Brexit matters

[notlob.divad]

Got any evidence to back up that claim?

The quote from the CEO of Astrazenica pretty much confirmed this.

Soriot pointed out that the British agreement stipulates that supply coming out of the U.K. would go to the U.K. first. The EU agreement allows use of the U.K. manufacturing sites, “but only later,” Soriot said, once Britain reaches a “sufficient number of vaccinations.”

ie. the very vaccine 'nationalism' the UK is now bemoning the EU for even considering with respect to the Pfizer vaccine.

 

[21C101]

The quote from the CEO of Astrazenica pretty much confirmed this.


ie. the very vaccine 'nationalism' the UK is now bemoning the EU for even considering with respect to the Pfizer vaccine.

Thats what happens when you get the order in three months earlier and said order includes paying to set up UK factories.

There are plenty of other factories around the world where Astrazenica are producing it for whoever has paid to produce it.

The UK factories went through similar production issues that the EU based factories are going through. But three months ago because the order was let three months earlier.

We just waited patiently though instead of smearing Aztrazenica, publishing the confidential contract online and sending the police to raid their premises. All the more appalling given that there is no profit for Astrazenica in these contracts (and no fixed delivery date just best reasonable efforts)

The EU are demanding that vaccines for supply to the UK and ordered three months before the EU ordered a single vaccine off Astrazenica are diverted to the EU and accusing the UK and Astrazenica of blocking them by not doing so. It is disgusting, outrageous, incompetent, bullying behaviour.

The EU have revealed far, far, more about themselves than they intended to this week.

 

[notlob.divad]

Thats what happens when you get the order in three months earlier and said order includes paying to set up UK factories.

There are plenty of other factories around the world where Astrazenica are producing it for whoever has paid to produce it.

The UK factories went through similar production issues that the EU based factories are going through. But three months ago because the order was let three months earlier.

We just waited patiently though instead of smearing Aztrazenica, publishing the confidential contract online and sending the police to raid their premises. All the more appalling given that there is no profit for Astrazenica in these contracts (and no fixed delivery date just best reasonable efforts)

The EU are demanding that vaccines for supply to the UK and ordered three months before the EU ordered a single vaccine off Astrazenica are diverted to the EU and accusing the UK and Astrazenica of blocking them by not doing so. It is disgusting, outrageous, incompetent, bullying behaviour.

The EU have revealed far, far, more about themselves than they intended to this week.

The full text of the contracts has not been made public and even those who have seen bits of it seem to disagree on what is in it.

So by your arguement you would be perfectly fine with the EU blocking exports of the Pfizer vaccine until Pfizer has delivered its full pre ordered consignment plus options.

Bearing in mind that any retaliatory action by the UK would have little to no effect on the current scenario for the EU because of the apparent clauses within the UK-Aż contract.

 

[21C101]

The full text of the contracts has not been made public and even those who have seen bits of it seem to disagree on what is in it.

So by your arguement you would be perfectly fine with the EU blocking exports of the Pfizer vaccine until Pfizer has delivered its full pre ordered consignment plus options.

Bearing in mind that any retaliatory action by the UK would have little to no effect on the current scenario for the EU because of the apparent clauses within the UK-Aż contract.

The full text of the EU contract was made public. It took Guido Fawkes minutes to get round the incompetent redaction they used.

No it wouldn't be fine. The UK is not blocking any vaccine export to the EU. Astrazenica will not however be producing any vaccine for the EU in UK factories until it has completed production of the UK minimum order quantity, ordered three months before the EU got its act together to place an order and for which the EU are now demanding to queue jump on despite the contract they signed with Az giving them no such right (which we know as the EU published it).

The UK government are not involved, as Astra Zenica are honouring the contract the UK government signed with them. It is a contract dispute between the EU and Az (in which it appears that the EU dosen't have a leg to stand on).

With Pfizer, the EU are invoking legislation to block exports of vaccines that have been produced as contracted and paid for. It is the EU who are blocking vaccine exports. Not the UK.

Anyway, seeing as President Macron says it dosen't work, why are the EU so annoyed about not being able to jump the queue for it?

 

[notlob.divad]

The full text of the EU contract was made public. It took Guido Fawkes minutes to get round the incompetent redaction they used.

How do you know the redaction was intended to stay in place? Your judgement of incompetence may in fact have led to the intended results. If it has been released by the EU there have been many people quite vocal about releasing the contract details.

No it wouldn't be fine. The UK is not blocking any vaccine export to the EU. Astrazenica will not however be producing any vaccine for the EU in UK factories until it has completed production of the UK minimum order quantity, ordered three months before the EU got its act together to place an order and for which the EU are now demanding to queue jump on despite the contract they signed with Az giving them no such right (which we know as the EU published it).

