Data transfers between the EU and the US: Still unclear on what you're supposed to do? Here's an explainer Lightning does not strike twice – except, it would seem, in the land of data privacy. Having struck down Safe Harbor – the agreement governing EU-US data transfers – in 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) went on to condemn its replacement, the beleaguered EU-US Privacy Shield, to a similar fate just over a …
"Businesses, then, could be forgiven for scratching their heads about what the legal requirements for transferring data actually include."
Why would they? They'll simply ignore any requirements and keep transferring data as if nothing was amiss.
If caught, they'll just claim that the privacy of their clients is very important to them, not pay the £5000 fine, and simply keep ignoring the annoying requirements. Let the toothless fines come, who cares. (Even if they paid them, it would still be cheaper than changing their workflow.)
It should be BRAIN DEAD OBVIOUS: if it's covered by GDPR, don't transfer it in a way that violates GDPR.
I'm saddened by the fact that the USA does NOT have a GDPR-like data privacy protection law, and is allegedly being used to hide stuff through "data transfer" (if I read the article correctly).
That pretty much still rules out the US of A, as federal law can override even the best state law, so the applicable jurisdiction will be uncertain and potentially dependent on changed circumstances after the fact of the transfer. What the final basis for legitimacy will probably come down to will be some assessment of potential harm in the worst case scenario. That could be practicable, provided the assessment is objective and takes enough into account. However those are the conditions least likely to be fulfilled consistently by exporters, if for no other reason that they are commonly not near enough to the conditions pertaining in the import jurisdiction.
The current DCMS consultation 'Data: A new direction' (60-plus typically loaded questions, closing on 19/11) strongly emphasises reduced accountability all round, including of course making the ICO dependent on government preferment. Even if you don't have the energy to respond to it (and you'd need lots), it's a highly telling document, all 140-odd pages of it. Somebody clearly seems to think the wild west should be preserved.
Why would you think that? If the data is sent to any jurisdiction where GDPR standards can't be met then you can't meet them. The obvious answer is to design your business processes so that you don't make such transfers.
For the EU it looks as if HMG is going to make the UK such a jurisdiction. It might make it difficult to run some forms of business in the UK with EU customers but then the PM has made it clear what he thinks about business. Getting Brexit done was more important than any business.
veti replying to IamStillIan:
> > I thought it was supposed to be about consistency, "comply once ,do business everywhere", without having to learn each national set of rules. That went well...
>
> That's the underlying philosophy of all EU directives. It's not the specific goal of that one.
Nope, you are mixing up EU Directives and Regulations. The GDPR is a Regulation (the "R" in GDPR).
Before GDPR the previous data protection law in UK was UK DPA 1998 which was a UK law implementing the relevant EU Directive. Likewise at the time each other EU member country passed national laws to implement the same EU Directive. A side effect of Directives is that the resulting national laws are typically not uniform - there can be a fair bit of differences (whether minor or not so minor) between them.
The GDPR is a EU Regulation and regulations are not implemented via national laws, rather a Regulation itself is effective in all EU countries. This is supposed to ensure that there is consistency across the EU (what IamStillIan was referring to in his posting that you responded to). I say "supposed to ensure" as there is the ability for individual EU countries to implement derogations from some parts of GDPR, more info here: https://www.twobirds.com/~/media/pdfs/gdpr-pdfs/81--guide-to-the-gdpr--derogations-and-special-conditions.pdf?la=en
More info on the difference between EU Directives and Regulations here: https://europa.eu/european-union/law/legal-acts_en
Doctor Syntax replying to IamStillIan:
> Why would you think that? If the data is sent to any jurisdiction where GDPR standards can't be met then you can't meet them.
I believe IamStillIan was referring to consistency between EU member countries (which a Regulation rather than a Directive is intended to achieve), not consistency between EU and non-EU members.
I genuinely don't see the point in lowering standards or deviating from them.
GDPR applies worldwide. If my employer works with a company that's doing business in the EU, then GDPR kicks in. From a practical point of view, that means that all the work I do assumes GDPR is in force.
All of the tools and services that my employer buys have to be GDPR compliant. We work to the highest standard, not the lowest - so that if a client suddenly expands into the EU, we're ready for it. If we switch to a new "GB-DPR" standard, it won't save any money or time - we'll still work to GDPR because it'll cost us more in time and effort setting up/working with multiple standards than we could possibly save through lower standards. Worse, not working to GDPR has significant potential opportunity costs in that we we could end up losing new or existing business due to not being GDPR compliant.
So what is the point?
Perhaps if all I'm doing is selling manure to the locals in Crawley, I might find my life ever so slightly easier. But if I grow that business to the point where I'm selling my agricultural supplies into NI or anywhere else in the Single Market I suddenly have to overhaul my business to be GDPR compliant anyway.
Any business with ambition and drive is going to ignore this. They have to if they want to grow. GDPR compliance is just part of being a business these days.
Obligatory political comment: This is a microcosm of why Brexit is a failure. The people behind it don't understand how the world works. They think that they are now rule makers, but in actual fact the rules they make matter very little because it's not 1951 anymore. Meanwhile we've lost our seat at the European Council and our MEPs so can't change GDPR any more. People are slowly discovering that they still have to work to EU rules in many areas anyway, so we are now a nation of rule takers! And this was done to satisfy a tiny number of people - most of whom are retired or work in politics/journalism and don't know what they're talking about.
(No offence meant to the fine scribblers at El Reg, naturally. Not all journalists, etc. etc...)
"... so we are now a nation of rule takers!"
Yup, exactly that. Entirely predictable by anyone who took the trouble to consider the issues for a minute or two.
Funny thing is, the First Mrs H used to do English language coaching for some Dutch civil servants who used to represent their government in Brussels. They mentioned that often the UK had more influence on the decisions than other countries, because (1) their fluency in English (the de facto language of the EU, just don't mention that in earshot of the French) and (2) because of their deeper subject knowledge (the UK civil service apparently being one of the better ones, though that's something British politicians fail to appreciate). Sadly the UK has now lost that influence - an odd way of 'taking back control'.
The central problem is that GDPR places obligations on anyone collecting or processing personal data which still apply if you send the data for storage or processing in another jurisdiction. If you send it for processing in another jurisdiction you need to ensure that the legislation of that country allows for those obligations to be met.
The legislation in the US fails that test. There have been attempted fudges in the form of Safe Harbour and the Privacy Figleaf with its Standard Clauses. All have failed when taken before a the ECJ. What seems to keep happening is that further fudges get offered but because the US legislation hasn't changed it's difficult to see how they could work there. AIUI what seems to be happening now is that firms are being advised to look at a business with different countries on a case-by-case basis.
