As a german i am quite sure they will ratify software patents. The very sad part is the people deciding this have absolutely no understanding what they are doing and that they open the box of pandora.
There is currently almost no invest money in european startups, and if everyone of these startups is liable for bogus software patents they will have absolutely no chance on getting big.
With von der Leyen being president, I am pretty sure we make the wrong decision. Yes, some Europeans might think she looks sympathetic, especially those that don't know her well because of language barriers. That she is on the position is testament to the democratic dysfunction of the Union.
Officially she is in a conservative party, which eastern European countries liked very much.
If we want to take democracy seriously, we would need a common language or at least a common media landscape. We could just use US media of course. They have the opposite problem that everyone understands what they are saying.
I don't consider her being in the conservative party the actual problem.
In Germany she's well known for nepotism and corruptness, even if until this day she successfully evaded the punishment. Not long ago there's been a claim that her phone contains important evidence in support of the accusation, but it turned out that data on the phone had been "accidentally" wiped.
As a German this is not "well known" to me, do you have a source?
Until now I thought one Accenture manager was the godfather of a child of a deparment manager in the ministry of defence and Accenture got an consulting gig? I didn't know until now she was giving jobs to her relatives.
One of her kids works for one of the big consulting companies she loved to hire.
But more importantly, the people working for her on the government side were often super close to the consultants they hired. As the minister, she takes responsibility for what is going on in her ministry - and that was full of friends giving contracts to friends.
To be fair, her son worked in the silicon valley office in a very junior position at the time. That's very far removed from the German public sector consulting. She has seven well educated children, they have to work somewhere...
Even as an undergraduate polisci major, in my European Union courses she was discussed. Here is an interesting anecdote about her: the institution that granted her equivalent of an MD (she’s still a physician) acknowledged that more than 40% of her thesis was plagiarized, however because telepathic analysis does not exist and this it is not possible prove that she intended in her mind to cheat as she was engaged in the act of cheating, her degree was not revoked. Sources in the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_von_der_Leyen?wprov=sft...
While I understand the discussion, in general Medical doctorates in Germany do not have the same standards as other PHDs. “Mouse dying after not being fed for a month” could actually be a real title, the problem for German doctors is that they more or less have to have the title.
If I recall, there's something like 3 "tiers" of physician depending on how long you were in school? It's interesting.
But anyway, I think the point is still a fair one. Major portions of her thesis were plagiarized. Even if it was an accident (I don't see how that would be possible), the least thesis should be revoked or all students should be allowed to plagiarize their theses as well.
Being part of a rich and powerful family does not make one bad, using that power to cheat and exploit sure does.
Being a consultant in Germany myself I can tell you that during the whole "Bundeswehr Berateraffäre" (an alledged scandal involving contracts given to consultancies when von der Leyen was Secretary of Defense), that at least all Blue Chip to Mid Cap Stock Index companies in Germany cringed in silence, as the 300M € von der Leyen supposedly embazzled look pathetic to the budgets these companies dump on consultants each year. One scrum team will easily go for 1.5-2M per year just for the non-managerial developer staff.
It was a classic non-scandal, with zero convictions or indictments in the end, in stark contrast to the attention it got in the media. Not surprising considering how German journalists tend to dislike conservatives in general and how my countrymen on average lack basic financial education.
Disclaimer: I never voted conservative (CDU) and never will, but as much as I don't like von der Leyen "she's well known for nepotism" is just unfair and untrue.
He might be referring to Germanys beacons of good corporate governance and not corruption; Deutschebank and Wirecard
Either way using relativism to minimise a crime is sophistry
"I murdered a few people - the US government kills thousands of people a year in <current war>" - you're still guilty of murder, even if someone is better at the crime than you are.
Again: Although there were a parliamentary investigations, there was no crime. No conviction, no indictment, no charges pressed.
300M € was what was spent on all external consultancies combined. The yearly Bundeswehr budget is 42 bln € [1]. 300M is < 1%.
In 2018, the big four (KPMG, PwC, EY and Deloitte) extracted 650M € from the 30 DAX companies alone. And that is just the auditor segment. This doesn't include the strategic consultancies, IT consultancies or Headhunters.
And it also doesn't include the consultancy subsidiaries of said DAX companies. Speaking of subsidiary consultancies: 2/3 of said 300M € "embazzled Bundeswehr money" were spent on it's own consultancy BDI.
This whole "Affair" just resides on general public resentment of the word "consultant" and the public's inability and unwillingness to calculate or research these numbers themself. Especially as soon as there is a "smoking gun" to find by focusing all efforts on looking the other way, which allows us to create a hoax like this.
> In 2018, the big four (KPMG, PwC, EY and Deloitte) extracted 650M € from the 30 DAX companies alone
Compared to 650M € and 30 DAX companies, 300M € spent by one single "company" do not sound like peanuts, especially since AFAIK the latter money was only meant for IT services & infrastructure(?)
> 2/3 of said 300M € "embazzled Bundeswehr money" were spent on it's own consultancy BDI.
I also like to point out that of those political groups that were screaming foul the loudest with regards to the "consultant affair", these were the groups with the least interest in or sympathy to the German military.
Which is adding insult to injury because the whole reason the Bundeswehr has to hike its expenditures on consultants at all is because policies of the last decades, specifically of those groups, left the Bundeswehr one of the least attractive employers in the whole country, especially for seeked after talent.
What's more pathetic is that even after such high government expenditures in defence, Germany still lags behind most smaller nations in terms of the size of its army as well as the technological capabilities. So clearly she hasn't done a good job, yet she's been rewarded with the presidency of the EU, which is corruption in itself.
I'm sorry, the cost/performance ratio makes complete sense.
The Bundeswehr is culturally frowned upon in large parts of our society since at least the 1970s so it is no wonder that policies enacted breathe that spirit.
Thus we are a country whose military openly admits it can't defend the country. For a couple of years now. There is close to zero outcry about that, certainly less outcry than the "Berateraffaire" got.
So clearly she hasn't done a good job
Not saying she did in general, but blaming an army depleted and frowned upon for decades on her six years as Secretary of Defense (SoD) is deceitful (not saying that you do).
On the contrary: Turning this shipwreck around affords even more expenditures. So expect the cost/performance ratio to become even worse.
she's been rewarded with the presidency of the EU, which is corruption in itself.
Since von der Leyen clearly hasn't proved herself to be included in the realms of sinister masterminds (she got ousted from her SoD job for a non-scandal) the curruption-part lies within the EU itself, for nullifing an election result, and how they've chosen her.
I'm surprised. I thought by now it was common knowledge that the corruptible involving her son and other more distant family members has cost the taxpayers 100+ millions.
What did her son have to do with anything? And quite frankly, even though the optics were probably not very good, I don't know of any corruption on the part of Ursula von der Leyen that was conclusively shown.
She hired the company where her son was working using taxpayer money. And then that company paid commission for it to her son. So she indirectly paid taxpayer money to her son.
Her son worked in the silicon valley office in a very junior position at the time. That's very far removed from the German public sector consulting. And where did you get that bit about commissions? I'm pretty sure that McKinsey doesn't pay any commissions whatsoever to junior consultants.
This isn't remotely an example of corruption unless there is a direct conflict of interest.
If she hired her son directly, or as part of the team, if he was lobbying her, then it's a problem.
But if her son worked at IBM and she, as Defence Minister hired IBM for some defence contract, then it's irrelevant.
Edit: I should be clear, among the elite, specifically if there are central groups which exist especially within EU nations, and also 'bubbles' in the US i.e. Valley, Hollywood, NY Finance etc. it's very common for 'big contracts' to go to so-and-so, and as a 'favour' the so-and-so takes on 'sufficiently credentialed son/daughter'. For example, if you're the top Defence bureaucrat and you hire 'Bain & Co.' to do a procurement analysis ... well ... you're son with a newly minted MBA might find it much easier to get hired there. While this kind of 'soft nepotism' is arguably problematic, it's also not so bad. It's when the 'wife, niece and grandson of the French President' have 'fully paid positions in the bureaucracy' for which they literally do nothing, or when the PM hires his college buddy's law firm for a $100M boondoggle that it gets worse.
Interestingly there was a similar case in Saudi Arabia a few years back, where McKinsey hired the sons of bureaucrats in Aramco and other government departments in exchange for all the lucrative consulting contracts. Goldman Sachs did the same with 1MDB and Libya and were caught. It's an open secret now that giving the kids the jobs is a foolproof route to getting contracts.
People are misunderstanding the nature of this stuff.
This is not corruption, it's just favours.
Nobody is awarding a major contract to get their kid an associate job at McKinsey.
The contract is awarded to McKinsey, if the person holding the purse has someone looking to get into such a role, then it's a nice thing that McKinsey can do in return.
My mother was a director of customer service and used to hire all of my friends in high school ... because they were my friends. It's normal.
It's technically not very above bar, but it's not necessarily corrupt. Most people get jobs through their networks, this is 'kind of' that.
Except McKinsey didn't hire them after getting the contracts, but before, which clearly positions it to get many contracts. A few years back, it was clear as day that most of the govt business went to McKinsey in the Middle East, while BCG and Bain often received scraps.
It's nothing. McKinsey is a huge outfit, hiring 8 analysts is nothing. In fact it will help McKinsey more than anyone else as it would help them develop closer relationships with House of Saud.
The Saudi government is not giving McKinsey huge contracts because so and so's kid got hired there - point blank.
Also remember these kids are already stinking rich they don't even need to work.
And it's also a part of the world where business is done on the basis of relationships.
When a firm is giving Ferraris as 'kickbacks' then it's corruption but not this.
My oh my do you have a very narrow interpretation of corruption.
