Vaccine Progress, Approval, and Deployment

[Nicholas Lewis]

There is much to be celebrated over our vaccination programme from covering off many potential sourcing opportunities to the extraordinary ramp up in daily vaccination levels largely being delivered by local teams in GPs' surgeries, community pharmacies and NHS hospital facilities. Our political leaders should limit themselves to showcasing this not trying to wind up the EU over whose top dog here. This is essentially an EU vs there members issue and we just need to sit it out and let them fight it out between the outspoken leaders like Macron and EU Commissioners.

 

[Chester1]

There is much to be celebrated over our vaccination programme from covering off many potential sourcing opportunities to the extraordinary ramp up in daily vaccination levels largely being delivered by local teams in GPs' surgeries, community pharmacies and NHS hospital facilities. Our political leaders should limit themselves to showcasing this not trying to wind up the EU over whose top dog here. This is essentially an EU vs there members issue and we just need to sit it out and let them fight it out between the outspoken leaders like Macron and EU Commissioners.

As long as AZ don't agree to transfers that mean the NHS don't get its 2 million doses a week. If they do then it is certainly our problem and the government must impose export controls to ensure the UK contract is met. I would be more sympathic if this was due to ill fortune. The continental factories are having the same teething problems the British factories had but they started three months later due to EU incompetence.

 

[yorksrob]

If your reading is correct, then that is a very interesting position as it gives the EU substantial leverage to drive AZ to deliver the EU contract in preference to the U.K. one.

How does that work, if manufacturing is taking place in the UK. Presumably UK law will apply on any produce while it is in the UK.

 

[notlob.divad]

How does that work, if manufacturing is taking place in the UK. Presumably UK law will apply on any produce while it is in the UK.

That isn't how contact law works.

 

[yorksrob]

That isn't how contact law works.

If you have two contracts under UK law, one a straightforward contract to provide goods, the other saying it must undertake "its best effort" to deliver the goods, surely the straight forward one will take precedent (particularly if it contains these supposedly "nationalistic" clauses).

 

[notlob.divad]

If you have two contracts under UK law, one a straightforward contract to provide goods, the other saying it must undertake "its best effort" to deliver the goods, surely the straight forward one will take precedent (particularly if it contains these supposedly "nationalistic" clauses).

Why would the EU contact be agreed under UK law?

 

[rd749249]

There is much to be celebrated over our vaccination programme from covering off many potential sourcing opportunities to the extraordinary ramp up in daily vaccination levels largely being delivered by local teams in GPs' surgeries, community pharmacies and NHS hospital facilities. Our political leaders should limit themselves to showcasing this not trying to wind up the EU over whose top dog here. This is essentially an EU vs there members issue and we just need to sit it out and let them fight it out between the outspoken leaders like Macron and EU Commissioners.

I think for once, the UK government has been remarkably diplomatic with respect to the EU debacle; even the PM. We appear to have robust contracts behind our deals that our counterparts are fully onboard with. The more we stay out of the EU's business, the better it will be for us.

 

[43096]

Having read the document I do wonder if the senior EU people kicking up a fuss have:
a) read the document
b) legal training
c) a good grasp of the English language


If it is at no profit or loss to AZ and you pay a low price then you have prioritised getting it ASAP. (Oops)

The only reference in it to "Binding" is the final allocation between country who want to take up their quota (or not).

I'd say the EU know that AstraZeneca have them bang to rights contractually and all the political noise from the EU is because it's the only way they can put any pressure on AstraZeneca as they know they have no leg to stand on contractually. Basically the EU was a) late signing contracts for the vaccines and b) have let a sloppy contract without binding delivery dates.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2021 ==

How does that work, if manufacturing is taking place in the UK. Presumably UK law will apply on any produce while it is in the UK.

You can add in that if the EU blocks exports of vaccines to the UK, they may potentially be in breach of the Brexit agreement.

 

[rd749249]

Why would the EU contact be agreed under UK law?

It's not.

