National Review Online
Thursday, March 25, 2021
For a long time now, the creation of the euro, a
dangerous experiment that placed political fantasy over economic reality, has
been the most damaging example of just how far, and just how incompetently,
those running the EU would go in the name of “ever-closer union.” That dismal
precedent may now have been eclipsed by Brussels’s involvement in securing
supplies of the COVID-19 vaccine for those who live within the EU’s borders, a
lethal experiment that placed political dogma over medical need.
Supported by Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, the
EU Commission (its administrative arm) took over the negotiations with vaccine
manufacturers on behalf of all EU member-states last June. This was designed
both as a declaration of EU “solidarity” and because of the belief that
bargaining on behalf of the whole bloc could secure the vaccine at a cheaper
price, a calculation that appeared to take little account of the economic costs
of any delays, and delay was what — for a variety of reasons — Brussels
delivered.
The U.K. came to its deal with AstraZeneca (the
manufacturer of the Oxford vaccine) three months earlier than the EU,
and its contract came with sharper teeth. The EU also took four months longer than the U.K. and U.S. to sign up with Pfizer.
Making matters worse, the EU’s FDA, the European
Medicines Agency (EMA),
a body by definition particularly receptive to the precautionary principle that
plays such a dominant role in EU policy-making (except when it comes to setting
up a new currency), took its time to approve the first vaccines. Its first
approval came some weeks after the U.K. and ten days
or so after the U.S.
Since then, the EU has struggled to catch up. As of this
Tuesday, the U.K. had administered about 46
vaccine doses per 100 people and the United States had administered
38. Meanwhile, the EU had administered fewer than 14. More lockdowns are
either on the horizon or being put in place.
The contrast between the grim picture within the EU and
rapid improvements in its renegade province, Brexit Britain, has not improved
the mood in Brussels, which has spent months looking for scapegoats, most
notably AstraZeneca, which has faced production problems in Belgium, and may have favored the U.K. (contract terms, and the
pace at which an agreement has been reached, have consequences). At the same
time, and somewhat paradoxically, some European leaders have publicly doubted the extent of the Oxford vaccine’s
effectiveness while some EU nations even temporarily suspended its use over (it seems) groundless health fears.
None of these doubts, however, have prevented the EU
Commission from threatening to trample over the property rights of various
vaccine manufacturers located within the EU. It wants to restrict their ability
— contracts or no — to supply countries that have high vaccination rates or
that don’t allow vaccine exports themselves, two categories into which, by some
curious coincidence, the U.K. arguably falls (the question of exports is complex).
Meanwhile, the Brits are not unaware that lipids, which
are key to the production of the Pfizer vaccine in the EU, are manufactured in
Yorkshire.
As we write, London and Brussels are trying to devise a
solution that, in the words of a joint statement, will “create a win-win
situation and expand vaccine supply for all our citizens.” Time will tell, and
quickly too. But what should not change, at least quite so rapidly, will be
memories of this latest debacle created by the relentless pursuit of
“ever-closer union.”
No comments:
Post a Comment