Hiring less than capable individuals while excluding more capable individuals, for the sake of obtaining contracts, in a region where ministers are changed on a regular basis (hence no guarantees of the connections staying forever) is exactly what I'd call a kickback.
That's not the problem. The problem is that if you are IBM or Microsoft you better hire Ursula's sons to get contracts. How much money her sons receive is irrelevant.
I strongly disagree with internet censorship, but how is that "corrupt"?
Pushing for something that may be objectively terrible and is agreed by everybody is objectively terrible, may be terrible, but it is still not corrupt.
Words have meanings, and for that to be corrupt it would also require that the person pushing for it was doing so not because they believed it was the right thing to do, but because they were doing it for nefarious reasons such as having been bribed, or only because it would personally enrich themselves.
Initially, 10 million euros were estimated for the repair work. During the work that had started, further damage was found in the Elsflether shipyard in January 2016, whereupon a construction freeze was imposed in October 2016 and an economic feasibility study was instructed. On January 26, 2017, Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen finally decided to continue the repair work, the cost of which has now been estimated at 75 million euros. According to the shipyard in March 2018, the costs could rise to 135 million euros and the overhaul could take until mid-2019. [8th]
I'm surprised. I'm a foreigner in Germany with a ton of CDU supporters in my SO's family, yet somehow it's pretty open knowledge that Ursula is a paragon of EU corruption and nepotism.
I guess nobody who does not speak German can understand or use such term. I'd translate it with consultantgate, but then I am not a native speaker of English. I don't think European media is integrated enough that there would be a term well understood in all EU countries.
Apart from what the others mentioned, search for Zensursula. She once wanted to censor our Internet because "of the children" ... 10 years ago. How time flies.
Because then you only consume German media, which is equally corrupt. Pure government mouthpieces. Non German media is more informed on German malpractices.
Conservative doesn't really mean much anymore on its own. CDU might be considered conservative by Western European standards, but it's liberal by Eastern European standards.
A lot of political labels have a different, often opposite, meaning in Europe compared to the US. A liberal in Europe refers to classical liberalism. We also have many political parties, so a liberal here is not necessary a christian conservative. Politics is more nuanced.
Did you reply to the right comment? What do US political designations have to do with European and EU politics? In any case, "a lot of political labels" implies several, and I'm not sure there are more than one or two that fit this description.
GP had cast "conservative" and "liberal" as mutually exclusive descriptions of the political spectrum: parent clarified that in Europe, those 2 terms mean the same thing. Mostly.
In Germany the liberal party is the FDP, who are seen as centric (so between left and right). The left wants your taxes for social programs, the right wants your taxes for security, the FDP just wants lower taxes (but achieved by reducing bureaucracy and overheads, not by running a deficit like the US's political right).
Do they? Are you talking about UK? They don't do so in Sweden at least. UK is quite different from the rest of Europe on many points so they don't really count.
I guess it depends on your definition of "political party".
The EU has what's called a "political party at European level", there are 10 of these registered and a few more that don't meet the criteria to register.[0]
Most of these parties - and in particular the biggest two, the EPP[1] and PES[2] - don't allow individuals to become members.
Instead their members are political parties at national and regional parties that already exist in the member states.
One or two of the other parties are built around member states' parties, but also offer individual membership. ALDE,[3] the third-largest party, is one that does.
There are a few more parties that are active but don't meet the criteria to register.
The Pirate Party,[4] already mentioned by others, is one, but that too is a party-of-parties.
Volt Europa[5] is probably the only serious attempt at creating Europarty that is comprised predominantly of individuals, although even they allow for national-level parties as members in their statutes.
What can make things slightly confusing is that in the European Parliament MEPs don't actually formally sit as parties, but rather as political groups, of which there are 7. There are MEPs that don't sit in a group, but these tend to be more fringe parliamentarians, typically on the far-right.
The EPP and PES are big enough to have groups (EPP and S&D, respectively) that are more or less coterminous with their parties, but the other parties work together.
The European Greens sit with the European Free Alliance[6] along with the Pirate Party and Volt Europa, for example.
----------
[0] Regulation 1141/2014 [7] lays down the requirements. Amongst the details of the legal restrictions that have to be adhered to is the requirement to have elected representatives, or achieve 3% in European Parliament elections, in at least 1/4 of the member states.
[1] The European People's Party (EPP), this is the party of both the current Commission President and Merkel: https://www.epp.eu/
> CDU might be considered conservative by Western European standards, but it's liberal by Eastern European standards.
Which is mostly a result of Eastern European countries turning outright fascist (Hungary) or religious-authoritarian (Poland), it's a classic game of shifting goalposts.
CDU also was modernized by Merkel after the right-wing conservatives got booted off/sidetracked in the early '00s following a massive donation / tax scandal ("Schreiber-Spendenaffäre") and so the CDU still enjoyed wide popularity as a result, while the Eastern European conservatives never had that push.
>> CDU might be considered conservative by Western European
>> standards, but it's liberal by Eastern European standards.
> Which is mostly a result of Eastern European countries
> turning outright fascist (Hungary) or religious-
> authoritarian (Poland), it's a classic game of shifting
> goalposts.
You are seriously wrong aka naive or intentionally missing truth.
a) current Hungary and Poland ruling parties just trying to make their countries strong, finish with some colonialism-like practices. Nothing fashist or autoritarism here.
b) liberal and socialist (ex commies hire) disqualificate themselves via scams and -gates, stupidity and not doing ANYTHING for their own ppls.
You should better start to be concern about democracy in France (military state by now), Germany (censorship) and Espana (country suicide).
That's more a reflection on how incredibly broken Eastern Europe is. Definitely not a stick to measure anything by. Just like how we do not measure political leaning by US standards (spoiler alert: everything is left wing).
Social issues are definetly not, every single country in Europe would cringe on Californian liberals and think they were high on something. Don't agree with that what so all.
They want more or less government spending ?
They accept that the structure of the family will change ? Example, families with more than two parents (that is a real possibility due to overpopulation).
They want less or more police ? Reform the prison system (even dissolve it), maybe ?
What are their views on immigration ? Multiculturalism ?
Should we tax the wealthy more or less ?
Of course, there are different political ideologies. It's not just a popularity contest.
> I never heard of this unless you consider divorced people.
Look for articles concerning co-parenting, that's where its most often discussed. Wikipedia: "Co-parenting is an enterprise undertaken by two or more adults who together take on the socialization, care, and upbringing of children for whom they share equal responsibility[1] Co-parents may include a variety of configurations, including a mother and a father, two mothers, two fathers, a parent with an adult sibling or grandparent, or a parent and another adult relative. The co-parent relationship differs from an intimate relationship between adults in that it focuses solely on the child."
The other typical configuration would be in polyamorous relationships, when more than two of the partners decide to take responsibility of the child. Granted "typical" is a bit of a difficult word when we're talking about niche concepts. Most of my friends and coworkers have never heard about co-parenting or any other of the more diverse and sometimes complex family-alike structures, unless they concern failed relationships (see divorces). Which is kind of a bummer, that only failure in previous relationships motivates them to experiment with other concepts.
>> Most of my friends and coworkers have never heard about co-parenting or any other of the more diverse and sometimes complex family-alike structures.
I don't think it's worth to mangle obscure/exotic issues with mainstream subjects (overpopulation).
> "They accept that the structure of the family will change ? Example, families with more than two parents (that is a real possibility due to overpopulation)"
What does this mean? How is alleged population related to family structure and sexual relations?
I think grandparent was alluding to a separation of the two concepts of sexual relations and family structure: (Two or more) People can decide to bring up a child together without being in a romantic/sexual relationship. (Two or more) People can be in a romantic and/or sexual relationship without sharing responsibility of a child of one of the partners. Under this prerequisite, a family is any close social connection surrounding children (and the closeness and type of closeness being the linchpin of whether the term applies – not every flat share is a family for instance).
Regarding overpopulation: One motivation that I've heard quite often is that one of the most effective ways to reduce your carbon footprint is to have one child less. This is always presented with the asterisk that this is of course a very personal decision and there is the understanding that this is not a standard under which you will be measured. Still, if you're just looking at the numbers, that's what you get. Sharing parentage with more than two people is an alluring way to achieve the same result, especially as it means you will retain more of your personal time when child care is shouldered by three (or more) people.
> That she is on the position is testament to the democratic dysfunction of the Union.
I know almost nothing about her but my impression of the actual decision making in the EU is that it's fairly distributed (by design) and there is not a single person which has the power to do anything on their own. Also there are lots of opportunities for various stakeholders to veto decisions.
I found her sympathetic based on her statements about protection of democratic values in Poland and standing up for oppressed minorities in Asia. I haven't yet seen her bad side I guess.
The violation of the Rule of Law in Poland and Hungary is exactly what it is about here. We have a rogue administration (the EPO) which cannot be brought to court:
"4. UPCA is violating the “rule of law” (TFEU Art2), the EPO cannot be brought to court for maladministration"
"That she is on the position is testament to the democratic dysfunction of the Union."
???
That she has her position is the most glaring evidence of 'democratic dysfunction'.
Nobody voted for her, she was unknown before the election. The very few people that voted in the EU elected voted for something else, after the election 'the true powers' decided to push the ostensible candidate aside, and behind closed doors without input from elected MEPs, Von der Leyen was chosen from relative obscurity (at least outside of Germany) - foisted on top to 500 Million electors, almost none of whom have ever even heard of her.
She was not vetted, she did no debates, there was no public coverage, there were no speeches, there was no published platform, there was no campaign agenda.
Just: "Here is your new leader, that you have never heard of , that you have just elected".
This is not democracy.
So perhaps if there were more transparency, or even some of it, you would have been able to vet her, and actually vote for or against her.
