|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 15, 2022 11:18:45 GMT
The EU is concerned about its workers' rights. Either the Swiss will recognise their pension rights, etc., or they won't. If they're not prepared to do that, they won't get what they want. It's that simple. The EU isn't interested in free trade unless its acquiring raw materials from Africa or the like, or interest in its citizens. It merely wants significant economic and social influence over those who it believes it can dominate. This Swiss did the right thing walking away from a "framework" deal. The Swiss had no choice but to walk away. The EU wasn't prepared to allow its citizens to be treated as second-class citizens without basic pension rights, etc. The rest of your post is pure paranoia. The EU wants to dominate the world! For fuck's sake!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 15, 2022 11:20:59 GMT
No, Astrazeneca disgraced themselves. And a first-year law student would have understood that AZ was in serious breach of its contract. The EU's assessment that AZ was in breach was vindicated by an independent Belgian court. The EU acted as judge and jury and broke the rules based system. It allowed Italy to block exports to Australia. It blocked Dutch manufactured components of AZ being exported to the UK. It threatened to trigger Art. 16, and threatened to seize private businesses' products that were paid by foreign governments. It disgraced itself on the world stage. LOL!!! It threatened to seize private businesses' products that were paid by foreign governments? It threatened to seize goods it had paid for. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 15, 2022 11:24:01 GMT
The EU isn't interested in free trade unless its acquiring raw materials from Africa or the like, or interest in its citizens. It merely wants significant economic and social influence over those who it believes it can dominate. This Swiss did the right thing walking away from a "framework" deal. The Swiss had no choice but to walk away. The EU wasn't prepared to allow its citizens to be treated as second-class citizens without basic pension rights, etc. The rest of your post is pure paranoia. The EU wants to dominate the world! For fuck's sake!!! They did, they could have taken the uneven overreaching deal but they decided to walk away from such a deal. The Swiss weren't prepared to have their wages undercut or their sovereignty undermined by Brussels. And your delusions that the EU is some kind of benevolent philanthropic community protecting its citizens, and seizing vaccines are laughable! |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 15, 2022 11:26:01 GMT
The EU acted as judge and jury and broke the rules based system. It allowed Italy to block exports to Australia. It blocked Dutch manufactured components of AZ being exported to the UK. It threatened to trigger Art. 16, and threatened to seize private businesses' products that were paid by foreign governments. It disgraced itself on the world stage. LOL!!! It threatened to seize private businesses' products that were paid by foreign governments? It threatened to seize goods it had paid for. It had no right. That's for the courts to decide. Makes a mockery of the EU being a rules-based-system. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 15, 2022 11:26:11 GMT
What if it had been the other way round? What if the vaccines had been in the UK? AZ had a contract with the EU and the UK government. Would you have approved of the UK government allowing AZ to break its contract with the UK and give all its vaccines to the EU? I don't think so. You'd have wanted the UK government to force AZ to uphold its contract, or to at least apportion its available vaccines fairly between the UK and the EU.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 15, 2022 11:29:17 GMT
The Swiss had no choice but to walk away. The EU wasn't prepared to allow its citizens to be treated as second-class citizens without basic pension rights, etc. The rest of your post is pure paranoia. The EU wants to dominate the world! For fuck's sake!!! They did, they could have taken the uneven overreaching deal but they decided to walk away from such a deal. The Swiss weren't prepared to have their wages undercut or their sovereignty undermined by Brussels. And your delusions that the EU is some kind of benevolent philanthropic community protecting its citizens, and seizing vaccines are laughable! Erm ... it was a mutual decision to walk away. The EU wasn't prepared to allow Switzerland to treat its workers as second class citizens. As for sovereignty, EU members are required to give up sovereignty to the extent that they have to change their laws to harmonise them with the rest of the single market. That removes a massive barrier to trade, and trade is what the deal is about in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 15, 2022 11:35:51 GMT
