Brexit dividend? 'Newly independent' UK will be world's 'data hub', claims digital minister Britain's digital minister says the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is "limiting the potential of our businesses," and is vowing to cut data protection "red tape," for the "newly independent nation free of EU bureaucracy." The recently appointed Michelle Donelan said the UK planned to "seize this post-Brexit …
The main aim is to wave a paper at people shouting "WE GOT BREXSHIT DONE".
"How?"
"BY CUTTING RED TAPE FROM BRUSSELS!"
"But I'm a multi-national, so now I have to adhere to GDPR and whatever you've done? How does this benefit me?"
"IT GETS BREXSHIT DONE!"
"But it's costing me mor..."
"GET OUT OF MY WAY YOU ANTI-GROWTH SCUM BAG!"
Quite, removing GDPR doesn't make it cheaper to do business and adding more rules (relaxed or not) makes it more expensive.
I don't want this country as a data hub it just means we'll be in the news more and more for data breaches and that'll be embarrassing.
Remember if you don't store it, it can't be stolen.
If you look at what is needed now to move data to US you know it's a lot more of red tape - not less. As soon as some authorities told Google Analytics wasn't GDPR compliant without a lot of efforts from site owners, they simply dropped it, and moved to systems storing and analyzing data locally.
UK might become a "data hub" for third world countries, maybe - while US data hoarders won't have any incentive to store data UK - they will just move UK data to US....
Hmmm....
" References in this Regulation to the processing of personal data for the
purposes of scientific research (including references to processing for
“scientific research purposes”) are references to processing for the purposes of
any research that can reasonably be described as scientific, whether publicly or
privately funded, including processing for the purposes of technological
development or demonstration, fundamental research or applied research. "
I reckon "technological development or demonstration" gives a very broad definition of "scientific research". Like... writing a website on the origami might even qualify.
" References in this Regulation to the processing of personal data for the
purposes of historical research (including references to processing for
“historical research purposes”) include processing for the purposes of
genealogical research. "
So Ancestry.com is now to be considered on a par with the National Archives/...?
"Remember if you don't store it, it can't be stolen."
That needed repeating. Why is it that only those have been in technology a lifetime can see this?
There needs to a real value put on storing someone's personal details, £1000 for a passport. £800 for a driving licence, and if companies/Government lose that info, they pay up and go bankrupt if necessary, it's the only way to stop it being collected and stored without due care. And each copy taken should be watermarked with who took collected that info and when, if necessary using steganography.
I'm so against what the pontificating clueless political #hashtags of this world stand for, (everyone here knows who I'm talking about, her presence lingers on even after she's long left Government, but best to see her and others as a clueless political 'blob' with zero understanding of the consequences they are proposing here).
It will cause so much polarizing of society, saying that, we're probably already past that point. The analogue world is being taken out of life, decisions are now 'Yes or 'No'.
It will cause so much polarizing of society, saying that, we're probably already past that point. The analogue world is being taken out of life, decisions are now 'Yes or 'No'.
I think that's just human nature. Thinking in 'black or white', 'yes or no' takes less mental effort than seeing nuances and multiple sides of things. It's very similar to 'pigeon holing' where someone is categorised by one or two actions. This last seems particularly common with crime where a lot of people seem to think that 'a criminal' is a type of human and that everything they do must therefore be bad.
@gandalfcn
"woosh"
Oops sorry didnt mean to make it so complicated. Let me try to explain to you. Its normal for businesses trading with another country to have to follow the rules of that country. Do you see the reverse yet? Those not trading with the foreign country... dont!!!
I thought that as well. In the context of the poster's previous comments, I'd say it was pretty clear that it *was* sarcastic.
But I miss the days when you could take for granted stuff like this *was* a joke- or an intentionally obvious troll- without having to check. Yeah, I know that Poe's Law and the winking smiley go back decades, but today there definitely seem to be way more people who could parrot shite like this online and genuinely believe it.
Even if the sentiment of voters had changed and voted differently in a "should we undo Brexit" referendum, would that really change anything? Would the EU permit the UK to go back to their old arrangement, or would they say "you're either all in or you're all out, we won't go back to your 'halfway in' special deal you had before"?
