Westminstenders: Move Your Business To The EU

[RedToothBrush]

The government is advising people to move their businesses to the EU to avoid UK taxation and red tape.

Why would you do this?

For the interests of the uk?

Or is it about power WITHIN the uk?

If the EU claim its pound of flesh, the Chinese government will be very keen to hock us its vaccines.

@ListeningQuietly

I made the mistake of watching a bit of BBC News at 10 last night. I lasted less than 10 minutes of the Jingoistic, Xenophobic willy waggling before I turned off.

Who gives a shit whether its made in Teeside.
Where are the glass vials and syringes and needles and PPE made ?

Well it is jobs for the uk in an area which really needs them and they are probably likely to be long term jobs.

So actually i think it is a good thing and one worth caring about. It also is a much higher end product than PPE so generates more income to the UK.

I don't like the jingoism, but frankly i will bloody cheer every single job we can get right now.

I agree this public bickering between the EU and AZ reflects badly on both and you can definitely see the advantage of acting alone as a country when it comes to a race for vaccines - if you are a big country. For little EU countries like Ireland, I don't think there is much belief we could have negotiated a better range of contract options ourselves.

But I have to say I have found it very disturbing on multiple threads here how it was weaponized as a a nasty "EU bashing the Brits" story, based on total misrepresentation of what people were saying. I genuinely have not seen it represented like that in the European press and social media I see - it is a contract spat with AZ, not the people of the UK. The AZ plants are not state-owned.

The discussions I hear in France mentioning are about fear of this new variant getting hold (c. 15% of all cases and rising..) Tensions are high, but related to lockdown issues not so much anger about vaccines. True, it may come but not yet.

Anyway, I read this in the Atlantic (written before the vaccine row) and don't think it has been shared. It looks at he importance of vaccine victory in terms of historic narrative
www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/01/uk-pandemic-deaths-100k/617811/

No pretty. Best endeavours is not as binding as guaranteed delivery. Guaranteed delivery type contracts are better for the customer (it therefore sounds like the uk have better terms than the eu)

David Allen Green was also saying that an english court is unlikely to rule that any failure in best efforts should affect other contracts. In other words it cant force AZ to break contracts with others in order to fulfil obligations to the EU. AZ may be in a situation where they simply cant fulfil both contracts, in which case they have to decide whether to fulfil one at the expense of the other or break both. Remembering if they break both they could be sued by both.

Its part of the reason the Eu wont sue. Because it is unlikely to make any difference to whether they have vaccine and will merely push the price of vaccine up. They don't win either way.

In reality they have made a stink because they haven't really got any other options. It leans on AZ who will have to bend over backwards and try and come up with an alternative solution.

My best guess is that its probably coming from another rest of the world factory at the expense of someone else rather than the uk. But AZ will want to keep very quiet about where and who may be affected.

I note here that if vaccine is being taken from uk production then the uk government will know about it. They then have the option of creating a stink. It may or may not be worth it. But the chances are it would be picked up / leaked and that wont be pretty. So thats why i don't think its the uk supply affected. I genuinely think it would cause unrest here and be politically destabilising in various ways. It is effectively an issue of national security its that serious.

The Eu blowing up an issue in that way is not good, healthy nor in their interests.

Equally though if az did break contract it would be interesting to see what the uk government would do. They could also threaten action... Thats how it spirals out of control.

Yes DGR I agree something is odd about the workers rights U turn. We know what the Britannia Unchained lot want, and it was probably a driver for Brexit for most of them, so why change course? Is it just bad optics or is it something else?

Now I would have thought there would have been exceptions made for military activity. However, I also wouldn't be surprised if this is something Boris managed to also cock up

www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/brexit-northern-ireland-protocol-obstructs-free-movement-of-military/29/01/

Northern Ireland unionists have called for Government intervention amid claims Brexit red tape could hinder the movement of military equipment within the UK.

New Irish Sea shipping arrangements mean the Armed Forces need to give 15 days’ notice, complete customs declarations and even inform Nato in order to bring materials from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, according to the Ulster Unionist Party.

