4 ms·

Vaccine production facilities all over the world have had similar difficulties. Some of the UK-based facilities also had some setbacks early on, but the UK was

Vaccine production facilities all over the world have had similar difficulties. Some of the UK-based facilities also had some setbacks early on, but the UK was faster than the EU in getting its vaccination programme going and those problems have largely been solved by now, while some EU-based facilities are still working them out. The UK isn't completely isolated from these risks even today: its government has just announced it's anticipating a reduction in supply over the next few weeks due to a delayed shipment from India. None of this is entirely unexpected, because these manufacturing facilities are being asked to work much faster than they normally would due to the urgent need for this particular set of vaccines. Contractually, the EU-AZ deal appears to be a mess, going by the (partially redacted) public documentation. It's not clear that AZ actually did make the commitment to the EU that the EU thinks it did, while AZ's contractual obligations to the UK don't seem to be in dispute. Certain EU leaders have also claimed that the UK has restricted vaccine exports, but the UK government has absolutely denied this; it's seen as a contractual matter between AZ and its customers, not a matter of the UK government imposing export controls (unlike several other places, including within the EU).

dane-pgp 6y ago
> it's seen as a contractual matter between AZ and its customers, not a matter of the UK government imposing export controls To be clear, the customer of AZ in this case is the UK government, and I don't think we know what conditions they put into their contract with AZ. If the UK foresaw the potential of localised production failures and bound AZ not to use that as an excuse to restrict supply to the UK, then that would have been very prudent of the government, but that wouldn't excuse AZ weaselling their way out of commitments they made to the EU. Having said that, if the EU are relying on their interpretation of a vague contract, then they have to accept the political consequences when AZ act on a different interpretation. Unfortunately a lot of people will take the side of AZ in such a dispute even if the EU's interpretation is correct, especially if that correctness is determined by an EU court.
- Silhouette 6y ago
  To be clear, the customer of AZ in this case is the UK government, and I don't think we know what conditions they put into their contract with AZ. The customers of AZ in this case are the UK and many foreign governments. They each have their own contracts. Some of the details have been made public, others have not. It's been widely reported that the UK has a guarantee of 100M doses supplied before AZ starts exports, which seems pretty clear. Given the UK government's other actions, not least in apparently pushing Oxford to work with AZ in the first place, it seems not only plausible but likely that they did consider the potential risks you mentioned and incorporate safeguards into the contract accordingly. We've seen a slightly redacted version of the EU contract, and their claims about AZ's level of commitments are at best debatable. It's also worth noting that the EU contract includes specific conditions relating to early doses and manufacture in EU-based facilities, with explicit distinctions being made about when that term does (or, by implication, doesn't) include UK-based facilities. The EU has conveniently ignored those aspects of its contract while criticising AZ for the delays. Unfortunately a lot of people will take the side of AZ in such a dispute even if the EU's interpretation is correct, especially if that correctness is determined by an EU court. Why is that unfortunate? The way the EU is trying to bully others to cover for its own mistakes here is very disappointing and a horrible precedent would be set if the EU actually tried to follow through on its threats. As the submitted article mentions, it would probably also be an act of self-harm by the EU to do so, not just for the long-term political and diplomatic damage it would do, but also because other nations affected including the UK might be in a position to retaliate directly if they chose to do so.

dane-pgp 6y ago

> it's seen as a contractual matter between AZ and its customers, not a matter of the UK government imposing export controls To be clear, the customer of AZ in this case is the UK government, and I don't think we know what conditions they put into their contract with AZ. If the UK foresaw the potential of localised production failures and bound AZ not to use that as an excuse to restrict supply to the UK, then that would have been very prudent of the government, but that wouldn't excuse AZ weaselling their way out of commitments they made to the EU. Having said that, if the EU are relying on their interpretation of a vague contract, then they have to accept the political consequences when AZ act on a different interpretation. Unfortunately a lot of people will take the side of AZ in such a dispute even if the EU's interpretation is correct, especially if that correctness is determined by an EU court.

Silhouette 6y ago
To be clear, the customer of AZ in this case is the UK government, and I don't think we know what conditions they put into their contract with AZ. The customers of AZ in this case are the UK and many foreign governments. They each have their own contracts. Some of the details have been made public, others have not. It's been widely reported that the UK has a guarantee of 100M doses supplied before AZ starts exports, which seems pretty clear. Given the UK government's other actions, not least in apparently pushing Oxford to work with AZ in the first place, it seems not only plausible but likely that they did consider the potential risks you mentioned and incorporate safeguards into the contract accordingly. We've seen a slightly redacted version of the EU contract, and their claims about AZ's level of commitments are at best debatable. It's also worth noting that the EU contract includes specific conditions relating to early doses and manufacture in EU-based facilities, with explicit distinctions being made about when that term does (or, by implication, doesn't) include UK-based facilities. The EU has conveniently ignored those aspects of its contract while criticising AZ for the delays. Unfortunately a lot of people will take the side of AZ in such a dispute even if the EU's interpretation is correct, especially if that correctness is determined by an EU court. Why is that unfortunate? The way the EU is trying to bully others to cover for its own mistakes here is very disappointing and a horrible precedent would be set if the EU actually tried to follow through on its threats. As the submitted article mentions, it would probably also be an act of self-harm by the EU to do so, not just for the long-term political and diplomatic damage it would do, but also because other nations affected including the UK might be in a position to retaliate directly if they chose to do so.