@Jennifer1984 Said
The delay in that process meant Britain got even further ahead in the vaccination programme...
Bulls***. The UK's vaccination programme has been far superior to that of the EU for a number of reasons. Firstly the UK, unlike the EU, invested a substantial amount of money in the early AZ development phase. For example, in April last year the U.K. government pledged to provide £65 million to help the University of Oxford execute its production plan. This later evolved into a fully-fledged contract between the government and the British-Swedish company. Then in May the UK signed an agreement with AstraZeneca which was a binding deal establishing "the development of a dedicated supply chain for the U.K." This gave the UK a significant advantage over the EU who had no such agreement.
Then there are the differences btw the main supply contracts signed with AZ by the UK and the EU. They are in a number of areas quite similar but with some key differences. For example, under the UK contract it is specified that AZ will supply vaccine doses from it's EU plants as well as it's UK plants to the British government in order to meet their contractual obligations. The EU contract with AZ on the other hand specifies that:
"AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses WITHIN the EU for distribution, and to deliver to the Distribution Hubs, following EU marketing authorization…"
There are a number of other important differences regarding the supply chain. In short the UK signed a stronger contract with AZ than did the incompetent bureaucrats in Brussels.
Now maybe like the EU you don't think contract law is important (unless it benefits the EU) or maybe you don't understand the basic concept of a contract. Could easily be both.
@Jennifer1984 Said
It soon became apparent that AstraZenica were giving Britain priority over deliveries.
This was due to the differences in the nature of the contracts that AZ had with the UK and the EU.
@Jennifer1984 Said
AZ tried to cover their arse by claiming that they were having "production difficulties"... but it seemed a bit odd that the same machines and the same production processes were having no difficulty in production for UK supply. Hmmmmm... how does that work..?
It works very easily. The UK signed a deal with AZ covering supply chains many months before the EU did. In fact the EU's contract doesn't even specify the supply chains. Furthermore, as previously discussed, the UK's contract with AZ was stronger in key areas than the one the EU has with AZ. To you and the EU contracts may not matter, but they matter to private companies and to most governments.
During the early roll out AZ experienced a number of technical, production and logistical problems with their UK plants. These have been sorted out. Brussels came late to the party and when plants in the EU experienced variations of the same issues that had occurred in the UK the bloc demanded that they receive vaccines being made in the UK. This demand was made (and is still being made) even though the contract they have with AZ specifies that their vaccine doses are to be manufactured within the bloc. The EU wouldn't accept that their roll out, like the one in the UK, would have teething problems. Furthermore, they were of the view that if there were teething problems their vaccination supply shouldn't be impacted and that the UK should wear the consequences for the blocs actions. The arrogance is breath taking.
@Jennifer1984 Said
It's still rumbling on and the EU won't forget this. AZ will one day need EU co-operation over something.
AZ and other companies will long remember the bullying tactics of the EU and no doubt will be far more cautious about dealing with them in the future. The EU's treatment of AZ has been appalling.
@Jennifer1984 Said
The bottom line, however, is that the vaccine procurement by UK was a complete and utter throw of the dice by Johnson that got lucky.
Could the UK have signed it's own independent deals with AZ and other pharmaceutical companies had they still been in the EU? Maybe. It would all be a matter of timing. The EU for example prohibits member states from signing individual contracts re covid 19 vaccines with companies that the EU already has agreements with.
The reality is that all EU member states signed up to Brussels hopelessly inadequate VPP. This was because the EU brought a LOT of pressure to bear on member states to take a 'unified' approach. Being outside of the EU meant the UK wasn't subject to this pressure and nor were they subject to any EU imposed restrictions like the one previously mentioned. So was the UK's vaccination programme the result of Brexit? No, not directly. To argue however that Brexit played no part is to place your hands over your ears whilst walking around repeating "i'm not listening" over and over and over again.