Current Affairs

[oldbluefox]

Scotland has offered the NHS staff 4% pay rise, backdated.

An election is imminent.

Is there any connection?


p.s. guess who will pay for it.

Or is it designed to make Boris and the government look mean and thereby to discredit them?

Or is it designed to say to the Scottish electorate this is what independence from the UK will mean?

If Mrs Krankie has so much money and bonhomie to splash around I am beginning to wonder if the Barnett Formula is a tad too generous.

[Happydays]

She's doing it to get attention away from the battles within the SNP.
As I've said before only one thing matters to them and it's independence at any cost

[Mervyn and Trish]

If Mrs Krankie has so much money and bonhomie to splash around I am beginning to wonder if the Barnett Formula is a tad too generous.

I've wondered that for a while. If they do get independence good luck to them. But they will face the hard truth when they have to raise the money as well as spend it.

[Manoverboard]

4% is too generous but the banner headline will take the publics' eye off of the Salmond scandal.

[Ray B]

Mrs krankie head in the clouds, the Scottish population heads in the sand. Her crystal ball is so clouded they can't see the future.

[Happydays]

Mrs krankie head in the clouds, the Scottish population heads in the sand. Her crystal ball is so clouded they can't see the future.

Not all of the Scottish population, read my previous post

[Onelife]

The bit that I am having difficulty trying to get my head around (and I know that I missed most of last week) is why are the EU demanding supplies of AZ vaccine that they do not want to use (and have stockpiled) and preventing any other vaccine being exported to any country that is ahead of the EU in vaccine rollout? The phrase "sour grapes" comes to mind.

I know I have said this before and I am going to repeat it - there is not now or anytime in the future any place for politics where Covid vaccine is concerned.

I was reading something yesterday that whilst the EU can put obstacles in the way and slow the process down they do not currently have the powers to actually ban exports - and they seem to be overlooking that much of the raw materials for the Pfzier vaccine comes from the UK

I was listening this morning to an EU representative saying that one of the options under consideration was to sue AstraZeneca for breach of contract…well let them try because I would have thought AstraZeneca would have a dam good case with a counter claim for libel... pertaining to the defamation of their company.

P.s I only started studying law this morning so I could be talking a load of B*****

[Mervyn and Trish]

The EU Commission are so incomptetent and so scared for their jobs they'll do anything and blame anyone to cover their serial cock ups .

[screwy]

I think there may be some here that won’t agree with you.!

[towny44]

Scotland has offered the NHS staff 4% pay rise, backdated.

An election is imminent.

Is there any connection?


p.s. guess who will pay for it.

Well I hope it will be the Scottish electorate, since I assume Barnett does not allow for electoral bribery.

[Manoverboard]

Following an investigation the Italians have located millions of AZ jabs that should be in Belgium rather than in a concealed warehouse ... just saying

[Stephen]

An easy mistake

[towny44]

Following an investigation the Italians have located millions of AZ jabs that should be in Belgium rather than in a concealed warehouse ... just saying

Not concealed they are awaiting quality clearance and then packng into vials by an Italian contractor for AZ, and then most of these are for the EU with about 7 million destined for Covax.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Maybe not concealed but clearly off the EU incompetents' radar. Who initially suggested they were being hidden for export to the UK, rather than the correct destinations as you describe. Just another day in the incredible story of the EU vaccination programme.

[david63]

the EU vaccination programme

Have they got one now

[johnds]

I was listening this morning to an EU representative saying that one of the options under consideration was to sue AstraZeneca for breach of contract…well let them try because I would have thought AstraZeneca would have a dam good case with a counter claim for libel... pertaining to the defamation of their company.

P.s I only started studying law this morning so I could be talking a load of B*****

But doesn't the EU's contract with AZ only requires them to make their best effort

Are the EU making their best effort ?

