Growth & innovation
Or cutting corners and spending less money on data security and compliance?
These yachts won't buy themselves.
Just another hot air brain dead happy clappy idea from "reverse Midas" Sunak's government.
The UK government's proposed data protection law reform seeks to create a more business-friendly regime, though its implementation could further complicate the international flow of data between Britain and Europe, which potentially outweighs any benefits to business. Currently, UK and EU businesses can freely share personal …
At this point, they really don't care about blame. With the current trajectory of the polls, "Reform" will have the same predicted vote share as the Tories before the expected date of the next election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom
Even the current predictions, if there were to be an election tomorrow, are dire for them:
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html
The logical conclusion is that they know they cannot win the next election (which is why so many Tory MPs have decided not to even contest their own seats - 63 of them at the least count), and that they are actively engaged in stealing the silverware, stripping the lead from the roof, and pulling the copper wires out of the walls. It should be pretty obvious that putting a bunch of people who have got rich from asset stripping activities, and other "finance jobs" in charge of the country would always result in the country's assets being stripped, but people really are that stupid that they still voted for them.
To be fair Jeremy Corbyn does have a portion of the blame. If he wasn’t so unelectable the Tory scum might not have had such a large majority. A useful idiot to the end…glad his political career appears to be over. We can now get rid of the tories and replace them with something slightly less blue.
I used to think it was a law of political organisation that any party of sufficient size would develop a Dunning-Kruger wing.
Then I thought of the opposite. Any party of sufficient size develops a non-Dunning Kruger wing. That fits observed data much better.
They've all got one. The best we can hope for is that the main parties don't have their DK wing in the ascendency at the same time and even better if the one in power doesn't.
As far as I can tell, global companies may implement specific privacy logic that is required in the EU, but they would not bother implementing anything privacy-wise that would only be applicable to UK. At best, they have two or three tiers of privacy in the whole world, and one of these is "EEA+", including EU, GB, Norway and Switzerland. Life is too short.
So essentially, it's the same thing as having different industrial standards in the UK from in the EU: That mostly means the EU standard is used everywhere.
Your argument that international companies aren't interested in markets with localised standards is wrong, and even the most cursory consideration will show that - varying international standards for (eg) power sockets, units, which side of the road to drive on, pharmaceuticals, food, etc etc. Consider Ireland - requires EU standard cars, but drives on the left, yet has the instruments market in metric, so standard for neither the rest of Europe, or for Britain. Doesn't stop companies happily supplying cars. Fridge freezers for the GB market have different standards to the EU, in relation to the flammability of some materials - but have you noticed a shortage of fridge freezers?
Using internationally recognised standards clearly encourages trade and is beneficial for business, and often for consumers. But the idea that business can't and won't adapt to varied standards is nonsense.
Although that doesn't take away that the this bill is crap legislation, moving in the wrong direction and the wrong reason.
There is a distinction to be made between different standards and less strict ones.
Power sockets: different and incompatible. Either comply or don't do business in that market.
Which side of the road to drive on: different and incompatible. You may sell LHD cars in Britain, but hardly anyone wants to buy one.
What's being discussed here is a loosening of standards. So there is one-way compatibility. EU standards are just fine in the putative UK regime, but the reverse is not true. Who's going to bother?
-A.
For the brexiteers, brexit was always about making us the 51st State, making us subservient to America, ideally an America run by Trump and his kind.
Our race to the bottom is intended to facilitate that. Brexiteers don't care how damaging that is to Britain or her people.
The nonsense about Sovereignty and Taking Back Control were just lies to get what they ideologically wanted.
For the brexiteers, brexit was always about making us the 51st State, making us subservient to America, ideally an America run by Trump and his kind.
That's really about as nonsensical a statement as claiming that remainers want to stay in the EU to make us subservient to Macron & Sholz.
Whilst the poster you are replying to is engaging in a certain amount of hyperbole there, there are clear links between the brexit campaigning and the likes of Steve Bannon, and other members of the American far right, as well as some possible links to Russian money (Hi there, Arron Banks!). Can you draw a line from Macron and Sholz to the remain campaign, or any of the main groups campaigning for remain (the official vote leave campaign wasn't necessarily the only major "leave" campaigning group here, if you care to remember)?
There's some definite links between prominent brexiters and Trump, too; did we have any photos of David Cameron in Macron's golden lift, alongside other prominent remain campaigners? No. no, we didn't, did we?
There was always a deep degree of connectedness between the likes of Johnson and Farage and political interests in the US, to think otherwise is naïveté at its worst, and to try to discredit these links by reductio ad absurdum, as you have attempted, falls flat.