The biggest problem with Brexit was making it about a simple majority vote. Surely a supermajority should have been required for such a major change, and should be required for the UK to someday join the EU in full if that's what it decides. To do that on a majority vote risks a majority vote going the other direction a few years later if political winds shift.
The biggest problem with Brexit was making it about a simple majority vote. Surely a supermajority should have been required for such a major change
That wasn't necessary because it was, as agreed by parliament, purely an advisory referendum. It was only intended to guide the supposedly sane souls in parliament on what would then be done.
It was only when the Tory government and the brextremists got together and invented this "will of the people" bullshit, decided that advisory referendum was going to be legally binding, did it all go to shit.
Had people known that was going to happen the vote would have likely gone the other way.
Which is how it's done in Switzerland (and needs a majority of the cantons, so decisions are not biased by towns having a higher population density).
But a) The UK has very little experience of running referendums. b) Cameron was a gormless f**ktard who was p**sing himself at the prospect of Farage hoovering up his back bench majority. In a documentary on Farage he admits the party actually had enough funds for about 15 constituencies (out of 635). No wonder the Johnson told him to p**soff.
A classic case of the Tory elephant stampeeded by the UKIP mouse.
There is a conspriacy theory that it also stopped the UK from complying with tighter money laundering rules, but surely not.
I've found one quitter (who finally admitted they voted Leave) give me an actual reason he did so.
He's a slumlord and reckoned the worsening economic situation would create more potential tenants for his properties.
First one I've found to give a coherent explanation.
Only took 6 years to find one.
The biggest problem with Brexit was making it about a simple majority vote.
It was that, and not defining what the vote was actually for. Reducing it to "leave or not," with no detail about how or what we would be leaving, and what we would do instead. Well, I say "no detail", more like "lots of details, all contradictory, and tailored to win over your audience".
For some, it was about "cutting red tape" (we've ended up with more). To others it was about reducing immigration, to others, about reducing non-white immigration (the "I'm not racist but" vote), to others it was about increasing non-white immigration (communities in places like Birmingham who wanted to be able to bring in family members from the Indian subcontinent more easily). To others still, it was about "taking back control" (of what, from whom, by whom, you might ask, it was all neatly unspecified). For some, it was "sovereignty" and "making our own laws" (something we'd never lost), and for yet others, just down to a general sense of malaise that something had to change, and the campaign exploited this to divert their attention away from being robbed by Tory austerity.
There was no manifesto, no "this is how we will leave", "these are the institutions we will leave", "this is what will replace them", or indeed, "this is how we will bear the cost of the replacements rather than splitting them 28 ways". Just sunlit uplands and unicorns.
Of course not.
And anyone who's seen "Brexit: The Uncivil War" will know exactly why.
Dominc Cummings knew that once they got into spelling out details of any specific path they'd loose a whole bunch of quitters who'd suddenly realize that a) Their particular fantasy Brexit (7 options, or was it 9?) wasn't going to happen b) S**t was going to get a lot tougher for them.
Literally the only thing this (loose) coalition of the delusional, gullible and flat out greedy did agree on was they wanted (for all sorts of reasons, most of which made no logical sense outside their own heads) to leave the EU.
And with the Johnson he had the perfect sock puppet for the job. Someone who'd as happily spout on about the "Sunlit uplands" as he would explaining (for example) of the absolute necessity to bayonet babies and with as little regard for the consequences. A completely empty jug that could (and still does) make a great deal of noise.
@John Smith 19
"Literally the only thing this (loose) coalition of the delusional, gullible and flat out greedy did agree on was they wanted (for all sorts of reasons, most of which made no logical sense outside their own heads) to leave the EU."
Do I guess your still butt hurt we left?
Fixing the "overemphasis on consent" would be easy. Pass a law that says necessary* cookies only must be the default when a website loads. Ban pop-ups requesting consent for other cookies, and leave it to the user to search in the website's settings for the switch to turn on the other cookies, should they wish to.
*"Necessary" would be carefully defined in the law, of course, to prevent scumbag sites defining all tracking and ad cookies as necessary.
