- Joined
- Jul 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,283
- Location
- Near Salisbury
- Car
- MX5 1.8 Sport, Range Rover 5.0 SC, BMW X1
Long may that continue!It very much does.
Mind you, the deafening silence from Adonis, AC Grayling, Campbell, et al is very welcome.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Long may that continue!It very much does.
Mind you, the deafening silence from Adonis, AC Grayling, Campbell, et al is very welcome.
Well if the UK ordered the vaccines first and started the process to allow them to be used before they were even ready to be delivered, while all the rest sat and twiddled their thumbs, then why not?An unpopular view:
Are we expecting UK leaders to secure vaccines for our own population first, even if it means that other countries will go short?
But we are enraged when EU leaders try to do the same for their citizens?
If you ordered a car and was told delivery will be in 6 months time and then 3 months later someone orders the exact same spec car and is given yours a month later would you be pissed?An unpopular view:
Are we expecting UK leaders to secure vaccines for our own population first, even if it means that other countries will go short?
But we are enraged when EU leaders try to do the same for their citizens?
If only life was so simple.If you ordered a car and was told delivery will be in 6 months time and then 3 months later someone orders the exact same spec car and is given yours a month later would you be pissed?
Surely anyone involved in agreeing the various contracts for orders , on both sides, would have quite definite clauses for when and how many.( I would imagine it wasn't the trainee buyer and the CEO's secretary who agreed the contracts.) Any country trying to get more than their fare share , by whatever means, will surely be vilified by the rest of the world.An unpopular view:
Are we expecting UK leaders to secure vaccines for our own population first, even if it means that other countries will go short?
But we are enraged when EU leaders try to do the same for their citizens?
Were the eu perhaps keeping their options open?An unpopular view:
Are we expecting UK leaders to secure vaccines for our own population first, even if it means that other countries will go short?
But we are enraged when EU leaders try to do the same for their citizens?
Apparently they placed orders with 6 different companies, but have only given 2 of them clearance to be used.France's abandonment of it's vaccine development hasn't helped , I wonder how many advance orders the EU placed with the Pasteur Institute.
we are not enraged that EU is trying to secure vaccines .. we are enraged that they are trying to steal our allocations which we secured with forethought, testing and planningAn unpopular view:
Are we expecting UK leaders to secure vaccines for our own population first, even if it means that other countries will go short?
But we are enraged when EU leaders try to do the same for their citizens?
Correct.I was taught not to use the term "best endeavours/efforts" in contracts as that can be interpreted as you will deliver! Much better to say "reasonable endeavours/efforts".
No.Surely anyone involved in agreeing the various contracts for orders , on both sides, would have quite definite clauses for when and how many.( I would imagine it wasn't the trainee buyer and the CEO's secretary who agreed the contracts.) Any country trying to get more than their fare share , by whatever means, will surely be vilified by the rest of the world.
That is probably true, so how can the EU insist that they are being short changed ? Somebody's dropped a clanger somewhere.No.
Because the whole production process was new, with new vaccine; it is simply commercially stupid to agree to will deliver X on Y when you are unsure about your production capability
Interesting question with no easy answer.So... is 'fair share' simply based on whoever booked it first? Or should 'fair share' perhaps be based on some equal-distribution principle? Or maybe based on need?
Because it's easier to scapegoat someone else than it is to admit that the actions you took were deeply flawed?so how can the EU insist that they are being short changed ?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.