back to article GDP-arrrrrrgggghhh! A no-deal Brexit: So what are you going to do with all that lovely data?

Restricted imports of medicines and fresh food, panic buying and civil disorder. These are a few potential impacts of the no-deal Brexit detailed in a recent leaked Cabinet Office paper. Transferring personal data from most European countries to the UK possibly becoming illegal at 11pm on 31 October? That didn't even make the …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    There is no reason for the UK to stop flows of data to the EU as it would serve no purpose at all, so there is minimal risk that will happen.

    As for flows the other way, well this could affect many businesses due to the fact that you may store data in an European data centre or processor for instance (allowed assuming the above). However the question has been raised whether that European entity would be able to allow the transfer of the data back to you. I would argue that as they are a data processor and you are a data controller then they would. Also as the data would be encrypted and the cloud provider should have no visibility of it then they would not be able to determine if the data contains PII or not so would not be in a position to be able to stop it being transferred back. If the work that the cloud provider does makes it a joint controller or primary controller, then things could be more complex.

    However when the US was found to be non compliant with European Data Protection laws there was no immediate cessation of data transfer, much leeway was put in place to allow time for a new, and also flawed, agreement to be put in place. Although possible I can't see a practical way that data flows will be blocked on 1st November (or any subsequent no deal date) without plenty of buffer room.

    IMO AS IANAL

    1. 2+2=5 Silver badge

      Good points.

      One more knotty point to chew over: if a UK company sends personal data to the EU, assuming UK rules allow it post Brexit then, yes, the EU data processor would be allowed under EU law to send it back, because to them it would all be 'foreign' data and not covered by EU GDPR rules.

      But what if the data sent over includes EU citizens' details where they have chosen to stay under any 'right to reside' scheme?

      1. FrogsAndChips Silver badge

        If they reside in the UK, they will not be protected by GDPR. GDPR is about residency, not citizenship.

        1. LDS Silver badge

          "DPR is about residency, not citizenship"

          It is a bit complex:

          https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/edpb/files/files/file1/edpb_guidelines_3_2018_territorial_scope_en.pdf

          1. FrogsAndChips Silver badge

            Re: "DPR is about residency, not citizenship"

            Ouch, my head hurts now! Thanks for the pointer anyway.

            So after all, EU citizens residing in hte UK would be protected by GDPR *as long as the data processing takes place in the EU or the data controller is established in the EU*.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Unlikely now anyway

      Lets face it, the Democracy, such as it was, is dead. I cant see a brexit this year now. And if not this year - then it wont happen.

      I was off the 'remain' persuasion - living in Northern Ireland we were a majority here. This was a decision for the country as a whole however - and that decision (even if not agreed with) needs to be supported.

      Now, we have parties (including Northern Ireland ones (DUP and SF)) who have forced impossible constraints upon the process - for politicking - rather than the best interests of the country. How could there be a negotiation - if the possibility of no deal is not permitted. I mean - why would the EU even consider negotiation in that case?

      The rest of the EU is laughing at us.

      Sad days.

      Foo

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Unlikely now anyway

        It was a bloody stupid question with none of the options or consequences spelled out in the referendum. At the time (and it seems so long ago) even the brexiteers were talking up the 'Norway option' of EFTA membership. Then the May red lines came in and forced a more extreme exit though even that is now denounced as treasonous.

        The rest of the EU is laughing, except when it's crying.

        1. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: Unlikely now anyway

          It was a bloody stupid question

          It was perfectly good for an advisory referendum which was intended to guide parliament in what to do about the result it delivered - which parliament intended it to be.

          What the question wasn't good enough for is a legally binding referendum which is what it has been taken to be.

          I am sick of hearing from brexiteers and no-deal zealots how parliament derogated a decision to The People when it clearly did not, had made sure that it did not.

          I don't care that Cameron said he would abide by the result. That was his ultra vires promise; it was never binding on parliament.

          1. don't you hate it when you lose your account Silver badge

            Abide by the result

            That's one way to describe quiting

            1. DiViDeD Silver badge

              Re: Abide by the result

              Call Me Dave resigned because he had promised to abide by the outcome of the referendum. As a staunch pro European, it would have not been tenable to remain as PM of a country which didn't share his wish to remain.

              It was possibly the only honourable act of his entire political career - don't give him a hard time for it, not when there's so much else you can give the old bugger a hard time for.

              1. don't you hate it when you lose your account Silver badge

                Re: Abide by the result

                He started and didn't have the courage to sort his mess out. Nuff said.

              2. codejunky Silver badge

                Re: Abide by the result

                @DiViDeD

                "Call Me Dave resigned because he had promised to abide by the outcome of the referendum. As a staunch pro European, it would have not been tenable to remain as PM of a country which didn't share his wish to remain."

                Very true but it did have the amusement of a news feed showing him promising to remain and negotiate (from the day before) and very few news articles until David Cameron resigns.

          2. Cederic Silver badge

            Re: Unlikely now anyway

            However, after 80% of the population voted for political parties that promised to take the UK out of the EU the subsequent failure of Parliament to deliver on that promise is a horrific betrayal and has very much damaged the credibility of Parliament and thus trust in the democratic process.

            If the votes of 80% of the population get ignored then Parliament has no legitimacy.

            1. WageSlave

              Re: Unlikely now anyway

              Both Tory and Labour supporters were split approximately down the middle on Brexit,

              so to claim that combining votes for Labour and Tory counted as an 80% mandate for Brexit is a gross distortion and disingenuous.

              There were many die-hard Tory supporters who would rather allow Brexit than allow Labour into Govt, but that doesn't make them a Brexit supporter, it just means they hated Labour more than Brexit.

              And the same held on the Labour side, who hated Tories more than Brexit.

              The rest in the middle were just left confused, disappointed and still not believing that any kind of democracy had been sensibly served.

      2. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

        Re: Unlikely now anyway

        rather than the best interests of the country

        The whole saga has never been about the 'best interests of the country'. It started as a way to (impossibly) keep the Tory Party together, and in government, regardless of the interests of the country.

        Once Cameron had retired to his Cotswold garden, the ERG and Rees-Moggs and Farages really got going. Their priority was not the best interests of the party, it was the best interests of their offshore bank accounts. After that comes the party, and the country is in a distant 53rd place.

