With due caution, a short thread on the vaccines row.
It is, in my view, a huge issue and will come to dominate global politics in the year ahead. Two world views are colliding, and there is no easy resolution. 1/7
First - vaccine supply can be seen as a 'normal' commercial contract, for a good which is very much in demand. Sellers seek out buyers and together they come to mutually satisfactory agreements. 2/7
If the EU or the UK or Nigeria (or Pfizer or AstraZeneca) have got what they think is a bad deal they should blame their lawyers, or their position on the market. If they have a got a better deal than their neighbours, that is to be cheered (loudly). 3/7
But there is another perspective. One that emphasises that Covid is a global pandemic which requires a global solution. One that is more sceptical about the ability of markets (in these conditions) to reach optimal outcomes. 4/7
This perspective is one which is, perhaps, queasy about the power of the pharmaceutical companies and the larger economies. One that, perhaps, sees the vaccine as a public good, which should be directed towards those that need it most. 5/7
Here is a link to a study (from December) which provides an overview of how high income countries have secured future supplies of covid-19 vaccines but that access for the rest of the world is uncertain. 6/7 bmj.com/content/371/bm…
My sense is that many people can see the problems with the commercial contract route. But, that unless enough people are prepared to accept that their vaccines will be delayed because of the greater need elsewhere, things are not going to change. 7/7
An (almost certainly unnecessary) addition to the long list of slightly strained Brexit analogies, this time featuring Fred Flintstone's car. 1/6
Over many years, the EU member states built the single market, in order to remove not only tariffs and customs within Europe, but also a range of other technical barriers to trade (so-called non-tariff barriers). 2/ 6
One can imagine the trade relationship between the states as a car, with an engine, which needs careful maintenance. 3/6
I can see that 'first dose first' might be the best strategy for now. As the article suggests, it is better for cars to have one headlight, than that some have two and others none (but note, we're a LONG way away from having all cars with one headlight). 2/
The article references two dangers - vaccine resistance and trust. It also rightly says that more evidence is needed (and the studies are underway). 3/
Back to the UK. The last week has seen (at least) four interventions by political heavyweights/grandees. What they say is interesting, as is how they choose to say it. 1/6
First, Tony Blair, or rather the Tony Blair Institute. It aims to save Britain from decline. 2/6 institute.global/tony-blair/ton…
Second, Theresa May. Her theme is not dissimilar to Blair's. But the tone is rather different. 3/6 dailymail.co.uk/debate/article…
One positive which seems to be emerging from the US today is that many (by no means all) Republicans and Republican supporters are turning against Trump.
Without the strong support of his party/base, he is immeasurably weakened, and the threat he poses recedes.
BUT... 1/7
What does that mean for those who have consistently opposed Trump? And, to bring the debate to the UK, what might it mean for those who are opposing Johnson and his attacks on the UK's constitution? 2/7
Trump/Johnson supporters do not seem willing or able to listen to the warnings of the opposition. More than that, they seek to present the opposition as the 'true' threat to democracy. 3/7
First, we are indeed in the realms *not* of the UK having 'membership' of the single market, but instead of it only having an FTA. If there's a deal, the differences will become obvious very soon. 2/7
Second, it is also right to say that the 'threat' from the UK, armed with an FTA, to the integrity of the single market, isn't that great, and also that the level-playing field isn't as level as all that. 3/7
10 mins in front of the news was enough to drive me to intense frustration.
The Tory party 'line to take' today is that the unbridgeable divide is the result of the failure of the EU to recognise that the UK is an independent sovereign state.
It is nonsense. THREAD. 1/11
Brexit involves the UK making a sovereign decision to leave the EU. And, in January 2020 the UK duly left the EU. 2/11
As a member of the EU, the UK was part of the single market. The single market is a complex web of rules and presumptions which seeks to eliminate trade barriers between the EU member states. 3/11