5 ms·

A bit fucking rich from France. This is the classic EU attitude of absolute overwhelming entitlement. They will never EVER admit that they fucked up.

sbuk 6y ago
They will never accept any culpability. I have elderly family living in France and they have said that medical professionals they have interacted with are livid with how their Govenment and the EU have handled this. The blame lies squarely at the EU's feet.
- breakfastduck 6y ago
  I agree, unfortunately France are likely to hold the line rather than seriously criticize the EU publicly.
rvieira 6y ago
This is not "whataboutism", it's simply prompted by your "classic EU attitude: Was there a single resignation or admission of guilt from the UK goverment for one of worst responses to COVID19?
- nvoid 6y ago
  You can't really just precede a whataboutism with 'This is not "whataboutism"'. I agree Bojo's response has been shambolic but we are talking about the EU here.
- sbuk 6y ago
  Nearly all of the response to the pandemic from the Johnson Govenment has been shambolic, except for the vaccine roll-out, which is the NHS at it's best.
  - breakfastduck 6y ago
    Very important to note that - the vaccine rollout has been handled by the NHS mainly and NOT the govt directly. One of the few things that has been handled properly.
- breakfastduck 6y ago
  I'm not sure what relevance it has to my comment. For the record, I think the UK govt have been particularly poor handling the crisis overall. Just not on vaccine acquisition.
supergirl 6y ago
what should they have done differently? they signed a contract and assumed the other party will honor it. the other party chose to not honor it, which was a big gamble. we'll see how that will work out for them in the long term, now that they irritated most EU countries. they did the same with pfizer and that seems to work. US is blocking exports, "americans first". EU didn't do that but now they have to since the supplier doesn't care about contracts. suddenly HN is keen on defending big pharma. if this happened in the US I can't even imagine the outcry.
- djbebs 6y ago
  Not wasted 3 months trying to save a couple of bucks and gathering mpre political power for the EU, and then expect the vaccines they ordered to be ready at the same time as those of countries who ordered right away.
  - supergirl 6y ago
    no, I don't think it matters when you sign the contract. it only matters what's written in the contract. so unless the contract explicitly said "EU gets vaccines only after other countries get vaccines", this is just a meme.
    - patrickmcnamara 6y ago
      Especially when the EU’s contract was signed before the UK’s.
- nvoid 6y ago
  We now know from them failing to redact the contracts properly that the EU were lying and AZ wasn't breaching anything. It's simple, you order last, you get delivered to last.
  - hef19898 6y ago
    Agree on the first part, disagree on the second one. One of the largest reasons for the reduced deliveries is, IMHO, the additional orders the EU was pressured into by the public and media. Because manufacturers, incl. Biontech/Pfizer, had to increase capacities which let to short term capacity reductions as they closed down factories and rebuild them.
tilolebo 6y ago
What exactly did they fuck up here? A bit fucking rich from you not to precise it.
- breakfastduck 6y ago
  Nah you're right, everything is going fine with the EUs vaccine roll out, nothing to see here.
- nvoid 6y ago
  Literally everything possible somehow. They tried to haggle a price and as a result they are in the back of the queue. The EU is unaccountable and the member states are paying for their lies. (France and Italy also have a lot of the blame)
  - tilolebo 6y ago
    How much did the USA pay per dosis for their AZ 300M dosis? UPDATE: apparently 4$
  - fvdessen 6y ago
    The EU signed their contract before the UK. So isn't it the UK that should be "in the back of the Queue" ?
    - breakfastduck 6y ago
      No, because the contracts are under different jurisdictions of law. Essentially whether the UK contract has been fulfilled is pretty black and white where the EU one is significantly less so. See below: > "The level of specificity is partially due to the legal systems they're based on. The U.K. contract is written in English law, which will judge whether both parties delivered the goods based on the exact wording of the contract. The EU contract is written in Belgian law, which focuses on whether both parties tried their best to deliver the goods and acted in good faith. It's these extra details that give the U.K. more leverage to ensure its contract is delivered effectively. While both contracts say all parties will make their “best reasonable effort” to deliver the vaccine, the U.K. government is clearer in asserting its oversight of the agreement. This core difference, according to a lawyer familiar with the development of the U.K. text, can be chalked up to the fact that the contract sealed with London was written by people with significant experience of purchasing agreements, specifically drug-buying deals. The European Commission’s contract, by contrast, shows a lack of commercial common sense, in the lawyer’s view. The starkest example of this difference is a clause in the U.K. contract stating that if any party tries to force or persuade AstraZeneca or its subcontractors to do anything that could hold up the supply of the vaccine doses, the government may terminate the deal and invoke what appear to be punishment clauses — although these are largely redacted. "[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-the-eu-and-uk-astrazeneca-contracts/ https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...

