7 ms·

EU rebuffs UK calls to ship AstraZeneca Covid vaccines from Europe

21 points by 1cvmask 6y ago

mamon 6y ago
So EU was focused on negotiating the lowest price for itself instead of ensuring on time delivery of vaccines and now that they realized their mistake they try to bully AstraZeneca into prioritizing their contract over others. Great move EU /s
idownvoted 6y ago
As a European I feel disturbed and ashamed of how the EU, the self proclaimed "peace project", is conducting itself towards the UK - starting from the first referendum throughout the whole pandemic.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  I mean, for the peace project to work, people have to participate. It shouldn't be at all surprising that the EU tried to prevent a major member from departing, and it shouldn't be surprising they're prioritizing their own needs after that exit.
  - toshk 6y ago
    They didn't try to prevent it. They bullied them in order to scare other nations to try something similar. I would rather an EU that listen's to the people of it's member and makes them want to stay instead of pushing the agenda of the bureaucrats and bully them into staying. Over the last decades many EU nations had referendums, and it was clear the majority of the people in many countries are agains further expansion of EU power. Yet the EU bureaucrats didn't listen and kept pushing as a result even more people feel alineated with the EU project, the Brexit is in direct line of these developments. And even now they still keep pushing.
    - that_guy_iain 6y ago
      > They bullied them in order to scare other nations to try something similar. No they didn't, the UK drew the red lines not the EU. The UK punished themselves. They could have gotten a Switzerland deal, a Norway deal, a Turkey deal, etc they decided they didn't like those deals.
      - toshk 6y ago
        Those countries are not part of the EU, not sure what point you are trying to make. This was not negotiated as a friendly trade deal as done with Canada, US, Swiss etc. It was clear they were doing something the EU doesn't want to make an example off. Tensions from both sides. Edit: Aha, I understand know you mean they could have gotten the same deals as them. If you have sources for this, please share, but as far as I know this is not true. Take for instance this excerpt from the Financial Times: "Slides presented to EU member states this week by the European Commission suggest it is looking for something far more sophisticated and hard-hitting for Britain. If Brussels has its way, the system will govern not just the two sides’ future trade relationship but several other partnerships in areas such as security and judicial co-operation, joint research, and aviation. One of the key motivations for the EU is to avoid replicating the unruly jumble of agreements that govern its deep relations with Switzerland — whose population in 1992 rejected a proposal to join the European Economic Area. The two sides have subsequently built their relationship up over time, resulting in no fewer than 100 agreements governing their relations. "
        dgellow 6y ago
        Well, that's the point, no? The UK decided to leave but refused all the existing forms of bilateral agreements. The country mentioned by the comment you responded to all have some form of bilateral agreements with the EU, there are a lot of ways to be a close partner with the EU without being part of the union. Switzerland is part of the Schengen area and we regularly renegotiate (and vote on) new agreements. Norway is also part of the Schengen area, but also part of the EEA (European Economic Area). Turkey is part of the European Custom Union. The UK decided to go its own way instead. This interactive SVG gives a good overview: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Supranational_European_Bodies-en.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Supranat.... CGP Grey did a great video in 2019, though it's of course a bit outdated now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agZ0xISi40E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agZ0xISi40E.
- akmarinov 6y ago
  As a European, I feel like this decision finally makes it so that the EU prioritizes its citizens' health and its economy in front of other third countries. Hopefully they follow up with Pfizer and Janssen until such time that at least 50% of the EU is vaccinated.
  - dgellow 6y ago
    That has little to do with this. Here the fundamental disagreement is on contracts signed with AstraZeneca.
- that_guy_iain 6y ago
  Have you noticed how the UK has been acting politically? They're literally risking a no deal Brexit because they're basically not upholding the deal they got out of the kindness of the EU's heart. The only reason the UK had a deal was the EU went out of their way to make it happen. And the fact before the referendum for Brexit the EU gave the UK better terms than they already had when they already had the best deal in the EU and you're ashamed of this?` The whole vaccine thing seems to be the UK has their risk groups covered the EU hasn't. Seems one needs the vaccine more than the other in terms of saving lives. But honestly, it all really breaks down to the fact the UK has been pissing all over the EU for years. This is what happens when you have no politcal capital in a politcal arena.
- dgellow 6y ago
  What made you feel disturbed and ashamed? That may be my pan-European bias talking but I didn't notice bad behavior from the EU against the UK (or at least nothing crossing the line, there is of course harsh negotiations between both entities, but that's expected when you leave such a group). While UK officials and media repeatedly demonized the EU for the past ~5 years.
  - idownvoted 6y ago
    > That may be my pan-European bias Or in other words: The excuse for being aggressivly nationalistic towards other nations, without the need to call it nationalism. This behaviour is particulary present across European high-educated middle- and upper-class circles and in general in Germany. In short: in areas of a society which have trouble celebrating their roots, because it grounds them. Next to their lower class neighbours or distant un-urban relatives. > While UK officials and media repeatedly demonized the EU for the past ~5 years. From following the three elections regarding Brexit (the Referendum, the EU parliamentary vote and the British Election in 2019): to claim that a majority of the British media, politicians and business elites sturred the anti-EU sentiment is utter, utter nonsense. The vast majority of domestic political parties favours the EU soley for the fact, that it gives them twice the amount of taxpayer payed positions they could shuffle their members into. And so did most of the British parties.
    - dgellow 6y ago