The above ignores the effect of Brexit. It still applies to the EU. We now have the situation that the UK courts make the determinations for the UK. As the current UK legislation is the same as when we were in the EU a first assumption is that the UK courts would reach the same conclusion on the same facts s the ECJ. We then have to consider the consequences of either (a) the courts reach a different conclusion or (b) HMG passes a new, weaker DPA or other legislation that weakens its effects (to the detriment of the privacy of UK residents, of course).
Whilst the UK is following the same rules as the EU in the same way there should be no problem in a UK company collecting or processing data of EU residents. This facilitates UK businesses who wish to offer services to individual customers in the EU. If, however, the UK changes that then it may be in breach of GDPR in respect of such customers. Also, if a UK business were offering data processing services to EU companies then for those companies the risk assessments advised in the article would apply.
Regimes like the US have always failed in data protection; There never has been any and the BS of Safe Harbor and the like change absolutely nothing.
Is a US based organisation going to be taken to court and fined, potentially a large amount of money, by a US data regulator (there isn't one) for misuse of non-American personal data (i.e. the data of an individual who pretty much has less legal standing than a dog in the US)? No
Is a non-US based organisation able to take a US based organisation to task about their abuse and misuse of personal data, which due to Safe Harbor and so on is nothing more than a contractual dispute? Good luck with that one too and if somehow the non-US based organisation won, the damages would be limited to the value of the contract which would be dwarfed by the cost of the case.
@Philip Storry
"GDPR applies worldwide. If my employer works with a company that's doing business in the EU, then GDPR kicks in. From a practical point of view, that means that all the work I do assumes GDPR is in force."
So your first assumption wipes out the GDPR worldwide theory. Domestic trade being the majority has no reason to be tied to it. Then there is the rest of the world, a much larger space than the EU. But yes if its a business that deals with the EU then they likely already have the tools to comply.
"Perhaps if all I'm doing is selling manure to the locals in Crawley, I might find my life ever so slightly easier. But if I grow that business to the point where I'm selling my agricultural supplies into NI or anywhere else in the Single Market I suddenly have to overhaul my business to be GDPR compliant anyway."
That is a good explanation as to why leaving NI in the EU's grip was a bad idea.
"GDPR compliance is just part of being a business these days."
Except for the US and China if we stick to the big countries that matter.
"This is a microcosm of why Brexit is a failure. The people behind it don't understand how the world works."
This seems to be a comment from someone who has slept since brexit. Missing how the UK and US dealt with ordering vaccine (Israel too btw) while the EU didnt understand how the world works nor how their own contract law works. Failing spectacularly as they had done with the global financial crisis. The EU wishing it had power and influence to contend with the big players yet ignored or slapped for entertainment on the world stage.
"They think that they are now rule makers"
This is a fight within the EU currently where Germany and Poland care about their countries constitutions and the EU is crying that it should be in charge. Hungary upsetting the EU by not behaving as the EU would dictate.
"Meanwhile we've lost our seat at the European Council and our MEPs so can't change GDPR any more."
This is not a loss. If you really think the EC is so damned incompetent as to need saving by the UK that would be a UK supremacist view.
"so we are now a nation of rule takers!"
Eh? If you trade with anywhere in the world you meet the importing countries rules. Yet the EU took it further to dictate domestic policy. We no longer have to apply such domestically.
"And this was done to satisfy a tiny number of people - most of whom are retired or work in politics/journalism and don't know what they're talking about."
Garbled nonsense.
1. Cameron was elected on an iron clad promise to deliver such a vote, he used coalition as an excuse not to.
2. Elected with no coalition to remove his poor excuse not to provide a vote.
3. Referendum
4. MEP elections support brexit
5. GE wiping out the party 100% guaranteeing to reject the referendum and keep us in.
6. GE still strong for brexit parties.
At what point does it become unclear? Support to remain hit the deck and to leave was elected over and over. What is with the fantasy of remain support?
Following the amusing idea of selling the UK to some group why not ditch the flailing EU and join the US? The US is more successful, more competent and is the 'golf' instead of the knock off that aspires to be the USoE? Why not champion that instead?
@Doctor Syntax
"How else would you have kept the Good Friday Agreement?"
By keeping the border where it was and not making a hard border. If the EU wishes to then they can break the agreement (which would be ROI allowing it to be broken by its superior). It was never the UK's problem.
Why wasn't your solution part of the Brexit negotiations?
Not, I think, because the UK negotiating team failed to take advice from you. The border would become the EU and UK customs border. It would require the replacement of the long gone border posts. It would no longer be the soft border envisaged by the GFA.
@Doctor Syntax
"Why wasn't your solution part of the Brexit negotiations?"
It was when the brexit negotiators were dealing with it. Thats one of the reasons the EU got frustrated. The UK proposed solutions and the EU stomped its feet. The UK made clear it had no intention of making a hard border which cased a huge headache for the protectionist block.
"It would no longer be the soft border envisaged by the GFA."
If the EU wished to make such a border then on their head be it. Not our problem.
> The GFA does not require a 'soft' border.
Having looked at it, that appears to be correct.
However, the peace certainly does.
It would seem that the GFA did not take into account one side leaving the EU, so the majority of things the EU provided automatically (that were part of solving the troubles) are not included.
So a hard border would potentially not be illegal, but it would undermine the peace treaty.
Which would be whiy the Republic got the deal it did.
It was never the UK's problem./Sigh. Get your head out of the Daily Express.
The border between Northern Ireland and the Republic is an international border. Just like the border between mainland UK and France, just without the sea in between. As the UK is no longer a part of the EU, it is a foreign and therefore there is a hard border now.
That implementing, or even considering, a hard border between NI and the Republic was one of the most retarded things that even the belligerent fuckwits slobbering around the UK parliament could come up, while carefully promising two mutually incompatible situations: a) there would be no customs border between NI and the republic and b) there would be no border between NI and the remainder of the UK. That an international agreement was had that softened this stupidity was pretty much a miracle, however the arch cretin Frost who came up with this, touted it as an amazing thing, is now blaming everyone else for this international agreement, that he wrote and signed, and blaming the EU for sticking to their obligations within this international agreement, that he wrote and signed.
This is not down to the EU. This is down to the gross incompetence and wilful belligerence of the UK government.
@Nick Ryan
"/Sigh. Get your head out of the Daily Express."
? Do I assume that would mean your head is up your ass?
"The border between Northern Ireland and the Republic is an international border."
