Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[hypochondriac]

45 minutes ago, aintforever said:

But if we have the expertise here to get it approved sooner, I’m not sure our government would tell them to slow down just because we were in the EU. I expect the emergency approval facility is there in EU law for exactly this scenario.

No that's not the issue. We agreed our contract with the companies in May which was three months before the EU commission agreed theirs. There were other European companies ready to agree at a similar time to us but the European Commission stepped in, extended the period of negotiations by months without adding much of substance and told all European companies not to do their own deals for vaccines. As a consequence, we were able to iron out kinks in our supply chain and manufacturing at an earlier point than the EU and therefore we have more vaccine available now. Had we been part of the EU procurement we would have allowed the commission to negotiate on our behalf and slowed down the entire process which would have resulted in us being in a similar situation to France or Germany now. 

Edited 30 January, 2021 by hypochondriac

[Portugalsaint]

50 minutes ago, aintforever said:

But if we have the expertise here to get it approved sooner, I’m not sure our government would tell them to slow down just because we were in the EU. I expect the emergency approval facility is there in EU law for exactly this scenario.

I read this morning that the Hungarians are going it alone and bought the vaccine from the Chinese!  Is this the vaccine that the Chinese experimented with in Brazil?

Edited 30 January, 2021 by Portugalsaint

[hypochondriac]

Wow this EU commission must be feeling really nervous about their chances at the next election. I bet the electorate can't wait to vote them out of office for doing such an awful job... Oh. 

[aintforever]

56 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

No that's not the issue. We agreed our contract with the companies in May which was three months before the EU commission agreed theirs. There were other European companies ready to agree at a similar time to us but the European Commission stepped in, extended the period of negotiations by months without adding much of substance and told all European companies not to do their own deals for vaccines. As a consequence, we were able to iron out kinks in our supply chain and manufacturing at an earlier point than the EU and therefore we have more vaccine available now. Had we been part of the EU procurement we would have allowed the commission to negotiate on our behalf and slowed down the entire process which would have resulted in us being in a similar situation to France or Germany now. 

No doubt the EU have made a mess of this but Germany and Hungary have sourced their own and they are in the EU.

I find all this nationalism quite pathetic to be honest, it’s a global problem and will need a global solution. The most vulnerable need to be vaccinated first wether they are English, French or African IMO.

Edited 30 January, 2021 by aintforever

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

No that's not the issue. We agreed our contract with the companies in May which was three months before the EU commission agreed theirs. There were other European companies ready to agree at a similar time to us but the European Commission stepped in, extended the period of negotiations by months without adding much of substance and told all European companies not to do their own deals for vaccines. As a consequence, we were able to iron out kinks in our supply chain and manufacturing at an earlier point than the EU and therefore we have more vaccine available now. Had we been part of the EU procurement we would have allowed the commission to negotiate on our behalf and slowed down the entire process which would have resulted in us being in a similar situation to France or Germany now. 

While the EU dithered, weighed down with red tape and bureaucracy we were stealth like and able to get the job done with the minimum of fuss. Some people are going to be really upset by this. I haven’t seen many retweets of articles about how much better where doing then the EU, with “quelle surprise” As a comment like we did during the All the reports about how terrible brexit was going to be. I wonder if all those who claimed they were leaving Britain after the referendum (but are still here) are glad they weren’t so hasty to up sticks now?

[aintforever]

15 minutes ago, Turkish said:

I wonder if all those who claimed they were leaving Britain after the referendum (but are still here) are glad they weren’t so hasty to up sticks now?

...if they are not part of the 104k

[The Kraken]

3 hours ago, CB Fry said:

The Irish Republic is tracking hugely behind the North which is a significant problem for our own common travel area.

If I was Boris I would be this morning offering to send enough vaccine to first-dose the 5 million people that live in Ireland, so they can quickly catch up to the rates we're working at.

Hell, if I was Boris I'd get myself pictured in a truck delivering it over the border. For the LOLZ.