But, as with so many things, confusing the two is being used to push for changes that don't relate to people's perceived problem. "Don't you hate that websites keep asking you about cookies? Well, we're going to remove that consent red tape from GDPR to make it go away."
(And of course, yes, the correct response to being annoyed about websites asking for consent for tracking cookies all the time is to ask why they need to track you in the first place.)
Indeed, it's the consent to having your data collected, stored, processed in some way, and retained.
I'd suggest that if the need to gain consent to this is "overly complex", then this probably indicates that the entity gathering the data is sneakily trying to use it for multiple purposes, some of which are legitimate, but most of which are to do with targeting advertising.
The solution is simple; legislate for two types of consent. One for consenting to your data being collected and used for the core business purpose, and one for allowing it to be used for commercial purposes, which is off by default, and requires the user to seek it out and explicitly opt in.
For example, I'm fine with consenting to give my details to the DVLA for the purposes of renewing my driving license. They shouldn't require me to choose whether to consent to selling any information onto google for advertising purposes in order to renew my driving license, and if they would like me to do so, the request for me to consent should not block other functionality that I have already consented to.
I get the sense that what the government desires is essentially the opposite of this; invisible opting-in which would require me to go and find the settings to opt out.
"Necessary" would be carefully defined in the law, of course, to prevent scumbag sites defining all tracking and ad cookies as necessary.
I hate the weasel words of "legitimate interest" and related cookies being enabled by default so you have to untick zillions of boxes. No advertiser has any legitimate interest as far as I'm concerned because I've got Do Not Track enabled, so they can just fuck off.
If the data protection provisions in the UK are weakened, then I just won't leave me personal data there. I won't do business with any business in the UK that does not abide by the GDPR (or stronger) and leaves my data in the UK.
I say this as a non-UK resident and citizen. So, UK businesses lose out.
THAT, is the real dividend of Brexit.
As a UK business we are screwed both ways. EU businesses can't deal with us if we are outside GDPR. And UK businesses are reluctant to deal with us because, for greater reliability, their data may be backed up on EU based servers which aren't governed by whatever replacement regulations are put in place.
Some of the fears may not be fully justified but businesses like to play safe - and our sales have taken the hit. But bully for those businesses benefiting from Brexit but there is no upside for us..
We've looked very hard.
You take as fact speculation on who may/may not leave. But you didn't add Norway and Switzerland which are effectively part of the same trading block. In IT terms europe is 'local' if measured in latency speeds, time zones, trading law, standards or the ability to visit and support clients.
The same can't be said of the Americas or Australasia. Not a problem, maybe, for London based mulinationals but isn't the growth supposed to come from SMEs - particulary from outside London?
Businesses are programmed to surmount political and trade barriers which we have done for decades. It's a real disappointment to give up and move into managed decline.
I really hope you are right and we are replaced by successful trading companies who can benefit from Brexit. The real question is it real evidenced hope or just blind hope? I'm waiting until 2030 to look back to see who is right.
Yup, pretty much the unvoiced thinking of so many brexiteers.
Thatcher (the only PM ever with an actual hard science degree) understood the UK's real place in the world and that it was way better inside a big tent (of 550m people) p**sing out than being outside the tent getting doused.
May. Somewere on the spectrum or I'll eat my hat.
Truss. Johnson-lite.
@John Smith 19
"Thatcher (the only PM ever with an actual hard science degree) understood the UK's real place in the world and that it was way better inside a big tent (of 550m people) p**sing out than being outside the tent getting doused."
Thatcher who pushed back against the EU, that one? Thatcher who opposed the federalisation of a trade block. That one? The PM who had a spine and would face down her counterparts in Europe instead of selling us out. That one?
@Roj Blake
"The Thatcher who campaigned for us to stay in the then EEC in the 1970s?
The Thatcher who signed us up for the Single Market?
That one?"
I know you think your making a point or that you got me there but read your comment first then read mine. Get your facts right and you may maybe understand my response countering the idea that Thatcher wanted to join the EU.
