Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Detritus70

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

This is the problem. Anyone that criticised the people working on our behalf are anti-eu!! What a one eyed mindset!

Sure you’ll give out about Irish banks or FF/FG etc. yet the sun shines out the EC backsides. It’s ridiculous and as I said, embarrassing!

And you just accept the UK position unthinkingly.
It was FF I was giving out about (I see you don't seem to remember the times clearly) as well as the banks, as I said you don't get to put that on the EU.
That was 100% made, with pride, in Ireland.

The UK and the way they behaved themselves over the past five years, have proven themselves to only work for their own benefit, maybe incompetently so, because they have only damaged themselves thus far.
So yes, any action from the UK is not just solely for their own benefit, but also as much to the detriment of the EU as possible.
The UK's motivation are twofold. Spite and malice.
Every action of theirs will have to be viewed with suspicion and every transgression must be punished.
They themselves have brought this upon themselves.

ancapailldorcha

As far as I can tell, this is how things stand.

The European Commission, in an attempt to prevent unseemly jostling for vaccines amongst EU member states decided to engage in the sort of procurement done by national governments for the vaccine, most of which are the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. AstraZeneca are having issues making enough doses of the thing prompting the Commission to try and block doses from crossing the Irish border due to the pressure it's under and then backing down.

Is this about right? I'm still catching up. At least they knew when they were engaging in folly and backed down unlike the government here.

ancapailldorcha

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Can we tone down the inflammatory rhetoric please? It's not conducive to a civil debate.

Thank you

Posts removed and a sanction has been issued.

prawnsambo

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

As far as I can tell, this is how things stand.

The European Commission, in an attempt to prevent unseemly jostling for vaccines amongst EU member states decided to engage in the sort of procurement done by national governments for the vaccine, most of which are the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. AstraZeneca are having issues making enough doses of the thing prompting the Commission to try and block doses from crossing the Irish border due to the pressure it's under and then backing down.

Is this about right? I'm still catching up. At least they knew when they were engaging in folly and backed down unlike the government here.

I think there's more to it than that. The EU publishing the partly redacted contract seems to indicate that they feel AZ have breached it in some way. Added to their insistence on inspecting plant's records of production and delivery would reinforce this imo. I don't think they believe that the UK have done anything wrong here, their beef seems to be with AZ mainly and the UK is just the man in the middle.

ThePanjandrum

SNIP. Don't ask people to do your research for you please.

Hurrache

tubercolossus wrote: »

In news that will surprise absolutely nobody, Arlene wants Johnson to repeal A16, because 'they said they were gonna do it sir"


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/30/arlene-foster-urges-boris-johnson-to-replace-covid-ni-protocol

I mean it's not as if both Foster and Johnson, and the whole of the DUP, had asked for it to be revoked weeks ago. Not a word out of the British media or the pearl clutchers on this thread then
https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1355470371009527810?s=19

prawnsambo

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Um, yes, the items that I noted. Closing stock + usage - production - opening stock = purchases. Closing stock is 10 million doses maximum, usage is about 9 million, production about 6 million, opening stock was zero so purchases would have been about 13 million doses. This is the total of all vaccines so purchases of the Oxford vaccine are a lot less than 13 million doses. My estimates have been designed to give the highest possible figures for purchases.

Sorry, not doubting you, but where are you getting those figures from? And how are they defined? For example stock. Is stock counted at the warehouse, at distribution centres and/or at vaccination centres?

tubercolossus

This asymmetric outrage reminds me of the states, where Trump commits outrages day after day to deafening silence from his supporters, then they become prone to fits of the vapours and pearl-clutching the second Biden takes office.