18.4 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of Belgium.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2021 ==

I'd say the EU know that AstraZeneca have them bang to rights contractually and all the political noise from the EU is because it's the only way they can put any pressure on AstraZeneca as they know they have no leg to stand on contractually. Basically the EU was a) late signing contracts for the vaccines and b) have let a sloppy contract without binding delivery dates.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2021 ==


You can add in that if the EU blocks exports of vaccines to the UK, they may potentially be in breach of the Brexit agreement.

I agree. I think the noise is an attempt to pacify their people.

 

[yorksrob]

Why would the EU contact be agreed under UK law?

If you're trying to remove product from another territory, you will have to do so under that territory's legal system, regardless of what juristiction that contract was made under.

It's fairly academic now as the EU has already placed export controls on vaccines manufactured there, so if push came to shove, the option to put in reciprocal controls exists.

Hopefully a less antagonistic compromise can be made instead.

 

[takno]

If you're trying to remove product from another territory, you will have to do so under that territory's legal system, regardless of what juristiction that contract was made under.

The UK legal system doesn't have anything to say about private companies moving their goods around as they like in compliance with the export regulations in place. This is all a matter of contract law, and for the most part that's determined by the jurisdiction named in the relevant contract.

The UK government could put additional export regulations in place, but that would probably require legislation, and certainly wouldn't have anything to do with whatever contracts had been signed.

 

[yorksrob]

The UK legal system doesn't have anything to say about private companies moving their goods around as they like in compliance with the export regulations in place. This is all a matter of contract law, and for the most part that's determined by the jurisdiction named in the relevant contract.

Presumably not if it comes into conflict with a stronger contract for that private company to move its goods around.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I think for once, the UK government has been remarkably diplomatic with respect to the EU debacle; even the PM. We appear to have robust contracts behind our deals that our counterparts are fully onboard with. The more we stay out of the EU's business, the better it will be for us.

Agree Boris has been pretty neutral but plenty of his MPs haven't and the tabloids especially the D.Mail have run nationalistic headlines. This approach quickly gout out of hand in the US recently. As you say best we just sit this one out but I suspect we may have gone beyond that point as EU are upping the tempo to make themselves look good in from of member countries.

 

[Ediswan]

18.4 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of Belgium.

I would have expected that a contract governed by the laws of a country would need to be written in one of the official langauges of that country. Apparently not.

 

[rd749249]

I would have expected that a contract governed by the laws of a country would need to be written in one of the official langauges of that country. Apparently not.

Not necessarily. Though I'm a train driver now, in a previous life I used to work closely with my legal department negotiating contracts all around the world, all in English and all subject to the laws of England & Wales. From Australia, to Japan, Mexico to South Africa. All contracts with EU counterparts were in English law too.

 

[Ediswan]

Not necessarily. Though I'm a train driver now, in a previous life I used to work closely with my legal department negotiating contracts all around the world, all in English and all subject to the laws of England & Wales. From Australia, to Japan, Mexico to South Africa. All contracts with EU counterparts were in English law too.

Isn't that what I was saying. A contract subject to the laws of England & Wales written in English makes sense, regardless of the nationality of the other party. A contract governed by the laws of Belgium written in English is not the same thing.

 

[35B]

How does that work, if manufacturing is taking place in the UK. Presumably UK law will apply on any produce while it is in the UK.

Not necessarily. Though I'm a train driver now, in a previous life I used to work closely with my legal department negotiating contracts all around the world, all in English and all subject to the laws of England & Wales. From Australia, to Japan, Mexico to South Africa. All contracts with EU counterparts were in English law too.

Isn't that what I was saying. A contract subject to the laws of England & Wales written in English makes sense, regardless of the nationality of the other party. A contract governed by the laws of Belgium written in English is not the same thing.

