EU's Highest Court Delivers Blow To UK Snooper's Charter (theguardian.com) 156
"General and indiscriminate retention" of emails and electronic communications by governments is illegal, the EU's highest court has ruled, in a judgment that could trigger challenges against the UK's new Investigatory Powers Act -- the so-called snooper's charter. From a report on The Guardian: Only targeted interception of traffic and location data in order to combat serious crime -- including terrorism -- is justified, according to a long-awaited decision by the European court of justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg. The finding came in response to a legal challenge initially brought by the Brexit secretary, David Davis, when he was a backbench MP, and Tom Watson, Labour's deputy leader, over the legality of GCHQ's bulk interception of call records and online messages. Davis and Watson, who were supported by Liberty, the Law Society, the Open Rights Group and Privacy International, had already won a high court victory on the issue, but the government appealed and the case was referred by appeal judges to the ECJ. The case will now return to the court of appeal to be resolved in terms of UK legislation.
A Horrible Law (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: A Horrible Law (Score:4, Insightful)
More like try again after you've Brexited and Common Sensexited.
Re: (Score:2)
out of Europe? hmmm that will be interesting, geologically speaking.
A Horrible Law - Agreed (Score:5, Insightful)
Several things interest me about this particular piece of legislation:-
1. It Doesn't Work [1] - When the United States located Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan, it was revealed that no telephone line, no internet connection and no cell phone was connected to the compound in which he lived. In fact, it was a "black spot" for services. Instead, trusted couriers carried encrypted USB sticks by hand. Pretty good OpSec, by all accounts. In other words - the really dangerous terrorists out there do not use the internet to plan their activities or communicate with each-other; they are too smart for that
2. It Doesn't Work [2] - When major incidents have happened [such as was the case with the Paris Attacks, the monitoring of the perpetrators [which had been taking place] was not effective in *STOPPING* the atrocity, it was only useful for telling us that within 24 hours of the incident, the partner of one of the terrorists had fled the country and entered Syria via Turkey. Yes, this might be useful at stopping secondary or tertiary attacks, or at finding the support network, but it won't actually stop the event itself.
3. It Doesn't Work [2] - When investigators looked into the perpetrators of the Boston Bombing in the wake of the marathon attacks, it was again discovered that the perpetrators had been monitored by the security agencies, but that even though they had been "red flagged", the responsible agency had discounted the information because they had so much other data to review. The blanket dragnet meant that they spent all their time triaging initial cuts of data, not enough time following up on reasonable leads.
4. It's An Erosion of the Presumption of Innocence - The fact that *everyone* is caught up in the net [unless you are an MP or member of the judiciary, etc] means that every single person in the UK is presumed guilty of an offence - without being charged. The data is being collected "in case you do something bad"...
5. The Damaging Risk Of Leaks - There have been too many examples of data theft or accidential leakage to bother citing examples here; the fact is that such a treasure-trove of data would be too tempting for organised criminals. In the United States, insurance companies reported that in the wake of the TSA requirement for "approved locks" on all airline luggage, claims against theft of valuables from checked luggage have sky-rocketed. A system set up for one benefit - passenger safety - is being abused by another threat - light-fingered airport staff - resulting in millions being claimed, and tens or hundreds of thousands of passengers becoming victims every year. We should expect the same sort of widespread damage once the data is being collected. Remember - it is not being collected and held by a government agency, but by the telecommunications providers. Like TalkTalk. [ Data Leak Central ].
6. Erosion of Basic Freedoms - Perhaps the most significant change, however, is the way that the relationship between the state and the citizen changes as a result of this. Unlike, say, the US [which has a constitution], the UK has no such basic safety net for human rights. What this means is that more and more powers are being given to government and which are being mis-used.
As an example of this, when researchers looked into a similar and previously enacted piece of legislation [the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act], it was discovered that among the more notable and widespread uses of the law came from actions taken by local councils who were spying on residents suspected of "cheating" the school catchment area process. This is a mechanism by which children are enrolled in schools based on their home address. In other words, they way that legislation is "sold" to voting MPs and the way that it is actually used are two entirely different things.