Which has always been very leaky (no geographical border) and the GFA is between ROI and UK. That ROI accepts the dictation of the EU still leaves the onus on ROI as its their agreement but also a problem the EU has assumed and whatever the negotiation result would be due to the UK/EU negotiation. Aka if the UK has clearly stated we want no border (we did) and the EU clearly demand one (they did) its not the UK's problem.
"That implementing, or even considering, a hard border between NI and the Republic was one of the most retarded things that even the belligerent fuckwits slobbering around the UK parliament could come up"
Starting to think your head is up your ass. Its the EU who wanted the hard border, dictated it, No other option in their mind. Not the UK which clearly stated we didnt want one.
"a) there would be no customs border between NI and the republic and b) there would be no border between NI and the remainder of the UK."
Which if you think about it is entirely possible. The EU who wants a border can put it between ROI and the rest of the EU as they have expected the UK and NI to do. The EU could negotiate a trade deal to handle Ireland if they had some competence (this is what the EU was ment to be good at?) but they were so desperate to try and put the UK over a barrel they refused to negotiate until NI was theirs. One of the reasons the negotiations was not in good faith on part of the EU (should have been parallel negotiations, but the EU had little to no hand to play).
"however the arch cretin Frost who came up with this"
Frost wasnt negotiating for the EU. Try again. He almost resigned because of it but is instead trying to fix it-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-59111070
"and blaming the EU for sticking to their obligations within this international agreement, that he wrote and signed."
That the EU has now become more flexible on even though they claimed they couldnt budge, only because the UK refused to let the EU starve out NI.
The Good Friday Agreement was always predicated on the UK being a member of the EU. I remember this being discussed at some length at the time, how convenient it was and how it made possible an agreement that would otherwise be fraught with difficulty.
It was the UK that elected to change the terms of the agreement, therefore the UK's problem to work out its new implementation. Just saying "Nothing's changed" was not an option.
But it wouldn't have satisfied the Brexiters anyway. They would have pointed out - rightly - that with a completely porous border between the UK and EU, the UK would have remained to all intents and purposes a vassal of the EU and have had no power to control its own immigration or trade.
And so far from being "starved out", NI is now - perhaps briefly - the most prosperous part of the UK. There have been no queues for petrol there, no empty shelves in supermarkets, no shortage of - well, anything normal.
@veti
"The Good Friday Agreement was always predicated on the UK being a member of the EU"
Thats pretty stupid then. Since the UK can voluntarily leave the EU (as we did) that in no way suggests the UK has been sold/conquered or otherwise owned by the EU. If this is the excuse to remain then it isnt voluntary and a surrender of the country. I dont recall a vote to sell the country.
"It was the UK that elected to change the terms of the agreement, therefore the UK's problem to work out its new implementation"
Which it did. The UK offered options that the EU stomped their feet about because they had little to negotiate with. The EU refused to work with the UK on a solution and so we go back to the above, the UK was not a possession of the EU. We were free to leave and did.
"that with a completely porous border between the UK and EU, the UK would have remained to all intents and purposes a vassal of the EU and have had no power to control its own immigration or trade."
Eh? Thats bollocks.
"no empty shelves in supermarkets"
I actually answered this the other day to someone else asking for any news articles on NI shortages-
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/northern-ireland/spaces-on-northern-ireland-shelves-only-going-to-get-worse-says-food-sector-brexit-and-covid-crisis-blamed-for-perfect-storm-of-driver-shortages-40810547.html
Which is down to covid just as it is in the UK. I dont recall China leaving the EU but they have a diesel shortage currently. But NI would be worse off if it wasnt for the UK unilaterally not applying the punitive checks demanded by the EU.
"UK unilaterally not applying the punitive checks demanded by the EU."
I believe you'll find they are WTO requirements.
And why would there be shortages in Northern Ireland when they have frictionless trade with the entire EU? (You think the shops won't won't stock up from the republic?)
I'm currently in Sofia, and there are no shortages (unless you count budget items being out of stock late in the day).
And this is a poor country, so if anywhere in the EU is going to have difficulty (low wages for drivers) it will be Bulgaria.
OK I've not found any decent british tea, but on the flip side, even the cheap coffee machines generally give coffee better than most cafes and restaurants in the UK. And even McDonalds coffee usually leaves me thinking what a nice cup of coffee I just had.
@AC
"I believe you'll find they are WTO requirements."
No. They are EU requirements.
"And why would there be shortages in Northern Ireland when they have frictionless trade with the entire EU?"
Because of the large volume of trade NI does with the UK which is why we dont want a border between the UK/NI. If I remember correctly NI does more trade with the UK than ROI.
"I'm currently in Sofia, and there are no shortages"
What does that signify in this discussion?
"even the cheap coffee machines generally give coffee better than most cafes and restaurants in the UK"
That does have my interest. Good coffee is always a good thing
"No. They are EU requirements."
Only in that they have to comply with WTO rules.
If the UK were allowed an open border with the EU outside a customs union, it would break WTO rules. A back door to goods with different tariffs and also it would be different customs rules for the UK to other 3rd countries.
"Because of the large volume of trade NI does with the UK which is why we dont want a border between the UK/NI. If I remember correctly NI does more trade with the UK than ROI."
I believe it used to, but it won't any more. It is part of the Single Market, and GB companies will relocate there so they can sell easily to the 31 countries remaining in the Single Market and to GB as well.
It's only GB sending to NI that is really badly impeded. The other way is fine.
(No shortages in BG) "What does that signify in this discussion?"
The EU has frictionless freemovement of good with Northern Ireland. NI has about 1/2% of the population of that, why would you think the EU couldn't supply? (They have got a load of extra Lorry Drivers, Butchers, Vets, Fruit Pickers, etc that they didn't have a year ago.)
There will be a squeeze on GB brands obviously, but not on overall supply.
And won't that reduce pressure on GB anyway?
@AC
"Only in that they have to comply with WTO rules."
Erm, no. As I said its EU rules not WTO. The required checks demanded by the EU are EU checks. That is why some of the checks that the EU 'cannot bend or change' have been changed because the UK refused to do them.
"If the UK were allowed an open border with the EU outside a customs union, it would break WTO rules."
A trade agreement would bypass that problem easily. But yes if the EU refused to resolve the border issue then an open border would be a WTO issue. But a very soft border would be fine.
"It's only GB sending to NI that is really badly impeded. The other way is fine."
That really points to the problem of being in the EU. And why its bad to have left NI in there.
"The EU has frictionless freemovement of good with Northern Ireland. NI has about 1/2% of the population of that, why would you think the EU couldn't supply?"