I deal with contracts professionally, currently working for a U.K. company on an account with another U.K. company. I have contracts that I look after that are under a mix of jurisdictions, all of which are agreed jointly between the participants. The effect of that is that, if the contract is written under the laws of the State of Delaware, any dispute that got to the stage of legal action would be ultimately judged according to the laws of the state of Delaware, even if it was a contract fulfilled in England or Wales by British citizens. Hell, I’ve even got some English language contracts that are ultimately under French law - and for good reasons.

If the EU and Astra Zeneca have chosen to place their contract under the laws of Belgium, that is their choice, as is the language it’s written in.

The only relevance of British law, if any, is over how Astra Zeneca and Astra Zeneca staff work in the U.K. They, as companies and individuals, remain subject to British criminal law. But get to a dispute, and it’s Belgian law that will apply.

 

[yorksrob]

I deal with contracts professionally, currently working for a U.K. company on an account with another U.K. company. I have contracts that I look after that are under a mix of jurisdictions, all of which are agreed jointly between the participants. The effect of that is that, if the contract is written under the laws of the State of Delaware, any dispute that got to the stage of legal action would be ultimately judged according to the laws of the state of Delaware, even if it was a contract fulfilled in England or Wales by British citizens. Hell, I’ve even got some English language contracts that are ultimately under French law - and for good reasons.

If the EU and Astra Zeneca have chosen to place their contract under the laws of Belgium, that is their choice, as is the language it’s written in.

The only relevance of British law, if any, is over how Astra Zeneca and Astra Zeneca staff work in the U.K. They, as companies and individuals, remain subject to British criminal law. But get to a dispute, and it’s Belgian law that will apply.

Ok, thats fine, but what about where it conflicts with a contract in the UK under British law. Presumably its down to whoever has the strongest contract.

 

[takno]

Ok, thats fine, but what about where it conflicts with a contract in the UK under British law. Presumably its down to whoever has the strongest contract.

Ultimately it's down to who the company least wants to get sued by, which is likely to be the one with the strongest contract. The argument here is whether the EU contract really is best efforts (and whether that means the same in Belgian law as it does in English law), in which case the EU might not be able to sue at all. If that's not the case though then it comes down to what AstraZeneca decide to do.

If the UK govt decided that AZ had made the wrong choice then they could take action, but at that point you're more in the domain of politics than law as such.

 

[Ediswan]

Hell, I’ve even got some English language contracts that are ultimately under French law - and for good reasons.

If the EU and Astra Zeneca have chosen to place their contract under the laws of Belgium, that is their choice, as is the language it’s written in.

I did start by saying that my expectation appears to have been wrong.

How do you resolve a contractual dispute if the wording of a contract in one language involves a term or concept that does not exist in the law of the governing language ? Lawyers will argue over the meaning of a single word in a shared language they otherwise agree on.

Such disputes don't seem to exist. Maybe the 'foreign language/law' factor encourages conciliation.

 

[yorksrob]

Ultimately it's down to who the company least wants to get sued by, which is likely to be the one with the strongest contract. The argument here is whether the EU contract really is best efforts (and whether that means the same in Belgian law as it does in English law), in which case the EU might not be able to sue at all. If that's not the case though then it comes down to what AstraZeneca decide to do.

If the UK govt decided that AZ had made the wrong choice then they could take action, but at that point you're more in the domain of politics than law as such.

That's interesting. It looks as though the EU have taken the first step politically, so maybe they aren't so sure about their contract.

 

[Yew]

Ultimately it's down to who the company least wants to get sued by, which is likely to be the one with the strongest contract. The argument here is whether the EU contract really is best efforts (and whether that means the same in Belgian law as it does in English law), in which case the EU might not be able to sue at all. If that's not the case though then it comes down to what AstraZeneca decide to do.

If the UK govt decided that AZ had made the wrong choice then they could take action, but at that point you're more in the domain of politics than law as such.

I think that throughout this; the ability to get the NHS behind your testing of drugs/vaccines has shown just how valuable it is.

 

[DelayRepay]

That's interesting. It looks as though the EU have taken the first step politically, so maybe they aren't so sure about their contract.