      > This behaviour is particulary present across European high-educated middle- and upper-class circles and in general in Germany. In short: in areas of a society which have trouble celebrating their roots, because it grounds them. Next to their lower class neighbours or distant un-urban relatives. Wait until you learn that I'm Swiss, generally proud of my country and its history and people, do not have a European citizenship, have no form of high-education (my highest formal certificate is from an apprenticeship, I'm self-taught and built my software engineer career myself by learning directly on the job), and come from a single-parent family categorized as "lower class" by wealth statistics. Other than attacking an imaginary "elite" persona I'm supposed to embody, do you have some actual points to discuss regarding feeling "disturbed" and "ashamed" by the EU?
zpeti 6y ago
Maybe the EU should use the Astra vaccines that are in the fridge first. Oh wait they can’t do that because macron and Merkel have told everyone AstraZeneca doesn’t work. Fail on so many levels.
tpmx 6y ago
From the other AZ thread: https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1372897635577761803 https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1372897635577761803 In summary: UK (and US) screwed EU. Now EU is screwing UK back.
- breakfastduck 6y ago
  I've posted this before but it's important. We did not screw them. We just wrote a decent contract, and they wrote an awful one. 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- https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...
  - Tehnix 6y ago
    > We did not screw them. We just wrote a decent contract, and they wrote an awful one. Screwing someone in writing is still screwing them. By your same logic, the EU hasn't screwed anyone, since it's within legal powers to do what it's doing - i.e. it's in the contract of being in the EU.
Ygg2 6y ago
Didn't they suspend the vaccine because it was causing blod clots or something?
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  The EU recommended continuing vaccinations with it last week. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-benefits-still-outweigh-risks-despite-possible-link-rare-blood-clots https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/covid-19-vaccine-astrazene... It's up to each individual nation to decide if they pause/resume.
happymellon 6y ago
So the summary is that the UK has a better contract with AZ than the EU?
- akmarinov 6y ago
  The UK included a provision where all AZ UK manufactured vaccines would go to UK, where the EU didn't elect to include that clause with Pfizer, as they thought other countries will offer a fair playing field.
  - happymellon 6y ago
    That seems incredibly naive. When has Russia, or China, or the US ever tried to have an even playing field?
throwaway4good 6y ago
Exports of vaccines so far: US: 0 UK: 0 EU: 41.1 million doses The EU should never have allowed Biontech and other European vaccine companies to partner with US companies and thus fall under the American export bans. Unfortunately the EU has acted in a naive manner and now have to mop up a mess.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  It is said that Oxford University was initially approached by Merck (American) but that the government intervened and steered them towards AstraZeneca (British-Swedish). In the meantime Germany was happy to let BioNTech's breakthrough vaccine go to Pfizer (American)...
  - throwaway4good 6y ago
    Yep. We were stupid and naive. If it was up to me, we should approve the Russian and the Chinese vaccines just as a gesture to the yanks.
- dgellow 6y ago
  As far as I understand, even if Biontech would partner with European companies instead of US ones, we (europeans) do not have the capacity to produce vaccines in mass quantity. The issue in Europe is more fundamental IMHO, we lack strong industries in too many critical domains.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  It's the US facilities that are subject to the export rules, not just the US companies. Do you think a EU partner would have just skipped the US market?
  - throwaway4good 6y ago
    An EU partner would not have vaccinated americans first.
    - 6y ago
IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
It's a bit rich for a UK minister to invoke rule of law and international contracts, considering the UK's recent flirtation with breaking their agreements with the EU before the ink has had a chance to dry. It's basically that international relations version of "no-you're-stupid" recently popularised by Putin and bolsonaro. Plus, obviously, the EU wouldn't be breaking any contracts. It's AstraZeneca's contract with the UK that would be broken, to which the EU is not a party. The EU is also just levelling the playing field here: it was unique among the major vaccine-producing countries in not establishing strict export controls from the beginning, as the UK did, and the US did using the Defense Production Act (or whatever it's called). Until now, absolutely no vaccines have left either the US or the UK, while about half of the EU production has been exported. That's precisely because the EU started this particular game of iterative prisoner's dilemma with the assumption of cooperation. That trust in was betrayed in the first round, and now we're seeing the reaction. Considering the supply chains cross many borders, there is a good chance this will now escalate further, and total production capacity may well be harmed as a result, which is exactly why cooperation was the first choice. It may have been naive in a practical sense to assume that Johnson and, at the time, Trump would be capable of thinking two steps ahead. But getting burned on an assumption of good faith isn't exactly the worst thing in the world. Plus, once the US, UK, and Israel are done, and with more capacity coming on-line, the spigot will turn to the EU and the difference may end up being far smaller than one might think from just extrapolating current data.
jmkerr 6y ago
> Von der Leyen [said] the epidemiological situation was worsening > “The European Commission will know that the rest of the world is looking at the Commission, about how it conducts itself on this, and if contracts get broken, and undertakings, that is a very damaging thing to happen for a trading bloc that prides itself on the rules of law,” Defence Minister Ben Wallace said Can't believe such bullshit in the face of a humanitarian crisis. Sales are cancelled all the time. It would only be reciprocal, and in line with US policy. More importantly, the UK is already thoroughly vaccinated, and the risk is very low throughout the summer. For once, the UK has time. He's right in that export restrictions on vaccines are wrong, but it's because much of the rest of the world is even worse off than the EU, not because this tool has a piece of paper.