But lastly, perhaps, is the fact that this would/will put so much power in the hands of the state that it makes the individual citizen defenceless against abuse by that state. And that is a very frightening place for us to be.
Re: (Score:3)
It would be economic suicide if they ever tried to actually make it work. They would need to erect a firewall to keep out all foreign services which don't cooperate, ban VPNs, ban most encryption...
The only way this law can actually work for them is if they abuse it.
Re: (Score:2)
> The fact that *everyone* is caught up in the net [unless you are an MP or member of the judiciary, etc]
as I understand it, their data is still recorded, it's just that the security services (or one of 40+ other agencies which have the right to access that data[1]) have to get a warrant signed by the Home Secretary, and approved by the Prime Minister to access it. of course, I don't know who actually has to ask for that warrant? if the police turn up to an ISP and ask for the data of Helen Jones, does t
Re: (Score:2)
The ability to show political leaders in the UK how the world is more digital and how the GCHQ can collect it all if only they had more staff and got more budget growth.
Overtime in installing new US hardware. Overtime to test new US hardware. Overtime in keeping new US hardware running. Language skills and transl
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to preface this by stating flat out that I don't like the idea of the new UK law. That said...
1. Incorrect. Initial reports stated there was no internet at the compound. Subsequent released showed that there was indeed a fiber cable.
2. You don't always hear what's been stopped, and obviously, you do hear about what slips through. "It Doesn't Work" is only your assumption.
3. The operational failure to snag these two is anecdotal, and only an indication that in the US, the standard for picking s
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the EU is centralizing power and has its own police force that is not answerable to anyone but the European Commission. By the way I'm a Swiss citizen and I never had my personal weapons inspected by anyone, not even my Army-issue rifle that was only inspected when I was in active duty (like all of my stuff down to my boot laces) and never since I was discharged while allowed to keep my weapon (I happen to do a lot of competitive shooting). As for rifles against tanks... If you're stupid enough to go against tanks or against any enemy on their terms you deserve to get wiped away. Never served a day, have you?
Good points. Quoted for exposure.
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to take them with a grain of salt as the initial claim of a European police force is demonstrably not true. The closest thing there is to that is Europol, which:
[...] has no executive powers, and its officials are not entitled to conduct investigations in the member states or to arrest suspects. Europol, in providing support through information exchange, intelligence analysis, expertise, and training, can contribute to the executive measures carried out by the relevant national authorities.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would that matter? (Score:4, Interesting)
Isn't the UK leaving the EU?
Re:Why would that matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So, if the UK implements it anyway, and the EU takes them to court, how long before the trial/conviction? And, how do they go about punishing the UK? Not that I agree with the law, but seriously, why should the UK give a fuck?
Re:Why would that matter? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The UK will not leave the EU until 2 years after Article 50 is triggered.
Re:Why would that matter? (Score:4, Interesting)
it has been 6 months from the referendum result and the government still hasn't even decided what to negotiate for yet
In any industry I think a project manager who had only produced vague statements with nothing concrete for 6 months would be looking at quick receipt of a P45. Maybe even less than 6 months.
Unfortunately we can't get rid of the government for another 3 and a half years. And even then it will be tricky because of boundary changes favouring the Conservative party (which they probably have to hurry and pass while they still have a working majority). Although if they don't get Brexit through there might be some huge swings to UKIP, but I don't think they would ever get enough seats to form the government, and if they do get Brexit through and the leave voters don't immediately find themselves better off they are going to blame the Conservative government. No wonder Cameron resigned.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd like to see some evidence for your assertion that they've produced nothing concrete.
You talk as if Brexit were easy. We're talking about disentangling an entire country's legislative and economic system from decades of cooperation with other countries, with a very real risk of recession and diplomatic repercussions if it's screwed up. I can't see how they'll do that properly in the two years they have, much less six months.
Hell, it probably took them at least six months to figure out in what areas of go
Re: (Score:3)
In any industry I think a project manager who had only produced vague statements with nothing concrete for 6 months would be looking at quick receipt of a P45. Maybe even less than 6 months.
