Hurry up and make a deal on post-Brexit data flows, would you? Think of UK business – MPs The UK government has been told to urgently start negotiations for a data adequacy deal with the European Union – or risk damaging business and placing a prohibitive burden on small firms. The warning comes in a report from the House of Commons' Exiting the European Union Committee, which looks specifically at the UK's …
Actually there's a very simple explanation for this; most MPs, like most of the population, already have a fixed view on Brexit. Those who backed Remain don't need to read the reports (which are notoriously lacking in detail anyway) to know that Brexit is going to be a complete clusterfuck and an economic disaster. Likewise the Leavers are so into their unicorn-filled cloud-cuckoo land that the reports could say Brexit will reduce the UK to a third-world country (and back it up with evidence) and they would dismiss it as Project Fear, so they're not going to read them.
Hopefully the MPs that have read them are 83 Leavers who are now hsving second thoughts about the wisdom of their actions...
they need to ...
They don't actually need to do anything. We've said we're leaving, we've named the date. There is no obligation on the EU to enter into any form of special arrangement after March 2019. It might be in their interests to do so, if the terms were right for them but they are perfectly entitled to just walk away with a "so long and thanks for all the fish"...
Of course they don't need to but I think everyone when looking at brexit fails to see the simple truth that it's going to hit them as well as us or does everyone believe that the EU is immune to any problems caused by no deal? I'm unsure why I'm getting down voted for speaking the truth, the EU has no jurisdiction over America yet they have a data deal so I'm sorry but why should we be any different, oh wait I know, it's because not only are our politicians stupid and vindictive but it's the same for the EU. Idiots the lot of them.
When the data stops flowing between the EU and America I'll believe it, they just stopped article 13. so I think I can have a nice smug of tea. I'm right you're all wrong, America has influence we don't but using the excuse of legislative control smacks of little EU muppits using everything they can to get the deal they want without realising it's going to cost them as well. I'm not a fan of brexit but as things progress I hope the EU fails because any nation built on pettiness isn't going to end up in a nice place. Look at their new immigration tactics, immigration centres, that's a nice move. Not sure where I've seen the EU target people by race before, pretty sure it didn't end well.
Isn't it currently the second iteration of the USA-EU data deal after the first one was thrown out for being illegal?
Not to mention the fact that the 'current' deal is seen as having serious shortcomings and is due to be binned by the EU in 2 months unless the US can agree to something substantially different.
Given that the US has failed to come up with an adequate (ahem) adequacy agreement over a number of years, and that this is just one of a vast number of things the UK will have to agree in a much shorter time scale, or risk serious economic damage as a result, surely it's time to UK.GOV to 'fess up and admit brexit is a total clusterfuck and call the whole thing off before we throw this country into a recession that will make the great depression, Black Friday and The 2007 crash rolled together look like a picnic in the park.
@codejunky
The reality is that experts in every field are saying that they will be damaged by brexit and are stating in detail how this will happen. The leavers have not been able to come up with one single argument about how leaving the EU will improve the lot of the British voter that stands up to even mild scrutiny,and they have now had plenty of time to do so. This includes pretty much anything you have posted here yourself.
Of course, pointing out the many and profound failings of brexit is just 'project fear', and 'doing Britain down'.
People are finally starting to realise that those who shout the loudest frequently have the least to say.
@ Loyal Commenter
"The reality is that experts in every field are saying that they will be damaged by brexit and are stating in detail how this will happen"
Are they? Would this be the experts who predicted 2 of the last 0 recessions and now claim it will be after brexit at some point (oddly coinciding with the business cycle). Osborne and Carney arguing against what the treasury and BoE have been aiming for since 2008 and are still doing? Hang on, are these the same experts who said we would suffer badly for not being in the Euro years ago?
"The leavers have not been able to come up with one single argument about how leaving the EU will improve the lot of the British voter that stands up to even mild scrutiny"
Except on topics of sovereignty, economics, immigration, trade, etc? I have this discussion regularly on here and remain arguments dont stack up and fall in the face of reality. But of course we are all still doomed or something.
"Of course, pointing out the many and profound failings of brexit is just 'project fear', and 'doing Britain down'."
Such as a punishment budget, Osborne and Carney arguing against the aims of the treasury and BoE, predicting 2 of the last 0 recessions, etc.
"People are finally starting to realise that those who shout the loudest frequently have the least to say."