Oh Brexit has been an utter waste of time resources and money, but it is not about making us the 51st state.
Yes, it was ideologically driven (you know that when the trade unions and Institute of Directors agree, it is not about business) but it was driven by those somehow imagining that it is sill the 1940s and the UK is a big player in the world that others will adapt to fit us. The reality is the only ones who actually matter to forming economic policies and exceptions are the EU, USA, and China.
Edit: Yes, the UK is 6th ranking by country GDP at $3T, but compare it to USA at $25T, EU block at $20T, and China at $18T.
@Paul Crawford
"Yes, it was ideologically driven"
I am surprised this is still used as reasoning against brexit when it remain was about being 'more European'. The ideology that we must all conform or be labelled racist and xenophobic somehow.
"it was driven by those somehow imagining that it is sill the 1940s and the UK is a big player in the world"
We are (as you partially point out in your edit) but also why is it leave voters thinking its the old world when the EU was designed on the old world of trade blocs? Noting the world moved on, absolute poverty fell drastically globally as trade opened up outside of closed blocs.
I note you compare the USA, China and the EU. The USA and China are countries and the EU is an organisation made up of multiple countries which is why the UK is 6th in GDP compared with countries, not organisations.
Remaining was about continuity, and close links and influence with what is still the UK's main trading partners. We threw much of that away, and got nothing useful in return leading most people to ask, what was the point?
Compliance has already been made harder by Brexit, if this went ahead, it would only worsen the situation.
As aside, clearly the EU isn't a country, but it negotiates as one, which gives it leverage. The UK lacks the same leverage.
The reasoning against Brexit was about economics: about not throwing away the free trade and movement benefits of our previous agreements with the EU. And about less red tape - for all the claims of the brexiteers that red tape would be reduced, it is of course the opposite as each and every regulation the UK makes that differs from the EU means companies now have two sets of standards to comply with, not one, if they want to keep trading with a block many times that of the UK.
That is why I listed them. If you want to do a trade deal you have to reach agreement with an entity of sufficient size and benefit to make it worth doing. The EU was exactly that point, to have common trade and regulations so it could weigh against the USA and the likes of China that are many times the size of any other country.
@Paul Crawford
"The reasoning against Brexit was about economics"
Leave too.
"And about less red tape - for all the claims of the brexiteers that red tape would be reduced, it is of course the opposite as each and every regulation the UK makes that differs from the EU means companies now have two sets of standards to comply with, not one, if they want to keep trading with a block many times that of the UK."
The consequence being increased domestic red tape even if trading internally or with anybody outside the EU too. Hell it was amusing hearing the French president visiting a village and telling them they dont need to comply with EU labelling rules. The stupidity of a guy being fined for not littering but for not having a license to take his dinner wrappers home with him.
"That is why I listed them. If you want to do a trade deal you have to reach agreement with an entity of sufficient size and benefit to make it worth doing."
Aka a country. Even selling the absolutely vital and critical vaccine to save lives was too much hassle for a manufacturer in Scotland that they decided against negotiating with the EU and just went to the countries directly instead.
"The EU was exactly that point, to have common trade and regulations so it could weigh against the USA and the likes of China that are many times the size of any other country."
That was the theory.
Aka a country. Even selling the absolutely vital and critical vaccine to save lives was too much hassle for a manufacturer in Scotland that they decided against negotiating with the EU and just went to the countries directly instead.
Is that an independant Scotland? Or one that is shackled to the UK via lies about not being forced into leaving the EU?
For me, the reasoning wasn't just about economics, but, from a selfish point of view, my ability to travel freely throughout Europe, to visit friends, and have them visit me, without unnecessary costs, paperwork, and restrictions, and generally about our country being part of something bigger, rather than a nasty little insular nation on the edge of civilisation, ruled by psychopathic plutocrats.
I think it boils down to whether you see other people as other people, with whom you can live, love, and cooperate, or some sort of dirty foreigners coming over here to steal our jobs / women / housing / benefits / whatever. Too many fell victim to the hate speech in the right-wing press and fell into the latter camp, but the important thing to remember is that whilst they have engaged in the politics of division and culture wars, they are still people, and can still be brought back into the fold of rational compassionate human beings.
@Elongated Muskrat
"For me, the reasoning wasn't just about economics, but, from a selfish point of view"..."they are still people, and can still be brought back into the fold of rational compassionate human beings."
I did laugh reading the start and end of your comment.
"generally about our country being part of something bigger"
You say you want the country to be part of something bigger, so you want to be part of the insular EU instead of the world. I know thats not how you thought about it but yet it is. And as you said you would trade something bigger for your selfish point of view.
"Too many fell victim to the hate speech"
True. How many wished doom on the UK if we leave? How many were disappointed that the 3 predicted recessions due to brexit didnt happen? Look at your comment as an example of such hateful ideas that because people support brexit means they must hold the views of- "nasty little insular nation on the edge of civilisation". And of course as we have seen, remainers would love to gloat how great the EU is and the UK struggling after brexit, if that actually happened.
@codejunky
"I note you compare the USA, China and the EU. The USA and China are countries and the EU is an organisation made up of multiple countries which is why the UK is 6th in GDP compared with countries, not organisations."
You really are a fool aren't you, yet another reason the EU was a good thing to be a part of was that it negotiated as a country, making the hand of all its members far more powerful than if they had to negotiate as single states.
"Oh Brexit has been an utter waste of time resources and money"
^ I agree and I am still waiting to see these most wondrous tangible benefits that we were promised. Indeed, I am still waiting for my free live baby unicorn and for the free crock of gold at the end of the rainbow for every household in the United Kingdom.
@TVU
"^ I agree and I am still waiting to see these most wondrous tangible benefits that we were promised."
As soon as we left the UK was reaping the benefits of covid jabs, amusingly made in countries in the EU who unfortunately had to wait at the back of the queue due to the EU commission not ordering them in time. Wasnt forced to participate in the covid(Euro) bailout fund. The UK acted much swifter in support of Ukraine.
"Indeed, I am still waiting for my free live baby unicorn and for the free crock of gold at the end of the rainbow for every household in the United Kingdom."
Remainer claims not delivered at not attributable to leavers.
@DJO
"How many time do we have to tell you. The vaccine arrangements were made while the UK was still subject to all EU regulations. Brexit made absolutely no difference, we or any EU country could have done exactly what we did."
And yet at no point has a remainer managed to explain how the situation would have worked. The highly theoretical 'we or any EU country' ordering it themselves doesnt work very well but even worse is the reaction of the EU when they screwed up and would have stolen. Hence you can keep telling because you are wrong.
Brexit did make the difference for no reason other than making it politically difficult for the gov to order through the EU. Thankfully.
"And yet at no point has a remainer managed to explain how the situation would have worked. "
It's difficult to explain something to someone who doesn't listen or is interested to educate themselves:
https://fullfact.org/health/coronavirus-vaccine-brexit/
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/covid-vaccine-decisions-brexit#:~:text=Shortly%20after%20the%20announcement%20that,ahead%20of%20its%20EU%20neighbours.
Some people drink from the fountain of knowledge, others just gargle.
And yet at no point has a remainer managed to explain how the situation would have worked.
Well they would have opted out in the same way the UK did or Hungary did.
Literally a simple search away.
@Dan 55
"Well they would have opted out in the same way the UK did or Hungary did."
Your simple search should have enlightened you a little. They didnt opt out at the start, when the EU cocked up so badly they were watching vaccine be manufactured in their borders to be exported, all because the EU failed to order in time.
The EU did so badly that some countries opted out afterwards as your search discovered. You may also remember Germany breaking the EU agreement of not negotiating with suppliers the EU was negotiating with. All because the EU did a poor job at it.
Lets entertain your hypothetical version. The UK remains and while every member caves to the pressure to show solidarity our government is more competent and refuses. Somehow the UK is better run than every member country and refuses the pressure to drop our own plans (like Germany did) and throw our lot in with the EU. I dont have such faith in our government but that is what it would take. So-
As happened in reality the UK orders vaccine, the EU does as it did and throws its toys out of the pram as it did. We know the EU threatened the UK and so the UK offered to share some of the production we ordered. We also know they stole vaccine to be exported to Australia and performed raids to find the mythical vaccine being exported that was destined for the EU. So inside the EU they wouldnt even need to argue with the UK, we are in the EU and for the greater good of the EU they would just take as much as they wanted and there would be nothing we could do.
Reality stumps ideology. Sorry
A good question.
It could in truth be either.
As Upton Sinclair observed "No man's ignorance is so great as a man whose livelyhood depends on his ignorance"
And I sense our poster's Kamikaze willingness to take the downvotes they richly deserve is driven by more than a refusal to concede they might be just the tinniest bit wrong.
Something like a continuing paycheque for example.
What a sad human being.
@John Smith 19
"As Upton Sinclair observed "No man's ignorance is so great as a man whose livelyhood depends on his ignorance"
And I sense our poster's Kamikaze willingness to take the downvotes they richly deserve is driven by more than a refusal to concede they might be just the tinniest bit wrong."