LOL!!! It threatened to seize private businesses' products that were paid by foreign governments? It threatened to seize goods it had paid for. It had no right. That's for the courts to decide. Makes a mockery of the EU being a rules-based-system. Eh? Contractual parties don't have to wait for a court decision to act. If one party is in breach, particularly if it is in repudiatory breach, the other is entitled to act immediately. It doesn't have to wait for a court decision. And the EU is perfectly entitled to withhold export licences in certain circumstances, just as the UK is. The Italian government, not the EU, decided to withhold an export licence for vaccines from Italy to Australia. That is commonplace and entirely legitimate in circumstances of national emergency. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2022 11:38:48 GMT
We have an FTA with the EU that does not allow freedom of movement of people; that does not require us to make payments to the EU; that does not compel us to apply EU standards and laws. Swiss bilateral deals with the EU cover all such things. We DO have to apply EU standards for products actually. In fact we haven't yet repealed the laws that require everyone in the country to follow EU rules, as I've already said. So we're completely aligned on products. Like Switzerland we're not in the SM so we're both third party countries but we have a closer deal on trade that Switzerland has - which was one big mistake we made. Switzerland has over 100 separate bilateral trade deals on products covering product rules and quotas and there is therefore more reason to expect the EU to check their trade more closely - but the EU don't. Switzerland also have a free movement treaty with the EU, but it's not the same as the FoM integrated into the SM. It's a separate treaty and was negotiated in 1999 and it includes "safeguard" clauses to limit (or even prevent) migration. The EU don't like it and there's a lot of argument about it. It's complicated by the fact that the Swiss govt actually want free movement but the people don't - but the EU have threatened Switzerland with guillotining their treaties. Et cetera. Same old EU. I'm not sure what the "cohesion" payments are but they're not budgetary payments as would be paid for membership of the SM. Basically you need to accept that Switzerland is not in the SM but a third party country trading entirely by bespoke deals. Like we should have been The stuff about the protocol is also nonsense. Read the treaty. Either party can unilaterally withdraw from the agreement if it is causing problems with trade or peace in NI. And NI have already said that it's cutting them off from trade with the mainland. There's also a requirement for parties to act with good faith which the EU isn't doing because the NI protocol is doing exactly what it intended. In fact Ursula van der Leyen threatened to invoke Article 16 herself to try to stop Astra-Zeneca sending vaccines outside the EU - which is a completely inappropriate use of the Article. Typical EU.  ^ Unlike Switzerland, we are not in the Single Market. Therefore, we are not required to align with EU laws and standards. The 100+ bilateral deals Switzerland has with the EU cover and sort out rules, regulations, standards and the red tape every third country and those with no bespoke bilateral deals face when trading with the EU. Switzerland? -- Here, read it and weep: "...Switzerland records 330,000 cross-border commuters coming from the EU every day. In addition, 24,000 trucks cross the Swiss border daily. Finally, the high level of integration is further underlined by the 2.2 million people which cross the Swiss border every day. How does Switzerland achieve such an integration without being member of the EU nor of the European Economic Area (EEA)? Answer: with the so-called ‘bilateral approach’.
The EU-Swiss cooperation is based on a tailor-made set of 120 agreements, of which 25 could be considered as main bilateral agreements between Switzerland and the EU. Those agreements cover a wide range of topics including the free movement of people, Schengen/Dublin, land and air transportation, agriculture, research, statistics, free trade and customs services.