While it would be an extremely Boris thing to do, and a big sticking up of the fingers to the EU, I think we know that right now it’s not something that is likely. UK Gov has consistently said that the only thing holding back getting jabs in arms is the supply rate; and that the UK has a priority to get the top 9 categories of people vaccinated as soon as possible (which is basically all risk groups and the over 50s). Boris would lose significant political capital from his base if he now prioritised European citizens over his own risk groups.

But you’re right that if we get a massive increase in supply capability, Boris will be on board the very first truck in to Ireland wearing his high viz and grinning like a loon.

[Fan The Flames]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Agreed. Either that or just set up vaccination centres in the North and invite the Irish to walk over the border and claim them. Would be a genius move but sadly I don't think they will. 

Regardless of whether anyone is pro brexit or not, I think everyone can agree that the EU under the leadership of VDL is an absolute shambles. They messed this vaccine procurement up ridiculously and have managed to turn the majority of the chattering class against then with this decision as well as undermine the careful narrative they've tried to construct for the past four years over NI. As many suspected, they only ever cared about Ireland when it suited them for negotiations and will quite happily throw them under the bus if they think it's beneficial. 

You are now doing all the screeching you said others would have done. Brilliant.

[whelk]

51 minutes ago, aintforever said:

No doubt the EU have made a mess of this but Germany and Hungary have sourced their own and they are in the EU.

I find all this nationalism quite pathetic to be honest, it’s a global problem and will need a global solution. The most vulnerable need to be vaccinated first wether they are English, French or African IMO.

You’d rather we gave the vaccine to a Chinese 80 yo before a UK 70 yo then? Easy to poo poo nationalism but not many will think like you

Edited 30 January, 2021 by whelk

[whelk]

2 hours ago, CB Fry said:

Thats why I said catch up to the same rate as us/Northern Ireland (11%) rather than where they are now (2% or whatever it us).

And pledge to deliver all of it (in the same we have been pledged to get enough for three times our population).

Obviously I don't mean vaccinate Irish 25 year olds tomorrow.

Still a nightmare logistically as presumably we have no data records on their population so would have to hand over on trust depleting our supply.

[Turkish]

27 minutes ago, aintforever said:

...if they are not part of the 104k

If they’ve left they wouldnt be part of the (but are still here) criteria now would they. This marks the 89th day in a row where you’ve tried to be clever and made yourself look stupid. Congratulations, quite an achievement 🤣

[aintforever]

2 minutes ago, whelk said:

You’d rather we gave a Chinese 80 before a UK 70 yo then? Easy to poo poo nationalism but not many will think like you

There’s obviously going to be an element of nationalism but we need a global plan to defeat this. Not just because it’s the right thing to do morally but the more it spreads, the more it mutates. If rich countries just stock pile millions and vaccinate their dogs while the poorer countries are left to fend for themselves then we could end up back to square one this time next year.

[badgerx16]

3 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Correct.

Sadly, you're wasting your time with Badger on this point - he will never agree!

The assertion was made that if we had not left the EU then we would have been compelled to use the group procedure, and that therefore Brexit benefitted the UK by enabling us to do our own thing. This assertion is patently wrong. Whether we would have done our own thing had Brexit not happened is moot, but the legal option to do so would have been there.

Edited 30 January, 2021 by badgerx16

[Fan The Flames]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Surely there's an important distinction here between what the UK would be legally allowed to do if brexit did not exist and what they would have done in reality? Surely no one is seriously suggesting they would have gone it alone if the rest of the EU were instructed to act together? 

So in this hypothetical situation has brexit never been a thing, was it a thing but thrashed in a referendum, a thing and narrowly defeated, who's in power, who's in charge of the political parties, how bad is covid, what was the government's covid record like. Surely no one is seriously suggesting that there is only one answer.

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

No doubt the EU have made a mess of this but Germany and Hungary have sourced their own and they are in the EU.

 

Surely not, this is an option that only becomes available after leaving the bloc.