The EU has been the adult in the room for the last 4 years as the UK's behaviour became increasingly irresponsible and its politicians shamed themselves. Then they lose their cool ONCE, make a misstep - quickly corrected - and the opposition and their craven supporters howl in fury. It looks to me like AZ are trying to serve two masters here. They over-promised the EU and made the mistake of appearing to prefer one customer over another, and they picked the smaller, weaker one. Was it because AZ is a British-Swedish company? Possibly. What they should do now is 'fess up to exaggerating their delivery capacity and adjust supply of the vaccine pro-rata to both the UK and EU.

sondagefaux

tubercolossus wrote: »

In news that will surprise absolutely nobody, Arlene wants Johnson to repeal A16, because 'they said they were gonna do it sir"


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/30/arlene-foster-urges-boris-johnson-to-replace-covid-ni-protocol

The same Arlene whose party has been repeatedly calling for Article 16 to be used because people in Northern Ireland can't get Marks & Spencer prawn sandwiches anymore? Cry me a river. :rolleyes:

RobMc59

tubercolossus wrote: »

This asymmetric outrage reminds me of the states, where Trump commits outrages day after day to deafening silence from his supporters, then they become prone to fits of the vapours and pearl-clutching the second Biden takes office.

The EU has been the adult in the room for the last 4 years as the UK's behaviour became increasingly irresponsible and its politicians shamed themselves. Then they lose their cool ONCE, make a misstep - quickly corrected - and the opposition and their craven supporters howl in fury. It looks to me like AZ are trying to serve two masters here. They over-promised the EU and made the mistake of appearing to prefer one customer over another, and they picked the smaller, weaker one. Was it because AZ is a British-Swedish company? Possibly. What they should do now is 'fess up to exaggerating their delivery capacity and adjust supply of the vaccine pro-rata to both the UK and EU.

If you order something three months ago ,a kitchen for example,wouldn't you expect to get your kitchen before someone else who orders it three months after you?
Johnson and co have their faults but you can't blame the UK for a combination of EU ineptitude and astra zeneca's batch yields not as expected.

beggars_bush

I wonder are/were the uk going to be reselling their vaccines at an inflated price?

listermint

RobMc59 wrote: »

If you order something three months ago ,a kitchen for example,wouldn't you expect to get your kitchen before someone else who orders it three months after you?
Johnson and co have their faults but you can't blame the UK for a combination of EU ineptitude and astra zeneca's batch yields not as expected.

If the kitchen place say they can build multiple kitchens at the same time and that mine will be sitting in the warehouse..

Yes, of course, which is what happened in this scenario.

The Raging Bile Duct

beggars_bush wrote: »

I wonder are/were the uk going to be reselling their vaccines at an inflated price?

I think it's more that the UK paid an inflated price.

BonnieSituation

Sammy Wilson on Radio 1 now complaining about the difficulties of trading into and out of the single market all because of the arrangements that were agreed to by the British and Irish governments without any consultation with Northern politicians.

Prime "the leopards ate my face" territory.

hotmail.com

tubercolossus wrote: »

This asymmetric outrage reminds me of the states, where Trump commits outrages day after day to deafening silence from his supporters, then they become prone to fits of the vapours and pearl-clutching the second Biden takes office.

The EU has been the adult in the room for the last 4 years as the UK's behaviour became increasingly irresponsible and its politicians shamed themselves. Then they lose their cool ONCE, make a misstep - quickly corrected - and the opposition and their craven supporters howl in fury. It looks to me like AZ are trying to serve two masters here. They over-promised the EU and made the mistake of appearing to prefer one customer over another, and they picked the smaller, weaker one. Was it because AZ is a British-Swedish company? Possibly. What they should do now is 'fess up to exaggerating their delivery capacity and adjust supply of the vaccine pro-rata to both the UK and EU.

Maybe the Trump lesson shows that getting outraged daily over Trump was a mistake.

This outrage actually affects Ireland, unlike 99% of the Trump outrage.

yagan

I don't think there's any issue if you look at it from a continental EU point of view. A portion of the AZ vax reserved for the EU went to the UK and threatening A16 is a warning to other manufacturers to stick to their delivery contract and desist from first come first serve butchers stall bartering.

It is ironic to see the DUP in a heap about the EU nearly invoking what they've been demanding from London for the last month, but I don't understand is the fuss from Micheal Martin as A16 would not have stopped the UK assignments of procured vaccines from rollout in NI. This talk of an EU hostile act is hollow coming from a political party still has not signed up the Belfast agreement.

