By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 13:11 - Jan 26 by Herbivore
Precisely this. The likes of Paz would be at half mast if the UK put in place similar measures to try to ensure we got our order fulfilled. It's a dick move, but the kind of dick move Brexiteers would literally jizz themselves over if the boot was on the other foot.
Not all Brexiteers. I don’t think friends of mine who voted leave would think that way. There were nutters at both ends of the leave/remain debate from berks like Gideon Osborne predicting economic armageddon the day after the 2016 vote to Farage, Mark Francois and the rest of the swivel eyed loons.
The debate here is about a bloc trying to exercise its muscle, potentially at the expense of others, because it’s messed up and is trying to rectify it.
If I was the government, I would be approaching US company Pfizer to set up a production facility in the U.K. ASAP, because if the EU is going to try and restrict trade, why not offer Pfizer the chance to produce their vaccines outside it? A business opportunity for a multinational company? Just a thought.
8
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 13:57 - Jan 26 with 2089 views
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 13:49 - Jan 26 by Churchman
Not all Brexiteers. I don’t think friends of mine who voted leave would think that way. There were nutters at both ends of the leave/remain debate from berks like Gideon Osborne predicting economic armageddon the day after the 2016 vote to Farage, Mark Francois and the rest of the swivel eyed loons.
The debate here is about a bloc trying to exercise its muscle, potentially at the expense of others, because it’s messed up and is trying to rectify it.
If I was the government, I would be approaching US company Pfizer to set up a production facility in the U.K. ASAP, because if the EU is going to try and restrict trade, why not offer Pfizer the chance to produce their vaccines outside it? A business opportunity for a multinational company? Just a thought.
Playing devils advocate, but they've ordered the same vaccines from the same companies as us, AZ and Pfizer? The issue of not approving the AZ one yet and so being behind on vaccination rates is their fault, but the supply issue isn't. It's companies failing to fulfill their agreed orders. In the case of AZ it seems to rub them up the wrong way as it appears AZ are favouring the UK over EU.
0
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 14:06 - Jan 26 with 2051 views
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 13:49 - Jan 26 by Churchman
Not all Brexiteers. I don’t think friends of mine who voted leave would think that way. There were nutters at both ends of the leave/remain debate from berks like Gideon Osborne predicting economic armageddon the day after the 2016 vote to Farage, Mark Francois and the rest of the swivel eyed loons.
The debate here is about a bloc trying to exercise its muscle, potentially at the expense of others, because it’s messed up and is trying to rectify it.
If I was the government, I would be approaching US company Pfizer to set up a production facility in the U.K. ASAP, because if the EU is going to try and restrict trade, why not offer Pfizer the chance to produce their vaccines outside it? A business opportunity for a multinational company? Just a thought.
"If I was the government, I would be approaching US company Pfizer to set up a production facility in the U.K. ASAP, because if the EU is going to try and restrict trade, why not offer Pfizer the chance to produce their vaccines outside it? A business opportunity for a multinational company? Just a thought."
Here in the UK we're in the mess we're in because people like you are far, far too bright to be in the govt!
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 14:01 - Jan 26 by Kievthegreat
Playing devils advocate, but they've ordered the same vaccines from the same companies as us, AZ and Pfizer? The issue of not approving the AZ one yet and so being behind on vaccination rates is their fault, but the supply issue isn't. It's companies failing to fulfill their agreed orders. In the case of AZ it seems to rub them up the wrong way as it appears AZ are favouring the UK over EU.
It’s not even Devil’s Advocate. These are suppliers who aren’t meeting agreed levels – and not just by a little bit.
We started vaccinating early so there’s an illusion that it’s not our problem. But based on commitments and the global nature of the pandemic then I can’t see how the manufacturing/supply issues don’t catch up with our own vaccination rollout.