Recognising the problem is the first step. I wondered how long remain propaganda could continue before this was realised.
Would this be the experts who predicted 2 of the last 0 recessions
No, it's the vast majority of business leaders1, scientists2, and economists3 in this country who are becoming increasingly worried about the government's harebrained schemes to screw them over for the sake of political expediency. Not to mention experienced and sane elder statesmen4 Many of whom are a great deal more knowledgeable and intelligent than you or I.
1e.g. the CBI's letter against brexit, signed by 1280 of them.
2Such as Mike Galsworthy, and Scientists for EU. I don't see any large groups of scientists gathering together in favour of brexit. Probably because understanding science requires a working brain.
3for example, this. Where are the Nobel Laureates saying that brexit is a good thing? The leavers have that one discredited guy whose name I forget, but I'm sure you have previously quoted.
4Such as Lord Adonis. Although I appreciate that anyone to the left of Thatcher is probably considered to be an extremist in your eyes.
@ Loyal Commenter
"No, it's the vast majority of business leaders, scientists, and economists"
The representation of big businesses? Yeah they are complaining (nobody cares about the small). Scientists reliant on EU hand outs? They are complaining, Really! Economists? Some yes, and assuming we do stupid things they complain such as the maximum WTO tariffs or continue as if we are in the EU.
"Many of whom are a great deal more knowledgeable and intelligent than you or I."
Of that I can be certain and I wouldnt claim to know more. Instead I weigh up the evidence, just like the Euro debate years back, and I weigh up the facts, just like the Euro debate years back, and I back whichever seems the most reasonable, just like the Euro debate years back. I remember we were doomed back then too.
"Unless you can come up with a verifiable source for that, which confirms the statement, in context, I'm calling bullshit on that, and pretty much everything you have posted here today."
Understandable-
https://brexitcentral.com/beware-negotiating-giant-eu-jellyfish/
http://www.continentaltelegraph.com/politics/as-donald-tusk-says-theres-no-point-in-negotiating-with-the-eu-over-brexit/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/04/30/eu-issues-brexit-negotiating-platform-this-is-toddler-stuff-not-adult/#5957da7f7ede
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/836592/Brexit-news-former-eurocrat-predicts-EU-UK-trade-deal-is-impossible
and of course we all know of the 3 demands before any negotiation is allowed.
@ Rich 11
"Are you accusing them of having red lines all of their own, cunningly disguised as founding principles? How dare they!"
Nope. Just that they dont want to negotiate. We are either in or out.
I'd just like to point out, that links to newspaper articles (especially the likes of the Daily Express, or the Telegraph), and links to pro-brexit propaganda sites are not in the class of things generally considered to be verifiable sources. Try again.
Now, if those articles have references to verifiable studies (preferably peer-reviewed, or review papers representing the opinions of a majority of experts in the field), and you are able to provide those, then all is good. I posit that you are not able to do so, and that such things do not, in fact, exist. Your opinions are exactly that - opinions, and as such, unfounded.
@ Loyal Commenter
"I'd just like to point out, that links to newspaper articles (especially the likes of the Daily Express, or the Telegraph), and links to pro-brexit propaganda sites are not in the class of things generally considered to be verifiable sources."
So you want reports of the negotiation process where the negotiators are refusing to negotiate, but not from news reports of the negotiation process and only from pro-remain sources as you consider them reliable? I guess you also expect other people to be blindfolded and hog tied when competing with them?
"Now, if those articles have references to verifiable studies (preferably peer-reviewed, or review papers representing the opinions of a majority of experts in the field)"
That the EU negotiators demand money, Irish border and interference in a foreign country before they will 'negotiate'? You want peer reviewed by only what you call experts? Do you work for the cigarette companies disproving they cause cancer? Surely the actions and words of the very negotiators should be enough to discuss this? At least honestly.
@Codejunky - "So you want reports of the negotiation process where the negotiators are refusing to negotiate"
I think this is the wrong thing to say today, given what is on the news, every hour today, namely T.May's weekend away at Chequers to try and get some agreement from her Cabinet, which she can then take to the EU. Until she has something to offer and which can be discussed, I don't see what the EU negotiators can do other than ask 'polite' questions...
However, the signs are that either the Cabinet willl fail to reach agreement or the agreement they reach won't be acceptable to Mogg et al and so gets shredded by the ardent Brexiteers in the Conservative party. In which case what should the EU negotiators do?