        The irony is that the 'Conservative & Unionist Party' has gone so far down the path of 'Me first' they're now happy to sacrifice the Union & the Monarchy for the sake of their tax-avoiding bank balance - no more United Kingdom within a few years, and probably an English Republic.

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: Unlikely now anyway

          On the whole I agree with you except that at last Parliament seems to be asserting itself.

          1. WageSlave

            Re: Unlikely now anyway

            They do say that Parliament will do the right thing, but only after exhausting all the alternatives.

            It does seem like that even now!

            Let's hope it continues in the direction of "right" for the average citizen, whoever they may be, and not for the loony ideologues who seem to be running far too much for our own good.

        2. LDS Silver badge
          Devil

          "happy to sacrifice the Union & the Monarchy"

          Maybe start by sacrificing the monarchy. At Stonehenge. Under a full moon. Maybe it will lead to a good Brexit... if the gods and infernal entities agree...

          1. Ken 16 Silver badge
            Headmaster

            Re: "happy to sacrifice the Union & the Monarchy"

            maybe the ancient preserved 'bog bodies' are the prehistoric leadership team who promised to deliver a referendum result or die in a ditch?

      3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Unlikely now anyway

        "Lets face it, the Democracy, such as it was, is dead."

        We have a Parliamentary democracy. With Parliament finally getting round to asserting itself democracy seems to be doing fairly well at the moment.

        1. Cederic Silver badge

          Re: Unlikely now anyway

          We have a Government committed to delivering on its manifesto promise and on the expressed wishes of 80% of the electorate at the last election and on the expressed wishes of the country's greatest ever majority in the referendum held on this issue.

          We have Parliament actively sabotaging that Government.

          That's not democracy.

          1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            Re: Unlikely now anyway

            1. "The greatest ever majority in the referendum" was pretty well a dead heat. A simple majority may be fine in first past the post voting for an MP you'll be able to change in five years time. We don't make much use of referenda. Those countries that do usually require a very substantial majority to make a permanent change to the status quo. Failing to do so is at the core of the govt's problems since then. And let's not forget that word "advisory".

            2. " the expressed wishes of 80% of the electorate" At the last general election the turnout was a little under 69% so your 80% is total and utter bollocks on this ground alone. Secondly no one party got even 50% or the votes who did turn out. More bollocks. And the only thing that the electorate are asked to vote on is their choice of candidate in their constituency, all of whom will have a wide variety of policies, individual and party, so there is no direct way of arguing from the vote to any particular policy. Which leads us to..

            3. It's the successful candidates, voted in at the last general election who are now challenging a PM determined to ride rough-shod over Parliament in almost as arrogant a fashion as Charles I. That's representative democracy in action.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Unlikely now anyway

        Nice try pretending to be a remainer to make your point seem valid.

        If you really were a remainer, you'd be pissed off that leave won through lies and cheating. You'd be pissed off that the reasons people voted leave are simply wrong.

        If you really cared about democracy, you'd want to make sure that all who vote are actually informed about what they are voting for - that they aren't blaming the wrong people for certain things, and that all the "top people" pushing brexit, are either doing it to profit from escaping the upcoming EU tax rules, or are going to make money shorting the UK, or want to weaken workers rights to further exploit the workers.

        If all the voters new that, and still voted to leave, then so be it, but as it stands, if you care about democracy, you'll do what you damned well can to fix it.

        1. Teiwaz Silver badge

          Re: Unlikely now anyway

          If you really cared about democracy, you'd want to make sure that all who vote are actually informed about what they are voting for

          If A/C really is from N.I - they've not had much of a devolved democracy in some time, and not a lot before the frankly useless N.I parties decided they didn't want to talk to eachother any more.

          I'm inclined to think several interest groups prefer N.I this way, seems little public pressure or governmental censure on elected MLAs not actually doing so.

          I'm still embarrassed to come from there.

      5. shaolin cookie

        Re: Unlikely now anyway

        > Now, we have parties (including Northern Ireland ones (DUP and SF)) who have forced impossible constraints upon the process - for politicking - rather than the best interests of the country. How could there be a negotiation - if the possibility of no deal is not permitted. I mean - why would the EU even consider negotiation in that case?

        This, as strange as it seems, appears to be a fairly common view by Brexiteers. Why would you think the EU would want these endless delays to continue? Trust me, they don't. From the EU side also, it's far better to get this thing over with than to drag on forever. Sure, it would be great if Brexit was cancelled, or if there was a good deal. But Brexit being outright cancelled is highly unlikely, so the uncertainty can only end by negotiating a deal or cutting the cord. Both are better than dragging on endlessly. So whether or not the UK would ask for an extension (which wouldn't get granted anyway if there's no clear path forward), they'll certainly negotiate if there's anything to negotiate. Hopefully there's something going on behind the scenes, but judging from what's in the news that is what the Johnson government is lacking. Proposals on what they'd want.

  2. Bloodbeastterror

    Thank god...

    ...for the work that our elected representatives on all sides are doing to protect us all from catastrophe. We elect politicians into a professional role precisely for this - to make judgments that amateurs are not qualified to make. We pay them a salary and give them resources to devote time to researching difficult subjects that the working person doesn't have time for. Part of this role is to prevent the usurping of democracy, especially by unelected backroom shadows like the weasel Cummings (and to an extent Campbell, though he at least had a smart master).

    To say "We've had enough of experts" is to turn the clock back to the middle ages. If your child needs surgery, do you go to an experienced surgeon or to the wise woman down the road? (And yes, I'm perfectly aware that some of you would choose the latter). Parliament is doing what we elected and paid for it to do - to prevent all of us, man, woman and child, from losing ***on the government's own best-scenario estimate***, £600 a year every year. Rees-Mogg can afford that - most people can't.

    More power to their elbow to block and ideally destroy that straw-haired and straw-headed buffoon who has clearly modelled himself on Trump.

    1. John Jennings Bronze badge

      Re: Thank god...

      With the devaluation of the £ over all the dithering, and uncertanty in average salaries - I calculate (others might disagree) that the average person has ALREADY LOST as follows:

      Average Salary in the UK is 497 PW. - in real terms this is LOWER than the 2009 recession.

      That is approx 26K PA

      Devaluation $1.32 pre referendum monthly average -> $1.13 (1.22 average for the month TD).

      So, a 8% (approx) devaluation.

      on the 26K annual salary- we have seen an effective cut (or we will by Christmas) of almost £2600.... Average.

      Perhaps half that, if consumables (beer and baked beans) are produced locally...