Nonsense. Von der leyen was proposed by the council, consisting of representatives from every country, and by extension representative for the voters in every country. She was then confirmed by a majority of the EU parliament, which is directly elected by the citizens. Every EU citizen voted in those elections, or had the opportunity to. So, if only a “very few” voted that is on them. If their elected representatives did things they didn’t like (like confirming von der leyen), that is on them also, in the next parliamentary elections.
What you are complaining about is that she was elected by newly elected representatives, but not directly elected by citizens. I find this to be hairsplitting and meaningless in a context of representative democracy.
Far from 'hairsplitting and meaningless' the issue is at the very crux of 'democracy'.
That almost nobody voted in the election, that nobody knew who the leader - or the platform - was going to be, and that she was absolutely chosen after the fact, by unelected leaders, that she cannot be sanctioned or replaced, and that elected MEPs cannot propose legislation - is fundamental to the nature of democracy.
Even in proper democracies, particularly in Parliamentary systems, even the budget requires approval without which the government falls and elections are called. Why? Because the proposition of budgets necessitate popular sanction. Parliament - and even legislative assemblies can dissolve government if necessary.
Ursula von der Leyen has unambiguously the least democratic legitimacy of any leader in the free world, by far.
The fact that the EU was purposefully designed this way - in the very face of very healthy democratic institutions i.e. Switzerland, UK, Germany - implies the lack of democracy was very much 'by design'.
This isn't so important though. Canada UK are the same. You don't technically elect a Prime Minister.
But - the party, platforms, PM etc are very transparent, and elections are held on that basis.
If the Conservative Party of the UK ran with B. Johnson and Brexit, but then after the election decided to make some randome guy from Scotland - that nobody ever heard of - the Prime Minister, and said Scot made a 'Throne Speech' with some completely different agenda ...
...there would be a revoluion.
And of course PM has to be someone elected at their riding for good reason.
It's simply not good enough to say 'someone voted somewhere' so therefore 'it's democracy and we can do what we want'.
Consider Socialist Yugoslavia, the main difference between its electoral system and those of non-communist states was the amount of indirection involved.
Also, you ignored the second half of jariel's comment.
The thing about the EU is, it's not a democratic government. It's atreaty organization that sometimes takes on responsibilities like a government.
This dual identity has been a boon in some political situations in the past, but it is also a serious liability. Von der Leyen got the job in a usual way for a treaty organization, but she is much more political than some technocrat. There are factions that like it each way, and her job is to play both ends against the middle.
You don't need a democratic mandate to appoint the head of a civil service. You definitely do when choosing the leader of the (de facto) government!
It is increasingly clear that we need a supranational organization in Europe which IS a democratic government. Seems like it would be a natural fit for the EU to be that organization... and it looks like it is headed in that direction. That means it's our role as citizens to push for more democratic behavior at every turn.
> The thing about the EU is, it's not a democratic government. It's atreaty organization that sometimes takes on responsibilities like a government.
what? This opinion seems to be highly uninformed about how the EU and it's actual bodies work.
i can vote for EU elections and representatives in the european parlement. Also the european commision and the council consist of either parties elected in the national elections, or national leaders themselves.
Also, the european parlement uses quantitative representation, which means smaller nations have a larger say compared to larger ones.
>This dual identity has been a boon in some political situations in the past, but it is also a serious liability. Von der Leyen got the job in a usual way for a treaty organization, but she is much more political than some technocrat. There are factions that like it each way, and her job is to play both ends against the middle.
What dual identity? The european community has had a parlement since the 70's, and the european project has been a political union since it's very beginning in the 50's. You seem to assume that van der leyen has vast political power on her own, but the EU is far to decentralized for that. The EU is is a complex political system because it is highly decentralised. (which in terms is happening because all it's members are sovereign).
>You don't need a democratic mandate to appoint the head of a civil service. You definitely do when choosing the leader of the (de facto) government!
This democratic process exists, as explained above. not having direct representation is not the issue here. The way of elections in the EU is roughly the same as what happens in most if not all EU member states. (with the exception of mainly the UK).
"This opinion seems to be highly uninformed about how the EU and it's actual bodies work."
" the european commision and the council consist of either parties elected in the national elections"
For lambasting others as uninformed, you should check your facts first. The EU Commission is not made up of elected officials, moreover, the EU has no obligation whatsoever to follow the results of parliamentary elections.
The 'proportional' makeup of the assembly is irrelevant if they are mostly powerless - by far the most powerless legislative assembly in the free world.
" The way of elections in the EU is roughly the same as what happens in most if not all EU member states"
This is really not true. The leaders of various parties, their platforms etc. are all well known during the course of EU member state elections, moreover, EU member state legislative bodies have the power to sanction, remove the executive, and of course to actually legislate.
Edit: EU members states have some of the best and most representative democracies in the world, it's such a blatant contrast at the EU level, it's hard to forgive people for not seeing why things are the way they are.
First of all, thank you for phrasing in such a constructive way with "seems to be". I really appreciate that about this community.
I'll try to clarify:
The EU in many ways does operate like a government, at least like a confederacy. It has a legislative process, a directly elected parliament, and a president. We get "state of the union" addresses, for crying out loud!
But its founding mission was as an independent third party to oversee coal and steal production. That kind of "referee" role between member states is central to how it is designed, and to much of its action.
Some notable dissimilarities to a democratic government:
- The EU has no constitution; it has treaties.
- The EU has no sovereignty; limited powers flow upwards from individual member states.
- The EU may only determine matters collectively which need to be determined collectively (principle of subsidiarity)
- The only directly elected part of the EU (the EU Parliament) may not propose legislation. It gets to amend, improve, and approve/reject legislation proposed by the (unelected) EU Commission, to implement policy set by the European Council and its (unelected) president.
- The "supreme executive" European Council is simply all the national leaders with an appointed head. That's the only source for new policy and leadership decisions.
- The EU Commission - the partner body to the EU parliament, is a set of appointees from the EU Council, approved/rejected as a group by the parliament.
The idea behind the setup is to make it easier to propose and ratify multi-lateral treaties with many sides and fixed membership. The directly elected Parliament is a sanity check, not a source of legislation.
To use the US system as analogy because I can assume broad familiarity with it:
- the executive branch is all the state governors. They appoint the President.
- the senate is made of appointees from the executive branch, approved as a group by the congress.
- the house of representatives is directly elected, and can only modify, approve, or reject legislation proposed by the senate.
It is not a controversial opinion to say it is a hybrid system. In fact, from the Wikipedia page on the EU:
"The EU operates through a hybrid system of supranational and intergovernmental decision-making,[132][133] and according to the principles of conferral (which says that it should act only within the limits of the competences conferred on it by the treaties) and of subsidiarity (which says that it should act only where an objective cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states acting alone)."
"Constitutionally, the EU bears some resemblance to both a confederation and a federation, but has not formally defined itself as either... It is more integrated than a traditional confederation of states because the general level of government widely employs qualified majority voting in some decision-making among the member states... It is less integrated than a federal state because it is not a state in its own right."
Also, as evidenced by some of the other responses to my comment, my statement that we need a central political body is a controversial opinion.
"It is increasingly clear that we need a supranational organization in Europe which IS a democratic government."
I don't think that's clear at all.
One could very much make the argument that it doesn't need 'governance' it needs 'coordination' which are very different things.
I feel the vast majority of the most important things could be achieved mostly by treaty and that everyone could 'have their cake and eat it' which is to say have fully sovereign states and work together.
I think there's quite a lot of a) ideology in the US of Europe b) it's the natural 'power creep' of any institution and c) the business class love to be able to 'skip democracy' and so do the 'socialist' types - both of whom kind of work in a weird kind of tolerance of one another, with I think the business class mostly in charge.
In particular, the hugely vague mandates on 'Human Rights' are the biggest coup, though the least obvious. They basically give a 'carte blanche' to the EU courts to rule as they see fit, interpreting some basic, bland text to mean whatever they want it to mean.
Since the EU courts often decide on their own jurisdiction ... it results in a huge concentration of legal power.
It's a Judicial takeover.
Something similar happened in Canada - not exactly on purpose - but when Trudeau Sr. introduced a new Constitution into Canada in the early 1980's - it was a 'nice modern document' but obviously vague. Since then, the Supreme Court of Canada has struck down innumerable old laws, new laws, they do it all the time, they even 'change their minds' on things like terminal care and suicide. Because of the vague wording, 'the world's top legal scholars and lawyers' have no clue what legislation is legal or not, it's just a matter of what our 'Tribal Council of Unelected Elders' decide to do. It's resulted in 'Law by Judicial Fiat' for a wide array of issues - all of the most important ones (identity, rights, marriage, abortion). Canadians, elected officials, politicians, the Prime Minister have little say in the matter ... except for this weird clause someone can effect which basically says a 'law is not bound by the constitution' - which is crazy in of itself.
The 'Human Rights' mandates of the EU are controversial for this reason: obviously, they are humane and positive i.e. a 'good thing' - but many people oppose them on the legal problems the effectively create. These people are easily lambasted in the press as 'anti human rights' which is of course completely wrong.
Europeans are quite smart, the lack of understanding of these things is really quite bothersome. People just seem to be happy to do whatever the elite tell them to do.
Any law will, at some point at least, become to vague. On the other hand, I too have the perception that bills are often carelessly written and too vague[0], but I think your understanding of jurisprudence or what a judge's job should be is not realistic. The system is not meant to be mechanical.
I think that for meaningful discussion to be possible, you would have to provide a much more specific, concrete example; but that of course runs the risk of being beyond the understanding of us non-lawyers.
[0] Somebody on HN opined that this is because most politicians are lawyers, and they have an interest in preserving/increasing job opportunities for lawyers, or something like that. I wish I could find the comment.
