@IcedPurple
However, our contracts did include export bans and the EU ones did not.
It wasn't really an export ban. Oxford was working with the British govt and got their order in first, months before the EU got round to it, and stipulated that their order should be fulfilled before being diverted elsewhere. Sounds quite reasonable to me.
There would have been absolute outrage here if we could not have got access to Pfizer/BioNTech until the EU was supplies.
Why? First come first served. Isn't that the norm when fulfilling orders?
In any case, I don't understand the need for hypothetical scenarios. That isn't what happened. What happened is that the EU dragged its heels and messed up vaccine procurement spectacularly. That's on them.
Germany are having an internal debate over the export of German made Pfizer vaccine to other EU states. There are some who want to reserve it for Germany first. They've made a political decision not to.
That doesn't mean any other country in the world is obliged to have a policy of nonprotectionism.
Ultimately the nonprotectionism from Germany to the rest of the EU is for political reasons and to ensure EU harmony. It is a policy based on its own political interests and priorities.
Equally the UK has done the same.
Trouble is the two policies clash somewhat but neither has done anything 'wrong' as such. Should the UK have made deals that didn't put its own interests first and not gone for the best deal it could get? (We've been having this debate for some time over the EU-UK deal.)
Why did the UK have to consider whether the EU would like it or not when making a closed commerical deal with a corporate body? The EU - and germany in particular - have made decisions not to do certain things. Thats not the concern of the UK though.
The UK certainly HAS NOT issued an export ban. It has reached a deal with AZ which gives them most favourable status. The EU wanted that but didn't get it.
Thats the bit the EU don't like. But they DID know and they DID agree to it.
Now months after this, they are kicking up a stink.
Its throwing its weight around to try and renegotiate or to politically hamper existing commercial contracts. Thats not the UK doing that. Thats the very definition of trying to start a trade dispute. Its a hostile action against someone. The AZ deal with the UK isn't a hostile action.
I understand WHY the EU is doing it. I understand thats what trade blocks do. It still doesn't give the EU a higher claim. It just highlights poor decision making which is forcing this behaviour. It is unlikely to produce much apart from bad blood which isn't good for anyone.
(The irony here is pretty bloody epic btw. I do feel like I'm having a reverse deja vu. The principles remain the same though).