      Source - https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/averageweeklyearningsingreatbritain/april2019

      https://www.ig.com/uk/financial-events/brexit/value-of-the-pound-since-brexit

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Thank god...

        Not sure what the $->£ ratio has got to do with it? The Average UK earner will only be marginally affected by that.

        We have the figures for extra costs published monthly as RPI figures. These can show the extra cost of goods for the average person. You then need to take into account any wage growth or reduction over that period as well (potentially offsetting RPI).

        Then you can arrived at a reasonable starting point for calculated losses which could be further refined by looking for significant items outside the RPI or anomalies within the RPI.

        1. Giovani Tapini

          Re: Thank god...

          Lots of things we buy are based on $ commodity prices, so the impact is indirect, but significant.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Thank god...

            But the RPI takes that into account. My point was we don't need to try to think about whether there is a FOREX relationship to general commodities. Use the data which shows the end result.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Thank god...

            "Lots of things we buy are based on $ commodity prices, so the impact is indirect, but significant."

            You mean like oil and petrol? Which is captured in the RPI?

            The lower exchange rate also has the benefit of driving UK export earnings and in turn wage growth while at the same time lowering investment earnings, as seen by the relative price stability in the housing market as the pound has dropped. And for increases in food price, external factors such as increases in the cost of fuel for transport are often linked to external factors such as OPEC policy or sanctions against Russia.

            Exchange rate/inflation/wage rises/trade are all strongly interlinked - pointing at exchange rate changes and implying their are only negative effects of a weaker pound ignores the effects of the strong pound on significant parts of the UK economy prior to the referendum. (I'm using that as a comparison, not an argument for the referendum or remaining/leaving the EU.)

            1. werdsmith Silver badge

              Re: Thank god...

              The £ seems to dip every time it looks like we are heading for no deal and recovers when the threat seems to be headed off.

              It’s only the dithering that is keeping the pound from bombing .

  3. Christian Berger

    But didn't parliament vote against a no-deal Brexit?

    Or did I miss something there?

    1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge
      Mushroom

      Re: But didn't parliament vote against a no-deal Brexit?

      Remember 1605!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Steve Davies 3

        What a Guy

        1. Rameses Niblick the Third Kerplunk Kerplunk Whoops Where's My Thribble? Silver badge

          Re: @Steve Davies 3

          What a Guy

          Ace Rimmer?!?

          1. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
            Joke

            Re: @Steve Davies 3

            Smoke me a Ukipper, I'll be back for Brexit!

            1. Rameses Niblick the Third Kerplunk Kerplunk Whoops Where's My Thribble? Silver badge
              Pint

              Re: @Steve Davies 3

              Smoke me a Ukipper, I'll be back for Brexit!

              Oh, very well played sir!

              1. Korev Silver badge
                Coat

                Re: @Steve Davies 3

                I bet there's a Lister guys who think that...

    2. NerryTutkins

      Re: But didn't parliament vote against a no-deal Brexit?

      I think there are still risks attached.

      Labour will probably agree to an election once the immediate threat of 'no deal' is off the table. If they do this (as they suggest) once the no deal bill has had royal assent, but before the extension is asked for then it's possible Johnson could wait, hold the election in mid October, win a majority and repeal the new law to untie his hands.

      There is also the possibility (since the EU needs to agree unanimously) that one of them refuses the extension unless the UK has a plan. But that seems unlikely.

      1. chuck_u_farley
        WTF?

        Re: But didn't parliament vote against a no-deal Brexit?

        The UK is still a member of the 28 until we leave.

        So Johnson could go and ask for an extension, then the UK could veto it!

        Beggars belief!

        1. FrogsAndChips Silver badge

          Re: But didn't parliament vote against a no-deal Brexit?

          Only the 27 decide on the extension. The UK has no say in it.

          1. Cederic Silver badge

            Re: But didn't parliament vote against a no-deal Brexit?

            I thought all 28 had to agree.

            Another other option is to decline to provide a minister, at which point we get kicked out anyway.

            Or Boris could sit in the House of Commons and say, "No, I will not obey the law, and as you've refused to hold an election twice, what are you going to do about it anyway?"

            Parliament could then vote against the Government in a confidence motion but that wouldn't result in a new Government before the 31st October.

            1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

              Re: But didn't parliament vote against a no-deal Brexit?

              Or Boris could sit in the House of Commons and say, "No, I will not obey the law, and as you've refused to hold an election twice, what are you going to do about it anyway?"

              Impeach him.

            2. FrogsAndChips Silver badge

              Re: But didn't parliament vote against a no-deal Brexit?

              I thought all 28 had to agree.

              Nope. Remember the EU summit back in April? May and team were politely asked to leave the room while the grown-ups dined over scallops and cod and debated on whether to grant another extension and until when.

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: But didn't parliament vote against a no-deal Brexit?

        Labour will probably agree to an election once the immediate threat of 'no deal' is off the table. If they do this (as they suggest) once the no deal bill has had royal assent, but before the extension is asked for then it's possible Johnson could wait, hold the election in mid October, win a majority and repeal the new law to untie his hands.

        I think Starmer realises this. Even Corbyn might realise it. It's a possibility but less of a probability.

    3. Luke McCarthy

      Re: But didn't parliament vote against a no-deal Brexit?

      You can make a law against the tide coming in, but that doesn't mean it won't.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: But didn't parliament vote against a no-deal Brexit?

        The limits of jurisdiction of Parliamentary legislation lay somewhere between the tides and the actions of HMG.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: But didn't parliament vote against a no-deal Brexit?

      "Or did I miss something there?"

      The vote was to avoid a no deal Brexit assuming the EU give the UK more time. I think that's all the current clauses. I suspect a second referendum is the only real option that has been removed from the table at this point in time as everyone wants EU membership to become a historical issue rather than one that keeps rising from the dead..

      The issue of remaining/leaving/other is still unresolved until parliament becomes more stable (i.e. via an election) as anything that has been done can up until the point of the election can be viewed as a tweak to the UK leaving the EU until a majority party is able to pass it's own legislation and hopefully.

      If we don't get a clear parliamentary majority, we get another turn on this wild ride...

      TL;DR? Parliament as it stands struggles to make any policy around Brexit. Hopefully an election will fix that. There are no guarantees.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: But didn't parliament vote against a no-deal Brexit?

