EU unhappy with astrazeneca

[EddieM]

As AZ were the ones that imposed the NDA, I suspect that they would have to give their permission for the publishing of the contract, and therefore under their conditions. Obviously, in order to publish that contract EU would have to agree to their conditions.

So your statement about being convenient, convenient for whom?

 

[Lower]

Hardly a diplomatic issue within EU countries. And resolved within days by the EU.

Your exact words earlier, spelling mistake and all 'The fact that it was sorted without diplomatic interference means tjhat it was not a diplomatic issue'

Yet 'Austria’s economy minister demanded her German counterpart order the release of supplies destined for her country.'

and again your words 'And resolved within days by the EU'

So, Germany limited blocked supplies to Austria, the Austrian economy minister had to get involved, the EU had to get involved to resolve it.

I'd say that was a diplomatic issue and i'll thank you to retract your allegations of fake news.

Oh, and remember the the EU's public apology to Italy for not providing support in its hour of need?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...logy-italy-coronavirus-response-herd-immunity

 

[sxturbo]

As AZ were the ones that imposed the NDA, I suspect that they would have to give their permission for the publishing of the contract, and therefore under their conditions. Obviously, in order to publish that contract EU would have to agree to their conditions.

How do you know it was AZ? Where's your proof.

It's quite common for both parties to wish for nda's

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

My point being we don't know.

You clearly stated that AZ were imposing restrictions.

Come on Bobby trump

As AZ were the ones that imposed the NDA, I suspect that they would have to give their permission for the publishing of the contract, and therefore under their conditions. Obviously, in order to publish that contract EU would have to agree to their conditions.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I'd say that was a diplomatic issue and i'll thank you to retract your allegations of fake news.

You're welcome to your interpretation of events.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

How do you know it was AZ? Where's your proof.

It's quite common for both parties to wish for nda's

Because the EU could not publish it without the permission of AZ.
The EU wanted it published, why would they have requested an NDA?

 

[Notch7]

bobby wont believe you,

he's suddenly turned into trump spouting "fake news" at everything he disagrees with

It's certainly not clear cut but lawyers on twitter do seem to saying AZ are more right than EU.

On a simple level, without knowing contractual details, the EU spent quite a long time negotiating price and liability which meant they ordered later than the UK.

 

[sxturbo]

Because the EU could not publish it without the permission of AZ.
The EU wanted it published, why would they have requested an NDA?

Why would the EU want an NDA...

Oh FFS come on man use your brain cell. The EU wouldn't not want an NDA.

They don't want other countries or potential future suppliers to know what terms they are agreeing to, as terms would in most cases be slightly different for different vendors.

They are/were negotiating with various other potential vaccine manufacturers, as part of negotiation you don't want other parties to know what you have agreed with other suppliers, as it gives an edge to the person your negotiating with.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Why would the EU want an NDA...

Oh FFS come on man use your brain cell. The EU wouldn't not want an NDA.

They don't want other countries or potential future suppliers to know what terms they are agreeing to, as terms would in most cases be slightly different for different vendors.

They are/were negotiating with various other potential vaccine manufacturers, as part of negotiation you don't want other parties to know what you have agreed with other suppliers, as it gives an edge to the person your negotiating with.

Then why did the EU not simply go ahead and publish the NDA, without any redacted parts?
They wanted to, but were reliant on AZ agreeing to it.

 

[sxturbo]

Then why did the EU not simply go ahead and publish the NDA, without any redacted parts?
They wanted to, but were reliant on AZ agreeing to it.

How do you know?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

It's certainly not clear cut but lawyers on twitter do seem to saying AZ are more right than EU.

If you include the UK sites in the contract, and AZ were not including those sites in the "best effort" clause, then the EU have a case.

On a simple level, without knowing contractual details, the EU spent quite a long time negotiating price and liability which meant they ordered later than the UK.

The dates of the various contracts is not in dispute, but if the date and priority order of those contracts were in the EU/AZ contract, then they must be taken into account.
They are not.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

How do you know?

How do you know they were not?
We can only go by reported articles.
But you do tend to put your own spin on such information, for instance:

EU's language has been that very much of demand rather than working with, almost like a spoilt princess, "i want, and i want it now"

 

[sxturbo]

Your a buffoon Bobby.

There is nothing out there to support your claims.

I would say it was in both az and the EU interest to redact certain parts of the contract.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Your a buffoon Bobby.

There is nothing out there to support your claims.

I would say it was in both az and the EU interest to redact certain parts of the contract.

You're welcome to your opinion, but you have no evidence to suport your assertion. It's pure specualtion on your part.
Who wanted to publish the contract, and who did not?
Who published the contract, and who did not?

Large sections of the contract, published with the agreement of AstraZeneca, have been blanked out - redacted - to protect sensitive information.
These include some paragraphs dealing with costs, guaranteed delivery dates and intellectual property.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55852698​

 

[Notch7]

Your a buffoon Bobby.

There is nothing out there to support your claims.

I would say it was in both az and the EU interest to redact certain parts of the contract.

I agree....your post #188 makes sense, neither party would really want the whole contract available in the public domain.