Master UK Political Discussion Thread

[ben8884]

If the SNP wins it will strengthen their fight for another referendum.

[Acing It]

1 minute ago, PorcupineOfDoom said:

Even still, I'd be shocked if they stole enough seats to become the largest party.

I'm not surprised of anything anymore after Trump, Brexit, Boris as MP winning a lot of seats in the north of England and a lot of other stuff that's been happening in the world where it would have been unthinkable even a couple of years ago. On a personal level, not sure if anyone else feels the same, I find it really unsettling.

[Acing It]

.

[ben8884]

I am opposed to Scottish independence but I completely understand it.

[PorcupineOfDoom]

1 minute ago, Acing It said:

It all depends on the margin they win with I think.

Yeah pretty much. If they win with a majority, that would be a big statement. But the way the voting system works up here, they'll probably win most of the constituency seats but get very few of the regional ones as a result. It's meant to prevent a so-called 'supermajority', but Salmond and the Alba Party are basically presenting themselves as a workaround for that (even campaigning with the hashtag #supermajority). All he's really achieving though is splitting the vote, as the Greens are also pro-independence and Alba will probably leach a lot of votes from them. That could well cost the Greens seats that the Tories or Labour pick up instead.

[Tystie]

5 minutes ago, PorcupineOfDoom said:

Yeah pretty much. If they win with a majority, that would be a big statement. But the way the voting system works up here, they'll probably win most of the constituency seats but get very few of the regional ones as a result. It's meant to prevent a so-called 'supermajority', but Salmond and the Alba Party are basically presenting themselves as a workaround for that (even campaigning with the hashtag #supermajority). All he's really achieving though is splitting the vote, as the Greens are also pro-independence and Alba will probably leach a lot of votes from them. That could well cost the Greens seats that the Tories or Labour pick up instead.

Usually there are loads of road signs up ahead of an election. This time, I've only seen a few signs for the SNP and the Conservatives. It feels as though the other parties didn't feel it worth bothering. (A fair amount of leaflets for other parties got delivered to the house, though.) 

 

Apparently about a quarter of the electorate got postal votes this time around, but I noticed a surprising--to me--amount of activity at the local polling station, which is at the end of my road. Will be interesting to see what turnout is like here and across the rest of the UK.

 

I haven't come across anyone who says they've voted for Alba (or the Conservatives, for that matter, but that probably reflects my choice in friends), and there are some other parties on the regional list that I struggle to believe have supporters. Hopefully, they will do disastrously. I do know people who have voted for the Greens, though; I hope the Greens will do okay, and Alba will lose out.

 

My hunch is that the SNP may just sneak an outright majority. Although the Scottish Parliament was set up in such a way that this wasn't supposed to be possible, it has happened before.

[iff]

1 hour ago, Midland Tyke said:

The EU is largely (if not totally) responsible for vaccine procurement and distribution to member states. Individual countries can decide to not use a vaccine or to only use it on certain groups of their population. But they aren't supposed to have direct contracts with manufacturers.

I think astrazeneca did not live up to their commitments. Eu agreed with aztrazeneca on vaccines, then astrazeneca agreed with uk on vaccines but gave preference to the uk (a later agreement)  on vaccine supplies

 

It comes across as bad business practice to have agreed a contract with one party, then a contract with another giving preference to the later contract and making the first contract more difficult to honour. 

[ben8884]

Yeah, I think it's similar to what perhaps happened in Canada. Well, the polls are closed I think so we shall see soon. 

[Tyke]

13 minutes ago, iff said:

I think astrazeneca did not live up to their commitments. Eu agreed with aztrazeneca on vaccines, then astrazeneca agreed with uk on vaccines but gave preference to the uk (a later agreement)  on vaccine supplies

 

It comes across as bad business practice to have agreed a contract with one party, then a contract with another giving preference to the later contract and making the first contract more difficult to honour. 

All the things I've read suggest it was the other way round. That the UK Govt entered contracts with AZ before the EU did. 

[Tystie]

Re AstraZeneca: this makes for an interesting read: https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-the-eu-and-uk-astrazeneca-contracts/

 

[Tyke]

8 minutes ago, Tystie said:

Re AstraZeneca: this makes for an interesting read: https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-the-eu-and-uk-astrazeneca-contracts/

 

It doesn't make good reading for the EU contract negotiators, does it? Are they now claiming (as @iff's post suggests) that they signed first and that should take precedence? That seems a little specious. But then this is politics.....

[iff]

53 minutes ago, Midland Tyke said:

All the things I've read suggest it was the other way round. That the UK Govt entered contracts with AZ before the EU did. 