Pronouns: He/Him
0
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 14:10 - Jan 26 with 2036 views
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 08:48 - Jan 26 by Herbivore
I don't agree with the EU's actions, but let's be real here, if the UK was proposing to tighten up exports of the vaccine to help ensure its own orders were fulfilled you'd be loving it. You'd be justifying it on the grounds we need to look after our own, so long as our own doesn't include hungry school children, people of colour, or the LGBTQ community. So maybe step off your high horse and leave this kind of thing for the grown ups to talk about.
Not sure we've helped ourselves here with all sorts of stories in the media about having 20m+ vaccines waiting to go etc. I don't like what the EU are doing but I think we would be doing the same if it was the other way around and the EU seemed to have loads and we had barely any.
I hope the production is able to be scaled up. We're all in this together, the entire world. If the EU not having vaccines creates a mutant we might all be at risk. Not to mention European lives being lost.
It's just a sh1t situation. Everyone is worried and trying to protect their people the best they can.
Edit: Not to mention the needless and silly comments in press briefings about doing more vaccines than the rest of Europe combined etc. It really is needless goading which was bound to have some sort of response eventually. It's amazing that no one in government thought hang on a minute, this is a really bad idea. You don't leave the gang and then start badmouthing them. Talk about putting a target on your back.
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 13:57 - Jan 26 by Herbivore
Although had we remained we wouldn't be a third country, so wouldn't be impacted by this move. Doesn't quite work, but a decent effort.
Plus many of us who voted to Remain were in the "Remain and Reform from the inside" camp. This is a good example of the need for reform in some of the ways that the EU operates.
Of course if Remain had won then the Oxford vaccine would also have been an EU vaccine and would have been more of a first choice option for them.
But let's not get away from it: this is a political and public relations disaster for the EU. Brexit Britain has been better at acquiring the vaccine as a Third Country than the EU has as a bloc. That's not an easy sell to those making waves in many member countries.
The simple answer is "Boris lucked out that the Oxford vaccine worked first time, the French took a different approach and it didn't pay off." That's not down to any clever strategy from Boris or lack of such a strategy from the EU. It's simply down to the fact that Professor Sarah Gilbert's career path had her in Oxford at this point, rather than Zurich or Massachusetts or any other world top ten University.
But in simple terms: Boris won, von der Leyden lost. The nuances of "Why?" will be lost.
What I don't understand is why every country's regulator needs to do their own testing and approval of the vaccines, is it not enough for just say France,German or Italy to approve a vaccine and for the remaining EU countries to accept that?
And on that basis, why not just trust our regulator, the MHRA? Surely before brexit they were considered trustworthy, why not now?
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 14:09 - Jan 26 by Darth_Koont
It’s not even Devil’s Advocate. These are suppliers who aren’t meeting agreed levels – and not just by a little bit.
We started vaccinating early so there’s an illusion that it’s not our problem. But based on commitments and the global nature of the pandemic then I can’t see how the manufacturing/supply issues don’t catch up with our own vaccination rollout.
Oh I think it is bound to. I think the first priority though is to do as many as possible in the next 3 weeks. That will not only save lives (I hope) but reduce the pressure on the NHS too. Reading about the truly awful situation in Brazil and in some parts of the US, it’s got to be the priority. By starting early, there’s now a chance it can be done.
That in turn puts the U.K. in a better position for the next priority groups to be vaccinated. But this is where the point you make is pertinent as I suspect that’s where any slowdown will come, if there is any.
In the long term, the manufacturers will be able to supply more than enough with Moderna and others coming into play, in addition to factories up scaling and no doubt Sanofi will be in play by the end of the year.
0
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 14:48 - Jan 26 with 1940 views
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 14:24 - Jan 26 by Bent_double
What I don't understand is why every country's regulator needs to do their own testing and approval of the vaccines, is it not enough for just say France,German or Italy to approve a vaccine and for the remaining EU countries to accept that?
And on that basis, why not just trust our regulator, the MHRA? Surely before brexit they were considered trustworthy, why not now?
