A maybe-not-that curious observation on vaccination (though more interested in the federalism issue) with a question for historians on Eastern Europe. Let's start with some data from Germany (thread)
As Germany crossed the point of 60% of the population vaccinated once, let's look at the significant differences amongst German Länder
The first 8 Länder - all from former West Germany. The lowest 4 from East Germany (Germany has 16 Länder). West Germany ranges from 57.9% (Bavaria, shame on you) to 69% (Bremen). East Germany from 50.9% (Sachsen) to 58.5% (M-V) if you do not count Berlin at 59.1%.
So East Germany has significantly lower rates than West Germany, despite vaccines being distributed largely along the lines of population size. Let's look at the EU, shall we?
Here it is, with US, UK and EU as comparators
And here too, even though distribution was roughly along the lines of population, you see that former communist countries fared poorly (with Hungary an outlier). So my question is: what (if anything) explains this? What was the history of vaccination in communist countries?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Let's start off with some very very very basic facts: treaties are instruments concluded by two or more parties. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties actually defines them (I'll spare you details)
Treaties are binding. Art. 26 VCLT. Pacta sunt servanda.
What Lord Frost describes is not just the EU approach - but also the traditional UK approach. Indeed, the FC(D)O lays implementing legislation to parliament before ratification precisely for this reason - and the UK then becomes less flexible.
In fact, it describes normal treaty processes and a long-term reality of treaty law: there's lots of discussions about treaty-making, but once made treaties are relatively inflexible. /2
Treaty parties are trying to change this to some extent - which is why they establish treaty bodies with powers to change the content of the treaty a bit. But this comes with its own downsides. /3
Very grateful to @GeorgeFreemanMP for pointing to the source of some of the points he made on Newsnight. My worries about accuracy remain, though I now have to spread them around (short thread)
@GeorgeFreemanMP 1) On trade. The information here is quite different from the original statement. It is "where UK tariff reductions on imports from certain developing countries save exporters from those countries around £1 billion each year"
No reference to differences from EU tariffs, no reference to tariffs on food, no reference to Africa. And, to be honest, almost unverifiable what this refers to. Carrying over the EU's GSP policy including EBA? (Which would be really different from the original claim)?
There are a number of factually wrong statements by @GeorgeFreemanMP to @katierazz. As this threatens to misrepresent the payoff the country is making, I fear they need to be corrected (thread)
Let me state where I am coming from: I can understand that in times of crisis like covid funding might need to be cut. But we need to be aware of payoffs and should not talk them down. So let me just give a few pointers.
1) The MP refers to a "big aid industry" that will be suffering, points out to valuable programs and then tries to draw a distinction that really important programs will not be cut. That is at best wrong - looking at "big aid industry", arguably offensively so.