In the end it's just more of the breakdown of the trans-atlantic cooperative model that kept western (and especially the Anglo/American countries) economies relatively integrated for the last few decades and which broke down significantly after the election of Trump.

This has been especially difficult for us in Canada where our dependant relationship with the US ("sleeping with an elephant") has screwed us not just on vaccine supply but on other geopolitical issues (China imprisoning our citizens as proxy conflict with the US, trade conflict over steel and aluminum and dairy, etc.).

If you traveled back 15-20 years and told people at the time that there would be a situation where Canada would be poor in vaccine supply while the US was drowning in it, people would be a bit shocked. During the Clinton/Chretien era this kind of lack of cooperation would be unheard of, continental integration was the agenda of the day.

Some of this is now alleviating with Biden at the helm, but it's still not a good situation. We just "borrowed" 1.5M doses of AstraZeneca from the US that they weren't using, but that's really a drop in the bucket.

So yeah, it's not just EU vs UK, it's a whole situation, the breakdown of the neo-liberal concensus. It's not clear what replaces it.

Remember the softwood lumber dispute (billions of dollars and years of legal wrangling) or the flak Chretien caught from the US for keeping Canada out of Iraq? I think you're looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses.

That is true, I do remember that. But a trade dispute is nothing compared to provoking a situation which causes imprisoned (and basically tortured) citizens and enacting export controls which prevent your northern neighbour and long time ally from purchasing life saving vaccines.

>China imprisoning our citizens as proxy conflict with the US

Was that retaliatory for Canada imprisoning a Chinese citizen in the name of US sanctions against Iran? I am curious which came first since I haven't followed it closely.(no justifying, just wondering why this is the example you brought up)

Yes, retaliation for honoring our extradition treaty with the US, in a conflict initiated by the Trump admin.

The UK made a deal so that the vaccine they developed could be manufactured and used abroad and insisted that it should be sold at cost (which means that the vaccine is very cheap).

How is that "screwing" the EU?

In the meantime the EU has worked hard to try to destroy AZ vaccine's reputation...

It's not, but a Twitter thread is apparently how we judge truth now.

If France's vaccine had worked and AZ failed, the tables would have been turned. This also completely ignores that the Oxford/AZ vaccine is what is driving vaccinations around the world right now for ~$3 a pop.

Somehow UK is both the devil and an angel in this scenario.

The US did make big purchase commitments for the mRNA and J&J vaccines before EU though, months before, which he just dances past.

Twitter threads aren't truth. And Dave Keating has his blue-tinted spectacles with this version of the 'truth'.

To which claim of his exactly are you objecting to?

Did US export vaccine doses to its neighbours or anyone else?

Did UK export vaccine doses to the EU?

> Did UK export vaccine doses to the EU?

I'm not commenting on Dave as I've no idea what he said/wrote, I'm replying to the above as it's a commonly held point that the EU shipped does to the UK and the UK has not reciprocated. And this is very much not true.

The EU does not make any vaccine, and so by definition has not shipped any doses to the UK.

A private company (AZ) has contracts that include manufacturing in the EU and shipping into the UK.

This has nothing to do with the EU as an entity at all; it is simple private trade. If the EU couldn't come up with an enforcable private contract going the other way, that's on them. And even if AZ are somehow in the wrong on the EU contract, it's still private contracts between them and the EU and has nothing to do with the UK government, so why should it be 'obliged' to send any back? After all, the UK (as an entity) also doesn't produce vaccines and so has none to send in any event.

I've posted this before but it's important. We did not screw them. We just wrote a decent contract, and they wrote an awful one.

Essentially whether the UK contract has been fulfilled is pretty black and white where the EU one is significantly less so.

See below:

> "The level of specificity is partially due to the legal systems they're based on. The U.K. contract is written in English law, which will judge whether both parties delivered the goods based on the exact wording of the contract. The EU contract is written in Belgian law, which focuses on whether both parties tried their best to deliver the goods and acted in good faith.

It's these extra details that give the U.K. more leverage to ensure its contract is delivered effectively. While both contracts say all parties will make their “best reasonable effort” to deliver the vaccine, the U.K. government is clearer in asserting its oversight of the agreement.

This core difference, according to a lawyer familiar with the development of the U.K. text, can be chalked up to the fact that the contract sealed with London was written by people with significant experience of purchasing agreements, specifically drug-buying deals. The European Commission’s contract, by contrast, shows a lack of commercial common sense, in the lawyer’s view.

The starkest example of this difference is a clause in the U.K. contract stating that if any party tries to force or persuade AstraZeneca or its subcontractors to do anything that could hold up the supply of the vaccine doses, the government may terminate the deal and invoke what appear to be punishment clauses — although these are largely redacted. "[1]

https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...

> We did not screw them. We just wrote a decent contract, and they wrote an awful one.

Screwing someone in writing is still screwing them. By your same logic, the EU hasn't screwed anyone, since it's within legal powers to do what it's doing - i.e. it's in the contract of being in the EU.