sbuk 6y ago

They will never accept any culpability. I have elderly family living in France and they have said that medical professionals they have interacted with are livid with how their Govenment and the EU have handled this. The blame lies squarely at the EU's feet.

breakfastduck 6y ago
I agree, unfortunately France are likely to hold the line rather than seriously criticize the EU publicly.

rvieira 6y ago

This is not "whataboutism", it's simply prompted by your "classic EU attitude: Was there a single resignation or admission of guilt from the UK goverment for one of worst responses to COVID19?

nvoid 6y ago
You can't really just precede a whataboutism with 'This is not "whataboutism"'. I agree Bojo's response has been shambolic but we are talking about the EU here.
sbuk 6y ago
Nearly all of the response to the pandemic from the Johnson Govenment has been shambolic, except for the vaccine roll-out, which is the NHS at it's best.
- breakfastduck 6y ago
  Very important to note that - the vaccine rollout has been handled by the NHS mainly and NOT the govt directly. One of the few things that has been handled properly.
breakfastduck 6y ago
I'm not sure what relevance it has to my comment. For the record, I think the UK govt have been particularly poor handling the crisis overall. Just not on vaccine acquisition.

supergirl 6y ago

what should they have done differently? they signed a contract and assumed the other party will honor it. the other party chose to not honor it, which was a big gamble. we'll see how that will work out for them in the long term, now that they irritated most EU countries. they did the same with pfizer and that seems to work. US is blocking exports, "americans first". EU didn't do that but now they have to since the supplier doesn't care about contracts. suddenly HN is keen on defending big pharma. if this happened in the US I can't even imagine the outcry.

djbebs 6y ago
Not wasted 3 months trying to save a couple of bucks and gathering mpre political power for the EU, and then expect the vaccines they ordered to be ready at the same time as those of countries who ordered right away.
- supergirl 6y ago
  no, I don't think it matters when you sign the contract. it only matters what's written in the contract. so unless the contract explicitly said "EU gets vaccines only after other countries get vaccines", this is just a meme.
  - patrickmcnamara 6y ago
    Especially when the EU’s contract was signed before the UK’s.
nvoid 6y ago
We now know from them failing to redact the contracts properly that the EU were lying and AZ wasn't breaching anything. It's simple, you order last, you get delivered to last.
- hef19898 6y ago
  Agree on the first part, disagree on the second one. One of the largest reasons for the reduced deliveries is, IMHO, the additional orders the EU was pressured into by the public and media. Because manufacturers, incl. Biontech/Pfizer, had to increase capacities which let to short term capacity reductions as they closed down factories and rebuild them.

tilolebo 6y ago

What exactly did they fuck up here? A bit fucking rich from you not to precise it.

breakfastduck 6y ago
Nah you're right, everything is going fine with the EUs vaccine roll out, nothing to see here.
nvoid 6y ago
Literally everything possible somehow. They tried to haggle a price and as a result they are in the back of the queue. The EU is unaccountable and the member states are paying for their lies. (France and Italy also have a lot of the blame)
- tilolebo 6y ago
  How much did the USA pay per dosis for their AZ 300M dosis? UPDATE: apparently 4$
- fvdessen 6y ago
  The EU signed their contract before the UK. So isn't it the UK that should be "in the back of the Queue" ?
  - breakfastduck 6y ago
    No, because the contracts are under different jurisdictions of law. Essentially whether the UK contract has been fulfilled is pretty black and white where the EU one is significantly less so. See below: > "The level of specificity is partially due to the legal systems they're based on. The U.K. contract is written in English law, which will judge whether both parties delivered the goods based on the exact wording of the contract. The EU contract is written in Belgian law, which focuses on whether both parties tried their best to deliver the goods and acted in good faith. It's these extra details that give the U.K. more leverage to ensure its contract is delivered effectively. While both contracts say all parties will make their “best reasonable effort” to deliver the vaccine, the U.K. government is clearer in asserting its oversight of the agreement. This core difference, according to a lawyer familiar with the development of the U.K. text, can be chalked up to the fact that the contract sealed with London was written by people with significant experience of purchasing agreements, specifically drug-buying deals. The European Commission’s contract, by contrast, shows a lack of commercial common sense, in the lawyer’s view. The starkest example of this difference is a clause in the U.K. contract stating that if any party tries to force or persuade AstraZeneca or its subcontractors to do anything that could hold up the supply of the vaccine doses, the government may terminate the deal and invoke what appear to be punishment clauses — although these are largely redacted. "[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-the-eu-and-uk-astrazeneca-contracts/ https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...