@ Roland6
"T.May's weekend away at Chequers to try and get some agreement from her Cabinet"
I doubt she will get that. By now we should have walked away, this clinging on is not useful. The EU have rejected our proposals, we dont want to be bent over (and have no reason to) so job done.
"However, the signs are that either the Cabinet willl fail to reach agreement or the agreement they reach won't be acceptable to Mogg et al and so gets shredded by the ardent Brexiteers in the Conservative party. In which case what should the EU negotiators do?"
To be honest I cant speak for what the EU negotiators should do. I dont even think they have the freedom to think about that. While not a good thing for the EU our base and so far best position is to leave with no deal. If the EU can recover from having its feelings hurt (and not look weak to its members) it could try for a mutually beneficial deal, but they dont seem interested and that is their prerogative. We cant tell the EU what to do and they have no position to dictate to us. We should split amicably with or without a deal.
@codejunky - We cant tell the EU what to do and they have no position to dictate to us.
I think you are totally missing the point: The UK government cannot agree on what it actually wants to tell the EU it wants!
If the Cabinet fails to reach an agreement this weekend on what it wants and that includes walking away, the UK government (and by implication "the UK") looks stupid to the world - what a great way to start a whole set of new trade negotiations...
@ Roland6
"If the Cabinet fails to reach an agreement this weekend on what it wants and that includes walking away, the UK government (and by implication "the UK") looks stupid to the world - what a great way to start a whole set of new trade negotiations..."
Very true. The remain position cannot be defended, should not be defended and would be amazingly embarrassing to bow down to. We had the vote, the result was clear by the rules of the referendum and there is no grey area.
Unfortunately that assumes democracy and choice. If we dont leave the EU it proves we are trapped there and democracy comes second to the gravy train.
@codejunky
Its interesting, I've read your responses in this thread and come to the conclusion that Lord Commenter said way up near the beginning.
Instead of providing solid information as to how Brexit will improve our country, you have instead spent your time attacking everyone from Corbyn to the CBI to the EU. You give vague notions about sovereignty, ignoring the reality that sovereignty is always there - until we sign a trade agreement, at which point we have given away that bit of sovereignty for the duration of that deal. You hand wave about trade, ignoring the fact that our borders aren't currently capable of handling the volume of import/export declarations/inspections required under WTO rules.
The list goes on, but in reality, your arguments are just vague. Come on, give us a single hard and fast way Brexit will improve our country. Something measurable, something that people will actually be affected by.
@ localzuk
"Instead of providing solid information as to how Brexit will improve our country, you have instead spent your time attacking everyone from Corbyn to the CBI to the EU"
Interesting. Since Loyal Commenter's comment was an attack on brexit and I 'fixed' it and so the thread continued I would suggest it is more a response to what was said. You might want to note that me and Roland6 agree over the performance of this gov even though we hold our different views.
Why should I provide solid information for the improvements from brexit when I am instead pointing out the lack of foundations supporting the remain argument? I have previously explained various benefits of leaving but it usually just leaves die hard remainers crying off.
"You give vague notions about sovereignty, ignoring the reality that sovereignty is always there"
This is actually one of the topics die hard remainers cry off in discussion. Sovereignty isnt always there (unless you mean over there in the EU). Proven by the EU managing all of our trade negotiations on our behalf (as part of the block), dictating laws, etc. We have sovereignty by leaving and being able to make our own way. Amusingly Junker has suggested taking more sovereignty from members (or the members 'surrender' it) over foreign affairs.
"You hand wave about trade, ignoring the fact that our borders aren't currently capable of handling the volume of import/export declarations/inspections required under WTO rules."
I am not sure which way to tear this apart. I have already ripped into this gov on other topics due to remainers (PM, gov, civil service) failing to prepare the country for brexit when it is their job. Or I could accept that we will do more trade, which isnt a bad thing. Or that we are a WTO member in our own right and if being in the EU has caused our leaders to forget how to run a country then we certainly need to be out.
"The list goes on, but in reality, your arguments are just vague."
But not as vague as the doom and gloom coming. The end of western civilisation! Etc.
"Come on, give us a single hard and fast way Brexit will improve our country"
Pick a topic- economic, trade, immigration, sovereignty, democracy.
So, you start your post with an immediate attack on Loyal Commenter. There is a big difference between attacking the concept of Brexit, and attacking the people and organisations that don't like Brexit. One is normal behaviour, the latter is the behaviour of people with no real arguments.