EU and astrazeneca - 27th August 2020 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_302

 

UK and astrazeneca - 28th August 2020 https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/17/europe/uk-astrazeneca-vaccine-contract-details-intl/index.html

 

-----

With the politico link, one contract is under uk law and one under Belgian law which is the reason that article states for differences in language. 

 

I feel the best would have been proportionality in the distribution with shortages. That would be the fair approach rather than either the EU or UK getting preference (or other countries that agreements were made with) 

 

The whole world is in the pandemic together so proportionality would have been the best approach. 

[Tyke]

13 minutes ago, iff said:

EU and astrazeneca - 27th August 2020 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_302

 

UK and astrazeneca - 28th August 2020 https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/17/europe/uk-astrazeneca-vaccine-contract-details-intl/index.html

 

-----

With the politico link, one contract is under uk law and one under Belgian law which is the reason that article states for differences in language. 

 

I feel the best would have been proportionality in the distribution with shortages. That would be the fair approach rather than either the EU or UK getting preference

Dates and difference in language noted, but the politico article goes on to say that the UK had a binding contract to enter a contract going a long way back, so the date of this contract was maybe less important? And the UK Govt seems to have funded a large part of the AZ R&D costs under that previous contract. 

 

I believe the EU is now seeking damages from AZ, which the politico article suggests was the only remedy under their contract. No doubt AZ will defend themselves. It will be interesting to see how that turns out.

 

I haven't looked at take-up rates of the vaccine in Europe lately. Is that still lagging that of the UK? I'm pleasantly surprised/relieved that it is so high here. 

[Blaiddmelyn]

Tbh, from a quick skim of both contracts, part of the issue is that the EU one is poorly drafted. It may be that it makes more sense under Belgian law but from a quick skim, clause 5 is ambiguous, in particular about whether they needed to divert the manufacturing chain to the UK or not. The UK one actually does appear to be more tightly drafted though maybe that's because its style is one I'm used to seeing.

[iff]

44 minutes ago, Midland Tyke said:

Dates and difference in language noted, but the politico article goes on to say that the UK had a binding contract to enter a contract going a long way back, so the date of this contract was maybe less important? And the UK Govt seems to have funded a large part of the AZ R&D costs under that previous contract. 

As well as the uk government payment for R&D, when the EU had the legally binding agreement they made a downpayment of 336 million euro for the development and production costs of the astrazeneca vaccine in august

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-eu-vaccine-price-idUKKBN25N25X

[timewarp]

9 hours ago, Midland Tyke said:

The EU is largely (if not totally) responsible for vaccine procurement and distribution to member states. Individual countries can decide to not use a vaccine or to only use it on certain groups of their population. But they aren't supposed to have direct contracts with manufacturers.

True, but that's only because they all agreed to do that. Each and every one of them was free to do this completely on their own (now obviously they can't because they've signed up to it).

 

 

7 hours ago, iff said:

I think astrazeneca did not live up to their commitments. Eu agreed with aztrazeneca on vaccines, then astrazeneca agreed with uk on vaccines but gave preference to the uk (a later agreement)  on vaccine supplies

 

It comes across as bad business practice to have agreed a contract with one party, then a contract with another giving preference to the later contract and making the first contract more difficult to honour. 

Astra Zeneca has done a "best efforts" agreement with the EU. With other countries they have much stronger commitments, so "best efforts" means they'll give others the priority. This is clearly the EU's - or more precisely Ursula von der Leyen's - fault.

 

Apart from that around here they've managed to ruin AstraZeneca's reputation to the point that they can't find vaccinees any more. So yesterday it was decided to lift the priorisation and give GPs the freedom to give AstraZeneca to everybody they see fit.

[iff]

1 hour ago, timewarp said:

Astra Zeneca has done a "best efforts" agreement with the EU. With other countries they have much stronger commitments, so "best efforts" means they'll give others the priority. 

I was under the same impression but Various news sites state the UK is "best efforts" too

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/17/europe/uk-astrazeneca-vaccine-contract-details-intl/index.html

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/19/astrazeneca-vaccine-contract-did-not-give-britain-priority-eu/

(amp - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/19/astrazeneca-vaccine-contract-did-not-give-britain-priority-eu/amp/

) 

 

 

[ben8884]

The Tories won Hartlepool!!! I wonder how long Starmer has left as leader.

[Tyke]

18 minutes ago, ben8884 said:

The Tories won Hartlepool!!! I wonder how long Starmer has left as leader.