The problem at heart is AstraZenica mixing the EU and UK consignments as if they're one contract. NI is febrile as always, but on the continent the application of a ****ty stick on contract sliding is the big message.

I'm still shocked Micheal Martin didn't grasp this, but only a few weeks ago he had to amend his comments in the Dail record when he tried to insist there wasn't a bank bailout. Which part of "your history is at our fingertips" does he not understand?

sondagefaux

tubercolossus wrote: »

This asymmetric outrage reminds me of the states, where Trump commits outrages day after day to deafening silence from his supporters, then they become prone to fits of the vapours and pearl-clutching the second Biden takes office.

The EU has been the adult in the room for the last 4 years as the UK's behaviour became increasingly irresponsible and its politicians shamed themselves. Then they lose their cool ONCE, make a misstep - quickly corrected - and the opposition and their craven supporters howl in fury. It looks to me like AZ are trying to serve two masters here. They over-promised the EU and made the mistake of appearing to prefer one customer over another, and they picked the smaller, weaker one. Was it because AZ is a British-Swedish company? Possibly. What they should do now is 'fess up to exaggerating their delivery capacity and adjust supply of the vaccine pro-rata to both the UK and EU.

AstraZeneca has screwed up. Their contracts with the UK and the EU contradict each other and their stipulation in their contract with the EU that no other contract would inhibit or prevent that EU contract from being fulfilled is a flat out lie.

As to why they've done it, let's just say their track record as a responsible corporation isn't the best...

AstraZeneca
By Philip Mattera

London-based pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca is the result of the 1999 merger of Britain’s Zeneca, a spinoff of the old Imperial Chemical Industries specializing in cancer medications, and Sweden’s Astra AB, which was best known for the ulcer and heartburn medication Prilosec. Since that deal, the combined company has been embroiled in numerous controversies over illegal marketing, product safety, anticompetitive behavior and tax avoidance.

Advertising and Marketing Controversies

In 2003 federal officials announced that AstraZeneca had pleaded guilty to criminal and civil charges relating to the illegal marketing of the prostate cancer drug Zoladex. The company agreed to pay $355 million, consisting of $64 million in criminal fines, a $266 million settlement of civil False Claims Act charges, and a $25 million settlement of fraud charges relating to state Medicaid programs.

...

Also in 2004, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found that AstraZeneca’s full-page newspaper advertisements defending the safety of its Crestor cholesterol medication were “false and misleading.” The warning letter sent by the agency to AstraZeneca took issue not only with what the company said about the drug but also the way it represented the FDA’s position on Crestor.

In 2010 the U.S. Justice Department announced that AstraZeneca would pay $520 million to resolve allegations that it illegally marketed its anti-psychotic drug Seroquel for uses not approved as safe and effective by the FDA. Under the terms of the settlement, $302 million of the total was to go to the federal government and $218 million to state Medicaid programs. Among other things, the company was accused of having paid doctors to give speeches and publish articles (ghostwritten by the company) promoting those unapproved uses. AstraZeneca agreed to sign a corporate integrity agreement regarding its future behavior. In 2011 AstraZeneca settled a related Seroquel case brought by state governments by agreeing to pay another $69 million.


Product Safety

...

In 2003 researchers at the University of Illinois-Chicago released the results of research concluding that AstraZeneca’s Seroquel and two other schizophrenia drugs made by other companies created an elevated risk for diabetes. Subsequently, more than 25,000 lawsuits were filed against the company. In 2010 the company said it would pay a total of $198 million to settle those cases.
...

Pricing and Anticompetitive Behavior
...

In 2003 the European Commission accused AstraZeneca of misusing patent rules to shield its ulcer drug Losec (Prilosec in the United States) from generic competitors. The company was charged with having misstated the year the drug was introduced in order to make it eligible for an extension of its exclusivity rights. In 2005 the commission fined AstraZeneca 60 million euros, a penalty which was upheld by the European Court of Justice in 2012.