The UK is alegedly blocking export of vaccine via the terms of its contract with AZ according to the CEO of the company. Now you might say that is fine, all is fair in love and war.

Order of contract signing has no relevance in contract law. AZ will be judged against the terms in the contract they are failing to fulfil. The only implications of the latter date of the contract being agreed will be: the question of whether AZ should have agreed to the terms of the 2nd contract; whether AZ having already agreed the UK contract misled EU contract negotiators.

I don't want to see the EU impose restrictions. But the hypocracy of UK ministers decrying vaccine nationalism having written it into the contract is vomit inducing.

 

[Dave1987]

This whole mess has the potential to make us all poorer. I believe “Vaccine nationalism” has been triggered on both sides but this has been brewing for a long long time. First of all BoJo stated that the UK is a place that respects the law only to state that breaking international law when it suits was absolutely fine. Then this mess regarding the EU ambassador surfaced for which MEP’s are furious. Then this vaccine crisis came along to provide the spark to a very flammable situation. The EU is yet to grant “equivalence” privileges to the UK finance sectors to operate and provide services inside the single market. I’m well aware that BoJo wants to become the Singapore of Europe but that will take a very long time to adjust. They have already had to bin the review into workers rights because they knew how badly it would make them look to working people. And the further the UK diverges from the EU the more problematic trade with the EU becomes. No matter how much Brexiteers hate it the UK is part of Europe. They are our closest neighbours. Countries that are geographically close tend to trade lots with each other. This whole vaccine crisis is doing little to help trade relations between the EU and the UK going forward. Let’s just hope a trade war does not break out and make us all poorer in the long term.

 

[najaB]

First of all BoJo stated that the UK is a place that respects the law only to state that breaking international law when it suits was absolutely fine.

But only in a very limited and specific way.

 

[bspahh]

The full text of the EU contract was made public. It took Guido Fawkes minutes to get round the incompetent redaction they used.

The first release of the file has redacted text when you view the page normally. If you look in the bookmarks in the document, show the first ~3 lines of each section, and this shows the redacted text as well.

Its certainly embarrassing for the EU Commission, but its not the full text.

I just had a quick browse. The text in the bookmarks that should have been redacted gives the price (€870m), but I didn't see anything shocking.

 

[21C101]

The first release of the file has redacted text when you view the page normally. If you look in the bookmarks in the document, show the first ~3 lines of each section, and this shows the redacted text as well.

Its certainly embarrassing for the EU Commission, but its not the full text.

I just had a quick browse. The text in the bookmarks that should have been redacted gives the price (€870m), but I didn't see anything shocking.

Guido Fawkes has got details of what he did on his web site. I suspect the EU has re-up loaded it now with higher quality redaction.

Guido states that he managed to cover most of it and the bits that he couldn't were in any case published a while back by a Belgian politician.

Interestingly it is now being said that it's publication was a breach of the EUs much trumpeted GDPR data protection regulations.

 

[REVUpminster]

Repeatedly saying something doesn't make it true. What next, are you going to hold your breath until we agree with you?

Strange europhiles attack the person whereas most Brexiteers attack the idea.

Why would the price the EU are paying for the Astra Zeneca vaccine matter if it's being sold at cost price?

I could understand if it was about what countries are paying for Pfizer.

 

[21C101]

Strange europhiles attack the person whereas most Brexiteers attack the idea.

Sadly that has been all too evident on this thread and is perhaps a reflection that right through the whole of this the remain side has fought a negative campaign attacking "leavers" rather than making a positive case for staying in the EU (something they were heavily criticised for by their own side after the referendum).

 

[alex397]

Sadly that has been all too evident on this thread and is perhaps a reflection that right through the whole of this the remain side has fought a negative campaign attacking "leavers" rather than making a positive case for staying in the EU (something they were heavily criticised for by their own side after the referendum).

Because Brexiteers are such a ray of sunshine, who never personally attack people for their views?
Plenty of Remain supporting people have put forward positive cases for remaining in the EU, such as in this very thread which you are choosing to ignore.
The Leave campaign was full of negativity about immigrants and just general negativity towards Europe.

There have been unhelpful arguments and personal attacks from both the Remain and Leave sides.

Going back to recent events with the EU, they have definitely acted wrongly, but have already reversed their decision. Just because they have acted badly in this instance, it does not justify Brexit.

 

[najaB]

Interestingly it is now being said that it's publication was a breach of the EUs much trumpeted GDPR data protection regulations.

It might be being said, but as noted above: repeatedly saying something doesn't make it true.

GDPR only covers personal data.

 

[21C101]

It might be being said, but as noted above: repeatedly saying something doesn't make it true.

GDPR only covers personal data.

Wrong.

"The rules also apply to all personal data relating to natural persons in the course of a professional activity, such as the employees of a company/organisation, business email addresses like ‘[email protected]’ or employees’ business telephone numbers."