It isnt a free movement problem, its a covid/lockdown problem. The US and UK are having driver shortages and the EU is growing that problem too as it catches up with recovery. As the EU recovers the problem will get worse. Its not a brexit issue which is why its being seen around the world.
"Erm, no. As I said its EU rules not WTO. The required checks demanded by the EU are EU checks. That is why some of the checks that the EU 'cannot bend or change' have been changed because the UK refused to do them."
And you're still be wrong.The WTO requires 3rd countries to be treated equally where there is no agreement for standards, etc.
The checks have to achieve that. The protocol agreed by Johnson always had flexibility in it, to achieve the same outcome with streamlining.
Either they made the starting point too conservative by accident, or by design, because they knew he'd whine about it and they needed to toss him a bone.
$2
"And you're still be wrong.The WTO requires 3rd countries to be treated equally where there is no agreement for standards, etc."
the EU are not treating the UK equally.
If a border in Ireland is erected the UK will chose to just let through most traffic from the EU, its up to the EU to do similar or do what they are currently doing and checking each peanut & ensuring it has the correct paperwork in the correct colours with no spelling mistakes.
Wrong.
The EU is not permitted to treat the UK differently to other third countries. The UK is not permitted the treat the EU differently to other 3rd countries.
The EU cannot do what you would like. They would have to do the same as on any of their borders with 3rd countries. WTO rules.
The UK is breaking WTO rules already, by giving EU goods free entry, but not other countries' goods. What's the betting when the other countries complain (once the COVID-19 excuse ceases to be valid), Johnson just drops their checks instead?
> But it wouldn't have satisfied the Brexiters anyway. They would have pointed out - rightly - that with a completely porous border between the UK and EU, the UK would have remained to all intents and purposes a vassal of the EU and have had no power to control its own immigration or trade.
This statement doesn't make sense: a porous border does not in any way make the UK a vassal of the EU.
If thousands of migrants had started travelling to Ireland and then on into NI as a way of circumventing immigration checks then there are diplomatic approaches that can be used, just as the migrants crossing the channel from France are being stopped by the French as part of a diplomatic agreement.
"They would have pointed out - rightly - that with a completely porous border between the UK and EU, the UK would have remained to all intents and purposes a vassal of the EU and have had no power to control its own immigration or trade"
Incorrect. A porous border may allow people to get into the country, but grants no right to work, to access to the NHS or education system or other social security. Immigration is not just controlled at the border.
Also, the NI/Eire border was already a border - for currency, VAT, rates of duty payable, etc.
A soft border compliant with WTO rules was entirely possible, had there been the political will on both sides to find such a solution.
A soft border compliant with WTO rules was entirely possible, had there been the political will on both sides to find such a solution.
That is what the Johnson Protocul provides as did the May Protocol.
NI has to be in the same Customs Union as the republic. If you want a soft border with GB too, then GB needs to be in the Single Market and Customs Union.
GB being in the Single Market but not the CU* would smooth things to the point it wouldn't matter, but that wouldn't keep the racists and xenophobes happy.
So the Johnson Protocol as a 3rd country is what we have.
*it would be a bit stupid leaving the EU but GB remaining in the Customs Union.
Only the Johnson deal just changed the status of NI with respect to the UK.
Which can only be done with the consent of the people of NI, unless you want to break the Good Friday Agreement.
No such consent has been positively given, and the Unionist parties (representing a slim majority, but majority none the less) have stated that they do not consent to it.
So the deal breaches the Good Friday agreement, but everyone in the EU that was so upset at that idea, with regard to the NI/Eire border is now looking the other way.
A soft border between NI and Eire was / is possible, without NI being in the SM or CU. If there is the political will. There is not at the moment the political will.
> A soft border between NI and Eire was / is possible, without NI being in the SM or CU.
SInce a soft border means one that doesn't have customs or standards controls, I would love to know how you would have one without the same customs rules and standards either side.
> If there is the political will. There is not at the moment the political will.
I'm sure they would love to do it, if only someone could solve the paradox.
If you could provide your solution, then it would solve the whole thing.
@Jess
"Perhaps you can quote those that solved the paradox then."
The annoying part of this is asking for something up to 5 years ago and swiftly rejected. Something which was heavily discussed back then but requires some searching to find these solutions just to placate you that they existed which will likely go back to the old discussions from years ago. But heres a start for you-
https://www.briefingsforbritain.co.uk/technology-and-the-irish-border/
@codejunky
The UK company essDOCS is launching a system named CargoDocs dTrack. > Edmund Truell is co-founder of the Disruptive Capital Finance
essDOCS Press Room > essDOCS also completed a small fundraise in Q1 2018, broadening its shareholder base with strategic investors such as Disruptive Data Corporation, the investment arm of London-based private equity firm Disruptive Capital Finance
Man who has private equity firm investing in a "solution" says said solution is perfect fit.
Laughable.
@Jess
"Nothing there about a soft border, just an electornic hard border.
Could you try again with something real, please?"
I mist admit thats a new one. At the time it was just crying that these kinds of solutions wouldnt work for *insert excuse*. When you say something real what is the criteria for hardline remain with no will to accept you are wrong?
They wouldn't work to keep the peace because they are a hard border.
They might work as a border, but then a regular hard border would to.
I'm not wrong, SO why don't you just admit that you are a troll?
You keep posting outrageous nonsense as though it is a reasoned opinion.
@Jess
"They wouldn't work to keep the peace because they are a hard border."
Erm no.
"They might work as a border, but then a regular hard border would to."
Ok if thats what would end up. As long as the UK isnt the one doing it its not our issue.
"I'm not wrong, SO why don't you just admit that you are a troll?"
When I read that I heard 'Im not wrong waaaa'. Grow up.
"You keep posting outrageous nonsense as though it is a reasoned opinion."
And you keep crying against reasoned opinion with your nonsense. Amazing how little you have added to this discussion with your reply. You mention in a previous comment the peace requires a soft border but there is no peace since there is a border between UK/NI.
Yes. And the Johnson Protocol for Northern Ireland is based on replacing just enough of EU membership to comply with WTO rules and allow a full Hard Brexit (leaving the Single Market) for GB while (hopefully) not kicking off the Troubles again.
NI staying in the Single Market for Goods allows frictionless movement of goods to and from RoI (and the EU.) Hence their lack of shortages.
The CTA rules plus the Single Market Freedom of Movement of People allows anyone born in Ireland the option of maintaining their freedom of where to live and work as it was before.
The obvious relevamt losses are for those not born in the island (EU spouses presumably) and services providers. Obviously they are assumed not significant enough to cause issues that break the peace.
The border remains where it was.