In 2007 a federal judge ruled in a national class action case that AstraZeneca and two other companies had to pay damages in connection with overcharging Medicare and private insurance companies. The judge singled out AstraZeneca for acting “unfairly and deceptively” in its pricing of prostate cancer drug Zoladex. AstraZeneca was later hit with a $12.9 million judgment. In 2010 AstraZeneca agreed to pay $103 million to settle a national lawsuit accusing the company of overcharging for Zoladex and Pulmicort Respules asthma medication.

In 2009 AstraZeneca was one of four drug companies that entered into a settlement agreement under which they agreed to pay a total of $124 million to settle charges that they violated the federal False Claims Act by failing to provide required rebates to state Medicaid programs. AstraZeneca’s share of the total settlement amount was $2.6 million.

Employment Discrimination

In 1998 the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced that Astra U.S.A. would pay $9.85 million to settle sexual harassment allegations. The U.S. subsidiary’s president and chief executive had been charged with replacing mothers and older female employees with attractive young single women who were pressured into having sex with company executives.

In 2011 the U.S. Labor Department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs announced that AstraZeneca would pay $250,000 to settle allegations of pay discrimination in its treatment of 124 women at a company facility in Wayne, Pennsylvania.


Taxes and Accounting

In 2010 AstraZeneca agreed to pay £505 million to British revenue authorities to resolve a dispute related to the company’s use of transfer pricing techniques to reduce its tax liability.

In 2016 the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced that AstraZeneca would pay $5.5 million to settle a case alleging that it committed accounting violations in connection with improper payments made in Russia and China to boost drug sales.

https://www.corp-research.org/astrazeneca

See also:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/pharmaceutical-giant-astrazeneca-pay-520-million-label-drug-marketing

From 2020:

A Dutch court ruled that AstraZeneca charged health insurer Menzis "unjustifiably" high prices for its drug, Seroquel. The lawsuit, which was filed in 2018, says that AstraZeneca used a patent on the drug that had already been invalidated, blocking a large competitor from selling a generic version of Seroquel.

"AstraZeneca’s enforcement action has prevented competing products from entering the market. If there had been (competing products), Menzis could have chosen one or more of the cheaper variants, and the amounts to be reimbursed to its policyholders would have been considerably lower," the court wrote in a statement announcing its decision, according to STAT.

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/pharmacy/astrazeneca-loses-lawsuit-accusing-it-of-monopolizing-antipsychotic-drug.html

From 2021:

AstraZeneca is one of the largest biopharmaceutical companies in the world and was one of the early front-runners in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. In April 2020, the Company partnered with Oxford University to develop a potential recombinant adenovirus vaccine for the virus, later dubbed AZD1222.

On November 23, 2020, AstraZeneca issued a release announcing the results of an interim analysis of its ongoing trial for AZD1222. The announcement immediately began to raise questions among analysts and industry experts. AstraZeneca disclosed that the interim analysis involved two smaller scale trials in disparate locales (the United Kingdom and Brazil) that, for unexplained reasons, employed two different dosing regimens. One clinical trial provided patients a half dose of AZD1222 followed by a full dose, while the other trial provided two full doses. Counterintuitively, AstraZeneca claimed that the half dosing regimen was substantially more effective at preventing COVID-19 at 90% efficacy than the full dosing regimen, which had achieved just 62% efficacy.

In the days that followed, additional revelations were made regarding problems with AstraZeneca’s AZD1222 clinical trials. For example, the differing dosing regimens were revealed to be due to a manufacturing error rather than trial design. Also, the half-strength dose had not been tested in people over the age of 55 – despite the fact that this population was the most vulnerable to COVID-19. Moreover, certain trial participants received their second dose later than originally planned. U.S. regulators stated that if AstraZeneca could not clearly explain the discrepancies in its trial results, the results would most likely not be sufficient for approval for commercial sale in the United States.

https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/astrazeneca-alert-bragar-eagel-squire-pc-announces-that-a-class-action-lawsuit-has-been-filed-against-astrazeneca-plc-and-encourages-investors-to-contact-the-firm-2021-01-27-23159314

Enzokk

RobMc59 wrote: »

If you order something three months ago ,a kitchen for example,wouldn't you expect to get your kitchen before someone else who orders it three months after you?
Johnson and co have their faults but you can't blame the UK for a combination of EU ineptitude and astra zeneca's batch yields not as expected.