"Why should I provide solid information for the improvements from brexit when I am instead pointing out the lack of foundations supporting the remain argument?"
Lack of foundations? Odd idea, as the remain argument is backed by decades of excellent growth, the ability for Brits to move freely across Europe, and to move there (something a couple of million of Brits have done), security co-operation in the form of the European Arrest Warrant, passporting of finance services. The list goes on. We have all those things simply by being in the EU. When we leave, if we want anything like them, we have to negotiate to regain them - and when we do, we have to accept conditions for them, and then not have any say in the regulations regarding them.
You also fundamentally misunderstand sovereignty. Sovereignty is the power to pull the UK out of the EU. It is the power to change the UK's laws. Both of which the UK government has always had the power to do. Opting to be a part of the EU diminishes sovereignty just as much as signing a trade deal does. You lose whatever abilities you agree to in the treaty, and only get them back to the fullest possible extent if you end that treaty. Same with the EU.
With trade. I think you misunderstand. We don't have the border capability to handle our *current* amount of EU trade going through all the same procedures as international trade. Just look at the port of Dover. Operation Stack will become a permanent thing. It will massively damage the JIT nature of UK trade flows. There's zero evidence that leaving the EU will increase our trade, and plenty to show it will reduce it - simply by making a percentage of our trade with the EU not cost-effective. Even if they do magically get the technological and procedural aspects of border controls in place in time, you still have the added bureaucracy of now treating the EU like the rest of the world - a lot of small businesses will simply shut down those parts of the business.
So, another post and absolutely no solid way the UK will benefit from Brexit, but lots more obfuscation and attacks.
OK, give us an economic or trade benefit.
@ localzuk
"So, you start your post with an immediate attack on Loyal Commenter."
Nope. Not unless you have a very broad snowflake idea of attack. My first reply to Loyal Commenter was correcting his attack on brexit.
"There is a big difference between attacking the concept of Brexit, and attacking the people and organisations that don't like Brexit."
Wise words. So feel free to now go bitch to those who attack me personally instead of the topic... *tumble-weed*. Or is it different depending what they support?
"Odd idea, as the remain argument is backed by decades of excellent growth"
So? Are you seriously claiming one of the longest booms which occurred globally with the rise of China, booming US and so on that it is because of the EU? In that case you must be absolutely against the EU because the 2008 recession was bounced out of by the US and UK and more but the EU is rears behind after self inflicting incredible damage!
"Sovereignty is the power to pull the UK out of the EU"
Then lets demonstrate that sovereignty, we have 2 elections and a referendum to get this vote, the result and confirm it so time to leave, why is this still a discussion? Oh right, some people dont want us to leave and think their opinion should be worth more than others.
Also I disagree with you anyway. Quick google search definition-
sovereignty: the authority of a state to govern itself or another state. "national sovereignty"
synonyms: autonomy, independence, self-government, self-rule, home rule, self-legislation, self-determination, non-alignment, freedom
That previous governments without agreement of the population (and against the populations wishes) gave away UK sovereignty and the continued determination by the gov to keep us in does not fit with that definition.
"We don't have the border capability to handle our *current* amount of EU trade going through all the same procedures as international trade."
Which is something that can change. Saying 'its too hard so lets not' is a poor excuse for the gov to fail to run the country. If the govs have been made so incapable from so many years off-shoring it to the EU then we need out and to fix our government.
"There's zero evidence that leaving the EU will increase our trade, and plenty to show it will reduce it"
Then why complain that we cant handle trade if you think there will be less? I disagree with you but in your scenario it isnt so much a problem.
"a lot of small businesses will simply shut down those parts of the business."
Possible. But a lot of small businesses are domestic and suffer the EU heavy hand. For example the white van man fined for not littering. All for an increase in bureaucracy which is unnecessary.
"OK, give us an economic or trade benefit."
I like how you bitch I havnt provided an answer then after say which you would like me to answer.
Economic- We are already seeing economic benefits as our overvalued currency (claimed before the referendum) fell. The reaction to the recession in the US was gov stimulus and bailing out various business, UK gov stimulus, EU inaction. The US bounced out of recession into 'stagflation', the UK bounced out of recession but couldnt get inflation going, EU panic response to avoid deflation. The US under Trump is blowing up the deficit by taking less in tax than it spends but is booming, the UK after the vote to leave has mild inflation, the EU is still trying to recover its economy.
