Meta adverse to internet mercenaries using its social networks to help governments violate human rights, without payment.
1255 posts • joined 17 Jul 2007
Facebook locks out 1,500 fake accounts used by cyber-spy firms to snoop on people, alerts 50k potential targets
Data transfers between the EU and the US: Still unclear on what you're supposed to do? Here's an explainer
"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?
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.
> 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)
> 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.
> 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.
> 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?
> (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.
> 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.)
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.
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 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.
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).
I've been slowly giving my online prescence a Googlectomy.
I already cut facebook out a few years ago. (Occasionally I have to use one of their services in a limited and specific way, eg WhatsApp on a separate phone, with only the required contacts).
Mobile is pretty well isolated. My main phone is running CalyxOS (on a Google Pixel ironically), secondary phone is an AGM M7 (Light version of Android without Google added.)
I use browser isolation, everything Google on chrome, Microsoft on Edge, (Limited and specific FB on Brave) Everything else on Firefox. (Probably should spin out Amazon too at some stage, chromium perhaps?)
Sir John Redwood backs IR35 campaign, notes review would have to start 'immediately' before new off-payroll working rules kick in
Plan to strip post-Brexit Brits of .EU domains now on hold: Registry waves white flag amid political madness
The thing that makes telegram win for me, is that it doesn't require a smartphone, just a mobile able to receive texts.
Signal and Viber need a master smartphone installation, and whatsapp requires that and the phone running.
I'm more worried about the trustworthiness of facebook, rather than the encryption potentially being weaker.
Re: dot UK doomed?
But Irish unification would.
Any Hard Brexit is going to make that far more likely. (Whether it's May's deal, Labour's mythical Turkey with a veto deal or Thelma & Louise exit.)
Scotland leaving would end Great Britain.
If Scotland left first, then the United Kingdom of Britain & Northern Ireland would be viable then the United Kingdom of England and Wales.
If Northern Ireland goes first, The United Kingdom of Great Britain would sound stupid, and be a huge irony.
Of course, not leaving the EEA is likely to avoid imposing all these issues upon ourselves.
Re: Brexit just gets better?
Quite simply, they don't tear up trading arrangements that have been built up over decades.
Our arrangement is that we can trade goods and services in the EU (and EFTA to a lesser extent) as though we are all part of a single country.
When we leave we will be most like Turkey, which will mean goods should be OK, but the services we rely on selling will be cut out of the market.
Of course if a Thelma & Louise Brexit were to be allowed to happen, we'd suddenly be trading with the EU on the same status of Mauritania (minus their everything but arms spacial status, of course)
I installed Windows 10 free upgrade on my PCs
Dual boot with Linux mint.
For the first year I found Windows 10 better than the then current version of Mint.
Then came the significant upgrades.
Windows became glacial on both systems, but Mint improved. So ever since I have been using it as my primary system. Only booting into Windows when specific tasks need it, such as iTunes to redeem codes, but even this has become so tedious, it's easier to dig out a 2004 PowerBook and use that instead.
2G generally does what I need mobile
Instant messages, web pages without the crap, and the extra data my GPS program occasionally needs.
Any multimedia can be loaded at home.
A cheap 2g speed continuous connection is of far more interest to me than a much faster much pricier option.
I can see ultra fast mobile could be a very useful alternative to home broadband for some, though.
By not defining whether leave meant leave the EU but remain in the EEA (perhaps by returning to the EFTA which we left to join the EEC) or leave everything, leave voters were voting for a leap in the dark.
What if we are pushed into a big hole? That's project fear, no one is talking about being pushed into a big hole.
The end result is we are jumping into the hole. (Not being pushed)
So whose fault is it? Those who gave the government an open mandate or those who scammed them into doing so?
"but how many people still want a QWERTY?"
But I'm not paying hundreds of quid for an Android phone to get one.
I did buy a Q5 and it was starting to look good with all the updates fixing the omissions and then they pulled the plug.
So I got a cheap (dual sim) Android tablet phone. I don't see myself changing, (maybe a Gemini).
There is an obvious weakness in telegram
Non secret messages are stored on their servers (as I understand, encrypted and striped across multiple jurisdictions, to require multiple court orders to be accessed).
These are available to any logged in device, and the access by default requires a code from a text. A state could require a telco to intercept this and therefore gain access to the history. (But it can be configured to require a password too).
(This wouldn't provide access to secret messages though.)
Of course this weakness is because of its convenience for multiple device use. (ie friends and family with dumb or otherwise unsupported phones, can still use it on computers and tablets. It can be installed on a work phone, but with a personal number, avoiding the need to carry two phones, etc.)
Re: But if you want to believe that the vote was stolen
Of course it was stolen.
Targeted lies, illegal levels of spending and an ambiguous question.
If you believe the vote is sound you don't believe in democracy.
Either we should be going for the Norway model or there should be a second referendum which actually states leaving the EU & EEA.
And if it turns out that the vote really is sound, then the result would be the same.
But you know it isn't, and don't want your preferred result overturned.
Re: As a country we are relying less and less on EU imports.
As a country we are reliant on selling services to the internal market to pay for all these imports.
If your position were the Norway model then it wouldn't be totally moronic.
It would have problems though. (The biggest being getting your voice counted for this option)
As soon as we can make our own trade deals, rules of origin comes into play, and customs borders are required.
This would be no problem for a country on the way in from outside, (like Norway, that decided that was where it wanted to be).
But for a country that has a peace agreement ending a civil war that depends on no border and manufacturing businesses that have developed to treat the entire EU as one country it is not going to be totally beneficial.
Re: I'd prefer that to my usual hypothesis that it's a bunch of thick racists
I don't think it's as simple as that.
My hypothesis is that it was a perfect storm.
Obviously there were a number of thick racists.
There were a large number of gullible people who accepted untruths as facts. (And the fact that they accepted these lies about foreigners without question, obviously raises the possibility of low level racism. i.e. thinking the worst of people from elsewhere.)
Then there are the vested interests. They know that this Brexit will decimate (at best) the UK economically, socially and Internationally. But that would be to their advantage.
Lawyers and Logistics firms are obviously going to make a mint during the transition.
Investors buying up bankrupt businesses (or even those where the value has dropped for the intellectual property) have a huge opportunity.
Russia would obviously benefit from the UK leaving the EU and no longer disproportionately influencing it in favour of American interests.
There are almost certainly a large number of oligarchs whose profits have been seriously hit by the EU sanctions which we championed. It would certainly make good business sense the invest a sum of money to remove the UK from the EU to prevent such things happening again. (And the added benefit the the UK would effectively place economic sanctions on its biggest sector, poetic justice.)
And they could be pretty sure Putin would not interfere with any such projects.
And Russia is certainly not the only foreign power that the UK out of the EU would benefit.
Re: Iceland and Norway have EEA membership (EFTA)
Switzerland is NOT a member of the EEA. (It has obtained a similar arrangement through decades of trade deals, but there are differences such as banking)
The UK has over 4 times as many citizens as the entire EFTA, so it is unlikely they would be particularly keen on us joining, especially given how much consideration we give to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
However the EU would bend over backwards to allow us to stay in the EEA.
But they certainly wouldn't bend over forwards, which is metaphorically what they would have to do to be compatible with Mrs May's red lines.
So I guess they'll just have to content themselves with 40 billion and a huge chunk of our big businesses.
On topic, the domain issue makes sense, because we are primarily services and those that rely on the internal market will either have to stop trading or relocate. And those are the ones that would need an EU domain.
If you are providing a service that does not need to be under the same regulatory system as the users it would make more sense to have a .com because it would not be limited to the EU/EEA.