So it applies any business contract document that has any information that identifies the name, business email address, busibess address, business phone number etc. of anyone involved in that business.

Do the data protection rules apply to data about a company?

Information as to whether EU data protection rules apply to a data on an organisation or company

ec.europa.eu

Although the EU Commission redacted that information on the copy of the contract that they published without Az consent, such as names, signatures etc, they did so incompetently so enabling a Mr Guido Fawkes among others to see what the redacted information was with no great difficulty. That is a breach of GDPR.

I await with bated breath the investigation of the EU commission and fining it a percentage of it's turnover. I'm alas expecting a long wait.

 

[REVUpminster]

The chief remain campaigners were Cameron and Osborne.

Jeremy Corbyn campaigned against his own beliefs of the last 40 years.

 

[Dave1987]

Well it is safe to say that relations between Europe and Britain are very very much soured. I know several people who live in Germany and France. Lots of newspapers in Europe are vilifying Britain every bit as much as British papers were attacking the EU. One wonders where this is all heading towards. These "Global Britain" trade deals had better start coming in en masse as trade with Europe looks set to be difficult. I simply cannot believe how much relations have soured so so much with our closest allies in such a short period of time. Lets hope none of this leads to armed conflicts.

 

[REVUpminster]

All wars start because someone has something someone else wants.

Germany has few natural resources and no empires like Britain and France. Japan also has few natural resources hence it's attempt to create an empire through Korea, China and Indo-China.

There are no empires anymore so more difficult to start wars unless your the size of America, Russia or China. Britain follows America. Harold Wilson's greatest achievement as prime minister was to keep us out of Vietnam even though Australia went in.

 

[21C101]

You won, get over it.

You can't really say you have won after a controversial issue is resolved and the event it triggers happens.

You have only really won when a significant number of those opposed to the idea accept it and begin to support the new status quo, putting it's existence beyond doubt.

In the case of the reformation it took a century and a half of violent bloodletting before this happened, from 1536 to 1689.

Astonishingly, due to the incompetent and unpleasant way the EU has tried to blame others for the failing of its vaccine procurement, this acceptance of the new status quo by remainers has happened abruptly, almost overnight; instead of taking place gradually over many years, perhaps even a generation. Indeed many have had the courage to say that they got it wrong about brexit on social media.

So yes you are right. Today it can be said that the leavers have won.

The best news of all is that it has, well documented verbal abuse apart, happened democratically and peacefully (although it was a close run thing at times) which those on both sides can take credit for.

 

[raetiamann]

If this is how it feels to have won, I'm dreading it if things do go downhill from here.

 

[najaB]

Although the EU Commission redacted that information on the copy of the contract that they published without Az consent, such as names, signatures etc, they did so incompetently so enabling a Mr Guido Fawkes among others to see what the redacted information was with no great difficulty. That is a breach of GDPR.

The question is if the release of information was necessary to fulfil one or more legitimate purposes. It's arguably the case that the EU was acting to fulfil a legal obligation, which would provide a grounds for no breach to have occurred.

The sharing of personal information is also allowed were it is "permitted by law". Since the Regulations were promulgated by the Commission, there's was argument that it's impossible for them to be in breach of the law, in much the same way that the US president cannot be in violation of the law if they disclose classified information since the act of disclosing it removes the classification.

 

[Journeyman]

It's extremely depressing to see leavers gleefully jumping all over an error of judgement on the EU's part. They've quickly backtracked on it, and you'd think by the way leavers are gloating that the UK has never made any foreign policy errors ever.

 

[21C101]

The question is if the release of information was necessary to fulfil one or more legitimate purposes. It's arguably the case that the EU was acting to fulfil a legal obligation, which would provide a grounds for no breach to have occurred.

The sharing of personal information is also allowed were it is "permitted by law". Since the Regulations were promulgated by the Commission, there's was argument that it's impossible for them to be in breach of the law, in much the same way that the US president cannot be in violation of the law if they disclose classified information since the act of disclosing it removes the classification.

That is an interesting one, made more interesting by the way that Brexit has been done legally in the UK.

Theoretically, even if the EU commission has immunity within the EU, because it has been published in the UK they are also in conflict with the UK GDPR laws which are a carbon copy that was transsferred from European to UK law on 31st December

So while the EU commission may have immunity from it's own law within the EU, they don't in the UK.

It won't happen in this case, but say Az had made a formal complaint about the EU breaching GDPR to the UK police on the grounds that the information published without consent was available in the UK?

Angels on pinheads stuff but interesting.

It's extremely depressing to see leavers gleefully jumping all over an error of judgement on the EU's part. They've quickly backtracked on it, and you'd think by the way leavers are gloating that the UK has never made any foreign policy errors ever.