[barney]

The bit that I am having difficulty trying to get my head around (and I know that I missed most of last week) is why are the EU demanding supplies of AZ vaccine that they do not want to use (and have stockpiled) and preventing any other vaccine being exported to any country that is ahead of the EU in vaccine rollout? The phrase "sour grapes" comes to mind.

I know I have said this before and I am going to repeat it - there is not now or anytime in the future any place for politics where Covid vaccine is concerned.

I was reading something yesterday that whilst the EU can put obstacles in the way and slow the process down they do not currently have the powers to actually ban exports - and they seem to be overlooking that much of the raw materials for the Pfzier vaccine comes from the UK

I was listening this morning to an EU representative saying that one of the options under consideration was to sue AstraZeneca for breach of contract…well let them try because I would have thought AstraZeneca would have a dam good case with a counter claim for libel... pertaining to the defamation of their company.

P.s I only started studying law this morning so I could be talking a load of B*****

The EU/Astra contract has been published.
I think they are quite safe as it was based on Belgian law clearly stating ‘best effort’
It would be impossible to prove that they haven’t used best effort, unless of course, the ECJ was adjudicating.

[oldbluefox]

The two contracts are totally different in the way they are drawn up. It is explained pretty clearly here. This article explains it much better than I can.

https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key ... contracts/

[Ranchi]

I read that Venice is going to make cruise ships berth at Marghera and presumably run shuttle buses into Venice...when they eventually get cruising back to Venice.

[Kendhni]

The two contracts are totally different in the way they are drawn up. It is explained pretty clearly here. This article explains it much better than I can.

https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key ... contracts/

That is pretty much what I was explaining over 100 posts ago.

[david63]

The two contracts are totally different in the way they are drawn up. It is explained pretty clearly here. This article explains it much better than I can.

https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key ... contracts/

Basically, the way that I read it, the UK are better at negotiating pharmaceutical contracts than the EU are.

[oldbluefox]

Basically the EU have c***ed it up and are now frantically trying to backtrack.

[towny44]

The two contracts are totally different in the way they are drawn up. It is explained pretty clearly here. This article explains it much better than I can.

https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key ... contracts/

That is pretty much what I was explaining over 100 posts ago.

Amazing how you can read that and then give such a positive EU comment though. I thought it was quite scathing of the standard of contract negotiation they had done, as compared with the UK, something which the pro EU Remain lobby had suggested would the other way round after Brexit.

[Kendhni]

The two contracts are totally different in the way they are drawn up. It is explained pretty clearly here. This article explains it much better than I can.

https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key ... contracts/

Basically, the way that I read it, the UK are better at negotiating pharmaceutical contracts than the EU are.

It's to do with the difference's in contract law between the UK and the EU. Under EU (Brussels) law contracts are fulfilled on best endeavours, giving both parties some manoeuvring room. Under UK law the contract is taken as absolute. In this case it has worked in the UKs favour, in other cases it has worked against the UK.

So basically (very much oversimplifying and using made up numbers) ... the EU signed a contract with AZ saying we will take 1.5Million doses per week, to which AZ agreed knowing their production levels were above this. Later the UK came along and signed a contract saying that they would take 1Million doses per week (and to ensure this they offered 50% above the price the EU negotiated).

Let's assume AZ can only produce 1.75Million doses per week so ... to fulfil the contracts AZ must provide 1Million doses to the UK (because the contract is absolute) which means that the EU only gets 0.75Million doses due to best endeavours. Since the EU signed contracts before the UK then you can understand why they believe they are being short changed.

[Kendhni]

The two contracts are totally different in the way they are drawn up. It is explained pretty clearly here. This article explains it much better than I can.

https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key ... contracts/

That is pretty much what I was explaining over 100 posts ago.

Amazing how you can read that and then give such a positive EU comment though.

I never claim that my English is the best but I am really struggling to find anywhere in the words 'That is pretty much what I was explaining over 100 posts ago.' that shows any positivity or negativity towards either side.

content edited