[Guided Missile]

A letter they shouldn't have posted:

[hypochondriac]

49 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

You are now doing all the screeching you said others would have done. Brilliant.

Hi Fan the Flames. Your definition of screeching is unusual to say the least. What's your thoughts on this action taken by the EU commission? It's interesting that some who supported remain like whelk can clearly see that brexit has had a clear and demonstrable benefit and that this has been an absolute disaster for the commission. Its quote telling those who can't admit what is staring them in the face. 

[Lighthouse]

44 minutes ago, aintforever said:

There’s obviously going to be an element of nationalism but we need a global plan to defeat this. Not just because it’s the right thing to do morally but the more it spreads, the more it mutates. If rich countries just stock pile millions and vaccinate their dogs while the poorer countries are left to fend for themselves then we could end up back to square one this time next year.

I’m not saying that we should stockpile but in terms of spreading and mutations, I’d have thought the thinner you spread the vaccines, the weaker the boost you get from herd immunity.

 

Supposing you have two countries with 100 million people and 70 million vaccines which are 100% effective. If you give country A all of them and B none, you’ve basically protected 100m people with 70m vaccines. Whereas if you gave them 35m each, both countries would still have 65m people spreading and mutating the virus.

[hypochondriac]

50 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Surely not, this is an option that only becomes available after leaving the bloc.

So if that's the case, why are Germany and Hungary so behind with the vaccination rates and why is the EU commission so clearly in such a state of desparate panic? 

[Fan The Flames]

8 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Hi Fan the Flames. Your definition of screeching is unusual to say the least. What's your thoughts on this action taken by the EU commission? It's interesting that some who supported remain like whelk can clearly see that brexit has had a clear and demonstrable benefit and that this has been an absolute disaster for the commission. Its quote telling those who can't admit what is staring them in the face. 

I've already stated that the EU have fucked up vaccine procurement wheresas amongst the clusterfuck it's been a positive for our government.

Procurement has been a truimph and has been superbly backed up by delivery, which in the main has been undertaken by the public sector and built on long standing local healthcare and vaccine services. Nice to see the government moving away from central top down roll out with clueless private sector companies and chumocracy bureaucrats. The EU could learn a lesson.

What would have happened if we were still in is anyones guess.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, Fan The Flames said:

So in this hypothetical situation has brexit never been a thing, was it a thing but thrashed in a referendum, a thing and narrowly defeated, who's in power, who's in charge of the political parties, how bad is covid, what was the government's covid record like. Surely no one is seriously suggesting that there is only one answer.

"thing"

[Whitey Grandad]

59 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I’m not saying that we should stockpile but in terms of spreading and mutations, I’d have thought the thinner you spread the vaccines, the weaker the boost you get from herd immunity.

 

Supposing you have two countries with 100 million people and 70 million vaccines which are 100% effective. If you give country A all of them and B none, you’ve basically protected 100m people with 70m vaccines. Whereas if you gave them 35m each, both countries would still have 65m people spreading and mutating the virus.

But the spread amongst the 65m would be greatly reduced and would die out more quickly. Assuming an even distribution of course.

[buctootim]

48 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

I've already stated that the EU have fucked up vaccine procurement wheresas amongst the clusterfuck it's been a positive for our government.

Procurement has been a truimph and has been superbly backed up by delivery, which in the main has been undertaken by the public sector and built on long standing local healthcare and vaccine services. Nice to see the government moving away from central top down roll out with clueless private sector companies and chumocracy bureaucrats. The EU could learn a lesson.

What would have happened if we were still in is anyones guess.

They haven't fucked up to be fair. There has been a huge slice of luck in who has come out smelling of roses and who has come out smelling of the fertiliser. Britain, the US and the EU all acted promptly to get orders in. The EU have been unlucky in that their portfolio of suppliers have had more problems whether by the vaccine not working or production problems.  Britain planned well but its also been lucky. If the Oxford vaccine had failed but the Pasteur Institute one had worked the situation would be totally reversed and we'd be the ones wailing. 