That is an interesting analysis. So do you base your assumption of truth or fiction based on downvotes? I dont. I discuss and if I am shown to be wrong then I accept that, and where I am shown to be right or the other side has nothing but personal attacks then I dont assume them to know anything constructive.
Lets read your comment for example:
You say the truth could be either I am a troll (probably paid) or ignorant- so you assume I am wrong yet dont fit the above criteria of demonstrating I am wrong.
You say 'Kamikaze willingness to take the downvotes'- as if the truth is based on some voting system or popularity contest. That used to be the way before more scientific approaches such as disproving falsehoods. So if I am wrong go ahead.
So you speculate a possible paycheque- because you obviously dont meet the above criteria. Amusingly your supportive reply being to a trolling coward. Love the irony.
I now wonder if you will reply with anything of any useful contribution or if you might look in the mirror? Your comment could easily be assessing you, in your troll farm, trying to drum up support for a lie.
Well Mr/Ms AC didn't you know that "Brexit dividends" are like the value of investments?
They can be positive or negative.
My usual question whenever I see farmers protesting about the consequences of Brexit is "So did you vote for it or not?"
Some did, some didn't. :-(
For those that did this is what victory looks like.
BTW the complete destruction of UK farming and manufacturing were predicted by the only UK economist keen on Brexit, Patrick Minford of Cardiff "Business" School.
And he was OK with that because his 1970's economic model showed the whole UK economy would be much bigger afterward.
IOW the farmers and mfgs are just so much roadkill.
Only the delusional (who seem to have had provided most of the money to fund it), the greedy (who made most of the money out of it) and the gullible (who believed the fantasies peddled by the first two) voted Leave.
gaslighter>They can be positive or negative.
Pretty sure the whole of the Pro-Brexit team were on message with "No one is talking about leaving the common market" & "We can have our cake and eat it."
There was no talk about negative affects from either Brexit campaigns. It was all positive sunlit upland and unicorns.
Please reference any Pro-Brexit campaign pieces, outlining negative effect, that you saw, please
Well Mr/Ms AC calling me a gaslighter suggests you're either very new to this site or very dumb.
I've always found the term "Brexit divided" to be hilarious. I've ROFLMFAO at the quitters who assumed (delusionally, greedily or gullibly) that they would be always be positive. :-)
Everyone capable of critical thinking could see that was at best very marginal (and would demand very good negotiating skills on behalf of HMG and trade partners who would treat the UK fairly seeing a win/win situation despite the UK's small market size and limited ability to exert the sort of leverage they had as part of the EU) and at worst a complete s***storm as they proceeded to take complete advantage of the UK market. Examples being NZ/Aus meat imports and (when it happens) a deal with the US on drug imports/exports (Hint. They really don't like NICE)
In case you're still puzzling over my views, no, I didn't vote for Bu***hit Boris (or pals Slippy Rishi or JR Smug) in 2016.
But I'll be interested to see how many quitters will admit to having done so in 2026. The rising numbers of AC's* trying to defend Brexit suggests "Not many."
*Not suggesting you're one of them. But I have noticed an uptick on AC's who express Remain views but won't identify themselves. You have to wonder for how many of them it has been a case of "This was not the Brexit I was looking for."
@desht
"Choadmonkey speak for "I spout some brainless shite and get to tie myself in knots trying to justify it""
Amusingly I spout fact and watch the comments roll in with nothing useful to say only personal attacks. I used to get responses spouting propaganda (often fell apart as the truth came out) or excuses such as getting a better price (for an urgent life saving vaccine needed asap as we were told) but as reality sank in this is what mostly comes back.
Kinda reminds me of when we were called eurosceptics during the debate over ditching the pound for the euro. We dont get called that much anymore, probably because we were right.
Brexit did make the difference for no reason other than making it politically difficult for the gov to order through the EU. Thankfully.
I'll keep my answer to that particular untruth concise:
Bollocks, did it.
The UK government was invited to join the EU vaccine programme, as if we were still an EU member and explicitly turned it down.
@Elongated Muskrat
I am not sure how you did it but you managed to claim I lied and then reworded what I said. It was politically difficult for the gov to order through the EU because people were behind brexit. If we left the EU and then put ourselves back under them for vaccines the gov wouldnt have lasted long. Then with the shambles of the EU procurement effort would have been unforgivable.
"As soon as we left the UK was reaping the benefits of covid jabs"
^ That is overt fake news not least because interpretations of existing agreements would have already allowed for this to happen.
it is safe to say that the Adam Smith Institute is neither a revolutionary Marxist institution nor a bastion of committed Remainers but even they came out in favour of a sane EEA/EFTA-type Brexit that would not have inflicted so much economic damage on the British economy.