The goods-related agreements between Switzerland and the EU entail measures to ensure the free exchange of goods. These agreements can be categorized in: (i) reduction of tariffs; (ii) harmonization of product rules; and (iii) simplification of border crossings." ukandeu.ac.uk/the-swiss-approach-to-trade-with-the-eu/Re NI Protocol: Well, No. The agreement does not allow either party to withdraw unilaterally from it if its application leads to societal and economic problems. It allows either party to take unilateral safeguard measures in response to a problem. Meaning, if too many checks cause societal or economic problems; the safeguard measure you take must be that which responds to the problem of too many checks. It does not mean you can withdraw from the agreement or scrap it. Scrapping and withdrawing are not safeguard measures. If you want to withdraw from the agreement or any agreement then just denounce it officially. The Vienna Convention allows it -- subject to restrictions, of course. Yes, Von der Leyen threatened to invoke Article 16 over Aztra Zeneca. Threatened is the operative word and the threat was withdrawn four hours or so later when they apparently realised the stupidity of it. In contrast, we have been threatening not to invoke Article 16 but to scrap the bloody thing altogether unilaterally because the DUP do not like it! You're not sure what "cohesion payments" are? Here, from the EC website: The Cohesion Fund provides support to Member States with a gross national income (GNI) per capita below 90% EU-27 average to strengthen the economic, social and territorial cohesion of the EU.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2022 12:08:21 GMT
We DO have to apply EU standards for products actually. In fact we haven't yet repealed the laws that require everyone in the country to follow EU rules, as I've already said. So we're completely aligned on products. Like Switzerland we're not in the SM so we're both third party countries but we have a closer deal on trade that Switzerland has - which was one big mistake we made. Switzerland has over 100 separate bilateral trade deals on products covering product rules and quotas and there is therefore more reason to expect the EU to check their trade more closely - but the EU don't. Switzerland also have a free movement treaty with the EU, but it's not the same as the FoM integrated into the SM. It's a separate treaty and was negotiated in 1999 and it includes "safeguard" clauses to limit (or even prevent) migration. The EU don't like it and there's a lot of argument about it. It's complicated by the fact that the Swiss govt actually want free movement but the people don't - but the EU have threatened Switzerland with guillotining their treaties. Et cetera. Same old EU. I'm not sure what the "cohesion" payments are but they're not budgetary payments as would be paid for membership of the SM. Basically you need to accept that Switzerland is not in the SM but a third party country trading entirely by bespoke deals. Like we should have been The stuff about the protocol is also nonsense. Read the treaty. Either party can unilaterally withdraw from the agreement if it is causing problems with trade or peace in NI. And NI have already said that it's cutting them off from trade with the mainland. There's also a requirement for parties to act with good faith which the EU isn't doing because the NI protocol is doing exactly what it intended. In fact Ursula van der Leyen threatened to invoke Article 16 herself to try to stop Astra-Zeneca sending vaccines outside the EU - which is a completely inappropriate use of the Article. Typical EU. You're banging your head against a loquacious brick wall. I know. The man is a card carrying anti-EU Brexiteer and so has convinced himself that his flawed logic will correct itself if he persists with it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2022 12:14:42 GMT
No, Astrazeneca's behaviour was disgraceful. They entered a legally binding contract with the EU, which they broke. They took a completely unprincipled approach, and that was pointed out by an independent Belgian court. Boris got lucky. AZ overpromised. They had legally binding contracts with two customers, but in the event, they had sufficient vaccine quantities to supply only one. Instead of coming to an arrangement with its two customers (the UK and the EU) to supply both in proportion to the amount ordered, AZ completely ignored its contractual obligations with the EU. It could have gone the other way and completely ignored the UK's contract. If it had completely ignored its obligations to the UK, there would have been public outrage on a scale never seen before. So, yes, the EU's response was restrained. But the EU decided to take the law into its own hands even before a court rule against AZ. That isn't following a rules-based-system the EU likes to lecture other on. The EU disgraced themselves and there's no two ways about it. How did the EU take the law into its ownhands? |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 15, 2022 13:47:30 GMT
^ Unlike Switzerland, we are not in the Single Market. Therefore, we are not required to align with EU laws and standards. The 100+ bilateral deals Switzerland has with the EU cover and sort out rules, regulations, standards and the red tape every third country and those with no bespoke bilateral deals face when trading with the EU. Blah, blah. ZZZZzzzz.... Switzerland is not in the SM. Until you understand that you will never understand their relationship with the EU. But we'll just have to agree to differ on that. You think it is in the SM. But it's not. And neither the UK nor Switzerland have to align with the EU on product rules. Switzerland agrees alignment as defined in its bilateral deals. We have adopted a position of alignment with the current EU rules but we will not adopt new rules - i.e. no "dynamic alignment". And currently we obey all EU product rules. You don't know anything about the EU or Switzerland so I suggest again that you stop posting until you know the facts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2022 14:20:43 GMT
^ Unlike Switzerland, we are not in the Single Market. Therefore, we are not required to align with EU laws and standards. The 100+ bilateral deals Switzerland has with the EU cover and sort out rules, regulations, standards and the red tape every third country and those with no bespoke bilateral deals face when trading with the EU. Blah, blah. ZZZZzzzz.... Switzerland is not in the SM. Until you understand that you will never understand their relationship with the EU. But we'll just have to agree to differ on that. You think it is in the SM. But it's not. And neither the UK nor Switzerland have to align with the EU on product rules. Switzerland agrees alignment as defined in its bilateral deals. We have adopted a position of alignment with the current EU rules but we will not adopt new rules - i.e. no "dynamic alignment". And currently we obey all EU product rules. You don't know anything about the EU or Switzerland so I suggest again that you stop posting until you know the facts. You wish! ^ Switzerland's bilateral deals allow it be in and trade in the Single Market. Sorry, but that is the reality. We know it does not match your wishes and desires; but here, from the European Commission Website -- something to alleviate your disappointment: Switzerland's economic and trade relations with the EU are mainly governed by a series of bilateral agreements where Switzerland has agreed to take over certain aspects of EU legislation in exchange for accessing part of the EU's single market.