If you're in a situation in any industry where you need to negotiate with your biggest competitor for a hugely favourable deal after gloriously pissing them off and from a really weak starting position with the conditions that negotiations can't even start before a clock is triggered... The project manager would quit within a week. It's an untenable position to be in.
I happily heap shit on the government for a lot of things. Not rushing into negotiations for major international trade deals that will likely
Re: (Score:2)
Umnh... The vote was a non-binding plebiscite. As a matter of law they are not required to follow through with it, only as a matter of politics. The appearance is that as a matter of politics they are posturing as if they are going to follow through, but it's not certain that they actually have that intent. Maybe they do. But only maybe. They still haven't formally requested to leave.
P.S.: The vote was not an agreement. It was closer to a statement of policy. There's LOTs of details that an actual ag
Re:Why would that matter? (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't the UK leaving the EU?
Define: leave.
Seriously, whothefuckknows. The referendum was merely to "leave". There was no vote on what leave means, what qualifies as leave and what the government must or must not do in order to satisfy "leave". Actually technically nothing, since it wasn't binding, but assuming they follow through (seems likely in some form) there's no mandate whatsoever on any particular form of leave.
That's one reason why the referendum was incredibly stupid because it asked an almost completely undefined question. The only thing that "leave" means definitively is not be a voting member of the EU. So, we must lose our influence. However, unless we want to head on over to utter irrelevance, we're still going to have to deal with the EU. That means we will have to sign treaties of some sort which means we will have to agree to behave in a certain way. Because unlike in the bizarre fantasy of many brexiters, no one will sign a trade deal that allows you to do whatever the fuck you want.
So, it may or may not be that we have to agree to be under the remit of this court if we want don't want to be completely shafted. So even if we leave, we may well have to agree to abide by the rulings.
And anyway, we're still a member until up to 2 years (or more!) after Article 50 is invoked which means we're still obligated to abide by the rulings.
Bear in mind that Norway is not a member of the EU. So, while sticking to the only definition of "leave" we have, we could leave and sign a Norway style deal which would mean everything is exactly the same as it is now except we pay more, get a smaller rebate and have no voting rights. We could do that and still "leave". Or we could just close borders, expel all foreigners and fuck right off into the North Sea, or anything in between.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why would that matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because they only want to sort of leave the EU. They're looking for some kind of intermediate state where they have the same access to European markets European companies do. Realistically that means British companies will have to abide by most if not all EU regulations and human rights restrictions.
Brexit would be quite simple if what the UK really wanted is complete independence. Both sides would set up the border crossings and customs stations that started closing down in 60s, and negotiate access to each others markets on a case by case basis. This would be a perfect example. The EU is not going to allow spying on its citizens by a foreign power (the UK), so if the UK wants to sell financial services in the EU it'll just have to agree to be bound by EU human rights rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they could call that intermediate state the "European Common Market" or something?
Re:Why would that matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure. But you're still bound by the rules of that market. UK companies would still be subject to Brussels, however UK/EU relations would take on a distinctly bilateral flavor instead of the old multi-lateral flavor of the old Common Market days. This would put the UK at more of a disadvantage relative to the rest of Europe when it comes to bargaining power, both in comparison to its pre-Brexit position in the EU and it's pre-EU position in the Common Market.
Really the only way for the UK to obtain a more favorable position would be if the entire EU collapses. Which the rest of Europe is keenly aware of. That's why the rest of Europe isn't going to cut Britain any slack on Brexit. If other EU members see that Britain negotiated itself a more favorable position by exiting the EU, then other nations will follow. So there are three possible outcomes:
(1) Britain manages to negotiate a symbolic exit with little de facto impact.
(2) Britain is treated like any other foreign country in the European Market.
(3) The EU collapses and the former members try to salvage something by reviving the old Common Market system.
The only outcome that is potentially economically favorable to Britain is (3). The country that gains the most from Brexit is Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, the UK referrendum vote basically split the country. 51.9% voted leave; 48.1% voted remain, so to say "the UK wants" this or that, is unfounded: we're an entirely divided country on this matter.
