Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
More Brexit Lies
Remember the Brexiteers falsely claiming that our Covid vaccine response/roll-out was so much better than that in Europe because of Brexit – when asked to list a Brexit benefit three years on, they are repeating this lie.
Why are the Brexiteers not being called out in the main stream media for this blatant lie?
https:/
Why are the Brexiteers not being called out in the main stream media for this blatant lie?
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hymie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"Member States may temporarily authorise the distribution of an unauthorised medicinal product in response to the suspected or confirmed spread of pathogenic agents, toxins, chemical agents or nuclear radiation any of which could cause harm."
Article 5(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use.
Article 5(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use.
EU authorised Pfizer and BioNTech vaccines 21st December 2020:
https:/
UK did so on 2nd December 2020:
https:/
So much of a cods up did the EU make over its authorisation and procurement processes (and so much of a panic did it get into because of its failures) that it threatened to close the Irish border (one of its “red lines” in the Brexit negotiations, if I recall) to vaccine shipments. This was because the UK had ordered its supplies from Ireland before the EU got its backside into gear and the EU was in danger of being sidelined:
https:/
It was also noticeable that the EU instigated court action against AstraZeneca when it alleged that it had prioritised supplies of the vaccine over those to the EU. AZ argued that the UK contract was signed well before the EU one and that the EU contract stipulated that supplies were subject to its “best efforts” and not guaranteed. It took six months to settle the matter:
https:/
Meanwhile the EU turned to Pfizer for its supplies. There is now an ongoing investigation by the EU’s Public Prosecutor’s office into the role played by European Commission’s President, Ursula von der Leyen, in the procurement of the vaccine supplies:
https:/
There is little doubt that, had the UK still been an EU member, it would have been embroiled in all of this (and more besides). Whilst individual EU members were free to make their own vaccine arrangements, it was quite clear that any doing so would not have been looked on favourably:
// They chose not to because they are expected to show 'solidarity' - a requirement that we were free of.//
Exactly (and in fact, I believe none did).
The EU demonstrably failed in its efforts to secure vaccine supplies in a timely fashion. It's simply not geared up to doing things quickly. Any organisation that manages by committee is bound to find itself hamstrung in these circumstances and the EU in particular, trying to accommodate the needs and demands of 27 disparate nations is bound to suffer.
There are no lies in Mr Johnson's contentions.
https:/
UK did so on 2nd December 2020:
https:/
So much of a cods up did the EU make over its authorisation and procurement processes (and so much of a panic did it get into because of its failures) that it threatened to close the Irish border (one of its “red lines” in the Brexit negotiations, if I recall) to vaccine shipments. This was because the UK had ordered its supplies from Ireland before the EU got its backside into gear and the EU was in danger of being sidelined:
https:/
It was also noticeable that the EU instigated court action against AstraZeneca when it alleged that it had prioritised supplies of the vaccine over those to the EU. AZ argued that the UK contract was signed well before the EU one and that the EU contract stipulated that supplies were subject to its “best efforts” and not guaranteed. It took six months to settle the matter:
https:/
Meanwhile the EU turned to Pfizer for its supplies. There is now an ongoing investigation by the EU’s Public Prosecutor’s office into the role played by European Commission’s President, Ursula von der Leyen, in the procurement of the vaccine supplies:
https:/
There is little doubt that, had the UK still been an EU member, it would have been embroiled in all of this (and more besides). Whilst individual EU members were free to make their own vaccine arrangements, it was quite clear that any doing so would not have been looked on favourably:
// They chose not to because they are expected to show 'solidarity' - a requirement that we were free of.//
Exactly (and in fact, I believe none did).
The EU demonstrably failed in its efforts to secure vaccine supplies in a timely fashion. It's simply not geared up to doing things quickly. Any organisation that manages by committee is bound to find itself hamstrung in these circumstances and the EU in particular, trying to accommodate the needs and demands of 27 disparate nations is bound to suffer.
There are no lies in Mr Johnson's contentions.
//NJ, had the UK not left the EU, would there have been any legal barriers preventing the action actually taken by the UK?//
Apparently not, Corby. However...
As I said (and as has been cited) the EU expected its members to show solidarity with each other by waiting for the EU approval and procurement process to take its course.
As far as legality (of unilateral procurement) goes, Ms von der Leyen gave a somewhat different impression:
https:/
"Von der Leyen had insisted last week that unilateral efforts would not be in line with the EU’s vaccine strategy designed to ensure that every member state is covered."
“It’s legally binding,” she had said. “We have all agreed, legally binding, that there will be no parallel negotiations, no parallel contracts … We’re all working together.”
There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that if the UK had remained in the EU it would not have attempted its own approval and procurement processes. In the very unlikely event that it did, it would have been "persuaded" to toe the party line. The result of that would have been a considerable delay in the vaccine rollout in the this country.
Apparently not, Corby. However...
As I said (and as has been cited) the EU expected its members to show solidarity with each other by waiting for the EU approval and procurement process to take its course.
As far as legality (of unilateral procurement) goes, Ms von der Leyen gave a somewhat different impression:
https:/
"Von der Leyen had insisted last week that unilateral efforts would not be in line with the EU’s vaccine strategy designed to ensure that every member state is covered."
“It’s legally binding,” she had said. “We have all agreed, legally binding, that there will be no parallel negotiations, no parallel contracts … We’re all working together.”
There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that if the UK had remained in the EU it would not have attempted its own approval and procurement processes. In the very unlikely event that it did, it would have been "persuaded" to toe the party line. The result of that would have been a considerable delay in the vaccine rollout in the this country.
Latest Posts
News4 mins ago
Body & Soul6 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Only The A F D Can Save Germany
News8 mins ago
Property Owned As Tenants In Common
Law11 mins ago
