rogue states decide to tear up contracts and break the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
We'll see if the EU decides to go whole hog rogue state or not tomorrow I guess.
Funny to see you still buying the conspiracy theory bullshit that Astrazeneca are the ones acting in the wrong here though.
Not that I support an export ban, but randblade, I'm surprised you're upset. You were completely fine with the UK breaking signed agreements, and with the UK using sanctions to ensure e.g. AZ gives the UK preferential treatment. The EU also signed contracts, and AZ isn't delivering, surely by your logic that gives them every right to enforce those contracts as well? I'd have thought you would say Australia should have ordered their vaccines sooner and invested in production in their own country.
Plus you were fine with breaking your own laws because it's an emergency (when it comes to e.g. corruption), and said governments should do anything to ensure they get their vaccines. So I thought you'd support this.
Anyway, would be good if they don't impose an export ban if you ask me.
I object to the notion that the EU would be breaking any laws. Controlling the export of strategic goods is well within EU law. I don't know of any jurisdiction that would allow private contracts to set aside formal laws. AZ can agree to sell unlimited amounts of doses of its vaccine. They could even deliver their vaccine to the UK government. To remove them from EU territory will only be possible with the express permission of the competent authorities. And that would apply to whoever owns them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
I'm not shocked, more surprised at the EU's rapid descent into being a rogue state.
What contracts have I suggested should be broken?
The UK has not used sanctions to get preferential treatment that is categorically untrue. The UK funded the vaccine development, signed up the company to develop it and signed an agreement to be first in line for the vaccine in the factories that we funded. None of that is sanctions, it's all legitimate contracts. Had the EU decided not to be so miserly they could have funded vaccine development too. The UK and USA spent almost the same per capita (a bit higher in the UK) so have almost the same vaccinations too (a bit higher in the UK) precisely because investment does scale with output. If you need seven times the output you need to invest roughly seven times as much but the EU chose not to do so.
The EU spent less on development than the UK did, let alone spending the same per capita.
AZ is delivering, again it is fake news to say they're not. They're not delivering as much as they optimistically hoped to do but that was explained in the contract which is why it was a best reasonable efforts contract. They're going frankly above and beyond with best efforts.
Australia did order their vaccines which is why they were contractually due.
There's been no corruption or contract breaking I've been fine with. There's been a delay in reporting some contracts, that's not the same thing at all. The contracts weren't broken.
Didn't read that. Just get used to it; we control our borders, even if you don't.
September is a long time ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Changing the law is not the same thing as breaking international contracts.
There is no such thing as an international contract. There is a thing called article 122 TfEU.
If AZ doesn't like it's application, it can file a complaint at an administrative court in Belgium.
*checks* Yes they did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I presume asking the EC to review the Italian decision is technically a complaint. AFAIK the Italian decision hasn't found wide support inside the EU. To me personally it seemed a bit haphazard. But by appealing to the Commission the Australian government by no means contests that the EU can decide to export or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Well of course they CAN decide. Even Rand, for all his squawking here, typically concedes sovereign nations have the power and internal authority to do so. It might not be seen as having global legitimacy but they definitely can make the decision. I do finda it kinda sus to claim "we're going to stop these contracts from being honored with countries we feel are already doing well enough against the pandemic and preserve those supplies for our own use as part of our stand against vaccine nationalism" myself. At a bare minimum, it leads one to echo the statement you directed at Rand "who made you world police"?
Of course countries have the right to change the law and break or override contracts if they want to do so, I haven't said otherwise.
Others have the right to determine if rogue states are the place they want to invest in the future.
Twitter Link
Hardly surprising. No good deed goes unpunished.
Good deed? Which?
You are really so gullible it makes sense you could be seduced to vote for Brexit.
Building production and supplying the vaccines to end a global pandemic at cost.
Pfizer are due to make tens of billions of profits on this pandemic. Astrazeneca are not.
I'm far from an expert on this, but listening to the discussions about vaccination I am getting the idea that it's rather short sighted to vaccinate your own population as fast as possible while disregarding the vaccination speed in other countries. As long as Corona is burning like a wildfire some mutation could turn up to bite your vaccinated ass.
Am I far off the mark thinking this?
You probably think that you answered the question. What you really did was expose your gullibility to excess.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Or your ignorance. EU politicians boasted about the price it was paying for different vaccines, back when they thought price was all that mattered rather than speed which fed your failures now.
Maybe you should look up the price being paid for the AZN vaccine, and the Pfizer one. They're not the same by any means.
Which makes it all the more amusing that the EU dug its hole by concentrating on price over speed - but now is doing whatever it can do undermine the "cheap" at cost vaccine. If you end up requiring more Pfizer etc to finish vaccinations then your vaccine drive will be slower, have more deaths and be more expensive. No wins at all.
You are a confused little puppy aren't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Who was that guy who would get himself banned from the forum every semester in order for him concentrate on his studies? I don't think confusion is the issue.