21 points by 1cvmask 6y ago

So EU was focused on negotiating the lowest price for itself instead of ensuring on time delivery of vaccines and now that they realized their mistake they try to bully AstraZeneca into prioritizing their contract over others. Great move EU /s

idownvoted 6y ago

As a European I feel disturbed and ashamed of how the EU, the self proclaimed "peace project", is conducting itself towards the UK - starting from the first referendum throughout the whole pandemic.

ceejayoz 6y ago
I mean, for the peace project to work, people have to participate. It shouldn't be at all surprising that the EU tried to prevent a major member from departing, and it shouldn't be surprising they're prioritizing their own needs after that exit.
- toshk 6y ago
  They didn't try to prevent it. They bullied them in order to scare other nations to try something similar. I would rather an EU that listen's to the people of it's member and makes them want to stay instead of pushing the agenda of the bureaucrats and bully them into staying. Over the last decades many EU nations had referendums, and it was clear the majority of the people in many countries are agains further expansion of EU power. Yet the EU bureaucrats didn't listen and kept pushing as a result even more people feel alineated with the EU project, the Brexit is in direct line of these developments. And even now they still keep pushing.
  - that_guy_iain 6y ago
    > They bullied them in order to scare other nations to try something similar. No they didn't, the UK drew the red lines not the EU. The UK punished themselves. They could have gotten a Switzerland deal, a Norway deal, a Turkey deal, etc they decided they didn't like those deals.
    - toshk 6y ago
      Those countries are not part of the EU, not sure what point you are trying to make. This was not negotiated as a friendly trade deal as done with Canada, US, Swiss etc. It was clear they were doing something the EU doesn't want to make an example off. Tensions from both sides. Edit: Aha, I understand know you mean they could have gotten the same deals as them. If you have sources for this, please share, but as far as I know this is not true. Take for instance this excerpt from the Financial Times: "Slides presented to EU member states this week by the European Commission suggest it is looking for something far more sophisticated and hard-hitting for Britain. If Brussels has its way, the system will govern not just the two sides’ future trade relationship but several other partnerships in areas such as security and judicial co-operation, joint research, and aviation. One of the key motivations for the EU is to avoid replicating the unruly jumble of agreements that govern its deep relations with Switzerland — whose population in 1992 rejected a proposal to join the European Economic Area. The two sides have subsequently built their relationship up over time, resulting in no fewer than 100 agreements governing their relations. "
      - dgellow 6y ago
        Well, that's the point, no? The UK decided to leave but refused all the existing forms of bilateral agreements. The country mentioned by the comment you responded to all have some form of bilateral agreements with the EU, there are a lot of ways to be a close partner with the EU without being part of the union. Switzerland is part of the Schengen area and we regularly renegotiate (and vote on) new agreements. Norway is also part of the Schengen area, but also part of the EEA (European Economic Area). Turkey is part of the European Custom Union. The UK decided to go its own way instead. This interactive SVG gives a good overview: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Supranational_European_Bodies-en.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Supranat.... CGP Grey did a great video in 2019, though it's of course a bit outdated now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agZ0xISi40E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agZ0xISi40E.
akmarinov 6y ago
As a European, I feel like this decision finally makes it so that the EU prioritizes its citizens' health and its economy in front of other third countries. Hopefully they follow up with Pfizer and Janssen until such time that at least 50% of the EU is vaccinated.
- dgellow 6y ago