The difference is that the UK is divided into two regulatory and customs zones.
If the UK didn't put up a border while not in a customs union, it would be breaking WTO rules, same applies to the Republic of Ireland.
So in that circumstance the RoI would have the legal choices of putting up a hard border, or being forced into a customs union with NI. Which would then make its trade with the rest of the EU much like Norway's.
Not sure a Sovreign nation would accept being forced to move customs union.
But then you know that anyway, are just trolling.
(No IT professional could be that bad at understanding how systems interplay, and the consequences of changing them).
@Jess
"The difference is that the UK is divided into two regulatory and customs zones."
Which puts a border between the UK/NI
"If the UK didn't put up a border while not in a customs union, it would be breaking WTO rules, same applies to the Republic of Ireland."
Which could easily be resolved but the EU didnt want to. So the EU can place a hard border, the UK manages its own which can be pretty forgiving.
"So in that circumstance the RoI would have the legal choices of putting up a hard border, or being forced into a customs union with NI"
Aka instead of putting a border UK/NI would be EU/ROI which would be just as valid as the current situation. If I remember right the mere suggestion had the EU negotiators in fits.
"Not sure a Sovreign nation would accept being forced to move customs union."
Who is sovereign? If you mean ROI then the EU needed to fuck off trying to negotiate the border. As the EU is trying to make clear to Poland, Germany and Hungary that they are not sovereign. Even Barnier the EU negotiator is arguing to return sovereignty to France.
"But then you know that anyway, are just trolling."
The typical response from someone who knows they are wrong. How about assuming I am not trolling and lets hypothetically apply the border between EU/ROI, why is that not acceptable?
"(No IT professional could be that bad at understanding how systems interplay, and the consequences of changing them)."
And the personal attack that comes with having little argument to support your view. If you want to discuss I am willing to, up to you.
> Which puts a border between the UK/NI
There already was one. It is just upgraded to a customs/standards border too.
> Which could easily be resolved but the EU didnt want to. So the EU can place a hard border,
It would have done in the case of no deal. But there was no way they would give any deal that required one. For some reason Johnson was afraid of that, as was May.
> the UK manages its own which can be pretty forgiving.
And Illegal. Normally that would not be questioned for 6 months by the WTO and covid is an obvious excuse to make that longer. But eventually it will be clamped down on
> Who is sovereign? If you mean ROI then the EU needed to fuck off trying to negotiate the border.
So you are saying that a Union shouldn't negotiate on behalf of on of its members and leave it up to them? Let them be pushed around by a country a dozen times the size (population). Sort of defeats the phrase UNION, doesn't it?
> As the EU is trying to make clear to Poland, Germany and Hungary that they are not sovereign.
Every trade deal surrenders sovreignty. Even WTO membership. What's your point?
> Even Barnier the EU negotiator is arguing to return sovereignty to France.
Whatever, that they have made a sovreign decision to agree to higher courts doesn't stop the countries being sovreign. Is Russia not sovreign because it answers to the ECHR or the WTO?
And you write shite like that and you wonder why I think you are trolling.
> The typical response from someone who knows they are wrong.
And that is a typical response from someone who knows they are really the one who is wrong.
> How about assuming I am not trolling and lets hypothetically apply the border between EU/ROI,
> why is that not acceptable?
It could be done under WTO rules (RoI being like Norway), but the RoI left the UK a hundred years ago, I'm pretty sure they aren't going to be prepared to be dragged out of a Union they joined willingly to rejoin a customs union with just the UK.
They would just have to put the hard border between the North and South under WTO rules. And England would have to put up with the bombs again.
Remember the GFA doesn't really say anything much about the border, because no-one assumed either side would take the economic hit of leaving the EU. But a hard border would destroy the peace. (And hard obviously means controlled, not physical walls.)
@Jess
"There already was one. It is just upgraded to a customs/standards border too."
Thats a large enough upgrade to be a new thing. Which causes serious restriction where there was none.
"It would have done in the case of no deal."
And that should have been held out for. The EU was desperate to keep the UK in as much as possible, it was stupid to betray NI.
"And Illegal."
Not particularly. And unless the EU wants to explicitly state they are going to violate the GFA wouldnt be questioned. But the EU would have caved anyway.
"So you are saying that a Union shouldn't negotiate on behalf of on of its members and leave it up to them?"
Not at all, you were talking about the sovereignty and moving customs union. The deal was between the UK and ROI, so the EU takes on that responsibility and its up to them to compromise. But since the deal is with ROI its for them to either break the agreement if they wish (the UK expressed no desire to and offered solutions, the EU rejected all) or to find a way of making it work. The EU can negotiate but it would be EU/ROI breaking the agreement.
"Every trade deal surrenders sovreignty. Even WTO membership. What's your point?"
The EU isnt a trade union. Thats not even a believable fantasy anymore. As the examples I gave you were in 2 cases about the EU's capacity to violate a sovereign country members constitution, AKA not sovereign countries under the EU. That goes far beyond trade deals.
"And you write shite like that and you wonder why I think you are trolling."
You call it shite but it really does seem to be ripping holes through your piss poor arguments. That your entire answer to the quoted line is 'whatever' leaves a lot lacking in your ability to respond. Yet your trying to call me troll. Idjit.
"but the RoI left the UK a hundred years ago, I'm pretty sure they aren't going to be prepared to be dragged out of a Union they joined willingly to rejoin a customs union with just the UK."
And NI wasnt willing to have UK/NI trade barriers put up either. So go on tell me why its ok for a border between UK/NI and not EU/ROI. They are the ones who wanted a border because we left a voluntary union.
"They would just have to put the hard border between the North and South under WTO rules. And England would have to put up with the bombs again."
Sounds like a plan, and also why the EU would fold on the subject. Because the UK wouldnt be putting up the hard border, so it would be the EU in the crosshairs because the EU's actions would be the problem. That is why EU observers ran when there were threats over the UK/NI border. As I keep saying- not our problem.
"because no-one assumed either side would take the economic hit of leaving the EU"
Which is very short sighted, especially in hindsight. The economic benefit of leaving the EU being the result.
> (No deal) And that should have been held out for.
Perhap May and Johnson were both frightened of having targets put on their backs (for life), which is why they both were prepared to sacrifice sovreignty for their protocols.
> Not particularly. And unless the EU wants to explicitly state they are going to violate the GFA
Many Brexiteers have pointed out that a hard border doesn't violate the GFA, (not illegal) and as far as I can tell this is one thing that was true. But what they missed was that whether true or not, a hard border will wreck the peace. Just legally.
> wouldnt be questioned. But the EU would have caved anyway.
