I don't understand how you could possibly call this an attempt at plan economy, unless you consider all solicitation of a product by a government to be plan economy?

How is this fundamentally any different from the US's purchasing of doses from BioNTech/Pfizer? I'm sure the US would take legal action against Pfizer if they weren't delivering doses according to the agreement?

Because the doses provided are a function of how well the tool chain works and not of weather or not they have to meet a particular target or at what level the target is set.

"The EU is attempting a planned economy because the amount of doses depends on how well the production tool chain works". I don't think that follows? Is there a missing link here?

> How is this fundamentally any different from the US's purchasing of doses from BioNTech/Pfizer?

It isn't. It's just that "euroskeptics" will distort arguments for the sole purpose of hating and dividing

You're spreading prejudice, conspiracy theories and hatred.

As far as I understand it the levels of what “mandatory” mean were different in the Uk contract to the eu one. So it’s not quite true that that’s always the point, there are shades of gray which is exactly where this went wrong.

> The point of a contract is always that fulfilling the contract is mandatory.

This is true of almost zero contracts.

---