        "everyone wants EU membership to become a historical issue rather than one that keeps rising from the dead.."

        1. Not everyone.

        2. If it does become a historical issue the consequences will ensure it keeps rising from the dead.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: But didn't parliament vote against a no-deal Brexit?

          OK, replace everyone with politicians.

          An election gives us the potential for a clear winner (there will be arguments due to participation levels and MPs vs share of vote but that's normal...) and either leave or remain but the issue is effectively decided for the next parliamentary term.

          Or we continue with parliamentary deadlock and another period of up to 5 years of delaying a decision.

          Individuals will naturally have differing views on the outcome, but assuming a clear election result, we go back to a working parliament. If not, rinse and repeat...

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    And it was going to be such a walk in the park

    This BREXIT malarkey.

    Most of us will have seen those US Websites that refuse to serve people in th EU because of GDPR... Well, we'll start seeing them when we hit sites based in the EU.

    Boris and pals... explain that one then?

    Explain how British companies will suddenly lose contracts because of being outside GBPR and therefore not allowed to exchange data (unless it is via say Russia or China...????)

    Then explain how companies go TITSUP because they can't carry on in business with the EU simply because of the mountain of paperwork that they need to fill out just to send a few parts to say Germany?

    Oh wait, you won't be in power. Boris will be off to pastures new in some foreign land as soon as you can say 'Another round please'. He'll smile and say 'Job done' to his paymasters.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: And it was going to be such a walk in the park

      British sites for British people. It's all in line with the plans for the surveillance state.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: And it was going to be such a walk in the park

        "British sites for British people. It's all in line with the plans for the surveillance state."

        You say this, but if we could stop our data going overseas, it would fall back under UK jurisdiction and stop those pesky FVES people looking at it.

        I know, the irony of it...

  5. 2+2=5 Silver badge

    Germans on holiday...

    This means that the thousands of Germans who visit Cornwall each year to check out the settings of Rosamunde Pilcher novels (very popular on German TV) could continue to book rooms directly with Cornish hotels. But if they give their data to a German travel company, that travel company is controlling the tourists' data and could be blocked from using it to make bookings on their behalf.

    So no Germans go on holiday anywhere outside of the EU at the moment? Or if they do, they have all booked themselves directly?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Germans on holiday...

      Yes, this example was wrong. The transfer of data outside the EEA to countries which may have less good privacy standards is OK as long as the data subject consents and is fully informed. That's how travel agents manage to book us on holidays outside the EEA today.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Whenever timescale is put ahead of quality, that's when projects go wrong."

    That is my motto for the year!

    I have seen that come to pass more than once; stuff rushed for a (artificial) deadline and then followed by costly re-work afterwords. Usually the deadline was made by people far from implementation and testing.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "Whenever timescale is put ahead of quality, that's when projects go wrong."

      Usually the deadline was made by people far from implementation and testing.

      Usually? Your lucky! Where I work, the people who set the deadlines have NEVER been near implementation and testing...

  7. MJI Silver badge

    Why should I suffer?

    For our governments incompetence.

    I am getting rather pissed off with them.

    I would happily club the current PM and his puppeteer to death as he is annoying me.

    Someone tell these idiots were are techies because we are not thick enough to be politicians!

    1. Ken 16 Silver badge

      Re: Why should I suffer?

      The simple answer is, because you elect them.

      1. Bloodbeastterror

        Re: Why should I suffer?

        "because you elect them."

        Think about that statement for a moment.

        Johnson was "elected" by around 100,000 Tory voters, predominantly hammy old white men.

        Cummings has never been elected at all and yet is allowed apparently free rein to run the government.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Why should I suffer?

          "Johnson was "elected" by around 100,000 Tory voters, predominantly hammy old white men.

          Cummings has never been elected at all and yet is allowed apparently free rein to run the government."

          You've been listening to the mainstream media. They (the media) aren't distinguishing between a fantasy (the PM being elected via a presidential system) and reality (political parties electing leaders, often with very limited input or restricted choices, with the public electing local MP's).

          Some parts of the UK are worried about getting chlorinated chickens from a US trade deal but at the same time seem positively thrilled at the idea of adopting the US political system...

          1. Bloodbeastterror

            Re: Why should I suffer?

            "You've been listening to the mainstream media."

            I genuinely have no idea whether you're agreeing with me or dissenting.

            1. 's water music

              Re: Why should I suffer?

              "You've been listening to the mainstream media."

              I genuinely have no idea whether you're agreeing with me or dissenting.

              I'm not sure that an accusation of listening to the mainstream media is ever intended, other than as an insult these days but I agree, absent this heuristic, it is hard to tell

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Why should I suffer?

              If only I wrote more after that sentence to add additional context to allow you to determine the meaning.

              Oh...you don't listen to mainstream media, just the headlines. *gulp*

              1. Bloodbeastterror

                Re: Why should I suffer?

                "*gulp*"

                No, still no clue what side you're on. Do try to make your point clearly, there's a good AC.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Why should I suffer?

                  In the UK, the electorate elects their local MP's.

                  Pretending that we elect PM's or their advisers has always been a fantasy.

                  While some of those voting may elect a party by proxy, the fact we do not require MP's that switch allegiance to re-contest their electorate again proves the fact we only actually get to elect our local MP's.

                  1. nagyeger
                    Flame

                    Re: Why should I suffer?

                    I recently heard some UK politician on TV saying something like 'In the UK we elect a party'

                    No!, in the UK, we elect individuals and trust them to vote according to their consciences and the principles they hold dear. They might happen to be part of a party, and campaign with (local and national) party support, and we can normally expect them to let their party leaders do some leading, but ultimately, they are elected as individuals. (Otherwise we might have corruption-inducing party lists like in various chunks of Europe where you literally owe your job to the party bosses who decided to put you down as number 3 for that region unlike your friend who was in number 4 and so didn't get in.)

                    If only the parties and certain newspapers could remember this basic fact about our democracy, they'd stop making three line whips out of things they know >50% of the electorate think is a stupid idea.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Why should I suffer?

          Apparently the PM's chief advisor is an "accelerationist", one who supports unconstrained capitalism as a way to smash society on the way to attaining a technological singularity.

          I feel that the Conservative party is perhaps not what it once was.

        3. H in The Hague Silver badge

          Re: Why should I suffer?

          "Cummings has never been elected at all and yet is allowed apparently free rein to run the government."