The interesting thing here is that this is a dispute between the EU and AZ and has nothing to do with the UK, other than they may be affected by the discussions that are happening.

The UK haven't done anything wrong here, but neither has the EU. They signed a contract to have vaccines delivered to them. The UK is receiving their end, the EU is not. So AZ will need to decide what it will do, if it wants to continue deliveries up to the schedule agreed with the UK but fall behind on the EU contract, that is up to them. But the EU will take the steps it deems necessary for what it believes is a breach of contract.

The other option is to put the UK words to the test. They keep saying they want to remain friends with the EU and want to be good neighbours, so as good neighbours work out a deal between all three to have every side get as much as they can and work with AZ to ramp up delivery as soon as possible. But I suspect a government that has only done one thing very well during this crises and not actually doing anything wrong, they will sit back and let this drama play out.

The end result of all this will be the Oxford-AstraZenica vaccine will suffer if there is a prolonged dispute. They will be taken to court where they will have to explain why they delivered on the UK contract but not the EU one when the wording is probably the same. Godo luck trying to get, "but they signed first" through a legal argument that you will deliver a certain amount by a certain time and no other contracts will impact this.

I hope this is the only drama this vaccine will face, however allowing the UK to space out the doses when this has not been tested may make this drama seem like small fry if a strain becomes vaccine resistant due to these actions. Lets hope the UK hasn't made life difficult for the world as this vaccine is needed for people that cannot afford the others.

Seth Brundle

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Sammy Wilson on Radio 1 now complaining about the difficulties of trading into and out of the single market all because of the arrangements that were agreed to by the British and Irish governments without any consultation with Northern politicians.

Prime "the leopards are my face" territory.

That just shows how little he knows about it. The Irish government didn't negotiate anything in terms of the TCA whilst he is part of the British government which was one side if the negotiations!

RobMc59

Enzokk wrote: »

The interesting this here is that this is a dispute between the EU and AZ and has nothing to do with the UK, other than they may be affected by the discussions that are happening.

The UK haven't done anything wrong here, but neither has the EU. They signed a contract to have vaccines delivered to them. The UK is receiving their end, the EU is not. So AZ will need to decide what it will do, if it wants to continue deliveries up to the schedule agreed with the UK but fall behind on the EU contract, that is up to them. But the EU will take the steps it deems necessary for what it believes is a breach of contract.

The other option is to put the UK words to the test. They keep saying they want to remain friends with the EU and want to be good neighbours, so as good neighbours work out a deal between all three to have every side get as much as they can and work with AZ to ramp up delivery as soon as possible. But I suspect a government that has only done one thing very well during this crises and not actually doing anything wrong, they will sit back and let this drama play out.

The end result of all this will be the Oxford-AstraZenica vaccine will suffer if there is a prolonged dispute. They will be taken to court where they will have to explain why they delivered on the UK contract but not the EU one when the wording is probably the same. Godo luck trying to get, "but they signed first" through a legal argument that you will deliver a certain amount by a certain time and no other contracts will impact this.

I hope this is the only drama this vaccine will face, however allowing the UK to space out the doses when this has not been tested may make this drama seem like small fry if a strain becomes vaccine resistant due to these actions. Lets hope the UK hasn't made life difficult for the world as this vaccine is needed for people that cannot afford the others.

You started very well in this post Enzokk but then fell back on the hive mentality/echo chamber anti UK sentiment prevalent on this thread.
Johnson and co have made some terrible decisions but how you can somehow blame the UK for what is an issue between the EU and astra zeneca is a mystery.I also wonder what a US not enamoured with the EU anyway will make of all this.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Please don't just paste tweets here. A post has been removed.

yagan

Enzokk wrote: »

I hope this is the only drama this vaccine will face, however allowing the UK to space out the doses when this has not been tested may make this drama seem like small fry if a strain becomes vaccine resistant due to these actions. Lets hope the UK hasn't made life difficult for the world as this vaccine is needed for people that cannot afford the others.

