The EU are on a collision course with the UK over vaccines.

Everyone I know has had Oxford vaccine, none unduly worried about side effects. Europe have been inconsistent in their vaccine programme, different excuses every time, it political, they will do what they want as they are so annoyed with our rollout etc.

Firecracker123

*I think the penny has finally dropped!!!*

The only leader and political party that it is OK to criticise is Mr.Johnson and the Conservatives...

Yes GrannyGravy didn't you know, how dare any posters criticise the sainted EU and its leaders ?

Firecracker, no one has said that and I expect you know it. This is the bit the EU hasn't done as well as we have. On the other hand, during the rest of the pandemic, we have not had much to write home about.

The recovery plan the EU is setting up is in place and ready to go - where is ours? Has the country agree to it or are the government going to ride roughshod over all the democratic processes yet again?

We will be backwards and forwards on who does best where because good countries sometimes do better than others and sometimes do worse but none of this means The EU are on a collision course with the UK over vaccines. The leaders of France and England have often been at loggerheads - what's new. Different countries are rolling out the vaccine differently and some of their people wish they had bought more but I wish we had locked down earlier and better in every case except this last one and I will not be alone in that. Nothing to do with the EU, just our government being incompetent at the time.

So I ask again, this piece is entitled The EU are on a collision course with the UK over vaccines., where has anyone shown any proof at all that this is the case? It's just been a continuous rant against European countries.

only issued the selected members of the press at its launch
only issued the selected members of the press with the Race Report.

As to the Any Questions source inews.co.uk/opinion/race-report-select-journalists-first-commission-opportunism-937689

What is different between the UK and France is that ministers are held responsible for advice given to the public, to the point that they can be accused of manslaughter and charged. Therefore if you take the case of the AZ and queries made over whether it is safe or not, knowing they could be jailed in the future you can understand how because it is a new vaccine they need to be sure.

That's very useful to know mokryna and certainly shows a different picture. Thank you.

Sounds like a plan. I wish our MPs could be jailed for the lies they tell. Except we probably wouldn’t have too many left and the jails are already overflowing.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

mokryna

What is different between the UK and France is that ministers are held responsible for advice given to the public, to the point that they can be accused of manslaughter and charged. Therefore if you take the case of the AZ and queries made over whether it is safe or not, knowing they could be jailed in the future you can understand how because it is a new vaccine they need to be sure.

I didn't realise that was the case mokryna.

So could it work the other way round that French ministers could be sued and jailed because the government knew of the dangers posed by the epidemic last year, yet failed to take the necessary measures? I mean the lack of masks and the poor testing system?

It would seem then that they could be charged for doing nothing or for doing too much in the case of any vaccinations not just AZ? Pfizer has had blood clot problems too.

Are not the ministers of health in France always doctors themselves? Maybe that makes a difference?

Véran certainly is (neurologue) and the last one was, but I don't think that they always are. There may always be one minister who is though. I hadn't realised that Simone Weil had held the post twice.

The of course goes back to the 90s but it does make you think that minsters are held responsible in France therefore are hesitant but I don’t know if this the case in other counties.
“ According to the investigating judges, the three former ministers bear a grievous share of responsibility in the "contaminated blood affair," which first surfaced in 1992. They will answer to charges of involuntary homicide and involuntarily compromising the well being of others before the Court of Justice of the Republic, a special tribunal created in 1993 to judge members of the government for crimes or misdeeds allegedly committed during the performance of their duties.”

I've just read up about the Cour de Justice de la République and it would seem that out of the 15 members of the panel 12 are parliamentary ministers. So politicians I guess.
Where is the impartiality in that in decision making?

Thank you for flowers Alegrias.

mokryna Thank you for that info about ministers in France being held to account. People are trying to that in the UK and not succeeding whereas Sarkozy has been sentenced to 3 years, 1 in prison and 2 suspended for corruption.

Furthermore, I read that the UK govt, when the contracts with pharma were drawn up, agreed to no legal action being taken if problems developed with ill health in people who had the vaccine.

I can't remember which company, or where I read it because it was several weeks ago, but I'm not making it up.

I heard that too Dinahmo,but I have no idea whether it’s correct or not. I just heard it somewhere.

I've been trying to find something about the indemnity but I haven't tracked it down yet.

I do remember when that government document was doing the rounds a few months ago, the one that people were getting excited about, it said something along the lines of companies would be exempt from prosecution in the future if serious side effects came to light. However the Government would be liable.

As I understand it this is not unprecedented when there are serious public health considerations - basically the responsibility is on the MHRA to make the right decision based on the information provided by the company. I also understand about 25 countries have taken this approach, but this is all from memory.

Alegrias1

I've been trying to find something about the indemnity but I haven't tracked it down yet.

I do remember when that government document was doing the rounds a few months ago, the one that people were getting excited about, it said something along the lines of companies would be exempt from prosecution in the future if serious side effects came to light. However the Government would be liable.

As I understand it this is not unprecedented when there are serious public health considerations - basically the responsibility is on the MHRA to make the right decision based on the information provided by the company. I also understand about 25 countries have taken this approach, but this is all from memory.

My memory is that this is linked to the fact that the MHRA gave emergency authorisation - the vaccines are not yet licensed. With emergency authorisation went the government accepting liability. When a drug is licensed, then the drug company has liability. During trials of course, the participants care covered by whoever is funding the trial. I think that’s the situation atm in the UK.

Thanks suzie, you explained it better than me.

Danahmo It true Sarkozy is appealing so not in prison yet, if ever, nor is Fillon, who was found guilty of embezzling public funds by paying his wife and children for jobs that didn’t exist. This stopped his political career . My DD’s f-i-l thought like many other French, that he hadn’t acted illegally, they wanted him to run for President.