          Bloody unelected bureaucrat, fortunately Brexit is meant to rid us of them.

    2. Cederic Silver badge

      Re: Why should I suffer?

      Because the Government is trying to fulfil the promises made to the British people, despite the best efforts of Parliament to prevent it.

      Scarily Boris appears to have integrity, something the rest of the MPs could learn from.

      1. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

        Re: Why should I suffer?@Cederic

        Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... Aaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... Aaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha..... Hahaha hahaha... wait, I think I've stopped! Oh, no Aaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... Haha hahaha... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

        Now I've got hiccups...

  8. alain williams Silver badge

    Germans who visit Cornwall

    All that the travel company has to do is have a tick box 'allow us to transfer your data to the UK to make this booking'. Data subject has agreed: so no issue.

    As for 'formalities taking time' - I expect this to happen, the EU does not want to make things easy.

    1. Ken 16 Silver badge

      Re: Germans who visit Cornwall

      The EU wants to make it as easy and painless as possible, that's not going to speed up anything though.

    2. Sgt_Oddball Silver badge
      Trollface

      Re: Germans who visit Cornwall

      I didn't know Farage takes the wife to Cornwall for holiday...

    3. Mike 137 Silver badge

      Re: Germans who visit Cornwall

      Absolutely not just a tick box, supposing consent is the lawful basis. The key is "fully informed". That doesn't just mean "we need it to make your booking" - it means transfers to the UK would have to be supported by a full Article 13 declaration plus a transfer risk assessment, which must be presented at the point where the data are collected. It also means in practical terms all the administrative overhead of managing consent. Which suggests relying on consent as the lawful basis is probably not the best choice. Article 49 allows contractual necessity as in 49(b) & 49(c). So the EU side will need to review their data processing arrangements.

      The worst case I can envisage is that of a UK processor acting for a controller in the Union while we haven't been granted adequacy. Such relationships might prove fragile.

      As to formalities - a non-contentious adequacy decision can take a couple of years to arrive at, not least because all 27 countries have to agree. Plus, the entire privacy regime of the applicant third country is taken into account, so the general alignment of the UK Data Protection Act with the GDPR is only one of the considerations. Not only does that Act contain a couple of things that could go against adequacy (e.g. no right of access to immigration data or employment references) but the 27 will also have to review the much discussed UK national security legislation. So a couple of years is probably optimistic, and a lot of business cost can be incurred on work-arounds in that time.

      What the UK government (and the ICO) have so far failed to sufficiently emphasise is that once we leave, it's the Union not the UK that will be making and enforcing the rules (even after we get an adequacy decision). We currently have a tacit assumption of legislative adequacy as the GDPR directly applies in the UK and our Act is essentially only specific to the UK in respect of the derogations. Once we leave, the "UK GDPR" will apply in the UK and the EU GDPR in its current territorial scope (minus the UK in most cases but not all, depending on the locations of the parties), and the Keeling Schedule already suggests to me that there could be considerable scope for deviation from the EU GDPR. So an adequacy decision could be neither swift nor even certain.

  9. Christian Berger

    According to the news:

    https://www.der-postillon.com/2019/09/brexit-schock-anti-anti-no-deal-deal.html

    Tory-rebels have voted for the Anti-Anti-No-Deal-Deal-law which would back-stop-deal the the no-no deal in case of Backstop-Hard-Border-Brexit-Prorogation.

    Apparently 210 voted Aye, 145 Nay, 22 Yey and 4 Huibuh.

    Can anybody explain this in normal words?

    1. Rameses Niblick the Third Kerplunk Kerplunk Whoops Where's My Thribble? Silver badge

      Re: According to the news:

      I'm going for the full Bernard Woolley here:

      There is a deal or there is no deal. If you want the deal, you are anti-no deal. If you don't want the deal, you are pro-no deal. If you don't have an opinion but don't like people who don't want the deal, you are anti-pro-deal, and if you don't like those who want a deal, you are anti-anti-no deal. If you want a deal but are a conservative member, you are now ex-anti-anti-no deal because you got fired had the whip removed (that actually sounds worse) and if you are Antoinette Sandbach, to your nieces and nephews at least, you are Aunty-ex-anti-anti-no deal.

  10. batfink Silver badge

    Vinous Ali

    Now there's a name I'm going to use for the arch-villain in my upcoming novel...

    1. TrumpSlurp the Troll Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: Vinous Ali

      A man to share a glass of wine with, you mark my words.

      .

      .

      .

      .>>>Hang on, I think I have a bottle of NZ SB in the pocket somewhere...

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's definitely on the list

    Sorry to hear that the UK's gov is only starting to deal with the consequences of that choice. I understand that there are more important priorities, and keeping one's hair properly tousled takes time.

    Fortunately, it seems that on this side of the Channel, we're more keen on getting ready.

    https://brexit.gouv.fr/sites/brexit/accueil/vous-etes-une-entreprise/protection-des-donnees.html

  12. devTrail

    Red herring

    Brexiters could see this article as the usual scaremongering, remainers could take the opposite view, but the real purpose is to hide the fact that Brexit is not going to happen. Boris Johnson has done the wrong thing at the wrong moment on purpose. Eventually we'll have another delay and the comedy has been carefully designed in order to keep the Brexiters trusting Johnson.

    1. Toltec

      Re: Red herring

      At the moment I'm not sure that this is all an arch plan to make us end up staying in.

      Logic-

      No-deal will be banned

      There is no deal which will be acceptable to the EU and both sides of parliament

      Therefore there is no way to leave.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Brexshit

    I asked on another thread and didn't get a single positive pro-brexit reply.

    So again, can anyone give me a *VALID* reason to leave the EU that is a benefit to myself or the country ?

    Why can't we just call the whole brexshit thing off ?

    And no quotes of it's just "project fear"

    1. codejunky Silver badge

      Re: Brexshit

      @AC

      "I asked on another thread and didn't get a single positive pro-brexit reply."

      Probably because this has been answered so many times over the last 2 1/2 years that people still asking this are highly unlikely to be serious and have a lack of understanding to the word 'valid' believing only their view to meet such criteria.

      "Why can't we just call the whole brexshit thing off ?"

      This being the problem. People voted for it, why cant we get out of the EU? Its almost as though we leave voters have been proved right again and again and again.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Brexshit

        We CAN get out of the EU, provided we don't mind trashing the economy and the Irish peace process at the same time. Oddly, some people don't think this is a good idea, especially as the benefits of leaving are largely illusory.