....In 1999 seven sectoral agreements were signed, known as ‘Bilaterals I’. They cover free movement of persons. technical trade barriers, public procurement, agriculture, air and land transport, research.
A further set of sectoral agreements signed in 2004 (‘Bilaterals II’) covers processed agricultural products, statistics, combating fraud.
There are more than 100 bilateral agreements between the EU and Switzerland, managed by over 20 joint committees. The agreements oblige Switzerland to take over relevant EU legislation in the sectors covered.
In return for its partial integration in the EU's single market, Switzerland pays a financial contribution to economic and social cohesion in the EU Member States that joined after 2004.
trade.ec.europa.eu/access-to-markets/en/content/switzerland
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Nov 15, 2022 22:21:02 GMT
No, Astrazeneca disgraced themselves. And a first-year law student would have understood that AZ was in serious breach of its contract. The EU's assessment that AZ was in breach was vindicated by an independent Belgian court. The EU acted as judge and jury and broke the rules based system. It allowed Italy to block exports to Australia. It blocked Dutch manufactured components of AZ being exported to the UK. It threatened to trigger Art. 16, and threatened to seize private businesses' products that were paid by foreign governments. It disgraced itself on the world stage. As I recall, the EU regarded the Astra Zeneca vaccine as crap. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 15, 2022 23:42:28 GMT
The EU acted as judge and jury and broke the rules based system. It allowed Italy to block exports to Australia. It blocked Dutch manufactured components of AZ being exported to the UK. It threatened to trigger Art. 16, and threatened to seize private businesses' products that were paid by foreign governments. It disgraced itself on the world stage. As I recall, the EU regarded the Astra Zeneca vaccine as crap. Quite. The irresponsible slandering was compounded by penny-inching over saving lives. The vaccine was invented in Oxford by an Anglo-Swedish company which was developed using British taxpayers' money. The EU prevented AZ from its legally binding contract with the UK to dispense vaccines produced in its territory because it had a contract with AZ which promised nothing but "best endeavours". The EU cataclysmically failed to execute a mass vaccine procurement initiative and tried to cover this up by claiming it (AZ) was 'ineffective'; threatened to trigger Art.16; blocking exports to other countries by seizing intellectual property rights of private companies, along with minister Clement Beaune bragging the EU paid three times less the amount in vaccinations than the UK. We even had Pascal Canfin claiming "The EU is ready to deprive the British of their second dose of vaccine" www.lefigaro.fr/international/pascal-canfin-l-ue-est-prete-a-priver-les-britanniques-de-leur-seconde-dose-20210328We had Italian police raiding pharmaceutical companies on a 'tip-off' of course from paranoid French Commissioner Thierry Le Breton that AZ had been stockpiling vaccines in Italy ready to be quietly smuggled out to the UK. Though it transpired on its raid the vaccines found were intended for the EU anyway! This is what the EU were reduced to, sending armed guards into a pharmaceutical plant seizing the property of private businesses. From start to finish the EU's actions and behaviours in their quest to execute a mass vaccine rollout was a joke, and the who world got to see their tantrums. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 16, 2022 0:13:41 GMT