Re: (Score:2)
And that is before you take into account the geographical split in the votes. Personally I see two outcomes:
1) The UK gets a Brexit lite deal with all the benefits of being able to say they Brexited but with none of what the people voted for, but economically still in a position to continue trade as previously.
2) The UK gets the full Brexit package and changes its name to Ununited Kingdom as Ireland and Scotland break from the union to re-enter the EU of which they are hugely in favour.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The ironing is delicious (Score:2)
Another judgement to be ignored (Score:5, Informative)
EU also ruled that UK police have to delete it's DNA database of innocent people, but that hasn't happened yet hazzit?
This is about the previous iteration... (Score:2)
It will be replaced by the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. Perhaps this ruling will be used as a precedent for challenges to the latest bill.
Re: (Score:2)
They way I understand the EU "Data Retention Directive" is that telecom, ISP and other communication providers _are obliged_ to retain communication meta data of everybody and everything, for a minimum of 6 months. The UK act might go even further, and the devil is in the details. However, I find it a bit ironic that the EU court strikes down on this, when they have a thorn in their own eye.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Hypocrisy Much? (Score:2)
I find it interesting that the individual, David Davis, who filed the complaint with the EU is also a strong member of the Brexit group.
No, no, no, we do not want to be part of the EU. Oh, wait a minute. We want to take advantage of some of its laws. In that case, well, never mind. But for everything else we need to get out of the EU.
It's good to see that the USA doesn't have a lock on political hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK is still a member of the EU so he really had no alternative.
Also a violation of the Canada-UK data treaty (Score:3, Interesting)
Which applies to all the Canadians working in the UK.
Under the Canadian Constitution, they have an explicit right of Privacy, and this "law" violates the right that treaty protects.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cannot compute... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cannot compute... (Score:4, Insightful)
It strengthens the Remain argument because it shows that of the two governing bodies: UK Parliament and EU, the EU is the one more disposed towards protecting UK citizens' rights.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All the examples you can come up with will be bad, as Britain's veto doesn't disappear because you pose a conundrum. Nothing can be foisted on Britain that it didn't agree with. Every time the British government and the EU disagree on something, it's the EU trying to protect Britain and the British government trying to screw it over. Just last week the EU was standing up for the British steel industry while the British PM was trying to undercut it in order to get a favour with the Chinese government. Th
Re: (Score:2)
"Nothing can be foisted on Britain that it didn't agree with."
Isn't that exactly what this ruling is doing?
Re:Cannot compute... (Score:5, Insightful)
This only strengthens the Leave argument:
Not even slightly.
why should some unelected non-UK people have a say in whatever laws the UK wants to pass for the UK?
Because if you refuse to let some non-elected no UK people have a say in your laws then literally no one will sign a trade deal or treaty with you of any sort. Every deal involves agreeing to behave in a certain way. That means you don't have complete freedom over the laws you pass, if you want to actually stay in the trade deal.
Seems like a rational concern to me.
No, it's an irrational concern by utter fuckwits who don't realise that we always had sovereignty and no one will deal with you if you're an ornery dickhead who refuses to agree to anything.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cannot compute... (Score:5, Insightful)
They can have a say, but not an overruling decision, like what happened here.
So how do you think the EU is actually going to overrule us, eh? All they can do is wag their finger, and tell us what a naughty boy we are and if we keep on not abiding by the rules, kick us out of the club.
And that's precisely the same as every other trade deal ever.
We are and always were a sovereign nation. The EU has neither the ability nor the will to literally enforce anything against us or any other member state. They can say things, take us to court, make pronouncements and ultimately expel us, but under no conceivable circumstances would a complete breakdown agreements lead to anything else. They would send no tanks, no planes and no bombs. They wouldn't however allow our goods, money or people to freely cross the border.
And that is literally all.
I'm curious how you think that's any different from the trade deals we're supposed to be negotiating after we "leave".