        1. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: Brexshit

          @AC

          "We CAN get out of the EU"

          Except we have voted leave. We elected a government promising leave. We elected brexit MEP's in an election we shouldnt even have been a member for, so why cant we leave?

          "provided we don't mind trashing the economy and the Irish peace process at the same time"

          Oh so you say we cant leave because you believe some tripe?

          "Oddly, some people don't think this is a good idea"

          And some people think Venezuelan socialism is a good thing. It doesnt matter what some people think, we had votes to get the direction for the country so lets do it. I pass some sign waving god botherers who tell me the end is coming and I need to start a relationship with jesus. Just coz some people have funny ideas doesnt make them right.

          "especially as the benefits of leaving are largely illusory."

          Ahhh, you dont understand and because its too complicated for you the country should be stuck? Thats a dumb idea.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Brexshit

            "Ahhh, you dont understand and because its too complicated for you the country should be stuck? Thats a dumb idea."

            Ooooooh, the irony!

          2. Teiwaz Silver badge

            Re: Brexshit

            we have voted leave. We elected a government promising leave. We elected brexit MEP's in an election we shouldn't even have been a member for, so why cant we leave?

            Clearly not as cut and dried as that.

            Considering the rising backlash, it could be seen to be read as the waking of a large segment of the population waking to the rising horror of what some were attempting to do to the country.

            I have to question, if indeed the case is so clearly that the mass of the country is behind this decision, clearly and simply. Why are underhand methods repeatedly being used to push it through?

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: Brexshit

              @Teiwaz

              "Considering the rising backlash"

              What rising backlash? So far we have a referendum, GE and MEP election where brexit has been the result. There doesnt seem to be a rising backlash, only a rising pitch from the same people squealing.

              "the rising horror of what some were attempting to do to the country."

              The horror of remaining against the vote? The horror of not actually leaving the EU which leaves us with uncertainty. Something that we know is damaging to an economy.

              "I have to question, if indeed the case is so clearly that the mass of the country is behind this decision, clearly and simply. Why are underhand methods repeatedly being used to push it through?"

              They aint. A referendum previously denied by multiple remain governments because they knew the result. The government directly threatening the population to vote their way. A general election because Cameron did all he could to bugger up and stitch up the referendum then ran away. Then May refusing to leave and instead extending the deadline and trying to make a transition agreement to keep us in. And parliament voting against no deal although that is the legal default.

              So after all the underhand methods with some examples above by remain the idea that leave is being underhand is not just laughable but shows that your accusation is pointing the wrong way.

        2. Flexdream

          Re: Brexshit

          The UK and Ireland being in the EU did nothing to help bring peace in Northern Ireland. The USA made an enormous contribution, a Canadian negotiator helped too. The GFA didn't involve the EU or mention them. Not long since SF was opposed to the EU and might be again. The UK and Ireland have repeatedly both said they will not build a hard border. The UK and Ireland are both net contributors to the EU. The EU supports the Spanish government in suppressing Catalan independence, and made it clear that an independent Scotland would have to apply for membership as a new country, Euro and all.

          Yet somehow leaving a customs union will start a new terrorist campaign in Ireland? How does that work?

      2. werdsmith Silver badge

        Re: Brexshit

        Question still not answered, just a lot of attempt to divert and avoid.

        That in itself answers the question.

    2. Cederic Silver badge

      Re: Brexshit

      The EU is heading towards political union in a european superstate. This will not act in the best interests of the United Kingdom or its people.

      It is thus better for us to have full sovereignty and avoid that nightmare situation, even if it causes short term economic challenges.

      You may not feel that benefits you but I feel it benefits the country and its people collectively. If you lose out as a result, tough. The rest of us are losing out every fucking day by being kept inside this unwanted political union.

      1. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

        Re: Brexshit

        How *exactly* are you losing out?

        I'll lay my cards on the table:

        I see no benefits for the country from being out of the EU. I do see harm from being a small country with little remaining manufacturing industry trying to negotiate with other countries. I see active harm from the likelihood of being forced to trade more closely with the USA;

        I see no harm from a "European superstate" (partly because such is unlikely ever to ever happen). The EU to this point has given the UK the closest thing to a codified constitution in its history, and has not acted against the interests of the UK in any significant way. Any acting against the interests of the country has been solely by the same UK governments you want to give unfettered power to.

        Over to you...

      2. Zolko

        @Cederic

        The EU is heading towards political union in a european superstate.

        partially true: EU politicians want to drive the EU towards a political union, giving more political power to EU politicians. They would want that, wouldn't they ? Except that the European people have repeatadly refused to go in that direction in several referendums, and some European state's politicians are also refusing to go in that direction, and an ever increasing number of national political parties also refuse to go in that direction.

        Therefore, if the UK wanted to avoid being trapped in a EU superstate - which I fully understand - they could support Eurosceptical parties - like Orbán, Salvini, LePen, AfD - and change the course of the EU politicians. From inside

        It is thus better for us to have full sovereignty

        so ... you intend to leave NATO ? Because fighting the US empire's wars seems to me a much bigger drag on sovereignty that the curvature of bananas.

    3. Flexdream

      Re: Brexshit

      I don't think I can give you any reason you would consider valid. Not;

      200 mile fishing zone like Norway, Iceland

      No liability for a likely/possible European bank bailout

      Control of immigration just like Canada and Australia

      Free to make trade deals

      Free to have different standards eg better animal welfare, relaxed on GM

      Drop punitive tariffs on developing countries' textiles

      Review our participation in the European Arrest Warrant

      Avoid the militarisation of the EU

      Encourage the democratic vote for independence of Catalonia ignored by the EU

      Save our huge and growing financial contribution.

      I know, none of those will seem valid do they?

      1. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

        Re: Brexshit

        I am not a downvoter - thanks for answering me in a civilised manner. I'll go through the list and tell you what I think about each item. Sorry that it is a bit of an essay:

        200 mile fishing zone like Norway, Iceland:

        I don't see any significant validity to this one. Yes, I regret the reduction of the fishing fleet, but not to the extent of people losing their lives over it. I remember the "Cod Wars" over disputed fishing grounds - do you? A British 200 mile limit would overlap with Norway's limit, and possibly with Iceland's. The EU has reduced tensions in these waters, which is good. Also, having come from an area in which two other industries (coal and steel) were decimated by purely UK government action, I don't see why fishermen should get special regard.