Thatcher
She did have a spine
She knew where we were better off - Inside rather than outside in the cold
She got us the best deal possible - rebate and op-out - but we still had access to a single market on our doorstep.
@David Hicklin
"She knew where we were better off - Inside rather than outside in the cold"
of a trading block. And that we were better not suffering a federalised EU.
"She got us the best deal possible - rebate and op-out - but we still had access to a single market on our doorstep."
I love how amazing the EU is, as long as we have rebates and opt outs and special treatment. Yet even that wasnt enough to justify the EU in her eyes.
Yet
Another
Minister
Who
Hasn't
A
Clue
In ten years' time, when we are regarded as a 3rd world country, the likes of Boris and Farage will be regarded as the people responsible for the fiasco.
I fully expect that if things carry on the way it is, we'll be going begging to the IMF for a bailout. It wouldn't surprise me if they just laughed in our faces.
They did it before when the Wilson/Callaghan government broke the bank.
If you can get out... go now before it is too late and they stop us from leaving.
If you can get out... go now before it is too late and they stop us from leaving. .... Steve Davies 3
Or, if you have anything helpful which you know is being ignored by taxing UK authorities and bumbling and rumbled Parliamentary departments because of their subservience and chronic dependence upon status quo gravy trains/state benefits and expenses systems/arbitrary third party taxation and wealth confiscation/personal and corporate sanction and quarantine, deliver it into foreign and alien fields for use or misuse and abuse in lands/places or spaces that value its worth and exercise its utilities/facilities/capabilities/abilities.
Such is a remarkably simple thing to easily do nowadays with zero fuss and even less chance of systems being engaged to prevent proprietary intellectual property transfers, whether of public or private or pirate concern and knowledge.
And such can be excessively rewarding and exciting too, which probably makes it addictively attractive to those made of the right stuff with a lot more than just more of the right stuff to trade/share/import and export.
This post has been deleted by its author
They are truly nuts if they think that saving the costs of complying with GDPR is going to outweigh the profits that can be made by being able to do business with the single market. Especially as nearly every business that operates online here has already incurred those costs, so that there is hardly any saving to be made.
No, the real plan is to imagine the UK becoming some offshore wild west free for all where the rest of the world can stash its data and monetise it to infinity. A brief moments thought should have been to sufficient to realise that laws in the rest of the world will forbid their own companies from doing this, whilst simultaneously stopping any UK companies from doing business there.
What they call "red tape" is not just a pointless cost. It's the rules of the game, and if you want to play, you have to obey them.
I know, you're right. Just look at the devastation caused to the US IT industry by its lack of GDPR compliance since 2018.
Then there's the Israeli IT industry and how it's collapsed in the last four years, and I recall India was thriving until GDPR landed.
Britain really ought to recognise the benefits of heavy regulation on businesses, because after all, that's how the City grew and became so successful, contributing £65bn/year in taxes alone to the economy.
I know, you're right. Just look at the devastation caused to the US IT industry by its lack of GDPR compliance since 2018.
There are two types of web site in the US; those which comply with GDPR, and those which are no longer available outside of the US (a lot of which seem to be local news and media outlets whose business model is clearly one of sweeping up your data with a pretense of giving out information).
Then there's the Israeli IT industry and how it's collapsed in the last four years, and I recall India was thriving until GDPR landed.
I'm going to hazard a guess and say that neither the Israeli nor the Indian IT sectors are doing much business processing data from the 450M population of the EU, except possibly where individual companies have gone through the rigmarole of proving data adequacy. AFAIK, Israel is best known for flogging spyware, and India for outsourced software development, neither of which are exactly concerned by GDPR.
Britain really ought to recognise the benefits of heavy regulation on businesses, because after all, that's how the City grew and became so successful, contributing £65bn/year in taxes alone to the economy.
Yes, it's a good thing we don't have any increasing wealth inequality, and people in dire straits in this country, and we can just point at that square mile on the Thames and see how well they are doing. All the wonderful tax income from there is paying for everything! Some might suggest that overreliance on one sector of the economy whilst starving all the others, or allowing them to be exploited and sold off due to lack of regulation is a recipe for financial disaster, but that happened in 2007, so it can't happen again, right?