It seems that the Stay people are irrational emotional utter fuckwits, but that is just my opinion.
It's interesting that you think that given you show no understanding of the situation at all.
Re: (Score:3)
So basically your argument is that they can't do anything about it really, and the UK is sovereign? So the UK should just stick their tongue out and ignore it, like a boy who finally figured out that his Mom can't spank him now that he is stronger? So what is the point in staying? To create paperwor
Re:Cannot compute... (Score:5, Informative)
You lack reading comprehension as well as any comprehension about what trade deals and treaties mean.
So basically your argument is that they can't do anything about it really
My argument is they can do precisely as much or as little about it as any party we sign a trade deal with in future.
So all your arguments about how the EU is bad because they have a say over our laws and because they have the final say and can overrule us will apply exactly the same to any trade deals we sign.
So unless you're proposing we sign no trade deals in future, then your posistion is inconsistent and irrational.
Amazingly the UK traded successfully with Europe for hundreds of years before the EU existed.
Yes, and look how that ended, not with a whimper but with a bang.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Trade deals can be negotiated without remaining in the EU.
Then other people get to have a say over what laws we can pass, which is precisely what you were whining about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They can be negotiated, they can have a "say", but they can't overrule UK rulings (or claim to have the ability to).
You keep banging on that point, but you've not addressed teh fundamental point.
Both with the EU and any future trading partners, the only sanction any of them ultimately have is to refuse to uphold their side of the deal any longer. In both cases they have a "say" over our laws because we have to do what they want if we wish to keep dealing under the same terms. In neither case do they have
Re: (Score:2)
No need to insult me. There is a difference. The difference is that you think that TRADING partners are going to give a flying fuck about surveillance laws in the UK and change the trading rules based on if they like some random UK surveillance law that applies to UK citizens? Do you think Canada is going to start slapping a tariff on UK umbrellas because they don't like some
Re: (Score:2)
No need to insult me.
No need, but it's fun. And also warranted.
The difference is that you think that TRADING partners are going to give a flying fuck about surveillance laws
Ah, moving the goalposts I see! You complained that they had a say over our laws. You didn't specify it was only *surveillance* laws you cared about. Trading partners will likely want a say over laws such as financial regulations, IP laws, immigration and so on.
So do you mind that? Or do you just take special exception to the EU having a
Re: (Score:2)
This is 100% true, except there is a large subset of laws that trade agreements don't include because they have nothing to do with trade. For EXAMPLE, this surveillance law. This wouldn't be part of any trade agreement. That is the d
Re: (Score:2)
This is 100% true
Case closed.
This wouldn't be part of any trade agreement.
Except potentially a future trade agreement with the EU you mean. Several non-members agreed to abide by the rulings of the european courts in order to get trade deals. Norway, for example.
But I do see your point that the EU rulings are apparently toothless.
That's your claim, not mine. The rulings very much have teeth: they can cease trade with us which would be incredibly damaging for us since we'd lose fully half of our trade.
It al
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So perceptions of something they don't understand, whipped up in a frothy mess by the tabloids eager to sell confirmation bias to their readership. I don't know how you can mention arrogance and unlikeability with a straight face when Britain has Farage, May, Johnson et al. knocking about. If people are going to vote as if this is some sort of popularity contest, then that's another great demonstration of why referendums are for fools and despots. The assumption that Westminster is competent enough to ne
Re: (Score:2)
They can have a say, but not an overruling decision, like what happened here.
So how do you think the EU is actually going to overrule us, eh? All they can do is wag their finger, and tell us what a naughty boy we are and if we keep on not abiding by the rules, kick us out of the club.
That would actually give them more power over us. Right now all the EU can do is say "stahp or I vill ask you to stahp again, jawol". They cant punish the UK in any meaningful way as the UK has veto powers in the EU and restricting trade to the UK whilst it's in the EU would violate the EU's core principles (which they wont do). Once the Brexit begins, they gain power to influence internal policy by restricting trade and as any trade disruption with the EU, which is conservatively 45% of all exports, would
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But Britain had a veto so nothing the EU could do could mess Britain over, rendering your entire argument moot. You are arguing from emotion, not logic.
