Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

14stFlyer

Members
  • Posts

    661
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 14stFlyer

  1. I am onboard with much of your argument Steve, but I think we need to be clear that Eugenics is a deliberate or selective breeding for certain genetic traits, whereas what you are describing is simply population control, with everyone being encouraged to have fewer children, regardless of their genetic background. This said, I am with you that strongly encouraging (or even forcing) people to have fewer children is a bad idea and will only lead to sadness. And of course it is morally wrong (in my view). peole are naturally deciding to have fewer Children and the birth rate is already dropping globally.
  2. and I have some sympathy for Pig’s comment that a coordinated international strategy would be better and fairer than a buyer’s commercial market. Sadly, our little Englander Brexit, Germany hogging test capacity, and USA gazumping PPE supplies shows we are a long way from this in the 2020s.
  3. Here: https://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/210294-brexit-what-happens-next-thread-multiple-merged-threads/&do=findComment&comment=1103690892 Sigh. One last time then, in a list as you seem to like them, and then I will let it drop. 1. It costs money to set up a new production of any type. 2. Corporates will not invest in plant, production line, supply chain or raw material unless they have a signed contract to provide financing for such set up. 3. U.K. signed up to legal contract for Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine on 18 May 2020 allowing them to commence preparation for supply to the U.K. U.K. supply started in January. EU signed up for Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine 27 August 2020 (over three months later). They are getting a quicker start up than U.K. (learnings/synergies) but not as quick as hoped in the best efforts contract. To redirect U.K. supply to EU contract prior to completion is clearly inappropriate and whilst I am not a corporate lawyer, i think it highly unlikely that a court will find in favour of the EU on this. 4. U.K. signed up to legal contract for Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine on 20 July 2020 allowing them to commence preparation for supply to the U.K. U.K. supply started in December. EU signed up for Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine 11 November 2020 (nearly three months later). To redirect U.K. production to EU contract prior to completion is clearly inappropriate and whilst I am not a corporate lawyer, i think it highly unlikely that a court will find in favour of the EU on this. Blocking export of Pfizer vaccine looks like vaccine nationalism and looks illegal (or at least should be). So to summarise, the intention off AZ to fulfil the U.K. Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine contract before exporting U.K. sourced supply to EU is by no means the same as the EU blocking export of Pfizer/BioNtech vaccines produced to fulfil the U.K.’s prior contract.
  4. This is the only bit I disagree with your reading on dugs. I see your reading of Clause 5.4 as being deliberately distorting in favour of the EU. It is clear to me why this clause is there. Because it was committed to 3 months + earlier, the U.K. supply chain is well in advance of that being set up for EU supply. AstraZeneca wanted to have the option to be able to complete the EU contract with U.K. supply once the initial U.K. doses committed to had been completed. EU politicians are deliberately trying to misrepresent this as saying U.K. funded supply should be redirected to them prior to completion of the initial contract. I believe they are doing this in order to try to shift blame from them for their tardiness in committing to production last year. They are unfairly blaming AZ, and at the same time, in some way implicating it was the nasty U.K. government as well. I am surprised you are falling for it, and am sure you would not be if it was U.K. politicians that were doing it.
  5. Nice house, but looks like it will be surrounded by quarry in a couple of year’s time...
  6. You cannot judge either the motives, or indeed the effects of these over-ordering countries right now. if vaccines are produced earlier and hoarded for U.K. and Canada sole use, or sold on to ROW at some form of profit, then you can hassle the governments involved and claim it has been bad for the world overall. if the vaccines are shared after initial U.K. and Canadian high risk groups are vaccinated, and are passed on to ROW at cost or even less than cost so that the U.K. and Canada do not profit financially, then they will have simply advanced vaccine production worldwide and actually done overall good.
  7. A wibbling, wobbling, vacillating blob of jelly perhaps? I like jelly, so this might be an improvement... although ability to make tough decisions may not be improved.
  8. I can believe that you think this has been engineered in some way by our extremist right wing government zugz. However, even though I have an astonishingly low opinion of Boris and co, I can’t see past the EU politicians throwing their weight around inappropriately on this one.