I don't see why they would. The logical preference (ignoring the peace treaty) would be a hard border between the UK and RoI. However the RoI would not agree any deal that did that. So the EU's choice was similar to the later Johnson Protocol. May managed to make them back down to allow GB to be in the customs union (similar to Turkey). Though it was backing down to a ridiculous situation for the UK. (Why would you leave the EU but not the CU? Like throwing out the baby and keeping the bathwater, if you wanted the UK to make independent trade deals).
They said they wouldn't renegotiate, but of course they made it quite clear they would rewind to what they originally wanted, and that is what Johnson went for with his protocol (thought he did get the EU to allow the UK to manage its internal border, which they probably regret now).
It wouldn't be the EU where the bombs would be going off, nor its leaders with targets on their backs.
But basically they did what the Republic wanted. No deal or no Irish border. Johnson backed down. (Which I'll be astounded if he doesn't do again.)
> Sounds like a plan, and also why the EU would fold on the subject. Because the UK wouldnt be
> putting up the hard border, so it would be the EU in the crosshairs because the EU's actions would
> be the problem. That is why EU observers ran when there were threats over the UK/NI border.
> As I keep saying- not our problem.
No it wouldn't. The border would be a controlled border into the EU, the other direction would be open (if the UK stuck to it). And the EU would be unlikely to be in the crosshairs, because those that want a unified Ireland aren't stupid. The civil war would be on UK soil.
> The economic benefit of leaving the EU being the result.
A massive benefit for the EU, (they get to keep a huge chunk of what the GB thought of as its economy, but is actually single market economy that happened to reside in GB).
Twice the hit of Covid, I heard. Permanent too.
> And NI wasnt willing to have UK/NI trade barriers put up either.
NI didn't want to leave the EU.
> So go on tell me why its ok for a
> border between UK/NI and not EU/ROI. They are the ones who wanted a border because
> we left a voluntary union.
The union was to remove borders. And if the RoI obviously didn't want it.They might have preferred it to a hard Irish border (or they might not) But they certainly would not agree to an exit deal with them having a hard border anywhere.
Anyway, the Tories don't care about the Union. All they care about is England (and if Wales cares to tag along they'll keep 'em.) They agreed to a trade deal that was scarecly any better than not bothering for many, mnay industries. So why didn't they just go the whole hog and crash out?
All for optics. The papers call it a fantastic deal, and by the time anyone notices how bad it it, it's far too late.
> You call it shite but it really does seem to be ripping holes through your piss poor arguments.
> That your entire answer to the quoted line is 'whatever' leaves a lot lacking in your ability
> to respond. Yet your trying to call me troll. Idjit
There are no piss poor argument only your lack of comprehension.
@Jess
"Perhap May and Johnson were both frightened of having targets put on their backs (for life), which is why they both were prepared to sacrifice sovreignty for their protocols."
I dont know why they would fear being targets. But also Boris inherited the mostly completed agreement made under May which was a sellout to the EU. Before May interfered the negotiations were going much better.
"But what they missed was that whether true or not, a hard border will wreck the peace. Just legally."
Yup. So the UK wouldnt be violating the agreement and the EU would have to decide if it wanted to wreck the peace. As I keep saying- not our problem.
"It wouldn't be the EU where the bombs would be going off, nor its leaders with targets on their backs."
I count the ROI as part of the EU and thats probably where it would kick off I expect. No point attacking the UK that doesnt want a border.
"No it wouldn't. The border would be a controlled border into the EU, the other direction would be open (if the UK stuck to it). And the EU would be unlikely to be in the crosshairs, because those that want a unified Ireland aren't stupid. The civil war would be on UK soil."
Reading that and I think I am interpreting it correctly (which is how I would see it if the EU implemented a border) is-
UK: practically no border and doesnt want one.
EU: implements a hard border as they desire one.
So you say Ireland isnt stupid yet you say they would attack the country not wanting nor applying a border instead of the one applying the border. Are you saying Ireland want a border? Or do you think they are stupid?
"So why didn't they just go the whole hog and crash out?"
There we can agree. I expect a trade deal would have been done because it benefits both sides but as we know May was trying to remain.
"There are no piss poor argument only your lack of comprehension."
Look to you saying people in Ireland aint stupid then tell me they would be completely freaking stupid.
> Before May interfered the negotiations were going much better.
Basically the EU wanted a hard border between GB and NI without GB in the CU. May got the concession (albeit very stupid) to include the whole UK.
Why leave the EU and stay in its CU? Ridiculous.
We got the only hard brexit deal that was possible.
> I count the ROI as part of the EU and thats probably where it would kick off I expect.
> No point attacking the UK that doesnt want a border.
You seem to be missing something.major. The open border is a substitute for a united Ireland. If that substitute were gone, they wouldn't be fighting to put it back, but to achieve their original goal. Making the British leave NI.
> Reading that and I think I am interpreting it correctly (which is how I would see it if the EU
> implemented a border) is-
Bear in mind the hypothetical Internal Irish border has to be the same as between England and France, so I'm talking about the whole UK/EU border in this situation.
> UK: practically no border and doesnt want one.
It's not a question of doesn't wamt, more a question of having got too used to it and not having the land to roll back. It is a WTO duty
> EU: implements a hard border as they desire one.
As any country (or block trading as one) does.And is required to under WTO rules.
> (Crash out) There we can agree. I expect a trade deal would have been done because it benefits both sides but as we know May was trying to remain.
No she wasn't. She was simply going for the least damaging exit that allowed her to get rid of the foreigners. (And forget sovreignty).
Rolling back two steps, from a Frictionless Single Market to an FTA is so huge, no deal would have made it only a little worse. So either they went for a deal for appearance or they were afraid of something. Or both.
> Look to you saying people in Ireland aint stupid then tell me they would be
> completely freaking stupid.
How would attacking the side you want Northern Ireland to be reunited with rather than the country they want independace from be anything but stupid?
@Jess
"Why leave the EU and stay in its CU? Ridiculous."
Agreed
"We got the only hard brexit deal that was possible."
Obviously not. Not handing NI over to the EU to mess with would have been a full brexit and certainly an option.
"If that substitute were gone, they wouldn't be fighting to put it back, but to achieve their original goal. Making the British leave NI."
Except NI doesnt want that and NI wouldnt be in the EU if it left the UK. Since the UK has no issue with an open border in NI but the EU has an issue with one in ROI thats the EU's problem and attacking the UK wont do them any good.
Ass the recent vaccine issues where ROI could only watch as NI got vaccine and they didnt... I cant imagine the EU would be the popular ruler.