Re: (Score:2)
if you refuse to let some non-elected no UK people have a say in your laws then literally no one will sign a trade deal or treaty with you of any sort
I'd love to know how you explain China then. Why would the EU deal with them and not the UK? The notion that the EU would trade with China but NOT the UK over this seems a bit far-fetched, doesn't it?
I agree it might make trade deals slightly more difficult, but hardly impossible. I don't have a stake in Brexit and disagree vehemently with the Snoopers law, but I don't think it's going to have any real impact on trade. Because money.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to know how you explain China then.
The EU doesn't have a trade deal with China. Trading is under the WTO rules.
Why would the EU deal with them and not the UK?
I'm sure the EU would trade with us under WTO rules if not trade deal was signed.
he notion that the EU would trade with China but NOT the UK over this seems a bit far-fetched, doesn't it?
Yes, and if you think I meant that then you need to go back and carefully read what I wrote.
I agree it might make trade deals slightly more difficult, but har
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't seem to know your history. There was successful trade in the UK for hundreds of years, and countless wars. Now there is even better trade with the EU, Britain has a loud voice on the global stage (due to its position in the Anglosphere and the EU), and lots of negotiating power due to that. If it leaves the EU it will be a bit player on the side, with precious little to negotiate with (as other countries don't see much value in appeals to history and the greatness of an empire which ceased to b
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry. Your wrong here.
No you're not and no I'm not.
The Leave argument that our own court can be overruled by EU court in exchange for tariff free trade (note this is not the same as free trade) is demonstrated in this case.
OK, clearly you didn't actually read my post.
I'll spell it out one more time.
Tell me what being "overruled" means? How do they enforce that? The only mechanism they have to enforce it is to refuse to honour their side of the agreements they have with us.
Can you now explain how that
Re: (Score:3)
why should some unelected non-UK people have a say in whatever laws the UK wants to pass for the UK?
Because you agreed to that in the 50's? Anyway, in this particular case, it is because the UK court of appeal (nominated by lawyers) asked for an opinion from European Court of Justice (nominated by governments). ECJ is of the opinion that the law as it is violates the human rights and privacy of EU citizens.
If the UK court agrees, and rules accordingly, then it's possible to challenge the snooper's charter in UK courts. Case by case.
That's all it is. Self-nominating bunch of layers asked the opinion of
Re: (Score:2)
EXACTLY. But now we don't agree with it any more. Thus Brexit. Case closed. Not too hard to grasp.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it help to know why that agreement was made in the first place, before deciding to tear it down? What was the reason for signing it, what benefits were gained? And once you understand what's at stake, only then choose to stick with it or renegotiate it or whatever.
The issue with Brexit was that a few well-chosen lies (e.g. Brexit bus) can drown out large amounts of boring and tedious truth. This is an increasingly commonplace situation.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU parliament is in fact elected like any other parliament, and without it's approval EU commissioners can not be seated.
Also, and it is astounding that I have to spell this out, past UK governments have of course agreed and consented to be bound by the EU human rights charter, that they are now violating.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that the human rights charter that we mostly wrote in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
No, but I'll take it, you think the Magna Carta will suffice in the 21st century.
Good luck with that!
Re: (Score:2)
Because you get something in return (Score:2)
Directly or indirectly, the UK people get some benefit in exchange for ceding that influence. This is the basis for every international treaty and agreement ever. This is why those treaties were signed in the first place.
Is this not obvious?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm imagining here, but I reckon Brexitards are cool with the Snooper's Charter and big goverment surveillance. Partly because they're mortally fearful, cowardly people who want the government to give them the warm fuzzies by spying on them, and partly because they're fucking cunts.