American businesses can choose whether to retain GDPR compliance, so why shouldn't British businesses also have that choice?
Find ways of reducing wealth inequality that don't require everybody to queue for bread, and I may well support you.
Find ways of reducing wealth inequality that don't require everybody to queue for bread, and I may well support you.
There are plenty of serious suggestions for reducing wealth inequality, starting with higher tax rates for the highest paid, and a simple wealth tax on all privately owned assets over a certain value. Neither of which has any connection to bakeries.
Jumping from the suggestion that we should reduce inequality to the assertion that this leads to bread queues is just, well, nonsense. In case you weren't aware, people having to "queue for bread" in the form of food banks is part of the issue. This sort of insane nonsequitur makes me really worry for the mental wellbeing of those who come up with this sort of thing.
@Richard 12
"The lack of regulation in the City (and US banking) caused the banking crisis, and cost us plebs billions rescuing them."
Pushing US banks to lend to sub-prime borrowers caused the banking industry to come up with a fool proof plan based on the security that there was never a housing crisis across the whole of the US at the same time. This was approved by the federal government as safe. It was deemed to be secure based on all available evidence. Then of course the housing crash all over the US and these 'safe' assets turned out not so great and the world had bought into it.
Had the initial push not to make home owners of people who cant afford to own a home not happened then things would have been different. But nobody saw it coming which is why public and private suffered losses from it.
The 2008 banking crisis caused "an overall net cost of £33.0 billion to the Government".
(Annex B of https://obr.uk//docs/dlm_uploads/CCS1021486854-001_OBR-EFO-October-2021_CS_Web-Accessible_v2.pdf )
I'd rather we didn't forgo almost twice that much every single year in taxes from the same industry.
I would have thought that as far as any self respecting organisation is concerned that te UK has already shown "adequately enough" to the world govermins and business that UK CANNOT be trusted to act in accordance with their own laws when it comes to handling the UK public data or indeed anyone elses private data.
They gave away confidential NHS information about UK residents health.
They think that cutting red tape in one area of govermins tinkerings will cover the increases in red tape in all the other sectors.
If HS2 is a good example of "how" UK conducts large scale projects, then any more advance technical projects will be able to follow the wide road to oblivion that's already been demonstrated to the world.
Reintroducing paraquat use into farming and other bee killing pesticides gives everyone a very clear example of just how the UK privileged classes operate. We don't give a flying fuck about the damamge we cause in doing what we want to in order to preserve archaic British Businesses..... and A FACSIST GOVERNMENT.
ALF
IDIOTS, THINK WE ARE IDIOTS TOO..................
ALF
This week datastores which don't care about privacy. Next week; banks which don't care about money laundering and facilitating criminals. The week after that; clearing the NHS backlog by allowing people to self-certify themselves as doctors and surgeons.
Brexit was always about the race to the bottom, escaping that shackles of EU regulations to allow businesses to be more profitable by being more dodgy.
I guess it comes down to whether one believes regulations are necessary or just a hindrance, an obstacle to profit. I personally don't like the 'profit before people' ideology.
You're far, far behind the times.
England's banks have been enabling money laundering and facilitating criminals for years, if not decades. That's why kleptocrats and oligarchs come here. Last year HSBC and Natwest got fined over £800M between them for money laundering. In the US, HSBC got fined $2B for money laundering for a Mexican drug cartel.
Funny how none of those bankers end up in jail.
After "Growth! Growth! Growth!" I've started to wonder if they bullying nun isn't Steve Balmer's love child.
Brain bleach, please.
If the digital minister thinks only 50% of what is said in the 2 first paragraphs, she should really seek professional help.
At one point, the preference of being an island may seem reassuring, but if they implement this, the UK will digitally be at like dozen of light years from any other sign of civilization !
When you jump out of the plane (or get pushed out of the plane) with a parachute then you need to concentrate on pulling the cord (it is done then) and work hard at steering and landing in the right place, not on a tree or a power line. Complaining or cheering about Brexit is like posting on TikTok or Facebook while you descend towards landing on something instead of thinking about what you need to do to land safely.
