4 ms·

The UK signed a day later than the EU (August 28th vs 27th), but that was the 2nd agreement. They already had one in May last year that legally committed AZ to

The UK signed a day later than the EU (August 28th vs 27th), but that was the 2nd agreement. They already had one in May last year that legally committed AZ to "a dedicated supply chain for the UK". The UK contract says the supply chain "will be appropriate and sufficient", and the EU one talks about "best reasonable efforts". The UK contract gives the power to penalise for non-delivery, whereas the EU one waives all rights to sue other than for bad production practices or wilful misconduct - and even then all it can do is withhold money. The EU also agreed in regard to other contracts (eg the UK one) that when being "impeded by any such competing agreements, AstraZeneca shall not be deemed in breach". Given that (plus the AZ vaccine belongs to a UK university and the UK government has been on the decision board for the project since April 2020) it was inevitable which 'side' would go short if production slowed. (I'm British, but hopefully not too biased) PS. IANAL, most of the above came from https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-the-eu-and-uk-astrazeneca-contracts/ https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-... though I've also seen similar analysis elsewhere.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
Thanks! Your post is definitely not too biased, and I am far from having confidence in any particular opinion regarding this affair. The two separate agreements, for example, weren’t mentioned before it became convenient to do so after the date of the supposedly second agreement was leaked against their wishes. From the EU’s point of view, one might wonder if any prior agreement with a potential to interrupt supplies should have then been disclosed during negotiations. Maybe there was no legal requirement to do so, but I wonder how good a strategy that is in a long-term game against a party that literally makes the law. The EU can be legally inept, as we’ve learnt, in everything that isn’t Brexit. AZ might allow us to learn how good they are at what’s, conversely, been the Brexiteers’ domain so far, carrying grudges.
kcartlidge 6y ago
I should withdraw my point about competing agreements (I cannot edit it now). As has been pointed in another comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26350113 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26350113 - there is a better reading which changes the context of the 'breach' being discussed.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago

Thanks! Your post is definitely not too biased, and I am far from having confidence in any particular opinion regarding this affair. The two separate agreements, for example, weren’t mentioned before it became convenient to do so after the date of the supposedly second agreement was leaked against their wishes. From the EU’s point of view, one might wonder if any prior agreement with a potential to interrupt supplies should have then been disclosed during negotiations. Maybe there was no legal requirement to do so, but I wonder how good a strategy that is in a long-term game against a party that literally makes the law. The EU can be legally inept, as we’ve learnt, in everything that isn’t Brexit. AZ might allow us to learn how good they are at what’s, conversely, been the Brexiteers’ domain so far, carrying grudges.

kcartlidge 6y ago

I should withdraw my point about competing agreements (I cannot edit it now). As has been pointed in another comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26350113 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26350113 - there is a better reading which changes the context of the 'breach' being discussed.