Yeah, but its's fun to see them try and fail to withdraw money from an empty account a whole two years before payday. Brexiteers may get a stiffy at the mere thought of living in a society with 1984 level surveillance but they'll have to wait at least another two years before they are able to stroke that particular pole and achieve total surveillance nirvana.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the democracy in the charter? (Score:2, Insightful)
It certainly wasn't what people asked for. Some faceless bureaucrat I have nothing in common with in Whitehall made this crap up, paid some ivory tower solicitors a bloody fortune that immediately left the country for a tax haven to write it without all the talk of WHAT THE GODDAMNED LAW WAS FOR, and the same bureaucrats ALSO wrote themselves out from under the law.
Not democratic at all. Autocratic? Yes. Democratic? No.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't any law of mine. So I suppose by "our" you mean "that of the elected government". The bunch of twats in Westminster in a government I most certainly didn't vote for, but have to live with as the will of the majority (if you can call it that in light of our antiquated election system)..
Just like the European Court of Justice is that of the elected EU parliament, the one you had the opportunity to vote and appoint, and have to live with as the will of the majority.
Re: (Score:2)
a court which has nothing to do with Britain has decided that our laws are rubbish and its will is imposed on the people of Britain.
You democratically chose for that to be possible when you decided to join the EU. Of course, now that you democratically chose to leave the EU, once you do leave you can simply democratically re-pass the Snooper's Charter. Of course that may be the least of your worries as, as condition for your continued access to trade with and easy travel access to EU members, the EU basically forces you to abide by all current and future EU regulations. Regulations you now have no ability to change, challenge, or con
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazingly the UK traded with Europe for thousands of years before the EU appeared.
That's quite amazing given that the UK is only a shade over 300 years old.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I meant hundreds,
You're not very good at saying what you mean.
Amazingly the UK traded with Europe for HUNDREDS of years before the EU appeared.
England and then the UK also fought with them for HUNDREDS of years before the EU appeared. So your point is what precisely? We should return to a historic state of affairs with major land campaigns?
I don't think our history with Euorpe is one to look back on as some sort of model unless you have a thing for slaughter on an industrial scale.
No one needs the EU to tr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see.
No, you really don't.
So you are saying...
I'm merely pointing out that the period of history you're holding up as a positive example is a terrible one. Or does history only count if it supports your point, and is irrelevant if it doesn't?
You're tying to make glib points with naive reference to history, but you don't seem to realise how facile it is to cherry pick only the bit of history that you personally like. It's every bit as valid to cherry pick war as it is to cherry pick trade.
. So you are sayi
Re: (Score:2)
Ah ok. Makes sense.
However you are lying: you are the one who mentioned "trade deals" at the beginning and kept going on on and on about it:
Me: why should some unelected non-UK people have a say in whatever laws the UK wants to pass for the UK?
You: Because if you refuse to let some non-elected no UK people have a say in your laws then literally no one will sign a trade deal or treaty with you of any sort.
So you can see, you are the one who brou
Re: (Score:2)
However you are lying:
Ah more post factuality from a Brexiteer. As expected.
I said "trade deals" is where your argument falls apart. I didn't say you brought up trade deals. Or do you propose that nothing will happen with respect to trade deals with non EU countries as a result of Brexit.
Discussing Brexit without reference to trade deals misses one of the most important things that's yet to be determined.
Me:
You:
Yes? You still haven't countered that point.
Do you propose that no trade deals are made?
So you ca
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't even given any arguments why Leave is correct.
Are you claiming that the following is not a rhetorical question?
why should some unelected non-UK people have a say in whatever laws the UK wants to pass for the UK??
Are you further claiming this isn't an argument:
The EU is going to fall apart anyway, you might as well get out now.
And this isn't a rather strong implication:
I think it would be better to leave, rather than ignore. Good thing most people agree with me.
And this isn't an argument:
It seems
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, regional stability is one of the many reasons.
Bollocks - regional stability has sweet f-all to do with the EU, despite what the EU administration would like you to think.
The only reason there is peace in Europe is because of NATO - something which pre-dates the EU political concept. Three of the largest contributors to Nato in manpower, money, equipment etc are non-mainland countries: US, UK and Turkey. The only mainland country who takes it seriously are the French.
Oh and the fact the previous uppity German leader was finally removed. Before that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)