 

  

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

The assertion was made that if we had not left the EU then we would have been compelled to use the group procedure, and that therefore Brexit benefitted the UK by enabling us to do our own thing. This assertion is patently wrong. Whether we would have done our own thing had Brexit not happened is moot, but the legal option to do so would have been there.

I will readily admit that I have not seen the legal text of the agreement that the 27 member countries signed regarding vaccine purchase, however, I'm working on the premise that the EU President HAS.  She had this to say about it :

Quote

Less than two hours before Kautz's statement, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen confirmed that countries cannot sign separate deals.

“It’s legally binding,” she said. “We have all agreed, legally binding, that there will be no parallel negotiations, no parallel contracts … We’re all working together.”

I've highlighted the bits that could be construed as relevant.

More info can be found here

The fact that the EU is refusing to even acknowledge that Germany has made purchases outside of the legally binding contracts is very telling - although I guess since they are the only ones with the keys to the bank vaults they are getting a little bit of 'special' treatment  

Quote

But news of Germany's extra deal with BioNTech (and another with CureVac) has fueled EU anger, adding to the criticism Berlin is receiving on its own turf, and revealing the first crack in the country's vaccination strategy — even if the deal happened back in September to little fanfare.

The Commission, in response, has largely refused to acknowledge Germany's contradictory actions.

 

[buctootim]

3 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

No that's not the issue. We agreed our contract with the companies in May which was three months before the EU commission agreed theirs. 

That's untrue. The negotiations and contract signings were sequential. Britain agreed with Oxford first because it was domestic just as the EU agreed with Pasteur and BioNTech first.  

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I will readily admit that I have not seen the legal text of the agreement that the 27 member countries signed regarding vaccine purchase, however, I'm working on the premise that the EU President HAS.  She had this to say about it :

I've highlighted the bits that could be construed as relevant.

More info can be found here

The fact that the EU is refusing to even acknowledge that Germany has made purchases outside of the legally binding contracts is very telling - although I guess since they are the only ones with the keys to the bank vaults they are getting a little bit of 'special' treatment  

 

Rules for thee but not for me. Are the EU 27 really all in it together? 

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, buctootim said:

That's untrue. The negotiations and contract signings were sequential. Britain agreed with Oxford first because it was domestic just as the EU agreed with Pasteur and BioNTech first.  

Are you saying that individual member states would have been unable to sign deals for the Oxford vaccine prior to the EU commission's deal three months after the UK? Because that's what member states have said. There was a really thorough article about it that I can't find at the moment. The spectator has alluded to it here: 

https://youtu.be/CT-HxrfC4Wc

Edited 30 January, 2021 by hypochondriac

[Weston Super Saint]

3 minutes ago, buctootim said:

That's untrue. The negotiations and contract signings were sequential. Britain agreed with Oxford first because it was domestic just as the EU agreed with Pasteur and BioNTech first.  

I think the issue is more to do with the volume of vaccines in the agreements.

For example, the EU only increased their order for the Oxford vaccine in January once it had been proven to work - other countries had ardered significantly more than the EU before that date, so theoretically should receive what they ordered (as well as the EU receiving it's initial order), before the EU receives its 'top up' order.

Although there was a comment from the EU the other day disagreeing that the vaccine should be distributed on a 'first come, first served' basis.  I assume they want to be able to have their cake and eat it....

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

I’m not saying that we should stockpile but in terms of spreading and mutations, I’d have thought the thinner you spread the vaccines, the weaker the boost you get from herd immunity.

 

Supposing you have two countries with 100 million people and 70 million vaccines which are 100% effective. If you give country A all of them and B none, you’ve basically protected 100m people with 70m vaccines. Whereas if you gave them 35m each, both countries would still have 65m people spreading and mutating the virus.