UUP MLA Doug Beattie, a decorated Army veteran, said the restrictions were a consequence of the Northern Ireland Protocol, which governs the movement of goods across the Irish Sea since the Brexit transition period ended.

Under the terms of the protocol, Northern Ireland remains in the single market for goods and continues to apply EU customs rules at its ports and airports.

Equally though if az did break contract it would be interesting to see what the uk government would do. They could also threaten action... Thats how it spirals out of control.

Action where ? Not the ECJ.

@PawFives

Yes DGR I agree something is odd about the workers rights U turn. We know what the Britannia Unchained lot want, and it was probably a driver for Brexit for most of them, so why change course? Is it just bad optics or is it something else?

Well when the IMB went up in smoke, it can only be because Boris lost his nerve with the incoming very GFA-aware US administration.

So for this to be pulled, there must have been something of a similar order.

I've asked in a few places, and the lack of response is intriguing. But not being a lawyer I have to trust others.

How exactly does the mechanism for the EU to whack tariffs on UK goods (and sevices ?) in response to UK lowering standards work ? Is it an automatic process with no engagement ?

I'm wondering if it's only now dawning on the buccaneering Brexiteers that sovereignty costs ...

The US can't be the lever for the workers rights U turn, because theirs are not all that good, from what I have read.

It's intriguing. It made me think what else is likely to blow up which makes effort spent on workers rights a side show which can be ditched.

AZ may be in a situation where they simply cant fulfil both contracts, in which case they have to decide whether to fulfil one at the expense of the other or break both. Remembering if they break both they could be sued by both.

This isn’t right. AZ ARE fulfilling both contracts correctly. They are delivering to the UK on its contract terms and delivering to the EU on its contract terms.

The problem for the EU is that delivering a ‘best efforts’ contract means in reality that AZ will do its best but can’t guarantee. That is the reason no one will be being sued. The EU have lame lawyers and were late to the game.

A further point is that - as I understand it - the UK government owns part of the UK supply chain. That is parts of the vaccine (the vials? Liquid elements? Who knows?) appear to be owned by the UK. If so, AZ couldn’t send to EU as it isn’t theirs to send.

It's intriguing. It made me think what else is likely to blow up which makes effort spent on workers rights a side show which can be ditched.

As I said I don't know the intricacies of the deal. But it most definitely pegs UK standards to tariffs. The lower the standards, the higher the tariffs. And I am sure that is an automatic process.

So having won it's blessed sovereignty, it's entirely possible the UK dare not use it. Certainly not until the teething problems have been sorted.

@DGRossetti

Equally though if az did break contract it would be interesting to see what the uk government would do. They could also threaten action... Thats how it spirals out of control.

Action where ? Not the ECJ.

They can take AZ to court for breech of contract in the UK in the UK courts.

Wouldn't be an ECJ issue, just a straight issue in English law.

@PersonaNonGarter

AZ may be in a situation where they simply cant fulfil both contracts, in which case they have to decide whether to fulfil one at the expense of the other or break both. Remembering if they break both they could be sued by both.

This isn’t right. AZ ARE fulfilling both contracts correctly. They are delivering to the UK on its contract terms and delivering to the EU on its contract terms.

The problem for the EU is that delivering a ‘best efforts’ contract means in reality that AZ will do its best but can’t guarantee. That is the reason no one will be being sued. The EU have lame lawyers and were late to the game.

A further point is that - as I understand it - the UK government owns part of the UK supply chain. That is parts of the vaccine (the vials? Liquid elements? Who knows?) appear to be owned by the UK. If so, AZ couldn’t send to EU as it isn’t theirs to send.

The argument is if it was decided that the 'best efforts' clause wasn't sufficient to cover AZ's arse and that actually did make AZ in breech.

David Allen Green (contract lawyer familiar with EU law who did this shit) says there is an argument to be had over whether AZ are covered by this clause.

If they are not then they are not fulfilling both contracts correctly.

