Press play to listen to this article
European Commission officials on Monday reiterated a number of vague threats about blocking coronavirus vaccine exports, but could not explain what they intended to do, when they intended to do so or how it would actually lead to more doses injected into the arms of EU citizens. .
So, after another day of much more questions than answers about the EU’s slow-moving vaccination campaign, only this was clear: the continued stumbling block in Brussels will not stop the buzzing of EU citizens and national leaders before a virtual European council summit on Thursday.
The Commission’s threats, first expressed by President Ursula von der Leyen last week, are targeted at Britain – the only vaccine-producing nation to receive doses produced on the European continent but not export in all respects. no internally produced dose.
The British government – and the British people – reacted angrily to the sound of the EU sword, and Prime Minister Boris Johnson contacted European counterparts trying to remove any new restrictive measures that could put pressure on him to respond. Some allies are already urging it to stay on fire, even if the EU takes action, to avoid a trade war that could disrupt delicate supply chains.
But, at least for now, the Commission has set itself on fire.
“Look, we’re not going to speculate on the actual tools or details of what we could suggest to achieve the goals,” said Commission spokesman Eric Mamer. “Our problem is really underperforming, under-delivery of vaccines compared to our contracts with these companies, and that’s the problem we want to solve – how to make sure companies deliver to the EU under contract.”
But while Mamer, speaking at the regular lunch press conference, was referring to several companies, the Commission’s anger now turns to one: AstraZeneca, which is tens of millions of doses behind what promised to deliver.
As a way to remedy the potential of this shortfall, the Commission is examining the possibility of restricting exports of AstraZeneca vaccine manufactured to a factory in the Netherlands run by a subcontractor, Halix. Also on Monday, Dutch officials said they would cooperate with a Commission decision banning these exports.
But it’s not clear if that would really help. Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton, the EU’s representative for increasing vaccine production, said earlier that the Halix plant was not delivering doses to the UK, although that could have changed.
As a separate complication, the European Medicines Agency has not yet authorized the Halix plant to produce vaccines for the EU. Snafu appears to be a technical supervisor who was just as guilty of the Commission for not insisting that AstraZeneca seek such authorization as it was for the company to fail to do so. That approval is now in the process, Mamer said.
Mamer repeatedly insisted throughout Monday’s press conference that the Commission’s goals were simply to force vaccine manufacturers to comply with EU purchase agreements and to achieve “reciprocity” from other vaccine-producing countries that receive doses. EU products – again, namely the UK
He defined reciprocity as the export of either finished doses of vaccine or raw materials needed to make vaccines.
At the same time, he confirmed that, although the Commission should block exports, it currently had no legal authority to confiscate unshipped vaccines and reuse them for EU countries. Such a move would require additional emergency measures and could risk violating World Trade Organization rules, as well as further undermining the EU’s reputation as a champion of free trade based on international rules.
“It’s not about banning vaccine exports,” Mamer said. “It’s about making sure we’re able to get the vaccines we need for Europe.”
Journalists and some national officials are still wondering how the Commission will actually guarantee the delivery of the expected vaccines, which it has not yet been able to do with AstraZeneca. So far, the Commission has blocked only one transport with Italy’s support – the AstraZeneca vaccines destined for Australia. On Monday, Mamer said the Commission did not know what had happened to 250,000 prevented doses and asked the company questions.
EU leaders are due to discuss the issue of vaccine exports during their videoconference summit on Thursday. But because they don’t meet in person, they can’t make any immediate formal decisions.
There has been some speculation that leaders, who are under increasing political pressure on the slow pace of vaccinations, may want to extend export bans to focus not only on AstraZeneca, but also on BioNTech / Pfizer, Moderna and potentially other manufacturers that they have so far fulfilled their contractual commitments to the EU.
Such a move would anger not only companies but also other countries, including partners such as Canada, Australia and Mexico, which purchase vaccines from EU producers.
In issuing his new threats last week, von der Leyen offered a reason for blocking wider exports – a move that, while controversial, could actually raise vaccination rates in the EU. Coincidentally, it could give a boost to the ruling Christian Democratic Union of Germany in a super election year.
But other EU countries have said they will oppose such aggressive action, warning that von der Leyen’s incendiary approach risks the EU’s reputation in trying to play for a German audience.
“I feel more and more like we are all part … of an electoral piece in Germany,” said an EU diplomat.
Two EU diplomats said only France and Italy clearly supported a broader export ban, while Germany’s position remained unclear. And France was the only country to openly support this new high-risk approach.
“I support the announcements made by the President of the Commission … especially to demand reciprocity,” President Emmanuel Macron said last week.
Officials in countries, including Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands, have said they are against blocking vaccine exports from companies that fulfill their contracts.
With the EU countries divided and the leaders meeting in practice, it seemed unlikely that there would be a resolution to the debate this week.
Meanwhile, the previous effort by European Council President Charles Michel to challenge Britain to reveal how many doses it exported seemed forgotten amid the noise of the Commission’s threats – not to mention London’s warnings of a possible trade war.
Emilio Casalicchio and Anna Isaac and contributed to the reporting.
This article is part of politicalpremium policy service: Pro Health Care. From the prices of medicines, EMAs, vaccines, pharmaceuticals and more, our specialist journalists keep you up to date on the topics that drive the health care policy agenda. E-mail [email protected] for a free trial.