@TVU
"^ That is overt fake news not least because interpretations of existing agreements would have already allowed for this to happen."
Unfortunately that doesnt pass the reality test (see response to DJO) but I am guessing you at least recognise the others I mention as benefits?
@captain veg
"So far as I can tell from inspection of your post you didn't actually mention any other benefits."
I will list them then. And skipping the covid jab discussion we are already having-
> Wasnt forced to participate in the covid(Euro) bailout fund
> The UK acted much swifter in support of Ukraine.
> The UK acted much swifter in support of Ukraine.
It had to Brexit or not. NATO is effectively the UK and France backed up by the USA; as and when the US can gets its act together, put its ducks in a row and get a bill through both houses…
Ukraine is perhaps the first time NATO members are having to respond to a situation for which it was established…
Good qualification.
Because in fact the NATO charter Clause 5 (the "mutual aid" clause) has only been invoked once.
On Sept 12th 2001, by the United States.
Remember though that Ukraine is not a NATO member.
If it was the West would have done a lot more when Putin started invading bits of Ukraine 10 years ago.
Putin found fat so he did what any Lenninist would do. He pushed the bayonet in harder.
But if people think Ukraine can't win against Russia they should remember what happened to the USSR in Afghanistan and the US in Vietnam.
@NXM
"And, comrade, you should stop posting."
I am guessing under the regime you live it would be advisable not to post anything other than the sanctioned opinion? Because here even if the truth is unpopular you can still say it (and the truth isnt decided by XFactor votes). Also we dont typically call each other comrade.
codejunky> "I am guessing under the regime you live it would be advisable not to post anything other than the sanctioned opinion? Because here even if the truth is unpopular you can still say it (and the truth isnt decided by XFactor votes)."
That's funny; in the non-binding 2016 EU membership referendum, 37.4% voted to leave, 34.7% voted to remain, and 27.8% didn't vote. That vote is touted as the unquestionable and irrevocable will of the people and anyone who doesn't bend the knee to it is regarded as a traitor by outspoken leavers in codejunky's regime.
The EU ruling something out, or indeed, any other hard restriction caused by a clash with basic reality, such as the availability of unicorns, had absolutely no bearing on whether or not the brexiters promised it. The campaigning was never based on truth, or deliverability, but on telling whatever lies could be used to convince people to vote one way over another, in order to get the result that was desired. The promises that were being made were clearly mutually contradictory at times, but those telling them didn't care whether their statements were logically consistent, because they didn't care whether they were being truthful, so like CJ, they weren't bound by the constraints of telling the truth or making sense. The ends justified the means.
“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
This is what really disgusted me about the Leave campaign.
As we now know they had no plan to implement if they won because they simply did not believe they would win. They didn't campaign in good faith.
IOW it was just a lark to pump their reputation with the Tory faithful ready for making a bid for leadership.
IOW they f**ked the UK economy for their personal political career and f**k all else.
At least they took the Johnson's pass off him. That'll make his career as a lobbyist a bit tougher. He'd have to depend on others to get him in. He'll hate that. I wonder how many ex PM's have had their pass taken off them? Yet another way the Johnson is truly abnormal to the rest of us.
I think it's time to bring this 14 year ride in the Clown Car to a halt. :-( Council elections are in May but Slippy will leave the GE as late as possible hoping the economy will pick up and people will be high on a happy vibe because of it. If you're in a Conservative constituency find which party polled runner up last time and vote for that party. In a FPTP system that's really the only way to get rid of a sitting government.
As soon as we left the UK was reaping the benefits of covid jabs
This, along with other "wins" such as blue passport covers and crown marks on pint glasses, is just another example of the pure horseshit brexit extremists roll out to try and justify the shitshow that is brexit.
Change the record. No one believes this crap.
other "wins" such as blue passport covers and crown marks on pint glasses, is just another example of the pure horseshit brexit extremists roll out
The only people I've ever seen pushing those as key Brexit 'features' are the remainers whose minds were always too closed to even try and understand the real economic reasons that people supported Brexit. They just keep spouting the same nonsensical horseshit.
Change the record. No one believes this crap.
Oh, if only, but remainers seem too stuck in their groove to find a new tune.
"The only people I've ever seen pushing those as key Brexit 'features' are the remainers "
Wind your neck in.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nigel-farage/nigel-farage-delighted-by-unveiling-of-blue-uk-pas/
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/899823/nigel-farage-pint-petition-crown-emblem-brexit-eu
Ah, Springtime. The blossom is on the trees, the birds are singing, and the discordant cry of a hard-core remainer bleating "Where's (at least one) BREXIT bonus?" rends the air.
