That would be how any other business would work. You go through the orders as recieved. If we ordered first we get delivery first.
Didn't we gamble and place orders way before we knew if it worked and promised to pay even if it didn't?
Of course if I was in the EU and being told there's no jabs to be had as we're on a waiting list I'm sure I'd be demanding something be done, especially if while being told there was none available they were being exported to other countries.
Certainly questions to be asked about how many orders were accepted and more importantly what promises were made about delivery times and how realistic those promises were.
I agree getting orders fulfilled in the order they're placed. I think the EU are using the fact they paid up front as leverage (I'm assuming from this that we didn't btw) and this muddies the water a bit (tho in my opinion they are still mainly in the wrong here).
Say if someone ordered before you on credit and you paid up front a bit later you would feel a bit aggrieved that you'd already paid, they hadn't, yet they were getting orders fulfilled. IMO if that's how the contracts are made out the company has the obligation to fulfil them in the order received unless the up front payment contract specifically says they get to 'jump the queue'.
The issue for me is that it requires two doses and if we've started the rollout based on that and if we don't get the order in a timely fashion it will badly effect the timetable that should take precedent. Of course I feel in our rollout we should take these potential production problems into account and set aside each shipment accordingly (i.e. if we got 30m doses delivered we treat that as 15m to ensure those that got their first jab will get their second to make it as effective as possible).
I'm sure if it were the other way round we'd be complaining we hadn't received any of our order despite paying up front.