It's all down to Brexit. The Eu's regulatory authority was based in the UK. Not everyone transferred with the organization when it moved across the channel.
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 14:48 - Jan 26 by Pinewoodblue
It's all down to Brexit. The Eu's regulatory authority was based in the UK. Not everyone transferred with the organization when it moved across the channel.
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 14:24 - Jan 26 by Bent_double
What I don't understand is why every country's regulator needs to do their own testing and approval of the vaccines, is it not enough for just say France,German or Italy to approve a vaccine and for the remaining EU countries to accept that?
And on that basis, why not just trust our regulator, the MHRA? Surely before brexit they were considered trustworthy, why not now?
I don’t understand why the WHO can’t test and approve rather than having separate regulatory bodies going at their own pace and effecting the pace of vaccine distribution in turn.
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 09:02 - Jan 26 by ArnoldMoorhen
In this thread I can see some Remainers criticising the EUs position on this.
It's possible to wish we were a member of the EU generally, and yet not support it unconditionally.
It's possible to be a supporter of a particular political position, and yet not feel the need to defend the indefensible.
You should try it some time.
This, many times over.
Tribalism is boll*cks- shame to see so many people have blindly fallen into an inability to think objectively - not their fault though, it is the way the modern world seeks to manipulate us.
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 15:21 - Jan 26 by pointofblue
I don’t understand why the WHO can’t test and approve rather than having separate regulatory bodies going at their own pace and effecting the pace of vaccine distribution in turn.
Self interest. I mean the WHO is currently having issues being allowed into facilities in Wuhan to investigate the origins of the Coronavirus outbreak. Donald Trump threatens to withdraw funding because of it's conduct in the early stages. Then there are decisions about standards differing throughout the world. It's a nightmare for the WHO caught between doctors and scientists wanting to do the best they can while being used as a political tool or weapon.
0
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 15:36 - Jan 26 with 1831 views
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 14:48 - Jan 26 by Pinewoodblue
It's all down to Brexit. The Eu's regulatory authority was based in the UK. Not everyone transferred with the organization when it moved across the channel.
I believe that the MHRA operated a ‘rolling review’ as vaccine(s) were being developed and that was crucial in the speed their approval. The EU didn’t.
0
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 15:38 - Jan 26 with 1827 views
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 14:09 - Jan 26 by Darth_Koont
It’s not even Devil’s Advocate. These are suppliers who aren’t meeting agreed levels – and not just by a little bit.
We started vaccinating early so there’s an illusion that it’s not our problem. But based on commitments and the global nature of the pandemic then I can’t see how the manufacturing/supply issues don’t catch up with our own vaccination rollout.
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 15:21 - Jan 26 by pointofblue
I don’t understand why the WHO can’t test and approve rather than having separate regulatory bodies going at their own pace and effecting the pace of vaccine distribution in turn.
Because testing and regulation are rightly massive operations and serious processes in their own right. The WHO doesn’t have the budget nor the experience.
Clearly needs must and we’ve cut corners in the vaccine authorisation for the greater good. But having standards and not relying on one or two central organisations is a good thing too.
There has of course been huge cross-border, cross-industry and cross-discipline cooperation throughout the vaccine development, testing and delivery, so there is a de facto international scientific response in precisely the way science works best. We’re now seeing it through the lens of political and commercial interests which is where it gets a lot fuzzier.
Pronouns: He/Him
1
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 15:51 - Jan 26 with 1793 views
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 14:20 - Jan 26 by ArnoldMoorhen
Plus many of us who voted to Remain were in the "Remain and Reform from the inside" camp. This is a good example of the need for reform in some of the ways that the EU operates.
Of course if Remain had won then the Oxford vaccine would also have been an EU vaccine and would have been more of a first choice option for them.
But let's not get away from it: this is a political and public relations disaster for the EU. Brexit Britain has been better at acquiring the vaccine as a Third Country than the EU has as a bloc. That's not an easy sell to those making waves in many member countries.