We had this discussion only 6 months ago, and to save effort, I’ve largely just recycled that earlier post (though with some updates), since it appears that some of you fine people missed it the first time.
As I said at the time, there were benefits in remaining, and there are benefits in leaving.
I shall not address the benefits of remaining, since you have not asked for those.
The UK's response to the vaccine roll-out (including sign-off for use and production/acquisition), and then the ability to lift lock-down several months earlier than in the EU, saved the UK huge sums of money, plus, by re-opening access to the routine services of the NHS saved countless lives. The long discussion already held in this thread correctly points out that in theory the UK (or any other EU country) could have approved the vaccine separate from the EU approval process. History shows that a number of EU countries started down that route then gave up and remained within the EU scheme. The idea that the UK would have procured the vaccine separately from the EU scheme, were it not for BREXIT, is highly disingenuous. It is also fair and proper to note that BREXIT opponents claimed at the time that BREXIT would actually delay procurement of the vaccine:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/14/coronavirus-vaccine-delays-brexit-ema-expensive
The UK is no longer complicit in the agricultural dumping that the EU has been doing in Africa (the last case I am aware of involved dumping milk powder, mixed with palm oil, onto the West African markets, meaning it not only undercut local farmers but meant that the poorest people there were under-nourishing their children, since the palm oil content reduces the milk's nutritional value).
The use of animals for testing cosmetics which had been made legal again by a EU ruling (in limited circumstances, true), has now been explicitly blocked, so animal testing for cosmetics is no longer permitted in the UK
(Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65623580)
We have indeed, taken back control - meaning that for most issues, UK politicians can no longer get away with blaming Brussels, like they have for decades (and like politicians in the remaining EU 27 continue to do). Thus, our politicians are now more accountable.
This also means that we can better control our fishing grounds, to the benefit of the environment. Bottom-trawling continues to occur, but is set to be banned (finally!) in UK waters; given that many of the boats carrying out this harmful activity are EU registered, it is evidently not something that the EU has acted to prevent:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/20/hoovered-up-from-the-deep-33000-hours-of-seabed-trawling-revealed-in-protected-uk-waters
The UK was historically a brake on the EU federalist agenda / plan for ever closer union. With the UK having left, the EU can now more readily progress in that direction. (I'm assuming that you are not so parochial as to only want Brexit bonuses that apply to the UK).
Outside of the EU, the UK is able to make foreign policy decisions much more speedily than the EU can, since the EU typically requires consensus, which inevitably, takes time. The value of this was demonstrated 25 months ago, when the UK was one of the few countries rushing arms to Ukraine immediately before and after the Russian invasion, and more generally led the response of the world’s democracies, while the EU sought to achieve consensus amongst 27 nations. Such time-consuming census forming was entirely right and proper of the EU, but was also entirely predictable, and would have likely seen Putin achieve the gains of his 3-day Special Military War before any meaningful EU response would have taken effect.
The UK has left a customs union and pollical organisation that amounts to about 14% of the global economy (16% if including the UK), the countries of the EU 28 (ie EU27 + UK) having previously (1980's) amounted to about 25% of the global economy, and joined the free trade organisation that is CPTPP (which we could not otherwise have done), whose 11 members (prior to UK joining) amount to about 14% of the global economy, but whose importance has been growing. Furthermore, the potential expansion of the EU is limited to relatively small/relatively poor countries, plus Ukraine (which is understandably going to be a huge drain on global funds for many years after their victory against the Russians, to repair the damage the Russians have done). Oh, and Turkey, though we were all told that they were definitely not joining the EU. The current and potential candidate nations for CPTPP meanwhile include a number of significant and significantly growing economies.
So plenty of wondrous tangible benefits.
I normally have the sense to simply make the post then not get involved in the petty squabbling, but this requires a response:
"Mendacious is an adjective that describes someone who is not telling the truth or is habitually dishonest".
Every statement and example I have made in the above post, and every other post I have made on this site is, to the best of my knowledge, truthful.
Your comment is untrue, and strictly speaking libelous.
The original post did not require specific reference to trade deals, and I honestly and correctly pointed out numerous perceived benefits of BREXIT (I accept that some benefits depend on the point of view).
Despite that, I did quite specifically point to UK membership of CPTPP, which is in effect a trade deal, and therefore trade deals do exist.
As I have no doubt that you are aware, the UK has actually signed trade deals with many nations around the world post BREXIT, such as Japan and Australia, to name the two most prominent.