You might be right but my point is the best way to defeat the virus is with a cohesive global plan, not individual countries just thinking for themselves. At this early stage the most important thing is getting jabs in arms though so hopefully there will be more international cooperation later on.

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I will readily admit that I have not seen the legal text of the agreement that the 27 member countries signed regarding vaccine purchase, however, I'm working on the premise that the EU President HAS.  She had this to say about it :

I've highlighted the bits that could be construed as relevant.

More info can be found here

The fact that the EU is refusing to even acknowledge that Germany has made purchases outside of the legally binding contracts is very telling - although I guess since they are the only ones with the keys to the bank vaults they are getting a little bit of 'special' treatment  

 

The EU27, in response to Covid, came to a collective, and supposedly binding, agreement regarding the procurement of the vaccines. They chose to do this despite there being provision in EU statute to permit a member state to go it alone. If the UK had not departed, and had the pandemic still occurred, the UK would have had a simple and clear choice - make it's own provision or go with the collective. EU law in no way prohibits the former, ergo, Brexit had no bearing on the vaccine program. No matter how it is dressed up, this is the way of it.

[hypochondriac]

17 minutes ago, buctootim said:

That's untrue. The negotiations and contract signings were sequential. Britain agreed with Oxford first because it was domestic just as the EU agreed with Pasteur and BioNTech first.  

Here's the (excellent) article I was referring to which lays it all out. The "inclusive vaccine alliance" had an agreement for the Oxford vaccine prior to the commission getting involved and they were persuaded to give up their head start to allow the commission to negotiate for the whole EU instead: 

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-coronavirus-vaccine-struggle-pfizer-biontech-astrazeneca/amp/

"EU27 health ministers signed off on a Commission plan to buy on their behalf on June 12. But the Franco-German initiative continued to press forward, having invited the Netherlands and Italy to join their buyers’ club. On June 13, the quartet — known as the “Inclusive Vaccine Alliance” — announced a deal for between 300 million and 400 million doses of the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab."

 

So as I said, some of the big EU countries had secured hundreds of millions of doses in mid June. Then the EU commission got involved and they didn't secure any agreements until two months later. Those two months have clearly been key as the UK have been able to iron out kinks in their supply chain earlier than the EU have been able to. 

Edited 30 January, 2021 by hypochondriac

[The Kraken]

13 minutes ago, aintforever said:

You might be right but my point is the best way to defeat the virus is with a cohesive global plan, not individual countries just thinking for themselves. At this early stage the most important thing is getting jabs in arms though so hopefully there will be more international cooperation later on.

It’s a theoretical nightmare for how you prioritise though. Who should get the most priority? If you assign shots based on population size, it seems “fair” that everyone gets assigned the same number per head. But do you then take the case rate and/or the death rate into account? Belgium have got the highest death rate in Europe at 182 deaths per 100,000, whereas Norway and Iceland are at 10 and 8 respectively. It surely makes sense to prioritise the trouble spots, but then those countries who have kept the virus down are “punished” by not getting enough jabs for their needy. Whichever way it goes, it can be argued to be unfair.

The bunfight between EU and UK has been unedifying, and there’s definitely an essence of “I’m alright jack” in the British approach.  But as a Uk citizen I take the selfish POV and I’m obviously glad they’ve done it this way, and certainly relieved that the country’s top 4 high risk groups will have received the vaccine by mid February.

Edited 30 January, 2021 by The Kraken

[Weston Super Saint]

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

The EU27, in response to Covid, came to a collective, and supposedly binding, agreement regarding the procurement of the vaccines. They chose to do this despite there being provision in EU statute to permit a member state to go it alone. If the UK had not departed, and had the pandemic still occurred, the UK would have had a simple and clear choice - make it's own provision or go with the collective. EU law in no way prohibits the former, ergo, Brexit had no bearing on the vaccine program. No matter how it is dressed up, this is the way of it.

Yes, absolutely, in theory, you are one million percent correct.

In practice, way off the mark!