        No liability for a likely/possible European bank bailout:

        No, I really don't think that is a valid argument for screwing the British economy. The UK government were quick enough to bail out domestic banks, which I disagreed with, so why would this putative bailout be any different?

        Control of immigration just like Canada and Australia:

        Personally, I don't find this important at all. I live in Scotland where immigrants are a) welcome and b) vital to the economy. Also, I have always been an advocate of weak border controls, so I'd rather that we allow more immigrants from anywhere in the world. Lastly, I'm married to a citizen of another EU country, which I probably wouldn't be except for EU funding of academic activities. I do accept that, for some people, the situation seems a bit one-sided since it is difficult to go to another EU country to work, but a lot of that is down to successive UK governments reducing compulsory foreign language education in schools.

        Free to make trade deals:

        I think I already addressed this - we are a tiny country with very little regard in the rest of the world. We are far better off making trade deals as part of a huge bloc rather than being at the mercy of virtually everyone else. The fact that the current government is creaming itself at the prospect of deals with the USA, which are likely to significantly reduce the quality of life for the poorest people in the UK, is enough reason not to leave the EU from point of view. That the UK will literally be desperate for trade deals with anyone means that any negotiations will be from a position of weakness, which isn't going to do the average person any good at all.

        Free to have different standards eg better animal welfare, relaxed on GM:

        This is a valid point. I am very unhappy with the eco-nuttery coming out of the EU, and the standards of farm animal welfare. However, I don't think any UK government is going to do anything different on these points, because the eco-loons are taking over all the parties, and they don't seem to have any concerns about animal welfare, except to tell us all to be vegetarian or vegan.

        Drop punitive tariffs on developing countries' textiles:

        To be honest, this does not impact on my consciousness at all. However, what makes you think that any future trade deals won't have similar restrictions - c.f. Trump and China?

        Review our participation in the European Arrest Warrant:

        I don't know what you are referring to, specifically. I know that some academics have issues with the EAW, but I'm not knowledgeable about it. However, whatever the problems, look at the extradition treaty with the USA and tell me that you think that any renegotiation will be of advantage to the average person.

        Avoid the militarisation of the EU:

        I have no real concern about this, partly because it is unlikely to happen. Even if it did, do you have problems with the UK being part of NATO? If yes, then I applaud you consistency; if no, what are the relevant differences?

        Encourage the democratic vote for independence of Catalonia ignored by the EU:

        Independence for Scotland would do that much more effectively.

        Save our huge and growing financial contribution:

        Which is pointless given that the financial losses from crappy trade deals and erosion of standards will cost more for the foreseeable future. At least the country gets something back from paying in to the EU.

        Many of the problems you point to are down to the UK government. As a country, we could have dealt with this years ago by adopting Proportional Representation and developing a codified constitution so that ordinary people know the rules if the game. The EU has nothing to say about this, but consecutive governments have unfairly blamed the EU for their own failings. If you were to give that as reason for leaving the EU, I would not be able to argue with you :-)

        1. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

          Re: Brexshit

          Fishing zone? UK Fishing industry?

          A large proportion (80%) of the UK fish quota has been sold to foreign boats.

        2. Flexdream

          Re: Brexshit

          IP, thanks for your kind words and thoughtful reply. As you'd expect I'm unconvinced by your arguments, as I will explain.

          'I remember the "Cod Wars" over disputed fishing grounds - do you? A British 200 mile limit would overlap with Norway's limit, and possibly with Iceland's. The EU has reduced tensions in these waters, which is good.'

          I remember those days too ;) so I guess we're a similar vintage. Obviously the '200 mile' limit is shorthand, and allows for that, e.g. Norway and Sweden. Reduced tensions? Not if you're African http://www.iuuwatch.eu/2017/09/fish-cash-batter-eu-robs-africa-seafood/

          'Also, having come from an area in which two other industries (coal and steel) were decimated by purely UK government action, I don't see why fishermen should get special regard.'

          I don't understand this, unless you're saying you approve the decimation of coal and steel, but even if you do then fishing is different and has not been decimated by market forces.

          'The UK government were quick enough to bail out domestic banks, which I disagreed with, so why would this putative bailout be any different?'

          I disagreed with that too, and the bailout of French and German banks which I think was the reason the ECB broke its own rules to 'help' Greece. Unlike your conclusion I don't want to be party to repeating a banker's bailout.

          'I live in Scotland where immigrants are a) welcome and b) vital to the economy. Also, I have always been an advocate of weak border controls, so I'd rather that we allow more immigrants from anywhere in the world.'

          I live in Edinburgh, and I agree on a) and b). However I value British cultural identity and cohesion and I think British voters should decide who and why people come here..

          'Lastly, I'm married to a citizen of another EU country, which I probably wouldn't be except for EU funding of academic activities.'

          Congratulations, but I think you'd still be married to someone without the EU :)

          'Free to make trade deals:

          I think I already addressed this

          - we are a tiny country with very little regard in the rest of the world.'

          We are a huge economic power, even if our leaders are inept. Australia, NZ, Canada, S Korea, Taiwan, Singapore all manage. The problem with the EU is we get signed up for deals which might protect a European interest, such as Italian rice growing (really) but don't help us. How well is the EU doing in its dealings with the US? What's the problem with GM soya?

          'Free to have different standards eg better animal welfare, relaxed on GM:

          This is a valid point. I am very unhappy with the eco-nuttery coming out of the EU, and the standards of farm animal welfare. However, I don't think any UK government is going to do anything different on these points, because the eco-loons are taking over all the parties, and they don't seem to have any concerns about animal welfare, except to tell us all to be vegetarian or vegan.'

          Glad we agree. I would never want bull fighting to be legal in the UK, even if the EU don't object, but nor do I want the EU dictating to Spain. Let each country decide. I'm sure Spain is heading towards outlawing it.

          'Drop punitive tariffs on developing countries' textiles:

          To be honest, this does not impact on my consciousness at all. However, what makes you think that any future trade deals won't have similar restrictions - c.f. Trump and China?'

          It seems to me Trump is the only politician prepared to stand up to the Chinese dictatorship and its outrageous trade practices.

          'Review our participation in the European Arrest Warrant:

          I don't know what you are referring to, specifically. I know that some academics have issues with the EAW, but I'm not knowledgeable about it. However, whatever the problems, look at the extradition treaty with the USA and tell me that you think that any renegotiation will be of advantage to the average person.'