Your response, to switch the topic to trade deals, is an obvious and very feeble attempt to avoid acknowledging that there are, as I stated, clear benefits to both BREXIT and remain.
Your claim that signed and sealed trade deals do not exist is an outright lie.
Your immediate recourse to a personal and dishonest attack on my character proves nothing about me, but everything any reasonable and honest person needs to know about you, and establishes that you are not worth any further consideration.
That indeed would be a genuine benefit for UK democracy.
If it were true.
But this government will continue to blame the EU for not treating the UK as a special case.
It'll take decades to wean UK politicians and Civil Servants off their addition to "It was the EU what made us do it."
Yes the UK has more control of it's fishing grounds. The 10500 full time fisherman (and 1500 part timers) will be grateful for this. IRL 1/2 the UK catch is actually hoovered up by 2 factory ships, owned IIRC by a Portugese and a Danish company. Too bad about the 38 000 car workers most of whose jobs will go down the pan, but apparently quite a few of them voted Leave as well.
Turkeys really do vote for Christmas it seems. :-(
Oh it certainly is a gift to some in the UK. Rich people don't care whether we are part of the EU or not Brexit makes zero difference. These are same rich people that make money on profits. These profits can be driven by the reduction of regulations the EU have imposed. It also devalues the UK economy which again if you have your money outside the the UK (who would leave it in the UK when Brexit was happening?) means your money is now worth more. Brexit as we have seen has been amazing for business as it's the perfect excuse to generate profits. Sure we have the import/export issues but we don't import eggs, milk and butter which have shot through the roof (I am aware we do import some of these so don't need a correction however the vast majority is not imported) amongst other things, record profits everywhere. Politicians are also loving it because they can now take back control and pass laws they otherwise would never be able to pass. It's a shitshow.
Politicians are also loving it because they can now take back control and pass laws they otherwise would never be able to pass. It's a shitshow.
Prime example are IR35 changes in private sector. They had to delay them until our full withdrawal, as they are incompatible with many EU directives we were bound to, but told the public it was because Covid...
For those uninformed, breaches are in 3 areas - the changes introduce zero rights employment, effective state aid for large corporations and in proportionality (excessive red tape for small business and zero red tape for large corporations operating the same business model - as they are exempt from the regulation).
It would be a good idea to use the appropriate punctuation with their "reforms" as they are not any such thing.
Dictionary.com top 3 definitions of the word are
1. the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory, etc.:
2. to change to a better state, form, etc.; improve by alteration, substitution, abolition, etc.
3. to cause (a person) to abandon wrong or evil ways of life or conduct.
I have yet to see a "reform" from Westminister that does any of those things. It seems to mean more "weaken" or enfeeble. Consider the actions over the last decade+ upon the economy, employment law and so on when they "reformed" those. This is just more of the same.
And now the Information Commission and it'll have exactly the same problem as it's predecessor along with almost every regulatory body under a Tory government.
The government know that abolishing or cutting the powers of such bodies would be incredibly unpopular with most voters so they endow the bodies with nebulous and wide reaching powers then strip them of almost all funding until they are completely unable to fulfil their remit.
This is nonsensical, you can either let personal data be more easily sold ("more business friendly"), or have it protected as it is now ("upholding individuals' rights"). You cannot do both, as an increase in one is by definition a decrease in the other.
"If adopted, the Bill would make a number of changes to the UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018, and the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC) Regulations, 2003, rather than introduce new legislation."
This is one of the worst possible outcomes. The separate existence of these three pieces of legislation has been a source of confusion from day one. What's needed by ordinary business folks is a single consolidated piece of legislation that brings all the obligations together in one place, and this is an ideal opportunity to deliver it.
But there are some serious problems with the bill before Parliament that have not been mentioned in this article, none of which are 'cosmetic' (quite the opposite).
[1] The requirement for a qualified Data Protection Officer with statutory independent standing has been eliminated in favour of a "senior responsible individual" with no explicit requirement for either expertise in data protection law or independence (they're only implied by the duties, so expectations of standard are highly subjective). The result is an almost certain massive rise in both errors and conflicts of interests. This is not just a re-naming exercise -- it's the removal of a safeguard for both businesses and data subjects.
[2] It is intended to replace data protection impact assessments (DPIA) by ‘assessments of high risk processing’, which obviously begs the question, as until an assessment has been conducted how do we know there's a high risk. The inevitable outcome will of course be that pretty much all processing will be considered 'low risk', obviating the need for assessment.