No it's not 'like a parliamentary democracy' at all - the only 'resemblance' is that that there is some degree of 'representation'.
But the similarities end there.
You've actually provided a specific example - the most recent UK election, which highlights even further the lack of democracy in the EU, which is a 'confidence' election based on some important or existential issue, in that case, Brexit.
+ Voters were very well informed that Boris Johnson was to be the PM if a specific party were elected
+ They were very aware of the general platform of the parties
+ They were even more aware that the issue at the crux of the election was the type of resolution towards Brexit.
+ UK elected MPs have tremendous power - demonstrated in that very case: previous to the election, Boris Johnson faced a kind of censure by Parliament several times, MPs of all stripes voting for and against him.
+ The UK MPs collectively introduced legislation and forced the hand of government on several occasions.
+ The government was threatened with dissolution on several occasions, over a very important issue.
None of this happens in the EU, by design.
The EU is not a 'representative democracy' rather, it's a political entity which governs largely unto it's own devices - but in which some actions must have it's actions approved by elected officials.
I get what you mean, but it's a civil service with constitutional powers :). And it's designed to 'one day' be 'Presidential'.
Von der Leyen, in her first speech talked about her want to create the 'United States of Europe'. Not only does this hint at the Presidential nature of the role, but also points out the problematic issue with 'lack of democracy' in that voters were told after the election that their leader has a plan for 'existential transformation'. This is not what a bureaucrat does.
As a funny example: imagine waking up in Nov. 2016 and being told that the 'US state delegates' had not actually decided to go with 'Mitt Romney', the official candidate, but they 'changed their minds' and went with some 'outsider' from New York named 'Donald Trump'.
All of that said - the EU is actually more thoughtful about tech legislation than the US gov for sure - that said, the EU is for the most part making rules that ostensibly 'protect' them from outside parties, it would be a different story if MS, FB and G were HQ'd in London, Antwerp and Lisbon.
When 'one day' it's presedential it will be voted for by the European parliament.
This is what 'United States of Europe' means. The EU has been on a course to more democracy and more power for the parliament (e.g. Treaty of Lisbon), so I'm not sure why people assume this stops, argue that it is not happening or argue that it is reversing - when it is not - e.g. see GDPR.
This is essentially not true and misunderstanding of why the EU exists in the first place.
"When 'one day' it's presedential it will be voted for by the European parliament."
And who will propose and design the legislation?
The Executive!
Definitely not elected MEPs, because they are barred from doing so!
MEP's, in 2020 remain forbidden from initiating or enacting legislation. They have the bare minimum power to legitimize the institution as 'democratic'.
The EU is the only 'Constitutional Democratic' entity in the modern world wherein legislation is created and controlled at the executive level.
You might technically be correct in asserting that the MEPs have 'more power' after the Lisbon treaty, very little has changed, and there is no reason for them to change it.
Not until the Treaty of Lisbon were elected MEPs even required to be consulted (!!) for the selection of the executive! Constitutionally they were irrelevant. Only since the Lisbon treaty do MEPs technically have to be consulted, and even then, it's merely 'consultation'. It's not binding.
Never in the history of the world has power been given to the people unless they have basically 'forced' it, by using one lever of power or another.
The EU is very well designed by the elite to avoid populism and 'interference' by organized or populist plebes.
It's the perfect mechanism to have control and enact legislation with minimum of oversight, minimum of media coverage, minimum of procedural problems from the plebes.
The elite can argue, but only among themselves.
The EU has negative incentive to add more democratic oversight, because in their view, it just adds more problems and risk to the situation - god forbid a 'Donald Trump' should be elected in Europe.
The only way voters will get more power is if they take it, either through MEP insurrection, or, one or two state powers have some kind of reason to push for it. I don't think either of these cases is on the table, I can't even imagine a scenario will happen.
So if 'the entire history of civilization' is a guide, there will be net less democracy in Europe, as they give very little power to MEPs, and move more powers away from national assemblies towards the EU, where unelected bureaucrats and members of the inner circle can do 'what they think is best'.
And there's nothing anyone can do about it.
As for GDPR, yes, it was nice that MEPs could put up a fuss and have some parts of legislation changed, but they were not the shepherds of this legislation by any means, it was written and controlled 'from above' at all times.
On EU democracy, maybe you need to write another chapter about the Council of Ministers.
In this particular file of the UPCA, Ministers have a direct conflict of interests, as their ministries would get money for the renewal fees of the Unitary Patent.
Yes, it will be impossible to change. It will prevent states from issuing national clarifications to patent law on software patents for example. And the European Parliament won't be the legislator on patent law, as the EU is not member of the EPC.
She did not "accidentally" erase her phone, it was someone else. The one she erased was not accidentally but on purpose (when there were no laws or guidance I erased also my phones before I got them back to my former employer, so we differe here on what "dumb shit" is).
So we have two, black lists for websites and spending millions on consultants while choosing Accenture and McKinsey instead of some other charlatans. The problem here is obviously not how the companies were chosen but that millions were given to consulting companies with no clue. I might add "throwing away a rather good gun" - others would debate this. So we might have three. Lots of? And I'd only really consider black lists as "dumb shit" but YMMV.
But we may vary on "lots of". If someone says "I have lots of beer at home" I would be rather dissapointed if in the end it were three beer (1.5 for each of us! ;-)
"zensursula" is quite well-known. "Accidently" erasing her phone and destroying files during an investigation. Several scandals and affairs in relation to the Bundeswehr.
Cf Wikipedia[1]: According to the investigation by the university, about 20% of her work suffered from missing or incorrect citations, including 3 'grave errors'.
However, there was no evidence of fraud, merely sloppiness, and she got to keep her 'Dr. med'.
She only became president because Merkel forced the issue.
I think Frans Timmermans (an excellent option!) had a chance to win it before that, as well as Vestager (the antitrust champion in the previous EC). They gave Vestager the VP job to pacify her and her allies.
Also, somehow, Vera Jourova, which has been absolutely terrible in her job in the previous EC, especially with the terrible Privacy Shield she negotiated with the US gov (which has now been invalidated - again - by the CJEU) got the VP role, too, in the new EC.
Germans need to get rid of Merkel already. She's been terrible in the past 2 mandates, even doing stuff like protecting the coal industry as as well the diesel/gasoline car industry against new EU pollution norms. She also continued to push for new mass surveillance laws, even as the previous ones were being declared unconstitutional by the German courts.
I'm almost convinced the only reason she won again last time was because the US/global media kept propping her up as the "world's savior against Trump" - whatever that means. So I'm sure that had an effect at home, too, possibly giving her the edge. I know she was starting to be hated due to the all the local immigration issues prior to that.
Merkel was reelected because there was no feasible Alternative. She is a good politican with proper experience and Connections especially on the international stage, But her politics is as shit AS the rest. One of the reasons why right wing parties are on the up. Think of her as the equivalent to biden. The only thing she has going is that one can assume with certainty she is not gonna fuck shit up so hard, but there are certainly better ways. Fun fact: merkel actually announced she would not be up for re-election in 2021.
How do you know they have no understanding? Perhaps they got shares in large software companies and just want to eliminate competition. It just seems like corruption to me.
> Does the government think that if they had software patents they could get a Facebook too?
It'd be an amusing thought, given Facebook's success was particularly aided by patents not getting in their way and they've very rarely utilized patents to go after other companies (they pursued BlackBerry in 2018 after BlackBerry first filed a patent lawsuit against them).
I don't think the so called Six Degrees patent [1] for example was ever ultimately used to harm any companies, with Reid Hoffman and Mark Pincus choosing not to try to use it against Facebook or any other networks (Twitter, Snapchat, etc). Their various investing activities into some of those companies certainly may have played a role in that restraint (with Zynga being heavily dependent on Facebook for much of its history also).
I don't like software patents but I have a hard time buying that it will limit investment further. It hasn't significantly done so in the US where software patents have long existed. I imagine it may spur investment because investors see software patents as protecting their investments in startups from both other startups and established companies.
Edited to correct a typo kindly pointed out by a comment below.
Patents in other industries negatively affected innovation for decades. 3d printers are a prime example where recently expired patents resulted in real progress.
Those patents will affect open source which no other industry has adopted to the extent software has. Even hardware is being open sourced now as a cultural influence.
Can you point me to any other industry where small teams or individuals can build and learn the same cutting edge tech used at big companies without a big fat license and accepting legal jargon? Is lack of that a bad thing for the society as a whole? No idea is in isolation so it doesn't make sense to give exclusive rights to a single entity.
Do you wanna fight Oracle? Of course, you do just like Google.
Current situation won't give you the real picture of the impact because many companies choose not to patent software when they can.
Investors can also see lack of patents as reduced barrier to entering the market and diversify more.
It is interesting that consumer 3D printers boomed after the major foundational patents died, but it might be an accident of history as well, because low cost manufacturing and low cost computation helped make 3D printers affordable for consumers.
3D printers were used by industry for many years prior to the expiration, esp. in aerospace and the military.
I think patents (and especially software patents) cause more problems than they are worth. The most valuable asset in an economy is entrepreneurship and creativity, which often comes in the form of an individual making something amazing in his 'garage'. Patents do not help the lone genious in any shape or form, in fact it is already a very bad idea to worry about patenting your idea early on, because the effort and money it will take to do so will detract from the invention itself. For the lone inventor, this means he essentially just has to take a gamble and hope no one has patented his idea. And if someone sues him, he is done, his invention gone with him (which was valuable even if it already existed).
Patents do somewhat work in the 'corporate' world, where potential inventions require a quantifiable capital investment that would obviously not be worth it in the absence of patent law (like antibiotics). But even then, companies often choose to keep the invention a secret if possible.
Software, generally is not like that, capital investment required is only quantifiable for 'big' applications, that do not require much creativity but simply a lot of work to create. And these applications are actually not the sort of thing that is patentable.
