The EU didn't only cock up in relation to Article 16; they also were mistaken in relation to contract law according to a Commercial lawyer. This is an extract from a very long article.

[I]While European ministers have publicly insisted that they are entitled to jabs under the terms of the AstraZeneca contract, Steven Barrett - a respected commercial lawyer with the Radcliffe Chambers - told MailOnline that it actually shows the opposite.

'The EU's public position is legally unsustainable, and they have made public comments that are demonstrably wrong,' he said.

Pulling apart the EU contract, Mr Barrett pointed to section 5.1 as the most damning, saying that it 'clearly shows' the company is only under a 'Best Reasonable Effort' clause to supply the EU - as boss Pascal Soriot has stated.

While section 5.4 does state that factories in the UK are considered to be part of the EU under the terms of the contract, he called this 'a distraction' that 'is not relevant to the EU's point'.

'This is actually a mildly embarrassing climbdown from the EU, who have a rule that all vaccines used in the EU have to be made in the EU.

'What they have done in that clause is say, for the purposes of this contract, the UK counts as the EU.' But, he added, it does not mean they are entitled to doses made in UK factories.] In addition, clause 6.2 of the contract states that 'competing agreements' signed by AstraZeneca might affect the supply of vaccines to the EU.

'They knew there would be competing agreements,' Mr Barrett said. 'Everyone in the world knew there would be competing agreements. They knew that might mean doses were delayed.

'I believe the EU is publicly asserting that it now has a right to jump the queue and take doses that belong to other people. That is expressly wrong,' he added.