Funding for the EU purchasing agreement comes from the Emergency Support Instrument that ALL member states contribute to.  Whilst it would have been legal for a country to go their own way (nobody has ever disputed that as a fact!), in practice it wouldn't have happened.

Unless of course you think the had Brexit not happened, the UK would have decided to forge ahead, secure its own vaccine deals, pay for them in full, whilst still contributing to the Emergency Support Instrument (unless you think the EU would have given a refund in this instance, you know, what with them being so kind and caring)?

The assertion, therefore, is that the UK would have been compelled to join the purchasing scheme so as not to waste money it had paid into the fund that is paying for it - I imagine this is the same for the existing 27 member states, who also 'could' have said no, but for some strange reason have all agreed!

[buctootim]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Here's the (excellent) article I was referring to which lays it all out. The "inclusive vaccine alliance" had an agreement for the Oxford vaccine prior to the commission getting involved and they were persuaded to give up their head start to allow the commission to negotiate for the whole EU instead: 

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-coronavirus-vaccine-struggle-pfizer-biontech-astrazeneca/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwjwhpnh5MPuAhWltlkKHSZMB7gQFjALegQIExAB&usg=AOvVaw2W8A7b6MzjjHqP9pIreXYl&ampcf=1

 

I've just had a quick read of that. Seems like a decent synopsis. As I said elsewhere there has been a large degree of luck about which of the horses backed has come home. The other two issues for the EU is that 1. politically it would be untenable for some member countries, say Germany, to be fully vaccinated and others like the Baltics or Cyprus to be left behind and 2. It's harder to secure supplies for 450 million people than it is for 65 million 

[hypochondriac]

12 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

The EU27, in response to Covid, came to a collective, and supposedly binding, agreement regarding the procurement of the vaccines. They chose to do this despite there being provision in EU statute to permit a member state to go it alone. If the UK had not departed, and had the pandemic still occurred, the UK would have had a simple and clear choice - make it's own provision or go with the collective. EU law in no way prohibits the former, ergo, Brexit had no bearing on the vaccine program. No matter how it is dressed up, this is the way of it.

Be honest. If Britain had still been in the EU then its incredibly likely that they would have joined with the likes of Germany, France, Italy, Spain etc in this scheme. To suggest otherwise makes you look like one of those FBPE people on twitter. It's clearly fortunate from a brexiteer point of view that this has happened but I'd much rather there was enough vaccine for everyone at this point then it wouldn't be an issue. 

[buctootim]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Be honest. If Britain had still been in the EU then its incredibly likely that they would have joined with the likes of Germany, France, Italy, Spain etc in this scheme. To suggest otherwise makes you look like one of those FBPE people on twitter. It's clearly fortunate from a brexiteer point of view that this has happened but I'd much rather there was enough vaccine for everyone at this point then it wouldn't be an issue. 

Probably, although you could also argue that the approach might have been different if Britain had been contributing to the discussions.  Essentially its two different philosophies - the EU / WHO approach of trying to make sure every member or country gets an equitable share based on need. Or the nationalistic grab led by the US and Britain. As Kraken says on another post, you can be happy to benefit from that system because as Brits we've done well out of it. It doesn't neccessarily mean its the right one though.   

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, buctootim said:

I've just had a quick read of that. Seems like a decent synopsis. As I said elsewhere there has been a large degree of luck about which of the horses backed has come home. The other two issues for the EU is that 1. politically it would be untenable for some member countries, say Germany, to be fully vaccinated and others like the Baltics or Cyprus to be left behind and 2. It's harder to secure supplies for 450 million people than it is for 65 million 

So it wasn't incorrect for me to state that the EU commission stepping in and slowing everything down hasn't slowed vaccine procurement down in a number of EU countries? 

The rest of your post I agree with. The fact that the EU countries would have taken the view about it being untenable just underlines why we wouldn't have gone alone had we still been part of the EU. Individual countries looking out for their own interests, able to create deals tailored to their own individual circumstances and able to move quickly in this instance is demonstrably a superior thing here. 

