EU unhappy with astrazeneca

[EddieM]

Because the majority of it was wild anti-EU speculation and fake news.



I've already posted the BBC reports to demonstrate it.
Do you need me to find them and repeat them?
Here's some of it:

That's just an opinion of the EU president, who is wrong in my opinion.

Why is it anti EU to point out the EU have right royally screwed up the procurement.

Just as being no fan of the UK government doesnt make me anti UK.

 

[sxturbo]

If the delivery dates were dependent on the clinical trilas being successful, then they could guarantee delivery on that condition.
Don't forget that clinical trials were well underway by the time of the contract conclusion.

For sure, both sides will have their own ibnterpretation.
Does "best reasonable efforts" relate to the supply of the vaccine, or the manufacturing of it within EU?

the way the contract is written, "best efforts" covers the whole of the contract, so that includes the supply quantity by the date specified.

if it didnt cover the whole contract it would have been written as a clause saying just that

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Certainly different to most legal interpretation. Maybe Ursula needs to hire Rudy Giuliani.

By all means post up your "most legal interpretation".
Does "most legal" refer to a majority, or to a heirachy?
That's the trouble with interpretation.

 

[Vinty]

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​

The redacted parts of the contract could be the most important in determining the truth of the matter.
If that is the case then not much point in publishing the contract at all.

 

[sxturbo]

Who has suggested it was?
You're making strawman arguments again.

you made a point that the uk government wouldnt speak about the contract and its details.

they dont have to. the argument is between the EU and AZ, its nothing to do with the UK, despite the EU's and some of the medias to make it such

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

the way the contract is written, "best efforts" covers the whole of the contract, so that includes the supply quantity by the date specified.

if it didnt cover the whole contract it would have been written as a clause saying just that

You're speculating again. How do you know that it includes the whole of the contract?
If one side interprets it as, "only up to production of a working vaccine", that is a perfectly reasonble interpretation, especially if that is specified in the contract.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

you made a point that the uk government wouldnt speak about the contract and its details.

they dont have to. the argument is between the EU and AZ, its nothing to do with the UK, despite the EU's and some of the medias to make it such

I didn't make a point, I refered the reader to a BBC report.
If speculation suggests that AZ are breaking their contract with EU, then the reason for them breaking that contract is relevant.
If that reason is because UK have included a clause to give them priority, or renegotiated their contract to achieve the same, then it is relevant.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Why is it anti EU to point out the EU have right royally screwed up the procurement.

You're not the only poster.
Many posters have been wildly speculating, invariably with an anti-EU bias.

 

[sxturbo]

You're speculating again. How do you know that it includes the whole of the contract?
If one side interprets it as, "only up to production of a working vaccine", that is a perfectly reasonble interpretation, especially if that is specified in the contract.

from the contract, the way it is written it also cover manufacture as a best effort:

“Best Reasonable Efforts” means
(a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company
of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as
AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a
Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard
to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in
serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic
impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and
(b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the
activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in
supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the
urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious
public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across
the world.

 

[EddieM]

You're speculating again. How do you know that it includes the whole of the contract?
If one side interprets it as, "only up to production of a working vaccine", that is a perfectly reasonble interpretation, especially if that is specified in the contract.

Then why oh why does it specifically states under initial delivery best endeavours apply? May Ursula needs to use her finger when reading too.

 

[fillyboy]

The redacted parts of the contract could be the most important in determining the truth of the matter.
If that is the case then not much point in publishing the contract at all.

Most of the redacted parts seem to be around timelines, probably because their inclusion wouldn't suit the EU narrative.

 

[sxturbo]

and again bobby trump

in 5.1 - best reasonable efforts to manufacture

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

The redacted parts of the contract could be the most important in determining the truth of the matter.
If that is the case then not much point in publishing the contract at all.

But it has been published with the important points redacted.
What can be seen is important none the less.
Clearly, both sides positions have been contained within the contract wording. How it all fits together is best left to the legal experts.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

from the contract, the way it is written it also cover manufacture as a best effort:

“Best Reasonable Efforts” means
(a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company
of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as
AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a
Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard
to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in
serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic
impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and
(b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the
activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in
supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the
urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious
public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across
the world.

Can you show us, where in the contract is the definition of "bets reasonable efforts" and what it apllies to?
Or is this yet more of your speculation?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Most of the redacted parts seem to be around timelines, probably because their inclusion wouldn't suit the EU narrative.

Why not?
It should be obvious to most that it would support their argument.