That is surprising. I used to live not far from there. Peter Mandelson seemed such an odd fit for the town - but it was a safe seat back then. Looks like nowhere is safe any more. In a way, I'm pleased. People are thinking about who to vote for. That's got to be a good thing - even if you don't agree with the reasons they have for their choice

[ben8884]

Apparently an issue may have been Labour running a remainer for a place that voted overwhelmingly to leave.

[timewarp]

I can't help thinking Labour is going down the very same drain as the Social Democrats in Germany. Personally I won't even look for a plunger.

[iff]

2 hours ago, ben8884 said:

Apparently an issue may have been Labour running a remainer for a place that voted overwhelmingly to leave.

Yes, and also in 2019 election, brexit party had got 28% in hartlepool. Combined Conservative and brexit party vote was about 55% in 2019.

[Catserole]

10 hours ago, iff said:

I was under the same impression but Various news sites state the UK is "best efforts" too

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/17/europe/uk-astrazeneca-vaccine-contract-details-intl/index.html

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/19/astrazeneca-vaccine-contract-did-not-give-britain-priority-eu/

(amp - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/19/astrazeneca-vaccine-contract-did-not-give-britain-priority-eu/amp/

) 

 

 

As I understand it (IANAL) the UK agreement is governed by English law and the EU APA under Belgian law, which matters because there are differences in how a term like ‘best efforts’ are considered. 
 

Problems with the EU APA also extend to the definitions of ‘Initial Europe doses’ which seem to imply these would be manufactured exclusively in the EU. The EU is also bound by best efforts to identify alternative manufacturing sites in the event that AZ has difficulty increasing yields, something it has done for Pfizer but not for AZ.

 

In the end it’s meaningless because legal action is unlikely to deliver a single additional dose in a relevant timeframe, and existing EU stocks aren’t fully utilised as it is ...

[iff]

1 hour ago, Catserole said:

 

 

In the end it’s meaningless because legal action is unlikely to deliver a single additional dose in a relevant timeframe, and existing EU stocks aren’t fully utilised as it is ...

As Midland Tyke posted

 

20 hours ago, Midland Tyke said:

 

I believe the EU is now seeking damages from AZ, which the politico article suggests was the only remedy under their contract.

 

I am out of this discussion, let the courts decide

[Catserole]

I had been hoping that Labour under Starmer could become electable again, rather than leave the Conservatives as the only party that could plausibly get enough support to form a government. That said, I couldn't really tell you what Labour's position currently is on just about any issue.

[ben8884]

Unfortunately, Labour has 2 options. Stay mildly center-left and never see power again or, go back to thirdwayism and see power but at what cost?

The Tories currently have more seats in Scotland than Labour. That, and losing Hartlepool says it all.

[Still]

4 minutes ago, ben8884 said:

go back to thirdwayism and see power but at what cost?

I don't think anyone will fall for that bullshit anymore. Blair the war criminal pretty much killed thirdwayism, and good fucking riddance.

[Acing It]

.

[Blaiddmelyn]

3 hours ago, Catserole said:

As I understand it (IANAL) the UK agreement is governed by English law and the EU APA under Belgian law, which matters because there are differences in how a term like ‘best efforts’ are considered. 
 

Problems with the EU APA also extend to the definitions of ‘Initial Europe doses’ which seem to imply these would be manufactured exclusively in the EU. The EU is also bound by best efforts to identify alternative manufacturing sites in the event that AZ has difficulty increasing yields, something it has done for Pfizer but not for AZ.

 

In the end it’s meaningless because legal action is unlikely to deliver a single additional dose in a relevant timeframe, and existing EU stocks aren’t fully utilised as it is ...

So that was my initial thought as well - because "reasonable efforts" and "best efforts" are terms that actually have real meaning in English law. But both agreements actully use "best reasonable efforts" (which is a hybrid and generally used to give both sides room to argue because they can't agree, and someone has pulled the "are you really holding everything up over semantics" card to get it over the line) and, interestingly, both agreements define what this means as "the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a vaccine at the relative stage of development". This is a ... vague definition but I'd say it leans more towards reasonable than best (meaning you don't pull out all the stops). The more interesting point for me is that clauses 5.1 and 5.4 of the AZ contract appear to contradict themselves such that AZ may well have been required to manufacture only in the EU and not the UK - I can see the argument both ways.

 

The lesson to be learned from the AZ contract is ... always proof-read your contracts, kids, and make sure you're all on the same page as to what it means!

[Tyke]

5 minutes ago, Blaiddmelyn said:

always proof-read your contracts, kids,

always has been, always will be.

 

I've seen so many contracts where the parties are sloppy over the 'what if?' clauses because they don't expect the conditions to occur. But they often do. In life generally I am a very poor 'completer-finisher'. But not in contract negotiations