  That has little to do with this. Here the fundamental disagreement is on contracts signed with AstraZeneca.
that_guy_iain 6y ago
Have you noticed how the UK has been acting politically? They're literally risking a no deal Brexit because they're basically not upholding the deal they got out of the kindness of the EU's heart. The only reason the UK had a deal was the EU went out of their way to make it happen. And the fact before the referendum for Brexit the EU gave the UK better terms than they already had when they already had the best deal in the EU and you're ashamed of this?` The whole vaccine thing seems to be the UK has their risk groups covered the EU hasn't. Seems one needs the vaccine more than the other in terms of saving lives. But honestly, it all really breaks down to the fact the UK has been pissing all over the EU for years. This is what happens when you have no politcal capital in a politcal arena.
dgellow 6y ago
What made you feel disturbed and ashamed? That may be my pan-European bias talking but I didn't notice bad behavior from the EU against the UK (or at least nothing crossing the line, there is of course harsh negotiations between both entities, but that's expected when you leave such a group). While UK officials and media repeatedly demonized the EU for the past ~5 years.
- idownvoted 6y ago
  > That may be my pan-European bias Or in other words: The excuse for being aggressivly nationalistic towards other nations, without the need to call it nationalism. This behaviour is particulary present across European high-educated middle- and upper-class circles and in general in Germany. In short: in areas of a society which have trouble celebrating their roots, because it grounds them. Next to their lower class neighbours or distant un-urban relatives. > While UK officials and media repeatedly demonized the EU for the past ~5 years. From following the three elections regarding Brexit (the Referendum, the EU parliamentary vote and the British Election in 2019): to claim that a majority of the British media, politicians and business elites sturred the anti-EU sentiment is utter, utter nonsense. The vast majority of domestic political parties favours the EU soley for the fact, that it gives them twice the amount of taxpayer payed positions they could shuffle their members into. And so did most of the British parties.
  - dgellow 6y ago
    > This behaviour is particulary present across European high-educated middle- and upper-class circles and in general in Germany. In short: in areas of a society which have trouble celebrating their roots, because it grounds them. Next to their lower class neighbours or distant un-urban relatives. Wait until you learn that I'm Swiss, generally proud of my country and its history and people, do not have a European citizenship, have no form of high-education (my highest formal certificate is from an apprenticeship, I'm self-taught and built my software engineer career myself by learning directly on the job), and come from a single-parent family categorized as "lower class" by wealth statistics. Other than attacking an imaginary "elite" persona I'm supposed to embody, do you have some actual points to discuss regarding feeling "disturbed" and "ashamed" by the EU?

zpeti 6y ago

Maybe the EU should use the Astra vaccines that are in the fridge first. Oh wait they can’t do that because macron and Merkel have told everyone AstraZeneca doesn’t work. Fail on so many levels.

tpmx 6y ago

From the other AZ thread: https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1372897635577761803 https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1372897635577761803 In summary: UK (and US) screwed EU. Now EU is screwing UK back.

breakfastduck 6y ago
I've posted this before but it's important. We did not screw them. We just wrote a decent contract, and they wrote an awful one. 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- https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...
- Tehnix 6y ago
  > We did not screw them. We just wrote a decent contract, and they wrote an awful one. Screwing someone in writing is still screwing them. By your same logic, the EU hasn't screwed anyone, since it's within legal powers to do what it's doing - i.e. it's in the contract of being in the EU.