[3] It is intended to remove the Article 27 requirement for UK-based representatives of controllers outside the UK. This will (again obviously) hinder access to remedy. Data subjects must not only face the existing massive discrepancy of power between themselves and data controllers, but will have to do this across jurisdictions and geographical (and even possibly linguistic) boundaries.
Finally, it must be emphasised yet again that 'cookie' consent and cookie banners are entirely separate issues. Elimination of intrusive and often misleading banners is a welcome departure. Eliminating the right to reject tracking is not. The current legislation is silent on 'banners' -- they are the invention of a commercial culture that seeks to bypass the legislation for its own advantage by playing on our distaste -- inviting click through. So we have a piece of current legislation that requires our consent to be obtained lawfully for tracking, that is being subverted by organisations obtaining acceptance unlawfully. The proposed solution is not to enforce the seeking of consent by lawful means, but to eliminate the need for lawfully obtained consent.
As well as increasing uncertainty for organisations that are trying to comply with the law, all these changes weaken the protection of data subjects. Qui bono? I think it's pretty obvious.
"The government claims the Bill "would seize the post-Brexit opportunity to boost the economy by £4.7 billion over the next decade."
"Vote for me for class president. I'll make sure:
- There are free coke and chocolate vending machines in every classroom.
- Homework will be banned.
- Fridays will be a half-day.
- Becky stops picking her nose and rubbing it under her desk.
- Mrs. Smith uses deodorant.
UK's got the most business-friendly regime already, particularly on painless incorporation of scam companies that flock to our shore from around the globe. O come, all ye faithful, joyful and triumphant.
...or is it that brexit dividend born around 8 yrs ago hasn't matured yet? Still waiting.
Still no mention of how the Bill will "handle" Northern Ireland's post-Brexit protections as highlighted by https://nihrc.org/publication/detail/nihrc-briefing-on-the-data-protection-and-digital-information-bill
"that, as a fundamental right, the right to personal data protection would fall within the scope of “civil rights” under the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. Further, as an essential element of the right to respect for private and family life in Article 8 ECHR, any right to personal data protection afforded by EU law, by which the UK was bound on 31 December 2020, falls within the scope of the non-diminution commitment in Windsor Framework Article 2."
How will the UK government (and businesses) cope with the requirement to keep pre-Brexit data protection rights for people in Northern Ireland yet introduce data protection rights changes in England, Scotland, and Wales?
Still no mention of how the Bill will "handle" Northern Ireland's post-Brexit protections
We can work out the answer to that one easily enough: as badly as it has handled every other aspect of the Good Friday agreement because that assumed that NI and the rest of the UK and Ireland would all be in the EU. The only way they could have kept the process on the rails would have been for the Republic to leave the EU at the same time. I doubt they expected that to happen because I doubt they thought anything through to that extent.
> We can work out the answer to that one easily enough
Original AC here.
I was trying to avoid suggesting the answer might be closing their eyes, putting their fingers in their ears and repeating "La La La, we can't hear you"
"keep pre-Brexit data protection rights for people in Northern Ireland yet introduce data protection rights changes in England, Scotland, and Wales?"
Good question. If the rights are strengthening personal data rights then no problem.
But this government means strengthening the rights of companies to take and use that data.
BTW I wonder how many people realise most car parts are held in central depots on mainland Europe. So depending on how much personal data you have to supply to get those parts it might not be possible to disengage from EU data protection legislation any time soon.
But the quitters who voted for this are probably the same folk who think you can have a secure backdoor into cryptography that only the police can use.
who wants to leave this country as soon as she's 18, the true reason for Brexit finally dawned on me.
It was never about keeping immigrants out of the UK, it was to make it harder for us plebs to leave, so they are free to fuck up this country more and more.
Yes you do get a whiff that the Johnson's and the Moggs of this world aren't very happy that ordinary British people could just go off to other country and live in them without difficulties
Let alone study there without a family fortune behind them.
They might realises that in fact the UK is not quite the "Sceptred Isle" that dewy eyed quitters like to paint it. That maybe some countries have some parts of their society considerably better sorted out than the UK in fact.
Link: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/03/google-deepmind-16m-patient-royal-free-deal-data-protection-act
So....."data protection"......."data transfer"......"international borders"..........
But I wonder......what happened to the 1.6 million citizen medical records......you know, the records that The Royal Free Trust handed over (no permissions) to Google/DeepMind?
Where are these slurped records right now? Does Google/DeepMind share the goodies with Palantir? Can the ICO tell us? That would be the "Information Commissioner's Office (which enforces data protection law in the UK)". Laff, laff, laff!!!!
So.....the inhabitants of SW1 are "doing something". And GDPR is still a very unfunny joke!!!