In the same way that someone losing a game of chess who does a big steaming poo on the chess board has made a big error of judgement and any reasonable opponent would carry on playing once they had apologised and cleaned up the board?

 

[brad465]

It's extremely depressing to see leavers gleefully jumping all over an error of judgement on the EU's part. They've quickly backtracked on it, and you'd think by the way leavers are gloating that the UK has never made any foreign policy errors ever.

This is tribal politics in a nutshell. Everyone takes one side and will defend the actions of that which they support, no matter how bad said actions actually are, while attacking their opponents as if they never do anything good. Nobody is perfect, but admitting and learning from mistakes is what makes us all better people, but in politics this seems to be frowned upon by the electorate. In the end we all lose as a result, because nobody learns from mistakes if they're denied all the time.

 

[Journeyman]

In the same way that someone losing a game of chess who does a big steaming poo on the chess board has made a big error of judgement and any reasonable opponent would carry on playing once they had apologised and cleaned up the board?

The issue wouldn't even have arisen if we were still members, but you'll choose to ignore that, of course.

 

[Dave1987]

Yes the EU made a massive error of judgment but then so did BoJo in threatening to break international law. This petty squabble over the diplomatic rights of the EU ambassador is also an error in judgment buy BoJo. But the UK Govt (and Daily Express) shouting about applying to join the CPTPP I find hilarious. The UK will be one of the biggest economies to join so it will be pretty tiny in terms of trade volumes, but after Brexiteers have accused the EU of being a "protectionist" the very first trade bloc the UK applies to join post-Brexit has protection mechanisms for various countries build in so is not a true free-trade bloc. Basically the UK is hoping and praying that the US join the CPTPP. And we have to comply with cooperation on standards. Come on Brexiteers where are these barn storming free trade agreements we were promised? Not just begging to tag along to trade agreements formulated by other blocs.

 

[317 forever]

Well it is safe to say that relations between Europe and Britain are very very much soured. I know several people who live in Germany and France. Lots of newspapers in Europe are vilifying Britain every bit as much as British papers were attacking the EU. One wonders where this is all heading towards. These "Global Britain" trade deals had better start coming in en masse as trade with Europe looks set to be difficult. I simply cannot believe how much relations have soured so so much with our closest allies in such a short period of time. Lets hope none of this leads to armed conflicts.

Leavers may refer to us as Global Britain, but having left the EU and Trump having been defeated in favour of Biden, this is the first time in decades that we are close to neither Europe nor America. Other countries are mainly more confident dealing with the EU collectively rather than the UK separately. The only reason we have secured a deal with Japan is because it is basically a continuation of the deal they already had with the EU.

So, it's not so much a case of Global Britain but Globally Isolated Britain.

 

[21C101]

The issue wouldn't even have arisen if we were still members, but you'll choose to ignore that, of course.

Indeed, we would hwve been in the EU joint scheme and had hardly anyone vaccinated with no prospect of that changing any time soon, and as no other large nation has got anywhere near as many vaccines done as the UK has, the EU would probably have got away with it.

but after Brexiteers have accused the EU of being a "protectionist" the very first trade bloc the UK applies to join post-Brexit has protection mechanisms for various countries build in so is not a true free-trade bloc. Basically the UK is hoping and praying that the US join the CPTPP. And we have to comply with cooperation on standards.

Unlike the EU single market, membership of CPTPP does not force Britain to pay more than £10 billion a year, adopt laws from a foreign entity, have free movement of people with no controls on immigration, or accept rulings from a foreign court.

 

[najaB]

Indeed, we would hwve been in the EU joint scheme and had hardly anyone vaccinated with no prospect of that changing any time soon

We would still have the NHS, which is the reason we've been able to vaccinate as many as we have. The issues the EU has faced have been as much about distribution as supply - the health systems in several countries were struggling to get the Pfizer vaccine into arms, of which they have no shortage.

and as no other large nation has got anywhere near as many vaccines done as the UK has...

India has done over 25 million, as has the USA. Both of which are, one would agree, large countries.

 

[21C101]

We would still have the NHS, which is the reason we've been able to vaccinate as many as we have. The issues the EU has faced have been as much about distribution as supply - the health systems in several countries were struggling to get the Pfizer vaccine into arms, of which they have no shortage.


India has done over 25 million, as has the USA. Both of which are, one would agree, large countries.

Still a much much lower percentage of their population than the UK.

 

[Doppelganger]

Still a much much lower percentage of their population than the UK.

By that measure Slovenia is "winning", for want of a better word, but a word Brexiteers probably understand best.

You keep moving the goal posts.

You will be anti-EU regardless of what happens, so any kind of rational debate is clearly pointless as your mind is made up.

The fact is the UK has left the EU, so you'll need to find a new boogeyman to blame the ills of the UK