peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
This is a very good point regarding technology improvements. It won't matter where people live, country or city, technology sees no difference........
Current Affairs EU In or Out
- Thread starter micknick
- Start date
- Status
This is a very good point regarding technology improvements. It won't matter where people live, country or city, technology sees no difference........
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Do they really think May will show her hand, or fall into the trap being fought for by our remainers.....
"Mr Draghi said the eurozone has remained resilient in the wake of the historic June referendum but warned longer-term effects will “vary across countries depending on their trade links with the UK”.
He called for “clarity on the negotiation process as soon as possible in order to reduce uncertainty”.
Mr Draghi said: “We are looking for a concept by the UK government where it would share its views and plans with its own citizens, and see what they say about that, before we can actually express our views on this.”
The bank chief said he does not know the what the full impact of Brexit will be and placed the blame on Mrs May."
"Mr Draghi said the eurozone has remained resilient in the wake of the historic June referendum but warned longer-term effects will “vary across countries depending on their trade links with the UK”.
He called for “clarity on the negotiation process as soon as possible in order to reduce uncertainty”.
Mr Draghi said: “We are looking for a concept by the UK government where it would share its views and plans with its own citizens, and see what they say about that, before we can actually express our views on this.”
The bank chief said he does not know the what the full impact of Brexit will be and placed the blame on Mrs May."
What I was referring to wasn't one of wealth or ownership though Joe so much as of mindset, both towards change in general and towards those among us that are different in whatever way.
Now, I would argue that life is increasingly inter-connected, so change is going to happen (and happen faster), and we're more likely to rub shoulders with those who we perceive as different, whether through living next door to them or working via global supply chains.
That's the mindset I mean, there are those that embrace that, and those that don't (appear to).
Its like saying to a poker player show me your hand before I raise my chips upwards, or if you have a better hand I will think of pulling out of the game its ridiculous for us to outline our line of negotiations you are tipping them off I was a manage of 30 men and doing well expanding my workload I prepared my tactics to ask for a pay rise not just broadcast them to anyone to tip the management team off!
Even moving to a better job told no one till I had it in writing always used referees from past employment - again only told my present employer the news when handing my notice in with the offer in writing its just basic commonsense to get the best deal!
This isn't a game of poker Joe. In poker it's zero sum - for someone to win, someone has to lose. It's much better for all concerned if Europe works together, and the only real way to work together is if there is mutual trust. We've got a few thousands years of anthropology to remind us of that
Sorry to disappoint hard-Brexiters. This is from a professor of law at the University of London.
"Ever since Prime Minister Theresa May insisted that the UK would, post-Brexit, escape the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in her speech at the Conservative Party conference in October, it has been assumed that the UK was on a path to a “hard Brexit”.
This is because full membership of the EU single market – the current UK position – requires acceptance of the supremacy of EU law and the EU courts’ jurisdiction. Similarly, the key “soft Brexit” option – membership of the European Economic Area, along the lines of Norway –also requires effective acceptance of the bulk of EU laws.
In fact, the goal of wholly escaping the jurisdiction of the CJEU would force the UK to pursue a hard Brexit option, such as leaving the single market entirely, and simply negotiating “access” to it. Yet, a relatively unassuming announcement issued by the government concerning patent law suggests that the UK government’s Brexit policy is a lot softer than the rhetoric suggests.
Why is the patent court important to Brexit?
Since 2012 the EU has been making preparations for the biggest change to the European patent system since the early 1970s. The most important reform is the setting up of a new Unified Patent Court (UPC), common to participating EU member states.
Importantly, the UPC will have jurisdiction to hear patent disputes and issue remedies to litigants that are binding within an area covering almost the entire EU single market. This is a huge change from the awkward present system, which requires national litigation in each individual member country. So far, 25 out of the 28 EU member states have agreed to join the UPC, with Spain, Poland and Croatia the only ones not participating. The UK has been firmly on board since 2012. The court will include judges from the UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands and other EU member states.
Until the Brexit referendum, the UK seemed to be well on the way to full ratification of the UPC. Indeed, for the past four years the UK government has been making plans to host one of the new court’s central divisions in Aldgate, east London, where a building has already been leased. Mock patent trials have even taken place at the venue.
Accepting EU decisions on patents
What is crucial in terms of Brexit, however, is that even though the UPC will have its own jurisdiction to rule with respect to most patent issues – like the infringement of patented drugs – it must defer to the CJEU on issues of EU law, such as those that apply under the Biotech Directive. In line with this, the CJEU in Opinion 1/09 held that only states that accept the supremacy of EU law and the jurisdiction of the CJEU may participate in the new system.
The upshot of all this is that if the UK is intent on a hard Brexit, it’s hard to see how it could participate in the UPC, which requires accepting that the decisions of the Court of Justice – in patent law, at least – will be binding in the UK.