Ygg2 6y ago

Didn't they suspend the vaccine because it was causing blod clots or something?

ceejayoz 6y ago
The EU recommended continuing vaccinations with it last week. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-benefits-still-outweigh-risks-despite-possible-link-rare-blood-clots https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/covid-19-vaccine-astrazene... It's up to each individual nation to decide if they pause/resume.

happymellon 6y ago

So the summary is that the UK has a better contract with AZ than the EU?

akmarinov 6y ago
The UK included a provision where all AZ UK manufactured vaccines would go to UK, where the EU didn't elect to include that clause with Pfizer, as they thought other countries will offer a fair playing field.
- happymellon 6y ago
  That seems incredibly naive. When has Russia, or China, or the US ever tried to have an even playing field?

throwaway4good 6y ago

Exports of vaccines so far: US: 0 UK: 0 EU: 41.1 million doses The EU should never have allowed Biontech and other European vaccine companies to partner with US companies and thus fall under the American export bans. Unfortunately the EU has acted in a naive manner and now have to mop up a mess.

mytailorisrich 6y ago
It is said that Oxford University was initially approached by Merck (American) but that the government intervened and steered them towards AstraZeneca (British-Swedish). In the meantime Germany was happy to let BioNTech's breakthrough vaccine go to Pfizer (American)...
- throwaway4good 6y ago
  Yep. We were stupid and naive. If it was up to me, we should approve the Russian and the Chinese vaccines just as a gesture to the yanks.
dgellow 6y ago
As far as I understand, even if Biontech would partner with European companies instead of US ones, we (europeans) do not have the capacity to produce vaccines in mass quantity. The issue in Europe is more fundamental IMHO, we lack strong industries in too many critical domains.
maxerickson 6y ago
It's the US facilities that are subject to the export rules, not just the US companies. Do you think a EU partner would have just skipped the US market?
- throwaway4good 6y ago
  An EU partner would not have vaccinated americans first.
  - 6y ago

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago

It's a bit rich for a UK minister to invoke rule of law and international contracts, considering the UK's recent flirtation with breaking their agreements with the EU before the ink has had a chance to dry. It's basically that international relations version of "no-you're-stupid" recently popularised by Putin and bolsonaro. Plus, obviously, the EU wouldn't be breaking any contracts. It's AstraZeneca's contract with the UK that would be broken, to which the EU is not a party. The EU is also just levelling the playing field here: it was unique among the major vaccine-producing countries in not establishing strict export controls from the beginning, as the UK did, and the US did using the Defense Production Act (or whatever it's called). Until now, absolutely no vaccines have left either the US or the UK, while about half of the EU production has been exported. That's precisely because the EU started this particular game of iterative prisoner's dilemma with the assumption of cooperation. That trust in was betrayed in the first round, and now we're seeing the reaction. Considering the supply chains cross many borders, there is a good chance this will now escalate further, and total production capacity may well be harmed as a result, which is exactly why cooperation was the first choice. It may have been naive in a practical sense to assume that Johnson and, at the time, Trump would be capable of thinking two steps ahead. But getting burned on an assumption of good faith isn't exactly the worst thing in the world. Plus, once the US, UK, and Israel are done, and with more capacity coming on-line, the spigot will turn to the EU and the difference may end up being far smaller than one might think from just extrapolating current data.

jmkerr 6y ago

> Von der Leyen [said] the epidemiological situation was worsening > “The European Commission will know that the rest of the world is looking at the Commission, about how it conducts itself on this, and if contracts get broken, and undertakings, that is a very damaging thing to happen for a trading bloc that prides itself on the rules of law,” Defence Minister Ben Wallace said Can't believe such bullshit in the face of a humanitarian crisis. Sales are cancelled all the time. It would only be reciprocal, and in line with US policy. More importantly, the UK is already thoroughly vaccinated, and the risk is very low throughout the summer. For once, the UK has time. He's right in that export restrictions on vaccines are wrong, but it's because much of the rest of the world is even worse off than the EU, not because this tool has a piece of paper.