In the News STOP PRESS..! EU NEEDS UK AFTER ALL..!

[slim63]

What i have been saying for years is the EU was of no benefit to the the UK but we were of great benefit to them, now it seems i have been proven right on one matter at least

Tell them to feck right off is my view, so what if they spent a few quid to help develop a vaccine they can have that back when they have paid up for destroying our fishing industry & taxing to death our few exports

Fuckum !

 

[sr71caspar]

I think the EU were relying too heavily on the French vaccine and are now trying to save face.

 

[ogr1]

The frog vaccine will never work..it will surrender and just give up, just like all their wars through history.
Thank fook the wops ain't making one...don't fancy walking backwards for a week.

 

[JayTee]

I think it will boil down to contractual obligations, it’ll be interesting when and if they publish the details because according to the company’s ceo there was no cast iron commitment for delivery, rather a clause that stipulated “best efforts”. If indeed this is the case it would appear the EU has taken their eye off the ball somewhat.
Now, what this means in corporate law I’ve no idea but the fact that UK is paying more than the EU per jab and ordered it 3months before has to be significant, also should we by injecting more cash into the project than anyone else ( it is after all a British/Swedish company)we should be disadvantaged?
An MEP has been quoted as saying “Being first in the queue doesn’t necessarily mean priority“, cheeky bstd ,I’d like to know what does determine it then, they were too schlerotic in getting their act together probably banking on the French vaccine being successfull. Well now it seems they’re reaping the result.
Its a shameful reflection on politics that when politicians bluster and squabble it’s the people that suffer .

 

[Martin L Batley]

It's all about useless politicians trying to blame others for their mistakes. The EU waited 3 months after the UK to place an order with Astrazeneca, and even then it was smaller at that. As has been mentioned before they hadn't even approved it until today. So now it's not about inept EU politics but about gready English business. Even then they are inept. Its a Swedish/English company and Sweden is linked to the EU. No mention of the Swedish part though is there.

 

[Pow-Lo]

I think it will boil down to contractual obligations, it’ll be interesting when and if they publish the details because according to the company’s ceo there was no cast iron commitment for delivery, rather a clause that stipulated “best efforts”. If indeed this is the case it would appear the EU has taken their eye off the ball somewhat.
Now, what this means in corporate law I’ve no idea but the fact that UK is paying more than the EU per jab and ordered it 3months before has to be significant, also should we by injecting more cash into the project than anyone else ( it is after all a British/Swedish company)we should be disadvantaged?
An MEP has been quoted as saying “Being first in the queue doesn’t necessarily mean priority“, cheeky bstd ,I’d like to know what does determine it then, they were too schlerotic in getting their act together probably banking on the French vaccine being successfull. Well now it seems they’re reaping the result.
Its a shameful reflection on politics that when politicians bluster and squabble it’s the people that suffer .

I see what you did there

 

[sib8292]

I think it will boil down to contractual obligations, it’ll be interesting when and if they publish the details because according to the company’s ceo there was no cast iron commitment for delivery, rather a clause that stipulated “best efforts”.

Generally a business supplier will have a standard supply contract, though that doesn't prevent the customer negotiating variations. For AstraZeneca to contract to deliver a specified quantity of a brand new product by a fixed date would be high risk, and I very much doubt that is the effect. Far more likely is the " best efforts" clause though it will be in more detail than that and maybe go into examples of overriding events. The other question is which law applies to the contract. Generally again it's the supplier who specifies that. And what we don't know is who is the actual corporate body that has contracted with the EU. 10-1 it's a subsidiary of AstraZeneca. May well be a different one from the supplier with whom the UK has its contract.

 

[Squag1]

There was a bomb scare at the Wrexham plant a few days ago. Whatever that was meant to achieve.

 

[Pow-Lo]

There was a bomb scare at the Wrexham plant a few days ago. Whatever that was meant to achieve.

People being scared of a bomb going off, duh!

 

[Squag1]

People being scared of a bomb going off, duh!

Covid: Wrexham vaccine production resumes after suspect package

The Army sends a bomb disposal unit to a site where the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is produced.

www.bbc.com

 

[andyBeaker]

The vast majority of people dying of Covid are doing so because either them, or someone close to them, have been f'ing stupid by not obeying the rules of lockdown, social distancing, wearing a mask and/or washing their hands.

Or doing essential work to protect and/or care and /or support others, or via infected packaging or just sheer bad luck Or any other number of reasons, some known, possibly many yet to be discovered.

 

[Pow-Lo]

Or doing essential work to protect and/or care and /or support others, or via infected packaging or just sheer bad luck Or any other number of reasons, some known, possibly many yet to be discovered.

People are contracting the virus through no fault of their own, no arguments here. However, I would imagine more than half of cases are because some people (or those close to them) cannot follow the rules.

There was a local woman bleating in the news yesterday that her partner, brother and one parent contracted the virus over Christmas and subsequently died. And guess what? It's all Boris Johnson's fault because he said people could get together for one day over Christmas. Unfortunately, there is no cure for stupid. Even more unfortunate is that it's not illegal to be stupid.

 

[Lee337]

There were bullies at my school that acted similar to the EU - You've got what I want, IT'S MINE GIVE IT TO ME OR I'LL PUNCH YOU REPEATEDLY IN THE FACE MUNTIL I GET WHAT I WANT!

 

[Pow-Lo]

There were bullies at my school that acted similar to the EU - You've got what I want, IT'S MINE GIVE IT TO ME OR I'LL PUNCH YOU REPEATEDLY IN THE FACE MUNTIL I GET WHAT I WANT!

They did it when we were part of the bloc. I stand to be corrected here but remember when George Osborne (I think) implemented the austerity measures, we got eventually got back in the black and then the Germans said we have to pump extra money into the EU (was it £27 billion or something?)? I seem to remember Mr. Cameron told them to F off.

Wankers, the lot of them.

 

[Squag1]

 

[Squag1]

 

[Lee337]

Does 'best reasonable efforts' include breaking other contracts AZ have signed?

 

[Jaws]

The UK funded the Oxford research and trials and backed the consortium with a contract for 300 Million doses, with an initial 100 million, before the trials had even got underway. They stipulated that the first 100 million doses out of the UK production facilities should be delivered exclusively to the UK.
The EU placed a contract 3 months later, having negotiated a lower price for the block of 27 nations. AZ set about setting up production and logistical facilities in the EU. Now AZ say that as the EU wanted the same delivery schedule as the UK, they could only make best efforts and put that in the contract. All 4 AZ production facilities are mentioned in the contract but AZ believe it was clear that the UK facilities would only be available after the UK initial doses had been delivered. The EU believe they were promised delivery, at the same schedule as the UK, from any or all facilities. Whichever way this dispute, between AZ and the EU, it is not directly a UK issue unless AZ come to the UK and ask if they can vary the terms of that contract. Either way, it would not justify the EU trying to purloin legally contracted and paid for deliveries from Pfizer. As I have said previously, that would be piracy.

And lets not forget, that AZ are conducting all of the Oxford vaccine production, worldwide, on a non profit basis. For what reason, other than contractual, would AZ want to prioritise any market over another.

 

[Jaws]

Here is a link to the contracts

Press corner

Highlights, press releases and speeches

ec.europa.eu

 

[Squag1]

I have NO idea where you got that from but AZ have now put the contracts in the public domain and what is said above does NOT exist

News site here The Journal.
I'm always intrigued by legal argument.