The big surprise
For this reason, it was widely expected that the UK would not ratify the UPC agreement and that the UPC would go ahead without the UK, with Milan or The Hague taking over London’s UPC central division.
Well it was … Shutterstock
Yet the UK government astonished the legal world by announcing that the UK would ratify the UPC agreement after all. The UPC can now go ahead and is expected to be up and running at some point during 2017.
The UK’s decision to ratify is all the more surprising given that the UK government has chosen to do so with full knowledge of the June 23 referendum result and what the consequences of ratification are.
Of course, as some have suggested, Brexit planning behind the scenes could well be a shambles. But if, as the government insists it isn’t, then ratification makes no sense if the goal is a hard Brexit: while it will still be possible for the UK to break away from the UPC in a number of years’ time, post-Brexit, the UK would have to do so by abandoning a fully functioning court system, featuring its own judges, that may have already become popular with UK businesses and inventors. By contrast, a decision not to ratify the UPC would – at this point – have signalled that the UK was serious about the hard Brexit strategy.
The ratification only makes sense if the government intends to remain a member of the UPC for the foreseeable future, which means that it intends to accept the jurisdiction of the CJEU in EU-related patent matters post-Brexit. This could be good news for British inventors and businesses, especially for the UK’s burgeoning life sciences industry, as the London UPC division will have a specialist focus in this area.
From this perspective, it leaves the hard Brexit strategy in serious doubt. It is now inevitable that the government will come under pressure to keep other areas of business well within the parameters of EU law – the City of London’s precious “passporting” ability in the area of financial services is one notable example, and the import/export of motor vehicles is another, as evidenced by the government’s recent “sweetheart” deal with Nissan. And if the government pursues a sector-by-sector approach it means the entire Brexit process will take many years, perhaps more than a decade, with huge swathes of EU law still binding on the UK during that period, and perhaps thereafter.
Ultimately, the UPC ratification decision – along with the recent Nissan deal – are the first important signals that Brexit will, in reality, be quite “soft” even if the rhetoric continues to be “hard”."
https://theconversation.com/uk-is-h...pport-for-new-eu-patent-court-proves-it-69574
"Ever since Prime Minister Theresa May insisted that the UK would, post-Brexit, escape the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in her speech at the Conservative Party conference in October, it has been assumed that the UK was on a path to a “hard Brexit”.
This is because full membership of the EU single market – the current UK position – requires acceptance of the supremacy of EU law and the EU courts’ jurisdiction. Similarly, the key “soft Brexit” option – membership of the European Economic Area, along the lines of Norway –also requires effective acceptance of the bulk of EU laws.
In fact, the goal of wholly escaping the jurisdiction of the CJEU would force the UK to pursue a hard Brexit option, such as leaving the single market entirely, and simply negotiating “access” to it. Yet, a relatively unassuming announcement issued by the government concerning patent law suggests that the UK government’s Brexit policy is a lot softer than the rhetoric suggests.
Why is the patent court important to Brexit?
Since 2012 the EU has been making preparations for the biggest change to the European patent system since the early 1970s. The most important reform is the setting up of a new Unified Patent Court (UPC), common to participating EU member states.
Importantly, the UPC will have jurisdiction to hear patent disputes and issue remedies to litigants that are binding within an area covering almost the entire EU single market. This is a huge change from the awkward present system, which requires national litigation in each individual member country. So far, 25 out of the 28 EU member states have agreed to join the UPC, with Spain, Poland and Croatia the only ones not participating. The UK has been firmly on board since 2012. The court will include judges from the UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands and other EU member states.
Until the Brexit referendum, the UK seemed to be well on the way to full ratification of the UPC. Indeed, for the past four years the UK government has been making plans to host one of the new court’s central divisions in Aldgate, east London, where a building has already been leased. Mock patent trials have even taken place at the venue.
Accepting EU decisions on patents
What is crucial in terms of Brexit, however, is that even though the UPC will have its own jurisdiction to rule with respect to most patent issues – like the infringement of patented drugs – it must defer to the CJEU on issues of EU law, such as those that apply under the Biotech Directive. In line with this, the CJEU in Opinion 1/09 held that only states that accept the supremacy of EU law and the jurisdiction of the CJEU may participate in the new system.
The upshot of all this is that if the UK is intent on a hard Brexit, it’s hard to see how it could participate in the UPC, which requires accepting that the decisions of the Court of Justice – in patent law, at least – will be binding in the UK.
The big surprise
For this reason, it was widely expected that the UK would not ratify the UPC agreement and that the UPC would go ahead without the UK, with Milan or The Hague taking over London’s UPC central division.