"Bear in mind the hypothetical Internal Irish border has to be the same as between England and France, so I'm talking about the whole UK/EU border in this situation."
And I was responding to the suggestion that the EU makes the border but the UK doesnt really bother as we dont want one. So it would be a problem EU side but not UK side.
"It's not a question of doesn't wamt, more a question of having got too used to it and not having the land to roll back. It is a WTO duty"
So very publicly the EU breaks the agreement between ROI and the UK. That is what we are talking about. And Ireland has no geographical border making enforcement difficult if we were to actually try. Its always been porous for that reason. Add the UK not willing to really make an effort for something we dont want and its an EU border the EU wants and the EU is responsible for.
"As any country (or block trading as one) does.And is required to under WTO rules."
Unless an agreement is made. The EU being the ones unwilling to participate in such.
"No she wasn't. She was simply going for the least damaging exit that allowed her to get rid of the foreigners"
BINO is not brexit.
"How would attacking the side you want Northern Ireland to be reunited with rather than the country they want independace from be anything but stupid?"
Because the ones splitting the country are the EU maybe? The ones trying not to being the UK.
> Obviously not. Not handing NI over to the EU to mess with would have been a full brexit and
> certainly an option.
An option, but not a deal. One that 2 PMs bottled out of.
> Except NI doesnt want that and NI wouldnt be in the EU if it left the UK.
Since the whole thing is about re-unification, not independence then it would be in the same way east and west Germany are.
> Since the UK has no issue with an open border in NI but the EU has an issue with one in ROI thats the
> EU's problem and attacking the UK wont do them any good.
You do not realise it was a civil war. Once side (the side that is happy with the Johnson Protocol) was attacking GB with the aim of a United Ireland.) Moving the hard border will break the truce with them.
(Yes the Johnson Protocol does mess with the other side a bit, so it's not ideal, but had we stayed in the SM it wouldn't have noticed).
> So very publicly the EU breaks the agreement between ROI and the UK.
No. The situation means the ROI has the choice to either control the border for goods, or (ultimately) leaving the customs union and joining the UK and downgrading to the second rate Truss deals.
But an international agreement is in place now, so this is all acedemic it was voted for specifically by 14 million people, (unless the UK becomes a rogue nation and ignores the will of the electorate too).
No-one voted for Brexit until 2019. They voted to leave the EU. Turkey is not in the EU it is the same class of relationship. (But yes we'd be even more of a vassal nation than we are now.).
In 2019 the 14 million voted for exactly the type of Brexit we got. The oven ready deal that left NI behind, and GB being like Canada ready or not.
> Because the ones splitting the country are the EU maybe? The ones trying not to being the UK.
No the UK are doing that. The Johnson Protocol puts NI in an advantageous place. It can sell to the 27 EU countries without friction, and to GB and the EFTA countries with minimal friction. That advantage would be lost with re-unification. So economically it is a force for remaining in the UK. If the UK ditches that, and also kicks off the troubles, or even a peaceful campaign, that pushes reunification.
@Jess
"An option, but not a deal. One that 2 PMs bottled out of."
I dont disagree
"Since the whole thing is about re-unification, not independence then it would be in the same way east and west Germany are."
Except NI is not ROI. ROI has an agreement to be in the EU. If your suggesting forcing NI into the EU and unified Ireland I can see that kicking off. Especially as NI has made no motion to try and leave the UK.
"(Yes the Johnson Protocol does mess with the other side a bit, so it's not ideal, but had we stayed in the SM it wouldn't have noticed)."
Which has resulted in death threats causing EU personnel to put their tails between their legs and run. So if the sauce is good for the goose why is it not for the gander? You still cant seem to explain why its ok to put the border this side instead of the other. With your acknowledgement that its the same. Stick the border between Ireland and the EU, why not?
"But an international agreement is in place now, so this is all acedemic"
Very true. Until the discussion comes up again because the hastily agreed protocol doesnt work very well. Such as when Philip Storry made a comment and I replied to it leading to our whole discussion.
"No-one voted for Brexit until 2019"
By 2019 brexit had been voted for so many times it was becoming a farce and a sickening display of politicians tying to still ignore the voters.
"(But yes we'd be even more of a vassal nation than we are now.)"
We left. So we are not a vassal nation as we were before. As Germany, Hungary and Poland have been arguing out with the EU.
"Because the ones splitting the country are the EU maybe?"
Good grief Brexiters. Brexit is done. Stop your whining and blaming everyone and everything for the poo sandwich you ordered.
It doesn't matter if it's dog, cat or human. You insisted on having a turd sandwich: now get on with it.
> And NI wasnt willing to have UK/NI trade barriers put up either.
<Pedantic mode on>
Codejunky, in multiple posting, some quoted below, you have mentioned "UK/NI" when it is obviously that you actually mean "GB/NI". It is not possible to have a border between UK and NI when NI is a part of UK whereas it is possible (whether desirable or not) to have a border between GB (i.e. England, Scotland, and Wales) and NI.
<Pedantic mode off>
"Because of the large volume of trade NI does with the UK which is why we dont want a border between the UK/NI."
"Which puts a border between the UK/NI"
"So go on tell me why its ok for a border between UK/NI and not EU/ROI."
“GDPR applies worldwide”
Trolling? Or you really don’t know?
“As of January 13, 2020, 25% of Fortune 500 retailers had blocked their websites from being visited by European IP addresses.”
https://www.bclplaw.com/en-GB/insights/what-percentage-of-united-states-retailers-have-decided-to-block-european-visitors-from-reaching-their-websites.html
“As of January 13, 2020, 25% of Fortune 500 retailers had blocked their websites from being visited by European IP addresses.”
and all they really had to do was STOP COLLECTING DATA WITHOUT PERMISSION... (and to reveal what the data was afterwards)
I wonder if I could simply code a web page that displays it all from an SQL (or other kind of) database for the user-specific stuff allowing user edits within any GDPR requirements. And as I recall, aggregate data isn't covered, right? Just the user-specific stuff, right? (it would be hard to deal with data NOT directly connected to a specific user anyway, like general sales statistics).
So, NOT hard from my limited understanding. OK maybe some basic clarifications might be needed, but a consulting service or three could make that possible (on a how-to web page) and evaluate things on the cheap, assuming it has not already been done. Then they do business in EU/UK and it pays for itself.
But NOOooo... they must WANT that data for some purpose. Otherwise, why not be consumer-friendly and above board? (I know I do not want to know the answer to that, it is probably obvious, see icon)
"And this was done to satisfy a tiny number of people - most of whom are retired or work in politics/journalism and don't know what they're talking about."
