As this keeps getting quote tweeted at me, perhaps worth noting that in my view it’s answered by @LawDavF here.
https://twitter.com/lawdavf/status/1372979551928729607?s=21
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1372897635577761803
In short (as far as the UK is concerned - I’m not looking at the US position) the “one rule for us, another for you” criticism at the end of the thread isn’t warranted by the points made.
The UK has not behaved inconsistently with the principle that pharma co.s should be permitted to comply with binding contracts. In essence, the U.K. got better contracts (which, as the thread points out, is a function of earlier, strategic, and heavy investment).
(NB anyone who looks at my timeline knows I’m not shy of criticising the current UK government for inconsistency and worse: and its poor and trust-burning management of the EU relationship generally really hasn’t helped. But the inconsistency charge really doesn’t stick here.)
(And NB too that the use of export bans to deal with contractual issues is one that any jurisdiction with trading interests around the world and a huge interest in maintaining a rules-based order in international trade needs to consider very carefully before using.)
(A point that I have made often when criticising the current UK government’s threats to break its promises - but sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