The simple answer is "Boris lucked out that the Oxford vaccine worked first time, the French took a different approach and it didn't pay off." That's not down to any clever strategy from Boris or lack of such a strategy from the EU. It's simply down to the fact that Professor Sarah Gilbert's career path had her in Oxford at this point, rather than Zurich or Massachusetts or any other world top ten University.
But in simple terms: Boris won, von der Leyden lost. The nuances of "Why?" will be lost.
"The simple answer is "Boris lucked out that the Oxford vaccine worked first time, the French took a different approach and it didn't pay off." That's not down to any clever strategy from Boris or lack of such a strategy from the EU. "
This isn't actually true. THere are several reasons over and above luck that the UK is ahead of the game and even in the case of the AZ vacine, there was nothing stopping the EU getting in there at the same time as us.
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 15:28 - Jan 26 by Kievthegreat
Self interest. I mean the WHO is currently having issues being allowed into facilities in Wuhan to investigate the origins of the Coronavirus outbreak. Donald Trump threatens to withdraw funding because of it's conduct in the early stages. Then there are decisions about standards differing throughout the world. It's a nightmare for the WHO caught between doctors and scientists wanting to do the best they can while being used as a political tool or weapon.
It’s more than that. When you look at who funds WHO, that tells you that it’s chances of managing and doing things for the good of all is limited, not least thanks to politics.
That Bill Gates after America was the next biggest contributor says it all - and trump of course pulled US funding. Hopefully Biden will reverse that.
After Bill Gates, the largest contributor is the U.K. followed by Germany. Many countries who can support it contribute near enough nothing or less. France and China in relation to GDP are two of those.
I’d love to see WHO a truly global non-political organisation with contributions according to GDP. But there’s more chance of Ipswich making the Champions League in 3 years time than that happening.
0
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 15:59 - Jan 26 with 1766 views
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 15:38 - Jan 26 by hype313
This thread spells it all out.
[Post edited 26 Jan 2021 15:38]
Even if we take Peston’s view of different relationships as read (I don’t), this is about the terms AZ agreed with the EU that are now not being reached by a wide margin.
In any case, the bigger issue is supplying the much, much greater volume of Pfizer doses. AZ is a backup/complement that’s not even achieved a much lower threshold.
Pronouns: He/Him
0
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 16:06 - Jan 26 with 1740 views
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 15:59 - Jan 26 by Darth_Koont
Even if we take Peston’s view of different relationships as read (I don’t), this is about the terms AZ agreed with the EU that are now not being reached by a wide margin.
In any case, the bigger issue is supplying the much, much greater volume of Pfizer doses. AZ is a backup/complement that’s not even achieved a much lower threshold.
I've seen Peston's account repeated elsewhere previously, at least on when the contracts were signed - think its pretty trust-worthy when taken with the others. Apart from anything, its clear that the EU are moving slower as they haven't approved the AZ one yet.
This is all smacks of politicians looking to place blame elsewhere, with AZ being a very convenient target.
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 14:48 - Jan 26 by Pinewoodblue
It's all down to Brexit. The Eu's regulatory authority was based in the UK. Not everyone transferred with the organization when it moved across the channel.
Indeed, Little known fact is that when the EMA relocated from London to the EU, hardly anybody wanted to go with it. As a result the EMA lost expertise on a scale that has left it unfit for purpose as the scandal of the EU vaccine procurement program has shown.
Any international company considering its FDI should have a careful look at EU behaviour in relation to the Pharma companies.
Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 16:07 - Jan 26 by hype313
Indeed, Little known fact is that when the EMA relocated from London to the EU, hardly anybody wanted to go with it. As a result the EMA lost expertise on a scale that has left it unfit for purpose as the scandal of the EU vaccine procurement program has shown.
Any international company considering its FDI should have a careful look at EU behaviour in relation to the Pharma companies.
question from a simpleton: what's FDI?
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
