SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
brexit means brexit
UK formally abandons Europe's Unified Patent Court, Germany plans to move forward nevertheless:
The UK has formally ditched the Unified Patent Court (UPC), a project to create a single pan-European patent system that would fix the confusing mess of contradictory laws currently in place.
In a written statement in the House of Commons on Monday, the British undersecretary for science, research and innovation Amanda Solloway noted that: "Today, by means of a Note Verbale, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has withdrawn its ratification of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court."
The reason is, of course Brexit. "In view of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union, the United Kingdom no longer wishes to be a party to the Unified Patent Court system. Participating in a court that applies EU law and is bound by the CJEU would be inconsistent with the Government's aims of becoming an independent self-governing nation," she said.
[...] The whole idea of the UPC has been fought for over a decade now, making many its adherents borderline fanatical in making it a reality, even more so given frequent setbacks. In their unerring support, however, many seem willing to overlook or turn a blind eye to serious problems, not least of which is the mess that is the European Patent Office (EPO).
[...] The EPO is, of course, a big fan of the UPC and insists the UK leaving is a mere trifle to the larger European dream of a single patent system; a system that would give it significantly more power:
"These economic benefits for European companies and especially SMEs will not be affected by the announcement of the United Kingdom," it insisted in its submission to the German government.
"Even without the UK, the UP package will lead to significant simplification and cost reduction for the companies of the participating EU member states, which is also largely recognized by European companies."
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 27 2020, @11:23PM (5 children)
Actually you can. Unity doesn't magically provide economic benefits and its absence doesn't magically take them away. Here, the Schengen Area has provided most of the economic benefits of the present EU, the only real exceptions being the common currency and removal of tariffs (I don't include the state of peace in Europe either since it came about well before the EU did), neither which needs the authority of the EU to implement. So we have a lot of unity looking for a purpose and not finding it yet.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday July 28 2020, @08:59PM (4 children)
Here, the Schengen Area has provided most of the economic benefits of the present EU, the only real exceptions being the common currency and removal of tariffs
You mention those as if they're small things, and they just aren't. Having no tariffs and a common currency is absolutely necessary for being a world power. There's a reason the Norwegian Krone isn't a major world currency, and the American Dollar and the Euro are.
neither which needs the authority of the EU to implement
Absolutely wrong. You can't just create a shared currency and use it; you have to have a central government and a central bank to control the currency and set monetary policy. This is the whole reason there was a Eurozone crisis a few years ago: member states were bickering over the monetary policy, with certain states (like Greece and Portugal) wanting a very different policy from economically stronger states.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 28 2020, @11:02PM (3 children)
I called them "real exceptions".
Actually, yes, you can. It's not rocket science.
The central bank is the central government for the currency. They're not that hard to set up and don't take a lot of sovereignty.
Conflict of interest always is a thing. It doesn't matter the degree of unity.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday July 29 2020, @12:25AM (2 children)
>Actually, yes, you can. It's not rocket science.
Do you have any real-world examples? If not, then I reject your assertion.
>The central bank is the central government for the currency. They're not that hard to set up and don't take a lot of sovereignty.
And who runs the central bank? What kind of government is going to sign up to use a currency they have zero control over? I can think of one example: Zimbabwe (they use the American Dollar). That's not a very good example: that's a very troubled country that had extreme hyperinflation and switched to the USD for stability.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 29 2020, @02:36AM (1 child)
Wikipedia claims over four thousand private currencies. And there's the digital currencies which have been used for substantial trading and usually have no central bank in the first place.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 29 2020, @02:48AM