Vaccine Wars

The EU has backtracked on the invocation of Clause 16 of the Northern Irish Protocol to safeguard vaccines manufactured within the EU. An indisputable victory for Boris. However, what seems to have been conveniently forgotten is that, under intense pressure from the EU, Boris deactivated three controversial clauses 44, 45 and 47 from the UK Internal Market Bill in December, the activation of which would have been against international law. That was an indisputable victory for the EU. The EU, however, wasn't threatening to break international law by activating Clause 16 and would have been entirely within its rights. However, as a result of the spat, AZ has agreed to increase production of the EU allocation, but whether that can be done remains to be seen.

The score is, arguably, 1 - 1 with loads of extra time, although Boris hasn't had a particularly good season and has been off form all year in home matches, being near the bottom of the league table and close to relegation.

How did that bugger get in there? Oh Well.

The EU was looking to apply a 'technical solution' to a problem it has with its contract with AstraZeneca, not a problem is has with the UK. Unfortunately, that option had political ramifications for the EU's relationship with the UK. Whether through ineptitude or naivete, this was realised a bit late - hence the backtracking.

The irony is that the spat would not have arisen but for the disastrous effects of Brexit. A double irony is that the DUP has been calling for the UK to invoke Clause 16 since the transition period ended because of added bureaucracy, which Boris has resisted by calling the issues 'teething problems', which they aren't - they're intrinsic and systemic. The triple irony is that all this further fuels the cause of Irish reunification. The quadruple irony is that had Boris done the same to safeguard UK supplies of vaccine, he'd in all likelihood have been lauded, and rightly so, by the right wing press for sticking up for Brits.

But to continue:

1. The UK could have done exactly what it did in terms of early approval as a member of the EU - emergency legislation allows for that within the rules of membership. Any EU member could have done it, but chose no to. Given the benefits of Brexit are becoming manifestly apparent as non-existent, and it has produced far more harm than good, was early approval merely a cynical ploy by Johnson? Based on his past performance I'm tempted to say it was, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt - God knows he needs SOME positive news after the catalogue of disasters he's presided over.
2. The early approval was a risk, as human clinical trials were run parallel to animal trials to cut development time. However, the risk was predominantly for the trial participants and not the roll-out participants, although a risk still exists in terms of possible, unknown, long-term effects. What is true is that this is the first mRNA vaccine ever, but the underlying technology has been deemed safe by the regulators.
3. The EU regulator was based in the UK, but had to relocate to the Netherlands, which had an obvious impact on its ability to react at speed, especially when a lot of its work was subcontracted to the UK regulator and it lost 25% of its workforce. That left a huge gap to be filled and staff to be recruited, which arguably added to the delay.
4. Nicola Sturgeon, who has been criticised by Scottish Conservatives for the slow vaccine rollout in Scotland, is threatening to publish actual Scottish vaccine supply figures, which allegedly show the supply to be the problem, contrary to the UK government's assertion. This is causing much consternation in Downing Street and could be a big embarrassment to Johnson and lead to accusations of him prioritising England, given he has little support north of the border and wants the SNP to look inept.
5. The EU is insistent that its beef is with AstraZeneca and the contract for supply, not with the UK. However, many in the UK are portraying it as such as it suits their narrative of 'bad EU'. The contract appears to hinge on the phrase; "best efforts". That seems to put the case quite squarely on the side of AstraZeneca; however, it now hinges on whether the contract with the UK also used the 'best efforts' wording, in which case the EU is on a better footing and could have a case for demanding some of the UK's supply from AstraZeneca.
6. Given the foregoing, the chances of Johnson releasing details of the UK's AstraZeneca contract are pretty remote, if not zero. Can't say I blame him, as he'd want to hang on to all of the UK's allocation, as it's the only success he's had and his only way of atoning for having one of the highest relative death tolls in the world. 
7. Johnson himself threatened 'no hesitation' to invoke Clause 16 on the 13th January, but not a murmur about this in the right wing press. Yet the EU threatens to do the same and all hell breaks loose.
8. As in most historic events, it's the ending that will be remembered and define it with the public, rather than the countless cockups and failures in between (just think of the 100 Years War, WWI and WWII). Johnson's fully aware of that and so he has to get this right. His problem, though, is that he will still be lumbered with all the problems Brexit is exposing - problems than can only be called teething problems for a limited period, until it's universally acknowledged that extra processes are in-built and systemic and not merely 'teething problems'.