As I recall, the EU regarded the Astra Zeneca vaccine as crap. Quite. The irresponsible slandering was compounded by penny-inching over saving lives. The vaccine was invented in Oxford by an Anglo-Swedish company which was developed using British taxpayers' money. The EU prevented AZ from its legally binding contract with the UK to dispense vaccines produced in its territory because it had a contract with AZ which promised nothing but "best endeavours". The EU cataclysmically failed to execute a mass vaccine procurement initiative and tried to cover this up by claiming it (AZ) was 'ineffective'; threatened to trigger Art.16; blocking exports to other countries by seizing intellectual property rights of private companies, along with minister Clement Beaune bragging the EU paid three times less the amount in vaccinations than the UK. We even had Pascal Canfin claiming "The EU is ready to deprive the British of their second dose of vaccine" www.lefigaro.fr/international/pascal-canfin-l-ue-est-prete-a-priver-les-britanniques-de-leur-seconde-dose-20210328We had Italian police raiding pharmaceutical companies on a 'tip-off' of course from paranoid French Commissioner Thierry Le Breton that AZ had been stockpiling vaccines in Italy ready to be quietly smuggled out to the UK. Though it transpired on its raid the vaccines found were intended for the EU anyway! This is what the EU were reduced to, sending armed guards into a pharmaceutical plant seizing the property of private businesses. From start to finish the EU's actions and behaviours in their quest to execute a mass vaccine rollout was a joke, and the who world got to see their tantrums. I see you need to have it explained to you again. AZ made a contract with the UK to supply it with vaccines. AZ also made a contract with the EU to supply it with vaccines. Both parties had contracts that were equally binding and imposed equal obligations on AZ (both contracts contained 'best reasonable endeavours' clauses). AZ wasn't able to meet its obligations to both parties. What would a reasonable actor do in that situation? People are dying en masse. People are very, very scared. A reasonable actor would get together with the two parties, and come to an arrangement whereby both parties would receive part of what they ordered, in proper proportion to their sizes. That would be far from ideal, but it would allow the vaccines to be distributed to the most vulnerable in the sphere of each party's control. Is that what AZ did? No. AZ randomly chose to favour one party. Instead of sharing the vaccines in proportion to the sizes of each party, so that each party would be able to distribute vaccines to its most vulnerable, AZ randomly decided to give one party ALL the vaccines, allowing that party to distribute those vaccines how it chose (to the most vulnerable AND everybody else). It was a complete fluke. The EU's contract was just as binding as the UK's contract. The UK had no stronger right to the vaccines in reason or in law (as far as the law is concerned, an independent Belgian court was clear that AZ had not only breached its contract, but that it had committed a fundamental breach of contract with the EU). Boris took the vaccines. He can't be entirely blamed for doing that. He was the Prime Minister, and it is the Prime Minister's duty to put his people first (even if in an ideal world, the vaccines would have been shared between the UK and EU equitably). Where he went wrong was to claim that he had achieved something, that his brilliance somehow saved the day for the British public. There was no brilliance, just sheer good luck. It's almost as if the AZ CEO tossed a coin for who would get the vaccines. Of course, the Brexiters were all over it, claiming it was a victory for Brexit. LOL!! The EU's contract was just as binding and every bit as well drafted as the UK's. The EU was furious. Who could blame them? . If it had gone the other way, and the AZ CEO had decided to give all the vaccines to the EU, there would have been fury in the UK. Lockdown or no lockdown, people would have been descending on Astrazeneca facilities with torches and pitchforks. Forums like this would have been calling for all out war with the EU. But that's not to say that the EU didn't react angrily - they tried to stop Astrazeneca. They almost triggered Article 16. Not their proudest moment, but their reaction was damned restrained nevertheless, all things considered. Astrazeneca acted disgracefully, and Johnson acted disgracefully when he took credit for a complete fluke. |
|
^ Unlike Switzerland, we are not in the Single Market. Therefore, we are not required to align with EU laws and standards. The 100+ bilateral deals Switzerland has with the EU cover and sort out rules, regulations, standards and the red tape every third country and those with no bespoke bilateral deals face when trading with the EU. Switzerland? -- Here, read it and weep: 