          Many, not me though, were pleased that McKinnon wasn't extradited to the US. If the Greeks for example wanted him we couldn't stop it. I rest my case.

          'Avoid the militarisation of the EU:

          I have no real concern about this, partly because it is unlikely to happen. Even if it did, do you have problems with the UK being part of NATO? If yes, then I applaud you consistency; if no, what are the relevant differences?'

          Yes I have a problem, though less, with NATO. I want my peace dividend! Remember that eh?

          'Encourage the democratic vote for independence of Catalonia ignored by the EU:

          Independence for Scotland would do that much more effectively.'

          Good luck with that! https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-independence-eu-bid-extremely-difficult-says-jose-manuel-barroso-9131925.html

          'Save our huge and growing financial contribution:

          Which is pointless given that the financial losses from crappy trade deals and erosion of standards will cost more for the foreseeable future. At least the country gets something back from paying in to the EU.'

          I disagree and think we're financially much better off out the EU. But I don't believe anyone can predict the future. I do see the EU's relative decline comoared with the US and developing Asia continuing.

          'Many of the problems you point to are down to the UK government. As a country, we could have dealt with this years ago by adopting Proportional Representation and developing a codified constitution so that ordinary people know the rules if the game. The EU has nothing to say about this, but consecutive governments have unfairly blamed the EU for their own failings. If you were to give that as reason for leaving the EU, I would not be able to argue with you :-)'

          Dang, wish I'd remembered that one! You'll be pleased to know for the imminent election how much you accord with the Brexit Party policy on this :)

          Regards

          1. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

            Re: Brexshit

            Thanks, Flexdream - it was a pleasure to read your points of view. I hope I'll get chance to comment further on your points over the weekend, but, if not, it isn't because I don't want to: The Register's forums are not a good place for long debates, more's the pity.

            I am aware that a lot of what I said in the final paragraph accords with some of the Brexit Party policies, but both practically (their leading policy is 180 degrees from mine) and morally (they are effectively Tories in populist guise, and therefore just slimy businessmen*), they won't get my vote. I'm torn between LibDem (I'm a member of the party) and SNP at the moment.

            *Not all businessmen are slimy, necessarily, but the ones who go into Tory-side politics are focused too much on getting the best for their business, not on the less fortunate in society. This makes them slimy. There is nothing in the Brexit Party manifesto that makes me think they have any concern at all for the socially disadvantaged of the UK.

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Brexshit

        "200 mile fishing zone like Norway, Iceland"

        AIUI a good proportion of the UK catch is sold to the EU as the prices are better there. The value of an extended fishing zone would have to be offset against the cost of tariffs when selling to the EU.

  14. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    "the commission might look askance at the UK's use of surveillance under the Investigatory Powers Act "

    They might also look askance at the wiggle room HMG left itself in the DPA's implementation of GDPR.

  15. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    Wouldn't it be a shame if it got in the way of the languid JRM's Dublin based company doing business with UK clients.

    1. Cederic Silver badge

      It's almost as though the company in question performed a risk assessment and determined that the UK leaving the EU would have less impact on their operations if they adjusted their operating model, thus avoiding the potential detriment to their business.

      If your employer (or self-owned business) hasn't done a comparable analysis and taken appropriate mitigation steps then they're frankly negligent.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Maybe you should think that one through a bit more. J R-M has moved his company out of the UK into the EU. What does that tell you about his estimate of the effects of his political policy on UK as a place to do business? Is that a mitigation any UK employee of any UK business thinks would be in their individual interest?

  16. Cynical Pie

    A more comprehensive analysis of our likely (in)adequacy in GDPR/DP terms can be found here, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3441617

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Irrelevant

    Anecdotally, I have the strong impression many if not most organisations do little or nothing about GDPR compliance except changing the privacy policy wording a bit and sticking a cookies consent form on the website. I suspect my employer's not really going to do anythint about this except generate some mail and Powerpoint. Legal will find the appropritae loophole and that'll be that. Obviously that's based on a tiny sample (two employers) but I don't think either were all that exceptional in how many stuffs they give about this stuff.

    1. Mike 137 Silver badge

      Re: Irrelevant

      As a Data Protection consultant I can absolutely confirm your comment. And in many cases (over 90% of a random sample we're shortly reporting on) those changes are not fully compliant with the legislation.

      The key purpose of compliance to most businesses is to periodically satisfy the auditors, who mostly examine paperwork, not practice. The difference here is that, unlike ISO and similar compliances, there's no auditing until after the fact (a data breach or a complaint), which means your performance is only investigated from an adversarial position. Unless your documentation is watertight and accords with your practice and both comply with the law, you'll fail the audit and be penalised.

  18. H in The Hague Silver badge

    GOV.UK Verify

    Funny thing is, one of the certified providers of the GOV.UK Verify programme is based in the Netherlands, their call centre is just a mile or two from my humble abode. Wonder how anyone who has used their services is going to be affected?

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Trollface

    Goodbye-ee!

    After we leave the EU, the GDPR nonsense forced upon Britain by Brussels diktat can be torn up. And rightly so.

    1. Aging Hippy

      Re: Goodbye-ee!

      Except that a major player in GDPR was the Information Commissioner's Office in Wilmslow, Cheshire, ENGLAND.

      The only EU decisions that the UK isn't involved in are those where the UK MEP's can't be bothered to turn up.

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Goodbye-ee!

      There are two good reasons to be in the EU. One is economic. The other, as you have so rightly reminded us, is that the EU is a far better safeguards of our rights than any UK govt. of recent years.

      1. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

        Re: Goodbye-ee!

        Bravo, Dr S! It is a mystery to me that supporters of Brexit have any faith in domestic politicians to safeguard them...

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: Goodbye-ee!

          I find it one of life's little ironies that Rudd, despite being subject to HO capture as a minister, is pro-EU. I suppose it just goes to show her lack of understanding about what the HO was and is up to.

  20. MachDiamond Silver badge

    "Allowed, Legal, bollocks

    The world of data won't suddenly cease if there is a no-deal Brexit. Companies will go along with business and fix the paperwork later. Some court cases will be filed by adventurers looking to make a quick stack and courts will fight about whether they have jurisdiction to even hear the case.

    Pull the bandage off quickly and it only smarts for a minute. Pull it off slowly only if you really enjoy the pain.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020