And then think about what will happen when you land, and work to make it decent regardless of how you felt when you jumped through the door.
I was told (when training for parachuting) that cursing right before you hit whatver surface helps a lot. It helps to relax muscles and thus reduces the risk of injury.
Same here, except people don't relax but clench.
(and I'm actually not really sure about the parachute thingy, but this is my opinion, and I still think they could have used it as thumbscrews to f'ing reform the f'ing EU, but oh no, they had to take the f... non-binding referendum and storm off without thinking - but that is my outsider opinion, and I am really sad it came to this and I think it is a loss for both sides - but then I am one of those Europeans who were mocked by British politicians for being "not at home at any single country" - or rather feel at home in the EU - yes, I have a few towns I would call home, to varying degrees, so screw you).
They should be called the scratched record party.
Their everlasting attack on what they characterise as "red tape" is so unbelievably boring now. Growth cannot be achieved by setting fire to regulations and tweaking the dials of the tax rates. There are fundamentals in an economy that you have to maintain and improve - long term strategic investment in infrastructure and education, access to finance, stability of country, lack of corruption, functioning healthcare, law and order etc.. but these things cost money and take time and they don't make good newspaper headlines or catchy soundbites.
Newspapers reporting on good stuff being built instead of provoking NIMBYism would be welcome.
Such is the evolution of (most) journalism in the interest of sales over reporting.
If you haven't seen it, episode 5 of From Earth to the Moon does a brilliant job of pitching tabloid garbage against intelligent writing.
And that is to give the Sec-GPC (Global Privacy Control) header force of law, something the old DNT (Do Not Track) header lacked, and ban cookie consent popups if it is sent.
But of course the real intention is to gut consent via opt-out as in the ineffectual US self-regulation free-for-all (except for enlightened states like California with its GDPR-equivalent CCPA/CPRA).
Oh wait, I didn't say that in 3 catchy words so it'll have to be re-written. "Incompetent, Greedy, Corrupt". There, that should do it, or perhaps "Feckless, Fatuous, Flighty". Please feel free to come up with your own 3 word description of the Tory party.
Psychopathic is perhaps a more accurate description of those who think they should lead the country.
Psychopathic bastards think they have the right to bleed the country.......
Their will to power is the obvious give away that someone should definitely NOT BE TRUSTED, TRUSSED even..........
As for Funny Rickshaw.............
The list is almost endless as there is a vacuum cleaner sucking up potential tory voters and supporters from the educated ignorants of the UK's privileged set. Well those that think they are privileged anyway........
ALF
"the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill (DPDIB) – is still progressing through Parliament"
In fact it's not. Its progress was halted last month, with the current draft being sent back for "further consultation". That basically means it was considered unworkable and needing very substantial revision before it's resubmitted. Whether a revised draft will proceed to committee stage or whether the entire process will start again from scratch will depend on both the extent of any revisions and Parliamentary precedent, but it's currently stalled.
Given plenty of EU nationals live in / visit the UK.
If a company has any dealings with them involving PII then, with them being EU citizens, GDPR rights such as to data / forget will still apply for those EU nationals.
The whole point of GDPR is to not be based on what country an individual is in - its all about that individuals data rights as an EU national, wherever they are.
Any UK only rules the con govt will want to bring in will be all about reducing an individuals rights / control of their PII. I would bet the value of the UK economy* that the con govt will not add more stringent privacy rules, instead it will all be about aiding the marketeers / data slurpers.
Yes, spot the person who has been involved in GDPR related IT work
* Even if I'm wrong, the way the economy is plummeting my stash of Euros (saved in case I need to visit EU again for work or pleasure at some point) will be probably be enough to cover that bet!
"involving PII"
The GDPR is not about "PII", it is about "personal data" which has a wider definition than the (typically) USA term "PII".
"The whole point of GDPR is to not be based on what country an individual is in - its all about that individuals data rights as an EU national, wherever they are."
Completely wrong, the (EU) GDPR is regarding individuals *present* in the EU - in general it does not cover EU citizens outside the EU (unless their data is being processed by a organisation within the EU) but does cover non-EU citizens in the EU.