I think the reason patents are generally accepted is the 'righteus' notion that if someone invents something, he owns it and it cannot be stolen from him. But this notion is achterhaald, what if two people invent something at the same time? What someone invented the same thing a few years later, but actually succeeds in bringing it to market, unlike the first inventor?
It hasn't significantly done so in the US where software patents have long existed.
Speaking as someone who has worked in fields related to data compression and audio/video codecs, you can't imagine how wrong you are about this. Entire fields of research have been blocked off from the point of view of commercial developers and researchers. Nobody would touch arithmetic encoding with the proverbial ten-foot pole until IBM's fundamental patent expired, for instance.[1] Never mind LZW derivatives.
It's outrageous that patents on fundamental algorithms were ever allowed. Germans need to do what they can to stop it.
The idea that something or an idea can be limited to a particular chain of causality is irrational. The only reason someone likes the idea of saying only one chain of causality should exist for an idea or, better put an idea that makes money, is because they themselves like money or think they can gain access to that money.
Even the Cornoavirus has been shown to innovate, through mutation, by changing itself. It is not a single change, either. Many, many viruses change themselves to a new same same configuration over time. Now some may not, but some definitely do, which means that change is available to all.
Just because someone is able to get resources to patent an idea is not a good reason to allow them "protection" over another who did not have the resources, but still arrived intellectually at the same conclusion.
Are we to say all things we do are protected if they bring value? What about all the things we do not do that bring value? Will those be protected next?
If I had resources to spend on a thing, it would be to invent a space drive to get the fuck off this planet and away from all the greedy people.
FWIW patents cover inventions, not ideas. An invention is there implementation of an idea. They also require the submission of a workable embodiment in order to be granted.
USA does blur the lines with its broad software patents and business method patents. But we in Europe have software patents to, they're just for inventions, not ideas.
This post is my personal opinion and does not relate to my employment.
The implementation of an idea is a specific physical machine (not class of machines) or an active production process. The moment you start talking about how similar one machine or process is to some other machine or process (the core of any patent infringement case) you're back in the realm of ideas.
It's the idea of an implementation that is patented, not the implementation of an idea.
This is particularly obvious when it comes to software patents as the entire process being patented concerns the manipulation of abstract information, which places even the implementation of the idea squarely in the realm of ideas. Even if that patent office requires the software to be "embodied" in some general-purpose computer before granting the patent, the patent covers the abstract data-manipulation algorithms even when they are reimplemented in different software running on a completely different kind of computer—which puts the lie to the idea that this "embodiment" has any relevance at all to the patent.
Or has it? How would we know? In particular, if we think conceptually software patents could be a good thing, why do we think the current length of patent protection is appropriate?
There are two types of innovation. Corporate innovation and voluntary innovation. Both types of innovation are important but corporate innovation can only exist if there is some sort of intellectual property system. The IP system doesn't create innovation on its own, the potential for innovation has to already exist and the IP system is merely enabling it. Therefore when you are introducing an IP system you are making a trade off between the two types.
If you have no IP system then you are too dependent on people innovating for the sake of innovation because they enjoy it. If you have an extreme IP system then you are too dependent on corporations innovating for the sake of profit maximization. Both extremes limit overall innovation. There is a sweet spot in the middle where you both maximize corporate and voluntary innovation. The current copyright system is the closest to that sweet spot but it's leaning closer to corporate than voluntary because of its long duration. The current IP protection is good for both corporations and the open source/FOSS community. There is an opportunity to commercialize opensource software and make it easier to sponsor the developers but if the current system was kept until the end of humanity we wouldn't miss out on too much innovation.
But this article isn't about keeping what we have. Software is about to receive an additional IP system. One that is completely inaccessible to voluntary innovation. We are bound to leave the sweet spot at this rate and prioritize corporate innovation above everything else, even if it means there will be less innovation overall.
As someone that has invented novel algorithms I still feel Patents are a net negative especially for software. I just wish EU would be a better place for „startup“ innovation. My experience with the university infrastructure in that area isn’t great:
Strong patent laws stop innovation at the research stage. Derivative works, such as turning research into a startup or a public company, becomes rent seeking.
Where in the world can you escape this rent seeking?
China's stereotype is having no copyright enforcement, but this seems to be wrong.
>Plaintiffs won in 80.16% of all patent infringement cases included in the population. Such a win rate was higher than its counterparts in many major countries – Germany (approximately 66%) and the United States (approximately 60%), for example.
Why do you think this is (avoiding any anti-refugee sentiment in other comments on the thread)?
I used to live in Europe and worked with many Europeans while living in the Bay Area. It seems like lots make the jump stateside. Having universal healthcare seems like it would be a big incentive to take entrepreneurial risk vs. our situation here in the U.S.
It’s a bit too simple to say the EU doesn’t create software startups. Some countries/cities do generate plenty of successful startups and some don’t. Just like most US states haven’t produced any successful startups
That makes sense. Sweden and some of the other Nordic countries seem to crank a lot of them out.
It is a bummer that a lot of startups, regardless of geography, feel the need to move once they hit a certain level. It produces brain drain and is a missed opportunity to bring economic growth to their home regions.
Because that's only one aspect, you also have to consider other things like availability of investment capital, operating costs, and the bureaucracy of starting and running a business.
The EU is not a great place for innovation, period. Here are the major problems:
1. No common language
2. Incredibly high taxes, particularly sales taxes
3. Unfinished transition out of Communism in many Eastern Countries
4. Preference for cheap illegal labor instead of automation
This could be solved by:
1. Formalising an 'EU English' language so that schools teaching it can open up around the continent and families can move from one country to another without having to pay for extortionate international schools
2. Eliminate payroll taxes, limit sales taxes to a maximum of 10%. Deport all illegal immigrants (who are huge burdens on the State and society) and raise pension ages to 70 in order to save money. Limit bachelor degrees to the top 20% of the population and Master's degrees to the top 10%, to encourage people into the workforce earlier in life. Raise taxes on land and pollution.
3. Limit EU funding for countries like Bulgaria that have not transitioned to modern Democracy or Bureaucracy.
4. Withdraw from the UN convention on refugees, deport all illegal immigrants, pay and help North African countries to guard their own coastlines, and replace migrants with robots and automation.
This will immensely boost the living standards of the average European, but hurt bureaucrats and old-money.
Immigration is NOT the issue.
Corrupt government and corporatocracy is.
With all those subsidies going to
coal, oil, cars, planes and whatnot, we could pay and educate all the immigrants a thousand fold, and make them a super producive labour force.
You're gonna be a kick ass employee if you're motivated enough to risk your life and travel for years, for education and a better job.
The economic migrants that have travelled to Europe illegally are mostly illiterate and with few skills. They are consistently borne out to be at the bottom of society and over-represented on welfare rolls and jails. Essentially they will form a permanent underclass in Europe and a forever burden.
They come into Europe to work on huge farms owned by wealthy Europeans. Here is an example - essentially all of the manual labour in these towns is illegal:
Without these workers the production would be automated and picked by robots (providing jobs for European engineers, technicians, developers). When you can pay someone $2/hour, with their lives subsidies by the taxpayer, there is no justification for robots.
The most dastardly action performed by the ruling class of Europe is to bring in millions of exploitable workers and claim they are doing it on the basis of human rights.
Sure, it's not like the current lines of conflict haven't existed for hundreds of years or anything. This reductionist mentality is really starting wear thin.
Repeated mentions of deporting illegal immigrants and withdrawing from the UN convention on refugees are typically only found in ultra-right-wing party programs in Europe.
>At least we're not the only country wanting to violate international agreements at present
Countries do it all the time and there are conflicts because it all the time everywhere. UK is slightly different because EU is much stronger than UK, withdrawal agreement is important to keep food, medicine and skills flowing between borders.
UK government is planning and making first successful steps towards breaking withdrawal agreement before it's even in place. So why would EU even bother continuing wasting time and resources in this stupid game where they won't be the losers?
Well, it happens but rarely does it happen exclusively in the West where there is a lot at stake. (Would be interested in counterexamples)
International law, as an attempt to tame excesses of diplomacy, is something that has lifted up the West. It's brought order and prosperity. This move is yet another jenga brick taken out of the liberal West, thereby weakening the EU. The EU really needs to bother...
The very important difference being that these countries did not explicitly say: "We will break international law". You might think that's a technicality but in international law that's really an important distinction.
I mean I did explicitly say the West vs the West. And self-determination is definitely a special case so none of these apply.
Again, the US vs the West?
I'd be surprised if its never happened. But the ensuing uproar is part of the politics - It's an extra hurdle for countries in a political maneuver. And a broadly positive hurdle.
> Countries do it all the time and there are conflicts because it all the time everywhere. UK is slightly different because EU is much stronger than UK, withdrawal agreement is important to keep food, medicine and skills flowing between borders.
[Citation needed.]
Plus, the government's argument (today at least) is that the EU broke the agreement first, so it's nil and invalid.
The EU probably will lose the same in absolute terms, but it will be spread over 400 million people not 60 million. So in terms of rational policy making the EU should want a deal as much as the UK, but of course in practice if the impact is less diffuse it’s just less politically important.
European politics in 2021 will be interesting to watch.
During the endless Brexit debates in the UK prior to the referendum itself, IIRC the more credible analysis tended to have the EU27 combined losing more than the UK in absolute economic terms, maybe even twice as much, in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
The argument was made that the EU could afford to take that bigger hit anyway and was still in the stronger position in negotiations, because as you say even a somewhat greater cost would be distributed over many more people.