But this does not enforce breaking of the contract with the UK to better fulfil the EU one. It means they have a choice whether the break the UK contract (and risk action from the UK in addition to possible action from the EU) or whether to continue with the UK contract as they should and have to just deal with the consequences of the EU action in other ways (either financial compensation or sourcing supply from another supply chain - eg the indian one).

If AZ did decide to take it out of the UK supply chain, the UK could take AZ to court and the UK could win but its not that simple. It would be time consuming (and no one has time) and wouldn't bring any vaccine directed to the EU back. The UK may have to block export during the court case which has political ramifications and would spark a trade war (which would primarily involve vaccine and its component ingredients but could escalate further).

Its therefore not quite as simple in practice as what the contracts say or don't say. Especially since the whole thing is based on a not-for-profit sale.

Therefore it possibly is worth merely making AZ life hell in the hope that they will do something (possibly putting the UK in a difficult position in the meantime).

As I say the whole thing does actually have national security implications though.

It does need to be resolved diplomatically (which is a reason why all this jingoism isn't really condusive to this).

The UK/AZ governing law will be that of England and Wales.

For the avoidance of doubt, the EU cannot take AZ to any court anywhere until AZ breaches the terms of agreement. AZ delivery responsibilities were for ‘Q1’ which ends on 1 April.

So - even dismissing the ‘best efforts’ clause - THE EU CANNOT TAKE AZ TO COURT. And they know it.

For the vaccine, the UK were faster and smarter, with better innovation, more foresight and better lawyers. That’s why their citizens will benefit first. As they should.

David Allen Green (contract lawyer familiar with EU law who did this shit)

Its therefore not quite as simple in practice as what the contracts say or don't say. Especially since the whole thing is based on a not-for-profit sale.

Again. Let me put you right.

David Allen Green is an academic Constitutional lawyer. Not a contracts lawyer.

In law - which is what this is about - it IS as simple in practice as what the contracts say or don't say. That’s why the EU took THREE MONTHS negotiating what the contracts do or don’t say.

There is no relevance that this is a not-for-profit sale except to show that AZ are not prioritising one side or the others profit. That is to say, they are prioritising according to the agreements they have entered into.

I wonder if the NAO will ever release Brexit cost tracker
nao-mesh.shinyapps.io/Covid_cost_tracker/

@PersonaNonGarter

The UK/AZ governing law will be that of England and Wales.

For the avoidance of doubt, the EU cannot take AZ to any court anywhere until AZ breaches the terms of agreement. AZ delivery responsibilities were for ‘Q1’ which ends on 1 April.

So - even dismissing the ‘best efforts’ clause - THE EU CANNOT TAKE AZ TO COURT. And they know it.

For the vaccine, the UK were faster and smarter, with better innovation, more foresight and better lawyers. That’s why their citizens will benefit first. As they should.

The contract with AZ and the EU is likely to be in EU courts so there is liability there.

The EU CAN take AZ to court. What they can't do in either English law or EU law is insist that AZ break the UK contract.

What they CAN do is make it politically difficult for both the UK and AZ. And that in turn makes it difficult for the UK to turn to legal recourse with AZ because doing so turns it into a political and diplomatic issue.

In both cases legal action doesn't really resolve anything - particularly because everything is time sensitive.

In the UK's case, their best option is to play for time and hope deliveries are normal whilst the EU scrap it out with AZ. Hopefully that allows time for supply to increase everywhere and the issue with shortages to start to slowly resolve. The UK needs two to three weeks to really stay largely on track without it starting to impact policy too much (and if it does Johnson now has a free pass with the right of the party and the public so its not a political disaster for him on a personal level - if anything its a good thing for his preferred strategy).

There is a fundamental different between law and what can be practically enforced by law and the fact that law doesn't make a shortage of vaccine disappear.

This does therefore turn it into a political and diplomatic issue by virtue of demand outstripping what AZ can supply.

@PersonaNonGarter thank you great posts.