The AstraZeneca lack of testing over 65s compared to other vaccines is very alarming. Testing was halted before because of extreme adverse reactions so ultimately there is the real possibility that in the cohort deemed most vulnerable the AZ shot may actually do more harm than good and could be behind why their current death rate tail is so prolonged compared to previous declines.

Enzokk

RobMc59 wrote: »

You started very well in this post Enzokk but then fell back on the hive mentality/echo chamber anti UK sentiment prevalent on this thread.
Johnson and co have made some terrible decisions but how you can somehow blame the UK for what is an issue between the EU and astra zeneca is a mystery.I also wonder what a US not enamoured with the EU anyway will make of all this.

I am really worried about the decisions the UK has made in regards to the vaccinations. But that is not for now, let us all hope the worst doesn't happen as people are depending on the AZ vaccine.

What I am commenting on is your post. Why you are getting involved in a dispute between the EU and AZ and talking about kitchens ordered earlier is a mystery to me. Like you say this is not between the UK and the EU and AZ. If the UK did nothing wrong and neither did the EU in signing their contracts with the company and expecting them to fulfill their orders, why talk about when the UK signed its contract?

hahashake

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Mod: Please don't just paste tweets here. A post has been removed.

A Belgian lawyer's take: "I cannot conclude that the EU Commission has the upper hand when it comes to the contract and therefore the law. Rather the contrary".

ancapailldorcha

hahashake wrote: »

Fernand Keuleneer, Attorney at law, Brussels.

I can't share information pertinent to the discussion?

Mod: You can post tweets but posts should consist of a point your making yourself instead of just pasting links. Please do not discuss moderation any further on thread. Thanks.

hahashake

My point is, it seems the EU has acted rashly in this instance. I don't think that is a controversial opinion at this stage.

tubercolossus

hotmail.com wrote: »

Maybe the Trump lesson shows that getting outraged daily over Trump was a mistake.

This outrage actually affects Ireland, unlike 99% of the Trump outrage.

Or maybe we shouldn't be so provincial and one-eyed and realise that what he did affected the world of which we are a part.

Enzokk

hahashake wrote: »

My point is, it seems the EU has acted rashly in this instance. I don't think that is a controversial opinion at this stage.

Post the tweet and comment on it. How can we have a discussion based of nothing other than information which we don't know where it is from.

Like this,

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1355275112598167559?s=20

In this tweet it seems like the UK is keeping dialog with the EU Commission to ensure this doesn't boil over. I am glad they are keeping in touch and hopefully avoiding a misunderstanding between the EU and UK when the dispute is between the EU and AZ.

Do you see how it is done. Now post the link again and make your comment about it.

tubercolossus

RobMc59 wrote: »

If you order something three months ago ,a kitchen for example,wouldn't you expect to get your kitchen before someone else who orders it three months after you?
Johnson and co have their faults but you can't blame the UK for a combination of EU ineptitude and astra zeneca's batch yields not as expected.

How about if you order a prototype kitchen and when it arrives it's all wrong and the supplier says "don't worry, we have a proper one that someone else ordered but you can have it instead"?

tubercolossus

RobMc59 wrote: »

You started very well in this post Enzokk but then fell back on the hive mentality/echo chamber anti UK sentiment prevalent on this thread.
Johnson and co have made some terrible decisions but how you can somehow blame the UK for what is an issue between the EU and astra zeneca is a mystery.I also wonder what a US not enamoured with the EU anyway will make of all this.

Throwing terms like 'hive mentality' and 'echo chamber' around when it's actually just the case that nearly everyone disagrees with you and can back up their assertions with actual evidence is just intellectually lazy on your part. So I'd say your post started off poorly and got worse as it went on.