Then the counter-argument was that the distribution of any costs to the EU would be far from uniform. For example, one member state in the EU27 was all but guaranteed a catastrophic outcome if there is a no-deal Brexit: Ireland. This is part of the reason the NI border issue was such a sensitive topic during the negotiations. But more generally, some member states are much more dependent on the UK than others, or more dependent than others in some specific area(s). Another common examples is that the Mediterranean tourism destinations get a huge amount of revenue from the Brits each summer (under normal circumstances at least, maybe not so much this year) and in certain cases this represents a significant fraction of their entire national economy.
The EU and the Europhile leaders that most of the larger member states have had in recent times have been very good at showing a united front when it comes to Brexit, but as we've seen with other issues like the immigration/refugee situation and the pandemic, that solidarity can rapidly give way to realpolitik when times get tough. A lot of the EU27 member states are going to take a hit if we leave the transition period with no deal at the end of the year, and I wonder how well their faith in and support of the EU will hold up once real money and real jobs start being lost on both sides of the Channel.
At this point, I do not expect there to be a deal, at least not a comprehensive one that is useful for the long term, by the end of this year. It won't surprise me at all if the cracks start appearing on the EU side soon afterwards, though whether they will spread as quickly and as deeply as those likely to form concurrently in the UK is anyone's guess. It also won't surprise me at all if some important issues that are, in theory at least, EU competences start to get dealt with more directly by national governments looking to protect their own interests. Time will tell.
That "limited and specific" thing, it's been going on a while... I found something funny on wikipedia the other day:
Ad extirpanda (named for its Latin incipit) was a papal bull promulgated on Wednesday, May 15, 1252 by Pope Innocent IV which authorized in limited and defined circumstances the use of torture by the Inquisition as a tool for interrogation.[1]
"limited and defined circumstances"
It actually goes on to enumerate those defined circumstances, but I can guess how it turned out in practice.
It's not that funny, you must not understand how transformative the Good Friday Agreement was for Ireland and the UK, even if the typical Brit has no idea. It is a far broader reaching concern than software patents in Germany.
I think the only way to really understand why the Good Friday agreement is important is to visit Belfast. You need to walk through the neighborhoods in order to see the gates, the Peace Walls, the murales and the signs expressing the grief and pain of two communities who have hated each other up to the point of killing each other, and still live just a few meters apart.
The whole city felt to me like a wounded animal that has only just stopped bleeding, and not it's begging for some time for its scars to heal.
When I was in school in mainland UK IRA bomb threats were a thing, the Manchester bombings still live large in my memory.
Even from a distance the importance of the peace brokered in Ireland is tangible, I feel.
What the royals and ruling classes did to Ireland seems as bad as anything they did elsewhere in the 'Empire'. It mightn't be logical, but all that history can't be ignored. The memories of oppression live long.
I was refering more to the link I posted rather than software patents in Germany (actually I think software patents do have far reaching consequences).
Er, you understand that the IRA was bombing UK cities? They bombed a hotel and almost killed the Prime Minister...yes, most Brits are very aware of the GFA (I am barely out of my 20s, and I lived in London and the constant bomb threats are something I remember...this is the reason why some train stations in the UK have no bins, they were a main IRA target).
Also, what most people who get their opinions on the GFA from people in the EU (largely dictated by Irish Catholics who believe that Northern Ireland will become part of Ireland) is that introducing a border within the UK is not any less of a problem than introducing one in Ireland. The UK govt's plan was to implement a solution which didn't cause any friction, it is clear now that all of the implementation was left to the UK and the EU washed it's hands of everything (again, the whole principle of GFA is that this is everyone's problem). If you are a Protestant in Northern Ireland though, the EU's position is/has been very worrying and contrary to the GFA in every degree (a principle of the GFA is that Northern Ireland is part of the UK, the EU issuing legal opinions and advising the Irish govt that NI would still be part of the EU if it left the UK does not suggest they understand what the GFA says at a fundamental level).
This is unusual not only because of the possible impact on the Northern Ireland peace treaty, but because it's an agreement that was only just made by the same government. Which makes the whole process look particularly stupid and insulting.
It's also the deliberateness that has upset people - breaching a complex agreement inadvertently is very different from setting out to do it deliberately.
airbus state aid is the biggest recent example: knowingly providing unlawful subsidy against WTO rules
the EU ignored its WTO state aid comittments when it suited it, and now is trying to force a much much stronger version of the rules that it routinely breaks, onto the UK
To be fair, the leavers outlets seem to be the ones covering it the most. It's also a big deal because the country just made the agreement, it's not like it's 35 years old and everyone who made it is no longer around. It was made by the guy who is going to break it.
This is what several lawyers told me, people are making a fuss about the UK breaking the Withdrawal Agreement, but other countries do the same in other fields.
Let's take a step back and look at the situation. You are saying with a straight face several lawyers told you that the UK government deliberately breaking an important international agreement that was negotiated and signed by the same people just months ago is comparable to other countries inadvertently breaking some patent agreement signed decades ago. A matter that several high-ranking British officials had a problem with to the point of resigning in the past few days. Only on the interwebs do people fall for this tosh.
Personally I'd've preferred staying in the EU and exercising a little more 'flexibility' in interpreting bloc rules to suit our tastes, as some other EU states are wont to do.
I haven’t heard about this Unitary Patent Court. Is this a new judicial body in the EU? Where does it’s position rank compared to other EU judicial bodies?
The article seems to be written for those (legislators) who would already know the background
Not really, more like an international court with the blessing of the EU.
Cameron forced a deal in 2012 to not have the CJEU as a legislator in patent law, and Merkel and Hollande and other countries bowed to his demand in order to have a deal.
What do you mean by that? Do you seriously think that somebody (who exactly?) is suppressing news about this court? Isn't it _a lot_ more probable that this is simply a highly technical issue that doesn't get a lot of attention?
As somebody who is somewhat invested into EU law but not into patent law I have already heard about it by the way.
I'm always very skeptical about this sort of vague accusation, implying that there is some sort of conspiracy.
I don't think there is a conspiracy to suppress the information, but on the other hand I'd say EU has a long way to go in terms of PR and informing citizens. Somehow all these things always surface at 11:55
Tbh, the EU can only do so much: there are plenty of press releases, press conferences, and social media posts about their legislative proposals. However, the gatekeepers of information are different actors: Mostly the media or whoever you follow on social media. And, not without reason, such a technical debate hasn't really engaged interest in the general public. If you are actually interested in the topic or in EU law, you will likely heard about it because the gatekeepers in that field believed it might interest you
> What do you mean by that? Do you seriously think that somebody (who exactly?) is suppressing news about this court?
Why are you putting words in my mouth? Especially the "seriously" is completely out of place since I never said what you claim I did, so why do get worked up over it?
Where was I implying a conspiracy? Did you consider that there are other theories that are consistent with my original statement - for instance, it's completely conceivable that a skilled legislation publishes information about a proposed law of they know it's likely to create a backlash in (some parts of) the media in a more subdued way, specifically in order to lower the odds for getting said negative press.
I agree that this "suppressing news" theory that you brought to the table is nonsense. But it's also not necessary if you've got a PR person who knows their job.
I didn't intend to confront you and I didn't really "get worked up" over this. Sorry if I was a bit blunt. (and sorry for potential language confusion, I'm not a native speaker)
My issue with your comment was that you have this accusation (which you call "probable") that can be perfectly explained in another way ("New European Patent Law Court" is not going to be a top-selling front page headline)
> for instance, it's completely conceivable that a skilled legislation publishes information about a proposed law of they know it's likely to create a backlash in (some parts of) the media in a more subdued way, specifically in order to lower the odds for getting said negative press.
This is of course technically possible in some situations but considering the difficult negotiation and ratification process (just look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Patent_Court#Ratificat...) of the UPC it's simply very far off from the reality. Especially in Germany where there is an important pending decision by the Constitutional Court on this issue which did actually get a lot of media attention.
Edit: As pointed out by Zoobab the decision is no longer pending but has already been decided.
@chki "Especially in Germany where there is an important pending decision by the Constitutional Court on this issue which did actually get a lot of media attention."
The decision is from 20th of March, where the Court only cancelled the ratification for lack of 2/3 majority for transferring judicial powers to international courts. Same problem seems to happen for ISDS courts in CETA in the Netherlands.
As many points raised in the first complaint were not addressed by the Court, we will crowdfund soon a second constitutional complaint if the UPCA is given a greenlight tomorrow.
Well. The less you know about how and what bureaucracy does, the less can you ask yourself why does it exist in the first place. And the more bureaucrats can keep their pointless jobs.
It's not so much conspiracy as protection by obfuscation. I bet you don't know why you need even half of documents in your last encounter with it.
Aren't other countries that have already ratified UP in violation of those agreements, too? I.e., how is this about Germany in particular and not about the European patent system itself?
The software patent directive of 2005 was rejected at the request for multinationals (IBM, Philips, Microsoft, etc...) who pushed for a central patent instead.
Some other countries have ratified, some like Spain, Poland, Czech republic have stayed away for different reasons, like languages and higher costs of litigation for small companies.
It is worse than just getting out of their seat really. Even if they regularly formed mobs of protesters and weren't ignored or took harsh measures to force the issues quickly they would still come back. Even going to the extreme of killing everyone who fits the label wouldn't fix it long term as someone else looking for easy money would try to fill the niche whenever their personal courage outweighed the ambient terror.
The only way to fix the issue long term is to replace them and fill the niche better than they can. Needless to say doing so personally risks becoming as bad as those they set out to replace and creating an automated AI official/manager/business entity capable of doing their job better than them and getting it accepted in the face of centuries of stories warning of it being a bad idea before it even existed are very tall orders. It isn't like they are telephone switchboard operators who can be replaced by an impartial dialing mechanism by a disgruntled funeral home owner.