Let's see if it is legal. I'm not sure it is, for example why are they just doing AZ and not Pfizer (despite Pfizer exporting WAY more than AZ)? Also, there are significant unused stockpiles of AZ all over Europe (and very few Pfizer stockpiled). If anything it should be the other way round.

IANAL though.

So so-called "AstraZeneca" vaccine was developed by Oxford University using British government funds (as least in part). They made a deal with AstraZeneca to bring it to the market and insisted that it had to be sold at cost worldwide.

Does that sound like "screwing" anyone?

The EU has handled the pandemic badly overall, and especially the vaccine. They are making noise as a way to distract and deflect and apparently their public opinion is buying it.

They are also complaining about supply of AZ vaccine while, at the same time, trying hard to destroy that vaccine's reputation (so that some people don't want it). This is incomprehensible.

We didn't screw them. They screwed themselves by writing a nonsense contract written by people who don't have a clue.

Sorry, but Dave Keating is not a honest broker here, pretty rabidly pro EU.

There is nothing wrong with being pro-EU, even rabidly so. People who are rabidly against the EU get off the hook, all the time.

Also, it is not illegal for the EU to be banning exports of this vaccine product. Plus, where did the tax subsidies come from? In this case it is from an EU member state. This is how pharmaceutical companies work; they plant themselves where the subsides are.

The biggest mistake that the EU made was that they trusted free market forces too much.

Either way, this is a good read, from the Global Commission of Post-Pandemic Policy: Why States Should Invest in Vaccine Capacity: https://globalcommissionforpostpandemicpolicy.org/states-and...

It talks about the EU vaccine situation well, too.

None of this is true.

The UK screwed nobody, they just wrote a good contract independent of EU.

If the UK knew there were not going to be able to manufacture there, they would have made it elsewhere.

Nationalizing exports is a massive problem, and it may very well be illegal.

Nobody screwed the EU or Canada, they just failed to take appropriate action.

> People who are rabidly against the EU get off the hook, all the time.

Two wrongs do not a right make.

What specifically do you think he got wrong in the thread? That’s more useful to know, rather than name-calling.

"EU assumed good behavior. US & UK manoeuvred to benefit themselves."

Assuming that is true, which it isn't, on what basis did the EU assume good behaviour?

Could you please try to provide any sort of sourcing for your statement? You might be right, but how is anyone supposed to take what you say as fact if you don't provide any evidence?

Just being Pro-EU doesn't mean the reporting on this vaccine-drama is inaccurate. It means we probably need to be careful of what they are saying, but doesn't automatically mean it's wrong.

Quite right, if only all comments on hn came backed with evidence. ;)

https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1351129930264948748

1 tweet is not evidence of bias in itself, though, if you've been following along since Brexit it's pretty obvious. I invite you to spent 10 minutes looking through his twitter feed and judge for yourself.

Do you think the original he's criticizing (available at https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1351129935826575360/p...) was fair?

That's not what the thread says? It says that the EU/Germany should have insisted on a European partner for BioNTech.

I don't see how the UK insisting on a British partner for Oxford is 'screwing' the EU, given the fact we were leaving the EU around this time and Trump was not known for his globalist worldview at the time.

From the summary at the end of the thread:

"What mistakes did EU make? To me it seems obvious.

EU took decisions based on an assumption of a free market and good faith from its partners. They didn’t think forcing an EU partner on BioNTech was essential, or EU plants should be for Europeans 1st.

That now appears naive.

EU assumed good behavior. US & UK manoeuvred to benefit themselves."

Is that screwing someone or just naivety/incompetence from the EU? Why on earth did they think Trump would play fair?

It might be both. The UK and the US clearly screwed us. Still I find that the EU was really naive here, hopefully Von der Leyen will learn from this.

Countries do not have friends, only interests.

The first duty of a nation is to its people.

The moment that politicians forget that is the moment they find themselves in predicaments like this.

I'm guessing they thought Biden would play fair.

But there was no guarantee that Biden would win the election then.

It's their naïvety / arrogance

> free market and good faith

That's incompatible.

I could see them making a good faith assumption. Free market assumption is basically, everyone is out to earn most money they can.

The EU is not naive.

The list of bad decisions goes on and on. Face masks, open borders, vaccine development, suspension of AZ vaccine, etc. This is bad management and probably dangerous political games.

Now, the UK did not do much better but at least they did manage to develop a vaccine (which is sold at cost) and to understand that vaccination had to happen early and as fast as possible and they went all in (800k+ injections just yesterday).

The EU itself doesn't manage the reaction to the pandemic, it's up to each country. And as you can see European countries reacted differently and have vastly different results.

The EU has been put in charge of vaccine procurement and there is a lot of coordination between countries.

When I say "the EU" it means as much the EU as an institution as it means most member states individually.

The distinction matters depending on the point being discussed, otherwise the comparison with the UK (or the US) doesn't make that much sense.