If you read the first couple of pages of (EU) GDPR it repeatedly states: "the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union", as well as "whatever their nationality or residence".
Have you ever read the (EU) GDPR?
"Yes, spot the person who has been involved in GDPR related IT work"
Based on your comments it does not inspire confidence as to the GDPR compliance of whomever you worked for/with...
When you're wrong about the most basic/fundamental aspects of the (EU) GDPR then how do you ever expect to be able to deal with any subtleties?
Who did you get your GDPR training from? (So I know to avoid them)
"The whole point of GDPR is to not be based on what country an individual is in - its all about that individuals data rights as an EU national, wherever they are"
Actually that's the exact opposite of the real position. The Regulation applies to the personal data of persons "in the Union", regardless of their nationality. It even applies to the data of foreigners temporarily in the Union while they are there.
Even totally obliterating GDPR in the UK would not in any way make the UK the "world's data hub"
If companies in the UK want to process data from abroad then they have to comply with the data protection regulations in the country where they operate, wherever the data is processed. I'm pretty sure the minister is aware of this. However the government doesn't like any laws that restrict businesses from operating (or a least businesses who donate to the Tory party) but "we want our mates to make more money" is not really an excuse for riding roughshod over GDPR. So instead they present that old Brexit chestnut of being a world leader in whatever field happens to be under discussion.
The thing that puzzles me is why they think any normal voter will say "He great the UK is going to be the world's data hub, I'll vote Tory"
The reality is that about 40% of people vote Tory every time no matter how much the Tories shit on them. The problem being that the other parties split the vote between them meaning that even if that vote isn't enough to get them a majority in parliament it puts them in pole position to form a coalition. The difficult part for the other parties is convincing 39 of that 40% that the Tory party don't have their best interest at heart. At all. Not even a little bit.
Things to remember about Brexit.
The Tories took us into the EEC. Labour campaigned and voted against it.
The Tories took us into the EU. Labour voted against it.
Brexit was a mess. People in both the major parties campaigned both ways, but a certain section of the Tory party decided that if they campaigned in favour of Brexit that would appeal to nationalists and jingoists which would win them votes. And this seems to have been true. Leaving the EU wasn't necessarily a bad idea, but Johnson's implementation of it is a disaster. The incoming PM had an opportunity to change the government's approach, but instead doubled down on it.
The final thing to remember is that both Johnson and Truss have spoken out in favour of the EU.
I don't believe that this means they were ever in favour of the EU or against it. I don't believe people like them believe in anything other than their own interests and will say whatever they believe will best serve their personal interests at the time. So when Truss says she was wrong to campaign against Brexit, and indeed when she says she was wrong to be a member of the Lib Dems she's lying. It wasn't that she was wrong. It's that she believes saying she was wrong is what will best servie her personal interests right now.
Europeans won’t store their data here because we won’t meet adequacy rules and nobody else will because it will thousands of miles from the consumers of the services. Plus UK companies will have two sets of rules to follow if they wish to trade in the EU
Another own goal in the pursuit of sovereignty.
(Note: this rule not only removes restrictions, but significantly reduces costs and increases profits.)
631.1: Buy a Fortnums and Masons shopping bag
631.2: Stuff said shopping bag with folding money. (Dollars are best: pounds and euros are tanking)
631.3: Arrange a face time meeting with a member of the cabinet. (When you do this, mention Fortnums.)
631.4: At the meeting, mention that you want regulations scrapped. (Make sure this is mentioned multiple times before you reveal the shopping bag.)
631.5: Ask how long it will take to eliminate the regulations. (Experience shows that the usual answer is about eight weeks.)
631.6: Hand over the shopping bag.
631.7: Start ignoring the regulations IMMEDIATELY. (Experience shows that there was never any enforcement budget anyway. But the Fortnums bag just makes sure!)
How does giving away NHS patient data give a positive message to the world that UK can be trusted to handle your data, so that we can be the worlds data hub ?
Oh, of course, when the rest of the world has converted to using pounds shillings and pence it'll be much easier...........
ALF
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