There are some arguments in there about whether or not the UPC is a good idea, and although I don't particularly agree with them, they're at least plausible.
The legal arguments, on the other hand... let's just say that they are definitely the work of a nonlawyer.
Good to know Germany is as suggestible as other European countries to the influences of big American corporations. The longer the EU stays a loose union of countries, the longer it will stay susceptible to these kind of moves. Division isn't unity.
I am not an expert on international law but I am 99% sure that the legal arguments in the text are partially wrong. Yes, some aspects of the UPC are not great but it should rather be opposed on public policy grounds, i.e. negative effects software patents and increased cost of litigation (and maybe that should've been done during the negotiations on the treaty).
It's a bit difficult to discern their argument as the text is filled with errors and, seemingly, some words were jumbled around.
1. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT): The text of the treaty has already been agreed upon and states have signed (or even ratified) it. They are not negotiating the treaty anymore, so the UK (as former negotiating state) not agreeing to the treaty has no bearing on its entry into force or violates Art 24(1) VCLT. As the para. states: "A treaty enters into force in such manner and upon such date as it may provide or as the negotiating States may agree." This is just about how the date is set, i.e. either it is laid down in the text or the States agree - and that has already happened. Somewhat regularly, states will de-ratify treaties or exit negotiations on treaties and the treaty can and will still go into force.
2. Art 6 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) [1]: According to the case law on "tribunal established by law", the "law" part must ensure its impartiality and independence and, thus, primarily governs its composition (i.e. appointment of judges, assignment to cases (where latter cannot "solely depend on the discretion of the judicial authorities")) [2]. Note that, even in the quote cited in the article it is the object of the clause that "the judicial organisation … is regulated by law emanating from Parliament", i.e. it concerns their composition (also: "object" = aim of article which does not necessarily speak to the specific obligations). The composition and the independence and impartiality of the Court are provided for in Articles 15 to 19 (esp. Art 17: "Judicial independence and impartiality" [3]). Only beyond those rules (as well others), can the Administrative Committee establish rules of procedure (which may not contravene the treaty [4]), after consulting with the Commission on compliance with EU law (Article 41). Regarding fees, it should at least be noted that the treaty provides for the possibility of financial aid for SMEs in Art 36(3) [5].
> 209. The phrase “established by law” covers not only the legal basis for the very existence of a “tribunal”, but also compliance by the tribunal with the particular rules that govern it (Sokurenko and Strygun v. Ukraine, §24). The lawfulness of a court or tribunal must by definition also encompass its composition (Buscarini v.San Marino (dec.)). It is the role of the courts to manage their proceedings with a view to ensuring the proper administration of justice. The assignment of a case to a particular judge or court falls within their margin of appreciation in such matters. However, to be compatible with Article 6 § 1, it must comply with the requirements of independence and impartiality (Pasquini v. San Marino, §§ 103 and 107). The judge assigned to a case must be independent of the executive,and the assignment cannot be solely dependent on the discretion of the judicial authorities (ibid., § 110).
…
> 212. In principle, a breach by a court of these domestic legal provisions gives rise to a violation of Article6 §1 (DMD Group, A.S., v. Slovakia, §61). The Court may therefore examine whether the domestic law has been complied with in this respect. However, having regard to the general principle that it is, in the first place, for the national courts themselves to interpret the provisions of domestic law, the Court finds that it may not question their interpretation unless there has been a flagrant violation of the legislation (ibid.; Biagioli v. San Marino(dec.), §75; Pasquini v. San Marino, §§ 104 and 109). A court which, without any explanation, oversteps the usual limits of its jurisdiction in deliberate breach of the law is not a “tribunal established by law” in the proceedings in question (Sokurenko and Strygun v. Ukraine, §§27-28).
> 213.The object of the term “established by law” in Article6 §1 is to ensure that the organisation of the judicial system does not depend on the discretion of the executive but is regulated by law emanating from Parliament (Biagioli v.San Marino(dec.), §74; Savino and Others v.Italy, §94).
> 214. Nor, in countries where the law is codified, can organisation of the judicial system be left to the discretion of the judicial authorities, although this does not mean that the courts do not have some latitude to interpret the relevant national legislation (ibid., and case-law references cited).
> 215.Furthermore, delegating powers in matters concerning the organisation of the judicial system is permissible provided that this possibility is enshrined in the domestic law of the State, including the relevant provisions of the Constitution (ibid.).
"opposed on public policy grounds, i.e. negative effects software patents and increased cost of litigation (and maybe that should've been done during the negotiations on the treaty)."
Problem is that the Court Fees were decided after the treaty has been signed, by this administrative committee.
And they are defeating the purpose of "making the whole system cheaper", as it would raise the cost of litigation for a simple case.
We warned about this problem long ago, with the predecessor of the UPCA, the EPLA:
"A litigation case before the EPLA court will at least be twice as expensive as litigation before the national courts of Germany, France or the Netherlands."
Stjerna's analysis of the cost situation is roughtly the same, a 3 fold increase for a simple case:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this supposed price increase in Stjema's analysis only based on the maximum reimbursement allowance for lawyers? Hence, this only pertains to the potential for increased costs, not actual increased costs. Also, the obvious advantage of a European court is that one does not need to enforce one's patent in all State jurisdictions separately, right? Stjema shows how this duplication is actually lower than assumed (bc most companies choose to only enforce it in one country) but wouldn't the assumption be that the need for enforcement in more than one jurisdiction increase as the internal market for knowledge products becomes ever-more integrated? Although I see how it could be more expensive right now (and software patents still suck)
I would mainly love to see a response regarding the legal side.
The actual percentage of cross-border litigation, now that the UK has left, is around 7% of all cases. 93% of cases are national only, and will suffer from an increase of costs just for the beauty of having a pan-European court.
For the legal side and the rules of procedure, we have been informed from several high profile lawyers (one being on the bench of one of those decisions) that this would not survive a test in front of the ECHR, once the UPC is running.
This is a very good point. From a legal standpoint this article is highly questionable. I understand that there are political issues with this project (on which I'm also not an expert) but this should be clearly distinguished from the legal side of things.
It is not about being against the subject or not. It's about the way the arguments are presented. In several threads, when the same scenario plays in the US, the comments are "ad hominem" attacks to the country and its culture. When it happens to Germany, the focus is on debating the actual issue.
I'm not American, but the Americanophobia present here and the schadenfreude towards bad things happening in the US is quite the subject for a study.
Regarding your statement that this comment is not useful: perhaps. I've been observing this trend and it's been interesting to write notes and have the groundwork for something more concrete. Then, it will probably be more helpful.
> I'm not American, but the Americanophobia present here and the schadenfreude towards bad things happening in the US is quite the subject for a study.
As an American in a European country, this rather nicely sums up my experience with some (and to be extra explicit, definitely not all) people from a wide variety of European countries. I've grown to find it rather amusing especially as it serves as a convenient litmus test to identify people with whom it is worth discussing interesting political topics. I suppose my point is that it's probably not just an HN effect.
Many Americans also have their own bits on which to improve here, obviously, but I haven't personally been on that side of the table.
I have noticed a reoccuring identity archetype of stereotype of any non-world power (including oddly enough large cities who are a world power) freely complaining about the entity in all aspects and then being offended if an outsider complains about it. As opposed to a "used to it" as a world power and being unable to counter by saying that the matter doesn't affect them.
My guess is it might be a result of that sort of defensiveness forming social baselines that it results in a double standard where to say for example "It is because the people of the US doesn't want the pesky innovation part and just wants to rent seek." would be accepted but a non-hypothetical enclosed "It is because Germans don't want the pesky innovation part and just wants to rent seek." would get flagged as flamebait.
These patents might open the doors for legal battles that small companies might just not have the resources for. They're a perfect tool for trolls and bullies.
You don't need much in the way of resources to invalidate a patent. Proof of prior use, or published prior disclosure. The measure of proof being balance-of-probabilities.
If you have that you're immune, show up with your print out, you get costs.
If you lose you might have to, for example, hand over profits.
The flipside is that small companies can use patents to prevent unlicensed exploitation of their own inventions.
This is my personal view and does not relate to my employment.
That is absolutely not the case, at least in the US. The people who have actually been frivolously sued and managed to invalidate the patents say differently: it takes several years and millions of dollars to invalidate just a few claims in the patent despite ample evidence. Look up the case against Laminar Research for example.
> I doubt the EU will survive in its current state.
A lot of people desire this to be true, but that does not mean that it is. It is a particularly weird opinion to hold in the wake of the most recent challenge to its continuity -- the Brexit fiasco, with the EU having maintained a united front for more than 4 years, while the UK emerges out of it in a terrible state -- and the worst is yet to come.
The EU is not perfect by any means (what is?), but it is a terribly ambitious project that has been painstakingly built over decades. Every step of the way, someone like you was claiming that it was impossible, that it was surely about to collapse. Well, we are 27 member states strong and we are dealing with the economic challenged posed by COVID better than most of the rest of the world.
If we look at objective measures, such as economic inequality, political polarization or civil unrest, we are perhaps forced to conclude that the US are closer to collapse than the EU. To be clear, I do not desire the collapse of the US. I think that that US and the EU are natural friends, in a world where they have much more in common than what separates them.
> It is a particularly weird opinion to hold in the wake of the most recent challenge to its continuity -- the Brexit fiasco, with the EU having maintained a united front for more than 4 years, while the UK emerges out of it in a terrible state -- and the worst is yet to come.
If would be a weird opinion to hold if the EU managed to keep britain. But the fact that the EU lost a major nation doesn't make it a weird opinion. It makes it a sensible one to hold. Did you think the soviet union losing warsaw pact members was also a sign of stability?
> If we look at objective measures, such as economic inequality, political polarization or civil unrest, we are perhaps forced to conclude that the US are closer to collapse than the EU.