[hypochondriac]

9 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Probably, although you could also argue that the approach might have been different if Britain had been contributing to the discussions.  Essentially its two different philosophies - the EU / WHO approach of trying to make sure every member or country gets an equitable share based on need. Or the nationalistic grab led by the US and Britain. As Kraken says on another post, you can be happy to benefit from that system because as Brits we've done well out of it. It doesn't neccessarily mean its the right one though.   

I don't see how it would have been. The EU was much slower to negotiate because it insisted on controlling things and because it prioritised cost and legal details at a time when speed and amount of vaccine was what should have been prioritised. It was the EU commission that insisted on negotiating on behalf of all the member states. Had Britain been a member still they wouldn't have had any impact on the negotiations because they wouldn't have been involved in them. Even if they had managed to get more vaccine, it would have been shared out across the whole block and they would undoubtedly have received much less at a far later date as a consequence. 

It's easy to talk of noble and lofty goals about donating all our vaccine and sharing it out to others but personally I'd take a bit of so called nationalism if it gets my older relatives and friends with underlying conditions vaccinated and safer a few months sooner. Also if it allows us to go and socialise again sooner too. The main benefit of this unedifying episode is that it's highlighted the folly of giant beauracratic super-states in an emergency (once again after the ppe fiasco from earlier in the crisis) and shown why many thought that Britain was better off out of it. 

Edited 30 January, 2021 by hypochondriac

[buctootim]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I don't see how it would have been. The EU was much slower to negotiate because it insisted on controlling things and because it prioritised cost and legal details at a time when speed and amount of vaccine was what should have been prioritised. It was the EU commission that insisted on negotiating on behalf of all the member states. Had Britain been a member still they wouldn't have had any impact on the negotiations because they wouldn't have been involved in them. Even if they had managed to get more vaccine, it would have been shared out across the whole block and they would undoubtedly have received much less at a far later date as a consequence. 

I agree in principle. Acting in concert for 27 members is a great way to maintain unity, get bulk purchasing power, have heft in negotiations etc. But its not great for situations like this which benefit from being nimble / fast.    

[aintforever]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I don't see how it would have been. The EU was much slower to negotiate because it insisted on controlling things and because it prioritised cost and legal details at a time when speed and amount of vaccine was what should have been prioritised. It was the EU commission that insisted on negotiating on behalf of all the member states. Had Britain been a member still they wouldn't have had any impact on the negotiations because they wouldn't have been involved in them. Even if they had managed to get more vaccine, it would have been shared out across the whole block and they would undoubtedly have received much less at a far later date as a consequence. 

None of that would have stopped our scientists approving the vaccine when they did though, we would have sourced our own as well, like Germany and Hungary were able to.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, buctootim said:

I agree in principle. Acting in concert for 27 members is a great way to maintain unity, get bulk purchasing power, have heft in negotiations etc. But its not great for situations like this which benefit from being nimble / fast.    

Yes I agree. Hopefully if there's another crisis of this magnitude, EU member states will recognise the value of being an independent sovereign nation. Let's hope so. 

[buctootim]

10 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

So it wasn't incorrect for me to state that the EU commission stepping in and slowing everything down hasn't slowed vaccine procurement down in a number of EU countries? 

Your post made it appear as though you were saying the UK signed a raft of agreements with various companies all in one go and the EU didnt do the same until three months later. What happened is that deals were in a different sequence. Yes the UK signed the AZ deal three months ahead but the EU signed other deals ahead of the UK.  

[hypochondriac]

9 minutes ago, aintforever said:

None of that would have stopped our scientists approving the vaccine when they did though, we would have sourced our own as well, like Germany and Hungary were able to.

As I already pointed out to you (and as shown in the incredibly detailed politico article I linked above.), the approval of the vaccine is not what is causing the issue, it is that the EU commission insisted on stepping in and delaying negotiations for two months which meant that supply chain problems had less time to be resolved. Had the EU approved the vaccine at the same time as the UK, they would still be facing the exact same supply chain problems that they are now. 

 

Germany and Hungary have not secured nearly enough of alternative vaccines and they have only done so after it became clear that the EUs own scheme was woefully inadequate and its why both countries are miles behind others in terms of their vaccine rollout. The UK would be in a similar position had they joined the EU scheme (which they obviously would have done had they still been in the EU. 

 

 

Edited 30 January, 2021 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Your post made it appear as though you were saying the UK signed a raft of agreements with various companies all in one go and the EU didnt do the same until three months later. What happened is that deals were in a different sequence. Yes the UK signed the AZ deal three months ahead but the EU signed other deals ahead of the UK.  

No I said that many member states were in a position to sign an Oxford agreement months before they actually did but the EU commission persuaded them not to do so. That is what has caused the majority of the present issues. The efficacy of the French jabs wouldn't really have mattered had they sorted out their supply chain issues for the Oxford jab so that they were receiving their doses from their own supply chains at a similar rate to Britain. 

Edited 30 January, 2021 by hypochondriac

[Fan The Flames]

41 minutes ago, buctootim said:

That's untrue. The negotiations and contract signings were sequential. Britain agreed with Oxford first because it was domestic just as the EU agreed with Pasteur and BioNTech first.  

And the Pfizer-BioNTech one came out first, the EU should have been able to hit the ground running.

Government's supported their local providers to finance the vaccine effort, because that was the best way to accelerate vaccine development. Government's then went on and bought options across the board to hedge their bets. So the EU could have been better placed.

[Fan The Flames]

54 minutes ago, buctootim said:

I agree in principle. Acting in concert for 27 members is a great way to maintain unity, get bulk purchasing power, have heft in negotiations etc. But its not great for situations like this which benefit from being nimble / fast.    

Why?

It wasn't the fact that 27 negotiated as one that slowed them down, it was their style of negotiating.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Tim’s right, there was luck involved.

 

Luckily 52% of us voted to leave the fuckfest. 
 

Anyone who thinks Cameron & his soft arsed Europhile buddies, europhile civil service & europhile parliament wouldn’t have thrown their all in with the EU vaccination program, is deluded.

[hypochondriac]

22 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Tim’s right, there was luck involved.

 

Luckily 52% of us voted to leave the fuckfest. 
 

Anyone who thinks Cameron & his soft arsed Europhile buddies, europhile civil service & europhile parliament wouldn’t have thrown their all in with the EU vaccination program, is deluded.

TBF I think most people who voted remain would agree with that. Those who continue to argue the point are clearly the remaniacs and Owen Jones guardianista types who would back the EU whatever happened. 

[egg]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55845067

Very poor. Our tariff and quota free arrangement is far from it. Tata steel UK employs 8,000 people. With these tariffs and quotas, that looks at risk. 

Even more worrying is that British exports to NI get included in the quota. 

Some "free trade" deal that is. 

The notion that we'll go back and get something from the EU is fanciful, especially after the vaccine stuff. 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, egg said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55845067

Very poor. Our tariff and quota free arrangement is far from it. Tata steel UK employs 8,000 people. With these tariffs and quotas, that looks at risk. 

Even more worrying is that British exports to NI get included in the quota. 

Some "free trade" deal that is. 

The notion that we'll go back and get something from the EU is fanciful, especially after the vaccine stuff. 

Did you not see this coming?  The Government posted guidelines in November 2020 as steel falls under the 'rules of origin' category for the most part.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/changes-to-the-level-of-eu-steel-safeguard-quotas-tariff-stop-press-notice-45

The EU introduced the measures as far back as 2018, so plenty of time to prepare...

https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=2161

Quote

The Commission introduced the initial safeguard measures on steel imports in July 2018. The measures aim to prevent economic damage for European steel producers, given the risk of import increases related to the introduction of trade restrictions by the US on steel and aluminum products.