Keep telling yourself that. The stats on who voted for Brexit seems to indicate it wasn't a tiny number of people. And in my experience the vast majority of people don't know what they're talking about when it comes to politics. Especially foreign politics.
"the grey is that colour so you can see the parts to ignore when counting"
And that's the problem right there. _You_ might feel comfortable ignoring nearly half of the population and deciding that slightly over a quarter should determine what happens to the other 3/4, but that doesn't sound like democracy to me.
@PostHaste
"And that's the problem right there. _You_ might feel comfortable ignoring nearly half of the population and deciding that slightly over a quarter should determine what happens to the other 3/4, but that doesn't sound like democracy to me."
So you dont know what a democracy is? The grey you speak of are people who by their very choice did not wish to cast a vote, they didnt vote, they didnt have an opinion because they didnt express it, they didnt friggin vote.
And the other section being people who are not eligible to vote. The ones who cannot vote due to the legal constraints of voting, they cannot vote for the very legality of them not being allowed to vote by law, they were not registered voters on the electoral register which excludes them from legally being able to vote.
But go on you were saying?
> And the other section being people who are not eligible to vote. The ones who cannot vote due to the
> legal constraints of voting, they cannot vote for the very legality of them not being allowed to vote by
> law, they were not registered voters on the electoral register which excludes them from legally being
> able to vote.
Which when a referendum is taking people's rights away, a proper democracy requires a supermajority to protect these people's rights.
Which basically means if leaving meant leaving the EU (and CU) to make indpendent trade deals and only those common laws and standards required for a Single Market (and you ignore the cheating) then it would have been OK, but leaving the SM was not. (Because the majority was far less than those denied a vote whose lives were messed up)
@Jess
"Which when a referendum is taking people's rights away, a proper democracy requires a supermajority to protect these people's rights."
Really? So a referendum returning rights with a clearly defined boundary by the heavily remain biased government shouldnt count because after the vote leave won? And then the subsequent votes all backing leaving and rejecting outright the parties for remain, what do we do with them?
Remember leave was not in power at all when the referendum was made, but was instead a reaction to leave parties (particularly UKIP) gaining a massive surge of support.
Also it was the first vote ever about our membership of the EU which took away peoples rights and so had no majority at all not even a simple majority in the referendum. So by your criteria we shouldnt have been in the EU in the first place.
"Really? So a referendum returning rights with a clearly defined boundary by the heavily remain biased government shouldnt count because after the vote leave won? And then the subsequent votes all backing leaving and rejecting outright the parties for remain, what do we do with them?"
If there had ever been such a referendum, but there hasn't.
And you post a comment that false and claim not to be a troll?
@Jess
"If there had ever been such a referendum, but there hasn't."
Have you been asleep for the last 5 years? Or just delusional? And you try to claim I am the troll. I am guessing you missed the referendum, MEP election and GE elections? All supporting leave parties and crashing remain parties.
All of which, of course, ignores just how ludicrous it is to make such a major decision based on a very slim majority. The original (1975) referendum was won by a 2/3rds majority.
If there were 50 people at a party in my house wanting pizza and 26 of them (god forbid) wanted pineapple on it, that wouldn't be a reason for me to just order 50 pineapple-based pizzas and sod the 24 who hated it. Compromise is a thing, not that the present government seems to be aware of that.
Their all-or-nothing approach has left a huge number of people picking off pineapple while the rest dance around pointing and shouting about how stupid it is not to like pineapple on a pizza and we should just get over it because we're in the minority. Whichever side you're on, if you think that bears any resemblance to fair democracy, then you should be made to eat turd-based pizza for every meal for the rest of your life.
@No Relation
"The original (1975) referendum was won by a 2/3rds majority."
Which is great except the EU didnt exist then. Not for almost 20 years to which a political union usurping sovereignty materialised. So there was no vote to join.
Based on your analogy it seems this gov have finally ordered pizza for those who dont want pineapple on it but were ignored entirely when the order was placed.
So stats say well over a quarter of people voted leave. Seventeen million, four hundred and ten thousand, seven hundred and forty two people is not exactly a "tiny" number of people. It's not even a small amount of people.
I don't care whether Brexit was a good or bad idea (UK's f*cked either way imho) but stop trying to paint Brexit as a problem caused by a small number of stupid people because that's NOT the reality of the matter and the sooner you face that reality the sooner you might be able to actually steer your politics into a constructive direction again. I am sick and tired of the constant and incessant winging of anti-brexiteers about "a few stupid people did X" AND the pro-brexiteers constant winging about "we voted out, we're out, why still X?" Brexit happened. It's the reality now. MOVE THE FRIG ON! The rest of the world doesn't really care about your rainy little island. Every single EU topic is 50% or more "Buhuhuhuh blubber blubbber brexit" from both sides of the isle.
No a quarter of the population is small, and the margin is tiny.
And the number of those people who wanted the racist/xenophobe appeasing hard brexit we got was tiny.
But they were the ones pandered to, because they hold the balance of power in our broken electoral system.
Most were expecting something like a Norway deal. (Certainly if they voted for the promises made).
And only 14 million voted for the Brexit we actually got.
And many of those are now sufferering and moaning because they didn't bothet to do due dilligence to check of the promised actions and the promised consequences were consistent.
Project fear was all about a hard brexit, Norway style relationship would have turned out fine.
But it was treated as a dare, and the whole UK lost.
In the end I fully expect our UK politicians to sell us out to their american counterparts so ultimately they can do what they want with our data and we lose all the GDPR protections we got while part of the EU.
All the inbetween is mostly fluff. The outcome will be the same no matter what our input is or how much of it there is. /Cynic
Because OMG companies and organisations might have to actually think about and JUSTIFY what data they are slurping instead of being allowed to just willy-nilly compile as much of it as they can and sell it to whomever they please. It's not actually all that hard to comply to GDPR, but you have to ask yourself the questions on "why am I storing this, where am I storing this, how long do I need to keep this and who needs to read this?". You know, the sort of questions you should be asking about handling someones private data.
The reality is that truly, many, many people never even spent a single thought on data protection or privacy regulations. I've encountered club secretaries completely unable to comprehend why putting membership data including (but not limited to) addresses, phone numbers, birth dates and parental data/info on a US based cloud service with absolutely NO indication of where their servers where physically located and clauses in their contract basically allowing them to scrape the data was a terrible idea. And because so many people seem to operate on the principle of "well we have the data so we can do with it what we want" and "I have nothing to hide so why should they?" GDPR compliance seems to be thrown by the wayside all too often.
--> He aggregated all the data too.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