No. If we lost texas or california or ny, then you might have a point. Also, none of what you listed actually lead to collapse. The US has been going strong for nearly 250 years. We survived the civil war without losing any territory or collapsing. Do you think the EU could survive the same? We have the same language, history, culture, currency, etc at this point. There is no legitimate secessionist movement here. There are a few in europe. Also, the EU has fault lines that separate people by language, history, culture, currency, etc.
If economic inequality, political polarization or civil unrest lead to a collapse, then we would have collapsed a long time ago. The US survived the gilded age, civil war, the 60s, etc. The EU faced a stiff breeze and lost britain. Imagine what real issues would do to the EU?
The problem with the EU is the lack of a strong central government and a sense of identity because european or eusian ( heck EU members don't really have a name do they? ) is really a meaningless designation like asian. It's too big and broad of a term to be sensible political identity. Like the soviet union. Or dare I say even the russian federation or china.
The funny part is that you don't have a name that only applies to people from your country. As the other comment said, there many millions of Americans that are not from the US.
In the same vein, people from the EU call themselves Europeans even though there are many millions of Europeans that don't live in EU countries.
To answer your question: I identify myself as European, Spaniard and Catalan. Just like I'm pretty sure there will be some people in the US that consider themselves Americans and Texans or Californians or New Yorkers or whatever...
Technically, Mexicans and Canadians (and others) also live on the continent of North America. Lots of other not-USA-people live on the continent of South America.
I don't understand how you can look at the world and honestly think the US is closer to collapse then the EU. Also what world do you live in where the EU is doing better then most of the world? Half the EU countries are in the top 20 deaths / pop.
In any case, the post you're replying to claimed that "we are dealing with the economic challenge[s] posed by COVID better than most of the rest of the world."
I'm not sure why the death numbers, even if they were not confounded like this, would be a meaningful measure for that.
I wanted to write "in its current form". I don't think it will dissolve, but people will realize that some countries have different ideas about government. Especially with the planned addition of new countries. Many countries favor democracy a lot less and we are blindly expanding.
Many people believe we need the union to defend our values, but it becomes more apparent that we might loose them on the way.
The enthusiasts need to temper their dreams and expectations - EU is doing fine, and doesn't need to always become more powerful or more integrated. Especially not now, when citizens don't want it.
Citation needed. While there is some anti-European sentiment in all member states those are almost always in the minority. There are a lot of people who want more integration.
Citation needed. The people pushing for more integration are politicians and bureaucrats, not normal people. Most of the EU (indeed most of the Western world) is in a democratic crisis - moving decision-making even further away from citizens by centralizing it in Brussels is only going to exacerbate that, leading to more anti-EU sentiment and more brexits.
>The people pushing for more integration are politicians and bureaucrats, not normal people.
That's simply not true. There are multiple civil society organizations pushing for a closer union. People are voting for parties that are explicitly pro-European.
I don't know who's right but France has some 65M people whereas e.g. Lithuania has 3M people. And France provides 15% of the EU budget whereas (say) Lithuania provides 0.3%. I'm not sure listing all countries on a bar chart as if their opinions have equal impact on the fate of the EU is an accurate way to illustrate the situation?
Would the EU do just fine after losing the UK and a country like France? Would Germans still love the EU so much after they realize they're paying twice as much into the EU as the next country? Maybe you could argue it would, but I guess it seems far from obvious to me.
> Would Germans still love the EU so much after they realize they're paying twice as much into the EU as the next country?
Germans took up way more monetary responsibility during Corona. E.g. they took various patients from Netherlands and paid for the care themself. Same with the financial crisis that was a result of Corona, Germany was happy to help out other countries.
Now if you look at what Netherlands gains out of the EU (so what the EU is worth to NL) it is about 7 to 8 times the net payment. Limiting the net amount paid is good, but the focus on net payment without looking at what you get is quite short sighted.
See e.g. UK where just paying the custom agents will cost an equivalent as the EU payments.
>Would Germans still love the EU so much after they realize they're paying twice as much into the EU as the next country? Maybe you could argue it would, but I guess it seems far from obvious to me.
It would be shameful if we didn't, because helping poorer countries grow is the entire point of these transfer payments. The bigger issue is that there is lots of abuse and it doesn't actually improve the grand picture. Money is nice but only if it's used responsibly. If there was a way to reduce corruption in Eastern European countries they would grow on their own without any transfer payments. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your perspective), that's outside the scope of the EU.
It's the age old "give a man a fish vs teach a man to fish".
Not one of the linked questions from that survey measured whether the respondents wanted more integration between EU countries, only how favorably they viewed the EU. So just to be clear: Those two things are very different. There's a world of difference between wanting more international cooperation (or actually, just liking the current amount of international cooperation) and wanting to give up more sovereignty. I'm not arguing against the EU being viewed favorably by the citizens of the EU - that is indeed generally the case. Case in point, I myself view the EU favorably, yet I'm also very concerned that about the push toward making it more of a supra-national organization (above its member states legally, who have given it sovereignty, and are forced into new deals, even ones its citizens disagree fiercely with) and less of an international organization (a forum for discussion and facilitator of agreements between its member states, who maintain their sovereignty, and are able to opt out of deals they don't want to be in). The people driving this push are indeed politicians and bureaucrats, not the general electorate. And why wouldn't it be - if you asked a normal person on the street "would you prefer that the laws governing your country are made by the politicians in your parliament that you know the names of, and have a say in electing, or primarily by hundreds of politicians from other countries, that might have a completetely different culture than you, and that you have no say in electing?" what do you think the response would be?
One can be pro-EU and still believe in a scaled back union. To say something even more inside the context of my post that you replied to - let's posit 70% are happy with EU now. Does that mean that EU should integrate more? Not necessarily - they might not be so happy after that change.
Not enough to put it to a vote in most countries and it highly depends on the question.
That there should be internal talks about foreign policies is pretty much accepted, also having common environmental policies.
If you suggest a common welfare program, you will quickly find closed doors.
Honestly, I think the support in general is higher with people not interested in politics, aside from the enthusiasts that already dream of a republic.
Speaking of which, why call it the European Union when we could have called it the European Empire. Some things are so obvious...
That is a very good point. Problem is that the enthusiasts are the young people across Europe and not exactly a minority. That is a 50:50 or 60:40 thing.
So when you satisfy on group (good enough) you will make the the other half unhappy.
That is not really accurate. The young people get older as well. And change their world view. Once you hear hundreds of times the "bad" news of immigrants, workers from rumania taking your jobs, etc, experiencing the slowness of evolvement of the EU or just switch to thinking british style (nations do better, europe is only a shared market).
For sure, that is all inaccurate in one way or the other, but people are busy or in bad situations, leaving their enthusiasm behind them.
If it is, why isn't it cracking down more seriously on, say, GDPR violations already? Is giving companies multiple years to adjust still not enough? Or does a serious enforcement of its laws not fall under the umbrella of doing fine (nor sure if pun intended)?
In fact I think EU should take few steps back: the perfect state was before Lisbon treaty, when EU was basically just a free trade zone. Since Lisbon they try to make it a single country, with unified policy on international affairs, military, etc, which doesn't make sense.
I mean that's the crux of the issue, is the EU just a liberal (in the non-american sense) free-trade zone or is it more that that. I personally would like it to be more, but I understand that it's a very controversial topic.
I would say it is the only way it makes sense. The world now belongs to huge nations like USA, China and India. The only way European people can survive with their freedom intact is by banding together.
I think the EU has a very important role to play, like this, but it shouldn't be the case that we have to be an empire to survive - either against other big empires, or mega-corps, both kinds of things have a bit too much power. The mega-corps we can regulate, and (unfortunately) - a powerful EU is needed to do it in this state of the world.
Fascinating, this is such a hot topic which is going to be debated for decades.
I for one think that EU needs to take several steps forward. I personally am for a single country, or how federalists like to say, United States of Europe.
It seems to me like the "best case" scenario geopolitically and economically for EU.
I feel so too but the goals that I want the EU to achieve do not necessarily require a single federation. If they find a different method I'll be happy either way.
Differences in culture are addressed by endless amount talking, compromises, etc. Previously Europe often resorted to war. I highly prefer the current attempt at trying to keep peace.
And appeasement for the sake of technical peace is the problem.
What if Germany and France decides to go for endless talking and compromises to Russia, giving away parts of eastern europe as part of the deal to keep peace?
The EU has never been "just a free trade zone", though.
It has always had a political element.
To quote a 1963 Court of Justice judgment:
"The Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields and the subjects of which comprise not only member states but also their nationals. Independently of the legislation of member states, Community law therefore not only imposes obligations on individuals but is also intended to confer upon them rights which become part of their legal heritage. These rights arise not only where they are expressly granted by the treaty, but also by reason of obligations which the treaty imposes in a clearly defined way upon individuals as well as upon the member states and upon the institutions of the Community. "
The EU has never been "just a free trade zone", though.
It has always had a political element.
To quote a 1963 Court of Justice judgment:
"The Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields and the subjects of which comprise not only member states but also their nationals. Independently of the legislation of member states, Community law therefore not only imposes obligations on individuals but is also intended to confer upon them rights which become part of their legal heritage. These rights arise not only where they are expressly granted by the treaty, but also by reason of obligations which the treaty imposes in a clearly defined way upon individuals as well as upon the member states and upon the institutions of the Community. "
The trade union, although critical to our modern day understanding of the EU, was actually not the primary goal, it was all about politics, primarily about maintaining peaceful diplomatic relationships between countries. It's just that doing business together is one of the more effective means to be friendly to each other.
There is currently almost no invest money in european startups, and if everyone of these startups is liable for bogus software patents they will have absolutely no chance on getting big.