Well it was … Shutterstock
Yet the UK government astonished the legal world by announcing that the UK would ratify the UPC agreement after all. The UPC can now go ahead and is expected to be up and running at some point during 2017.
The UK’s decision to ratify is all the more surprising given that the UK government has chosen to do so with full knowledge of the June 23 referendum result and what the consequences of ratification are.
Of course, as some have suggested, Brexit planning behind the scenes could well be a shambles. But if, as the government insists it isn’t, then ratification makes no sense if the goal is a hard Brexit: while it will still be possible for the UK to break away from the UPC in a number of years’ time, post-Brexit, the UK would have to do so by abandoning a fully functioning court system, featuring its own judges, that may have already become popular with UK businesses and inventors. By contrast, a decision not to ratify the UPC would – at this point – have signalled that the UK was serious about the hard Brexit strategy.
The ratification only makes sense if the government intends to remain a member of the UPC for the foreseeable future, which means that it intends to accept the jurisdiction of the CJEU in EU-related patent matters post-Brexit. This could be good news for British inventors and businesses, especially for the UK’s burgeoning life sciences industry, as the London UPC division will have a specialist focus in this area.
From this perspective, it leaves the hard Brexit strategy in serious doubt. It is now inevitable that the government will come under pressure to keep other areas of business well within the parameters of EU law – the City of London’s precious “passporting” ability in the area of financial services is one notable example, and the import/export of motor vehicles is another, as evidenced by the government’s recent “sweetheart” deal with Nissan. And if the government pursues a sector-by-sector approach it means the entire Brexit process will take many years, perhaps more than a decade, with huge swathes of EU law still binding on the UK during that period, and perhaps thereafter.
Ultimately, the UPC ratification decision – along with the recent Nissan deal – are the first important signals that Brexit will, in reality, be quite “soft” even if the rhetoric continues to be “hard”."
https://theconversation.com/uk-is-h...pport-for-new-eu-patent-court-proves-it-69574
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Sorry to disappoint hard-Brexiters. This is from a professor of law at the University of London.
"Ever since Prime Minister Theresa May insisted that the UK would, post-Brexit, escape the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in her speech at the Conservative Party conference in October, it has been assumed that the UK was on a path to a “hard Brexit”.
This is because full membership of the EU single market – the current UK position – requires acceptance of the supremacy of EU law and the EU courts’ jurisdiction. Similarly, the key “soft Brexit” option – membership of the European Economic Area, along the lines of Norway –also requires effective acceptance of the bulk of EU laws.
In fact, the goal of wholly escaping the jurisdiction of the CJEU would force the UK to pursue a hard Brexit option, such as leaving the single market entirely, and simply negotiating “access” to it. Yet, a relatively unassuming announcement issued by the government concerning patent law suggests that the UK government’s Brexit policy is a lot softer than the rhetoric suggests.
Why is the patent court important to Brexit?
Since 2012 the EU has been making preparations for the biggest change to the European patent system since the early 1970s. The most important reform is the setting up of a new Unified Patent Court (UPC), common to participating EU member states.
Importantly, the UPC will have jurisdiction to hear patent disputes and issue remedies to litigants that are binding within an area covering almost the entire EU single market. This is a huge change from the awkward present system, which requires national litigation in each individual member country. So far, 25 out of the 28 EU member states have agreed to join the UPC, with Spain, Poland and Croatia the only ones not participating. The UK has been firmly on board since 2012. The court will include judges from the UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands and other EU member states.
Until the Brexit referendum, the UK seemed to be well on the way to full ratification of the UPC. Indeed, for the past four years the UK government has been making plans to host one of the new court’s central divisions in Aldgate, east London, where a building has already been leased. Mock patent trials have even taken place at the venue.
Accepting EU decisions on patents
What is crucial in terms of Brexit, however, is that even though the UPC will have its own jurisdiction to rule with respect to most patent issues – like the infringement of patented drugs – it must defer to the CJEU on issues of EU law, such as those that apply under the Biotech Directive. In line with this, the CJEU in Opinion 1/09 held that only states that accept the supremacy of EU law and the jurisdiction of the CJEU may participate in the new system.
The upshot of all this is that if the UK is intent on a hard Brexit, it’s hard to see how it could participate in the UPC, which requires accepting that the decisions of the Court of Justice – in patent law, at least – will be binding in the UK.
The big surprise
For this reason, it was widely expected that the UK would not ratify the UPC agreement and that the UPC would go ahead without the UK, with Milan or The Hague taking over London’s UPC central division.
Well it was … Shutterstock
Yet the UK government astonished the legal world by announcing that the UK would ratify the UPC agreement after all. The UPC can now go ahead and is expected to be up and running at some point during 2017.
The UK’s decision to ratify is all the more surprising given that the UK government has chosen to do so with full knowledge of the June 23 referendum result and what the consequences of ratification are.