@PersonaNonGarter

David Allen Green (contract lawyer familiar with EU law who did this shit)

Its therefore not quite as simple in practice as what the contracts say or don't say. Especially since the whole thing is based on a not-for-profit sale.

Again. Let me put you right.

David Allen Green is an academic Constitutional lawyer. Not a contracts lawyer.

In law - which is what this is about - it IS as simple in practice as what the contracts say or don't say. That’s why the EU took THREE MONTHS negotiating what the contracts do or don’t say.

There is no relevance that this is a not-for-profit sale except to show that AZ are not prioritising one side or the others profit. That is to say, they are prioritising according to the agreements they have entered into.

David Allen Green practiced contract law for some time.

He is not a constitutional law specialist. His speciality is contract law.

I beleive at one point he wrote EU contracts.

He has blogged on constitutional law because he finds it interesting (any good lawyer should know the principles of constitutional issues because it forms the basis of the operation of the law), but his main interest with Brexit centred on his knowledge of trade law and contracts making. He writes for the Financial Times every now and again because it fits in with his skill set nicely.

This is why he has been looking at what has been happening between AZ and the EU because its his specialist area and has been trying to work out what the actual contract is and who is in the right / wrong.

His professional opinion is that both have a case, but actually in practical terms that only serves to make it more, not less complex... The wall of reality and the limits of law and all that.

But as you were.

solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/person/250080/david-allen-taylor-green

Areas of practice:
Administrative and public law
Commercial litigation
Information Technology
Intellectual property
Media, entertainment and sport

Ooo look. No Constitutional Law.

The EU CAN take AZ to court. I have explained to you about breach of contract above. AZ are not in breach - there are no grounds for court action.

And that in turn makes it difficult for the UK to turn to legal recourse with AZ because doing so turns it into a political and diplomatic issue. You’ve got confused here. The UK/AZ contract is functioning fine so no-one needs legal recourse.

In the UK's case, their best option is to play for time and hope deliveries are normal whilst the EU scrap it out with AZ. Again, you seem confused. UK/AZ fine, neither party needs to ‘play for time’ as they are fulfilling the correct and legal parts of their bargain.

Full disclosure: I am a contracts lawyer on her lunch break. The UK played a blinder on this. Brussels did not. The EU is embarrassed but without a legal leg to stand on at this stage.

I have to say I'm finding this all very confusing as I can't get my head around the legalese/contract details.

If the EU have messed up their AZ contract despite all their expertise.

Is it like that episode of Fawlty Towers where everybody with competence goes off to lunch/nap/etc, believing everything is under control, leaving poor Manuel in charge when the builders come round - and so they end up with the dining room door bricked up?

It sounds like the EU simply couldn’t make decisions at speed: didn’t decide which vaccines to back quickly enough; couldn’t sort their contracts fast enough; couldn’t arrange and secure the supply chain.

In short: ponderous and cumbersome. Exactly what was not needed.

@PersonaNonGarter So the sticking point is the wording, which meant the EU didn't secure the supply (and/or timing of delivery?). I would ask on the vaccine thread, but it's full of angry shouty people.

Is it like:

• Ursula orders a dozen cupcakes from the baker, to be delivered for her birthday party.
• But the week before, Boris had already ordered a dozen cupcakes to be delivered for his party.
• There's a delay in wheat-growing or flour-milling or similar, so the baker is slower in making the cupcakes than she had expected when she accepted the two orders.
• The baker has therefore thrown all her efforts into fulfilling Boris' order because it came in first.
• But this means now the baker doesn't have the supplies/time to deliver Ursula's dozen cupcakes in time for her party, and says she can have at most 4 cupcakes on the day.
• Ursula is pissed off because 4 cupcakes can't feed the 12 guests she invited
• So she kick offs and demands some of Boris' cupcakes, which is not cool because Boris also has 12 guests.
• When in fact what Ursula should have done (apart from get her order in before Boris did) was have a clause in her order compelling the baker to guarantee 12 cupcakes on party day.

???