  9. Indeed. I suspect this inclusion of the U.K. was requested by AZ so that AZ could use the U.K. operation to supplement the EU sites in the event of problems on start up (as has actually happened). I very much doubt that they expected this optionality concession by the EU to be used against them in this way. Perhaps they trusted the EU negotiators a little more than they should have? Including you in this case dugs? To me this is just politicians behaving badly, as they have done on both sides of the channel recently. Specifically, this time it is EU politicians recognising that they can twist the wording and meaning of a contract at this emotional time in order to get them a way out of a bad political situation that they have caused.
  10. I am certainly not doing this intentionally. I have seen no evidence that this is happening. As far as I am aware, the EU supply chain will be used for EU only vaccines until the contract is complete. Only then will vaccines get sent to other countries, regardless of how much they are paying. You (or in fact the EU) need to show evidence that this is happening to make this claim. Otherwise; nothing to see here apart from politicians showing their anger to hide their mistakes. Same old, same old, regardless of whether it is in the U.K. or in other countries.
  11. So have the U.K. £15 billion I think. This is the bit you need to find evidence for. I, like dugs, am extremely cynical with respect to our government’s moral compass and its actions. However, I need to see evidence that they (or indeed another government) have been underhand here, otherwise we are just looking at poor planning and slow action within EU decision makers as the reason for why the EU is where it is.
  12. Yes, but they haven’t, or have you seen evidence that I cannot find? Unless she is referring to Pfizer vaccine already produced and waiting that was provided to U.K. because it was first to approve for use? In which case their issue is with Pfizer. If so then why are they rubbishing AstraZeneca in the press and trying to force them into breaking commercial contracts? All I can see here is late commitment by the EU, an unfortunate delay to AstraZeneca supply in Europe, and an attempt by EU politicians to pass off the blame on to others.
  13. Not at all. Let’s say I enter into a contract to supply natural gas to an industrial user, though a pipeline that that end user also contributes financially to. i then enter into another agreement to create another line to supply a different user from a different stock of gas reserve in a different geographical area. if the second pipeline encounters issues and is not completed on time, then there is no way I would legally be able to “steal” supply from the first user to make up a short fall for the second. The second end user might only expect to receive gas through the first pipeline when there was capacity available beyond the initial contract volumes. I assume that exactly the same commercial constraints would be in place for different lines of drugs or in this case vaccines. in which case the EU can only expect access to vaccines from the U.K. assisted production when the U.K.s initial contracts are fulfilled.
  14. Understood. . I find it astonishing that I feel concern for big pharma companies like AstraZeneca and Pfizer. But to be honest I think I now trust them to be more transparent than our current set of politicians, and dread to think what pressures they may be under behind the scenes... I have perhaps become too cynical.
  15. Your comment is taken out of the context, while trying to blame the EU Sorry Rollover, I had not seen this phrase used by others. I was just saying it as I see it. To be clear, I was recently panning the British government for their position on the EU diplomatic mission (where it is looking confused and petty in my view), and rubbishing an attempt to say the EU was indoctrinating our young people. So here I am on the other side pointing out the EU is not looking great on the much more important issue of fair and legal distribution of vaccines. I am still hopeful that the EU will not restrict private corporation exports of Covid-19 vaccines to fulfil contracts. But If it does, then I am afraid EU-bashers will have a lot more ammo. Even if they do not, the threat to do so from Jens Spahn, the German health minister, was, as I said, not a good look.
  16. Looks like it is already happening with Covid vaccines, although in this case it is the EU that is threatening vaccine nationalism - not a good look...
  17. A seedy story by the express certainly. The original leaked report offers support and continued information flow for EU nationals who have exercised FOM rights and now live in the U.K. and for the 71% of young British voters who, like me, were EU citizens in 2016 and voted to remain to be EU citizens. Nothing “cult” or “mafia” here at all.
  18. No, you are not miss ing anything here. High costs, high risk prospects, and mostly relatively small remaining features. This is why the tax system and incentives have to be the “best” by which they mean some of the most attractive in the world to encourage investment.
  19. This is a CoVid thing , not a Brexit thing. WFH means more time to boil an egg. https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/eggs-and-poultry/sales-of-eggs-still-surging-as-consumers-opt-for-british/647146.article
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.