Of course, as some have suggested, Brexit planning behind the scenes could well be a shambles. But if, as the government insists it isn’t, then ratification makes no sense if the goal is a hard Brexit: while it will still be possible for the UK to break away from the UPC in a number of years’ time, post-Brexit, the UK would have to do so by abandoning a fully functioning court system, featuring its own judges, that may have already become popular with UK businesses and inventors. By contrast, a decision not to ratify the UPC would – at this point – have signalled that the UK was serious about the hard Brexit strategy.
The ratification only makes sense if the government intends to remain a member of the UPC for the foreseeable future, which means that it intends to accept the jurisdiction of the CJEU in EU-related patent matters post-Brexit. This could be good news for British inventors and businesses, especially for the UK’s burgeoning life sciences industry, as the London UPC division will have a specialist focus in this area.
From this perspective, it leaves the hard Brexit strategy in serious doubt. It is now inevitable that the government will come under pressure to keep other areas of business well within the parameters of EU law – the City of London’s precious “passporting” ability in the area of financial services is one notable example, and the import/export of motor vehicles is another, as evidenced by the government’s recent “sweetheart” deal with Nissan. And if the government pursues a sector-by-sector approach it means the entire Brexit process will take many years, perhaps more than a decade, with huge swathes of EU law still binding on the UK during that period, and perhaps thereafter.
Ultimately, the UPC ratification decision – along with the recent Nissan deal – are the first important signals that Brexit will, in reality, be quite “soft” even if the rhetoric continues to be “hard”."
https://theconversation.com/uk-is-h...pport-for-new-eu-patent-court-proves-it-69574
I think it's a sensible decision whatever the results of future negotiations. However you look at it, it provides us with another very small negotiating chip.......
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
This isn't a game of poker Joe. In poker it's zero sum - for someone to win, someone has to lose. It's much better for all concerned if Europe works together, and the only real way to work together is if there is mutual trust. We've got a few thousands years of anthropology to remind us of that
I'm not sure the EU, in its current form, will even exist in two years. I've said before that I believe all the key players will have been removed from office and a new understanding may well prevail. There is a major shift going on and no one knows how it will end. We may have been incredibly fortunate to declare our leaving when we did........
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Staggering numbers, it's about the same as our village population multiplied by 1,500........
Toffeelover
Player Valuation: £80m
There is to all intents and purposes a big shift going on in the EU but the old guard are fighting this to maintain the status quo rather than adopt reform. The UK has tried to present a case for reform which was quashed by the other nations led by the old guard countries.
It is because of our vote to leave that the old guard point to the UK as destabilising the EU structure hence all the talk of hard Brexit to teach that damn UK a lesson and for it to be upheld as a warning to the other nations. The UK head is to be cut off and stuck on a spike on top of the Brandenberg Gate.
What when the other side say they are going to be hard negotiators - yes there will be hopefully a fair compromise, but do not underestimate your opponents , and in leaving that's what they are - its up to the whether our exit is hard or soft not us if you go in soft you will get nothing more costly to the UK - by all means when the deals done parliment can ratify it but the EU will try to dictate terms how dare the british people say they want to leave as a remainer Bruce you live in hope as a status quo that will never happen we are leaving definitely or May will be voted out , and she knows it!This isn't a game of poker Joe. In poker it's zero sum - for someone to win, someone has to lose. It's much better for all concerned if Europe works together, and the only real way to work together is if there is mutual trust. We've got a few thousands years of anthropology to remind us of that
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Just in case people don't believe what the EU endgame is really about.....
Guy Verhofstadt, the EU Parliament's chief Brexit negotiator, said the Brussels' club needs to become more efficient as it is "always acting too little too late".
The former Belgian Prime Minister and current leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe warned the EU told IBTimes UK: "If Trump goes in the direction of more protectionism, we should speed up our trade negotiations with Mexico, Japan and all the other countries that we are negotiating with at the moment.
"The same with defence. Let's create a European defence union, let's take on our responsibilities.
"Let's become an empire, an empire of the good and not of the bad."
Guy Verhofstadt, the EU Parliament's chief Brexit negotiator, said the Brussels' club needs to become more efficient as it is "always acting too little too late".
The former Belgian Prime Minister and current leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe warned the EU told IBTimes UK: "If Trump goes in the direction of more protectionism, we should speed up our trade negotiations with Mexico, Japan and all the other countries that we are negotiating with at the moment.
"The same with defence. Let's create a European defence union, let's take on our responsibilities.
"Let's become an empire, an empire of the good and not of the bad."
That's what they said about Romelol
I'm not sure it will exist at all depending on the French vote.
Italy is the next up as well as Austria- both opposition parties want OUT !
- Status