I think the EU have made a big mistake in triggering Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol to try to resolve a problem that appears to be of their own making. I did not agree with Brexit, but that is not the action of a friend.

If we do have surplus vaccine supplies, it may be more appropriate to share them with our friends in the Commonwealth.

 

[yorksrob]

I think the EU have made a big mistake in triggering Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol to try to resolve a problem that appears to be of their own making. I did not agree with Brexit, but that is not the action of a friend.

If we do have surplus vaccine supplies, it may be more appropriate to share them with our friends in the Commonwealth.

I'm hopeful it's just a bit of diplomatic theatre. Unless there's an actual disruption to our vaccination programme in the offing, I think we're better off not getting embroiled.

 

[takno]

I think the EU have made a big mistake in triggering Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol to try to resolve a problem that appears to be of their own making. I did not agree with Brexit, but that is not the action of a friend.

If we do have surplus vaccine supplies, it may be more appropriate to share them with our friends in the Commonwealth.

Agreed. Spectacularly stupid move.

It doesn't make sense to let it escalate into a vaccine war, but it does mean that they've very clearly made the first move in wrecking the NI peace deal

 

[brad465]

This row does appear to be getting people normally supportive of the EU in trying to get them to be more considerate, the likes of the Archbishop of Canterbury and Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary Louise Haigh are both demanding the EU step back on this:

https://twitter.com/JustinWelby/status/1355249805941993474

The European Union was originally inspired by Christian social teaching - at the heart of which is solidarity. Seeking to control the export of vaccines undercuts the EU’s basic ethics. They need to work together with others.

https://twitter.com/LouHaigh/status/1355225436159160321

This is deeply destabilising and undermines efforts to make the Protocol work. Such unilateral action does nothing to aid stability in Northern Ireland. The EU shares a responsibility to uphold the Protocol and must revoke this unnecessary action.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

This row does appear to be getting people normally supportive of the EU in trying to get them to be more considerate, the likes of the Archbishop of Canterbury and Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary Louise Haigh are both demanding the EU step back on this:

https://twitter.com/JustinWelby/status/1355249805941993474

https://twitter.com/LouHaigh/status/1355225436159160321

We need to keep out of this they haven't blocked exports just introduced additional oversight and controls us upping the ante will provoke them into a stupid action. This is about the EU credibility with its members we can just spectate and be thankful we aren't on the same ship.

 

[35B]

I did start by saying that my expectation appears to have been wrong.

How do you resolve a contractual dispute if the wording of a contract in one language involves a term or concept that does not exist in the law of the governing language ? Lawyers will argue over the meaning of a single word in a shared language they otherwise agree on.

Such disputes don't seem to exist. Maybe the 'foreign language/law' factor encourages conciliation.

That is where you would hope both sides have had good advice...

Ok, thats fine, but what about where it conflicts with a contract in the UK under British law. Presumably its down to whoever has the strongest contract.

Absolutely - this is a question of separate commercial contracts where AZ (as the one with both eu and U.K. contracts) have to work out what’s the best option to fulfil both.

 

[Chester1]

I think the EU have made a big mistake in triggering Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol to try to resolve a problem that appears to be of their own making. I did not agree with Brexit, but that is not the action of a friend.

If we do have surplus vaccine supplies, it may be more appropriate to share them with our friends in the Commonwealth.

Under the Northern Ireland protocol if the EU imposes an export ban vaccines can go into it from GB but not from NI to GB. EU to NI should be sacrosanct. There is no risk of Pfizer deliveries to Northern Ireland ending up in GB. Assuming the UK stops delivering AZ for first doses and uses Pfizer in Northern Ireland, that would mean about 3 million doses of Pfizer out of 33 million UK doses left to be delivered.

Imposing a trade border (even a small one) between Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland for the sake of 3 million Pfizer doses is an idiotic move.

 

[Mojo]

Just seen on the 10 o clock news a source apparently said that the EU is to backtrack on invoking Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol.