EU unhappy with astrazeneca

[Lower]

Ahh, so when I do provide the significant evidence, you dismiss it without any counter evidence, significant, insignificant, imaginary, fake, in fact absolute nothing, other than your opinion.
I'll repeat for you:

In fact, EU officials point out to me that EU money went into upgrading the facilities in the UK and that they fully expected it to be operational for them...
the UK sites should be used to transport the vaccines across the continent.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55822602
​

So the bottom line is AZ took money from EU to upgrade the UK plants, to the benefit of UK citizens. They couldn't benefit EU citizens because approval in EU had not yet been sought.
When EU approval was about to be granted, AZ denied the EU any of the vaccines produced in UK plants.

Now where would you like to place the blame for the furore?

Thing is, you've not actually provided any evidence. Any report you've linked to doesn't give any details, just repeats the EU's allegation without any evidence.

I'll make it very simple, because you like to deflect by widening the scope of the discussion.

1. You state it's fact that AZ has diverted EU made vaccine to the UK.
2. You state it's fact that EU money has funded the development of UK production.

Provide me with actual evidence that you're correct on preferably both but even on either of those points that you claim are factual, and i'll apologise.

But reports repeating the EU making unfounded allegations aren't going to count as evidence.

The EU raided the Belgian factory. If there was even a sniff of truth in what you speculate as fact, i'm sure it would have been widely reported by now.

 

[sxturbo]

UK denied its existence. Granted that cannot be believed. - I cannot find the UK have stated this, as ajohn said.


Their suspicions were raised by the vague, obtuse and misleading explanations by AZ.
The evidence that EU has partly financed the UK plants has already been provided. Granted, it is only evidence if you accept the report of the BBC Health correspondent, which you might dismiss without any evidence to the contrary, other than your opinion. - i have only seen that the EU believe their funding was used to set up the UK plant, with no supporting evidence.

I think we can deduce where they are coming from, especially considering the UK's conciliatory nature since the furore.
I thought I'd better provide the evidence before you dismiss its existence:

A major row has been avoided - and UK ministers are adopting a conciliatory tone.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55873288

The article references the article 16 fiasco, it doesn't offer any shining light on funds being spent. The UK was defusing a situation that was bringing the UK into an argument which had nothing to do with them, it was between the EU and AZ, and was potentially set to cause even further divide between the UK and the EU (though to be fair it already has but in favour of the UK for a change). The UK to be honest were actually rather quite good in this instance, calm and collected and were by far the bigger person.

my opinion is that had the ball been on the other foot the EU wouldn't have been anywhere near as amenable, and would have seen Macron foaming at the mouth and spouting more nonsense and the EU using it as something further to punish us with and making us an example of, for leaving the EU.
​

And see your own comment below.




You mean AZ were playing a game of poker, with such an immensely important product as a Covid vaccine?
OK, It wouldn't surprise me.
That would mean that yet again AZ have been proved to be an irreputable company.

 

[fillyboy]

BBC

 

[fillyboy]

The flailing EU blames Big Pharma for its own failings - CapX

 

[fillyboy]

Enough now. The argument is won. The EU *****d up. Own it.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Thing is, you've not actually provided any evidence. Any report you've linked to doesn't give any details, just repeats the EU's allegation without any evidence.

I'll make it very simple, because you like to deflect by widening the scope of the discussion.


2. You state it's fact that EU money has funded the development of UK production.

Provide me with actual evidence that you're correct on preferably both but even on either of those points that you claim are factual, and i'll apologise.

But reports repeating the EU making unfounded allegations aren't going to count as evidence.

The EU raided the Belgian factory. If there was even a sniff of truth in what you speculate as fact, i'm sure it would have been widely reported by now.

In fact, EU officials point out to me that EU money went into upgrading the facilities in the UK and that they fully expected it to be operational for them...
the UK sites should be used to transport the vaccines across the continent.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55822602​

Dismiss it if you want, but until you provide some counter evidence it is accepted evidence.

Neither you nor sxturbo have provided evidence to the contrary, you just keep refusing to accept the provided evidence.
Until you can provide some evidence to the contrary, you might as well pizz in the wind.

 

[sxturbo]

BBC

that is a very good summary.

of course no boubt someone will come along in a moment and tell us how the BBC is prohibtively right wing and anti eu and should be ignored, and that this was one presenters opinions and not the facts...

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

The vague and obtuse explanations offered by AZ also suggest some misleading by AZ.

 

[sxturbo]

In fact, EU officials point out to me that EU money went into upgrading the facilities in the UK and that they fully expected it to be operational for them...
the UK sites should be used to transport the vaccines across the continent.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55822602​

Dismiss it if you want, but until you provide some counter evidence it is accepted evidence.

Neither you nor sxturbo have provided evidence to the contrary, you just keep refusing to accept the provided evidence.
Until you can provide some evidence to the contrary, you might as well pizz in the wind.

eu officials "think" the money went into the UK facility, that is not fact, so far the eu havnt been able to turn up any evidence which is why they are quickly back tracking, helped slightly with a promise of 9 million extra doses which still leaves the EU 50% short on what it hoped for, so although 9 million extra is a lot, its actually a very minor token gesture in the grand scheme of things.

in fact according to this report https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-eu-astrazeneca-idUSL1N2K30UO the extra doses were offered at the start of last week, but the EU wouldn't accept them, though magically by friday evening everything was hunky dory and the EU had a "WIN". though they didnt, they are just attempting to hide their incompetence at handling this matter.

 

[Lower]

In fact, EU officials point out to me that EU money went into upgrading the facilities in the UK and that they fully expected it to be operational for them...
the UK sites should be used to transport the vaccines across the continent.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55822602​

Dismiss it if you want, but until you provide some counter evidence it is accepted evidence.

Neither you nor sxturbo have provided evidence to the contrary, you just keep refusing to accept the provided evidence.
Until you can provide some evidence to the contrary, you might as well pizz in the wind.

So, you've not provided any evidence other than a report stating what the EU believe to be true in an argument between the EU and AZ when all sorts of poorly based statements have been made by the EU. Yet you're accusing me of refusing to accept your invalid evidence and can't provide anything to back your claims. Other than the UK factories being included in the contract

And you want me to provide evidence of something not happening. That's a bit tricky as it didn't happen.

Your repeated stating that its accepted evidence is because you've backed yourself into a corner that that you can't dig yourself out of and you're making yourself look silly.....

 

[Trazor]

It's quite obvious that the EU handled ordering of vaccines and vaccination rates extremely well , as they are on a par with the UK....Hmmm, wait, wait, hang on a minute.

 

[motorbiking]

Hands up who's read the contract?

Oh that will be me then..

Here it is. So people can read it and avoid relying on the press.

But to deny that such a contract exists, or that that contract could affect the supply to another customer is deceitful, and would entail a breach of contract.
If that other customer is another government, and denies that such a contract clause exists, what does that suggest? That one or both are not being honest.

If you read sec 6.2 its clear who is in breach.

 

[durhamplumber]

In fact, EU officials point out to me

Of course they do Roberto.

 

[Dangee]

Been making friends again Bobby Jim Anon?

 

[sxturbo]

Hands up who's read the contract?

Oh that will be me then..

Here it is. So people can read it and avoid relying on the press.



If you read sec 6.2 its clear who is in breach.

i have read the contract, in fact i read it a couple of times, (i've actually got the bookmarked version so you can read the redacted text)

and i concur with your findings, and posted as much a few pages ago, but bobby kept telling me to provide proof... i couldnt provide any further proof than copy segments of the contract.