Economically we had threats from (airbus?) they might not increase investment if we brexit. While JCB invests with barely a whisper. Manufacturing improved, confidence etc. We have full employment and wages rising. For those mistaking that for being in the EU, the EU looks nothing like that.
EU regulation is a burden. Like it or not their interference costs us. While this will make greenies cry our co2 limiting and focus on power generation from 'renewables' is increasing energy bills and achieving little (except monuments to the sky). Recycling targets to bring members to the lowest common denominator make no sense when the land is different in different countries. Dictating the power of home appliances to the members is moronic. It has nothing to do with them. All come with economic cost.
Trade- Currently we are in the EU which means no signing of trade agreements and we must apply EU tariffs and regulations. The reason some cry that farming will falter is because food will be cheaper after we leave if we dont apply EU high protectionist tariffs. That is a common good for everyone in the country. Drop the regulations domestically and we can make things domestic and for export for places outside the EU!
While trade deals are not the be all end all they are useful. So we can negotiate deals with the UK in mind, instead of it having to please 27 other countries.
"Except on topics of sovereignty, economics, immigration, trade"
Those are all points that are either unaffected by Brexit, or made worse:
1. Sovereignty. EU members keep their sovereignty. Yes, a few matters are delegated to the EU but (as Poland and Hungary are currently showing in an unpleasant way) sovereign powers are not removed.
1a. Since Brexit would make both N.Ireland and Scotland much more likely to leave the UK within a few years, the sovereignty argument rings pretty hollow anyway.
2. Economics. Every serious analysis shows that Brexit will be disastrous for the UK economy. Multiple industrial groups have started moving operations out; the others are begging the government for a very, very soft Brexit. These aren't commentators or academics: these are literally the captains of industry. If they're worried, I'm worried.
3. Immigration won't stop after Brexit: when we need workers, they will come. Most people don't come here except to work, anyway.
4. Trade. See point 2. If we lose all our free trade agreements overnight as well as losing free access to the EU market, our trade in both goods and services will not stop dead, but it will decline dramatically, the balance of payments will get much worse, the £ will collapse further, and the country will be impoverished. Do you think food's expensive now? Just wait for Brexit.
@ Yes Me
"1. Sovereignty. EU members keep their sovereignty"
Erm, no. Otherwise we can ditch the EU regulations for the domestic market and organise our own trade outside the EU. Amusingly the remain argument that members keep their sovereignty runs opposite to the remain argument that the EU stops govs from doing extreme things.
"1a. Since Brexit would make both N.Ireland and Scotland much more likely to leave the UK within a few years, the sovereignty argument rings pretty hollow anyway."
Actually no it doesnt, it actually enhances the argument to claim that. Scotland is unlikely to leave the UK, they didnt even want to when they had a referendum but now there isnt much will for it. Where the idea NI want to leave the UK came from I have no idea. If they did I am not particularly for or against it.
"2. Economics. Every serious analysis shows that Brexit will be disastrous for the UK economy"
That works well as long as you ignore fact. Once we introduce fact such ideas fall hard. The industry begging to remain you speak of is the CBI, so thats big business covered and most of the economy ignored. So lets start with what has happened, the facts. We vote leave, the currency fell a bit (from being overvalued) and suddenly the economy improved. This expectation was backed by Osborne and Carney (presented as bad but their aims since 2008-present), King and the outcome being the desired outcome to improve our economy. If we actually leave the EU the protectionism of the EU no longer applies, which reduces import costs. The particular import cost of interest being food as it affects the entire country rich or poor and is a stimulus, effectively a wage rise.
"3. Immigration won't stop after Brexit: when we need workers, they will come. Most people don't come here except to work, anyway."
And at no point did I expect it would stop. However instead of letting anyone from the 'approved' countries wander in we can apply a better system. I say this having friends world wide who basically had to come here as students or wives of immigrants here as students or are pretty much excluded from coming here. The exception being the EU friends who have no problem wandering over and finding employment. Why must it be so difficult for those outside the EU and so easy for those within?
"4. Trade. See point 2. If we lose all our free trade agreements overnight as well as losing free access to the EU market, our trade in both goods and services will not stop dead"
Good news for you, that shouldnt happen anyway. The gov should be organising trade agreements with the queue already to be signed the minute we leave. But trade agreements are not the be all end all, removing the protectionism of the EU will also solve the problem too. The amusing idea that the UK will become impoverished assumes something drastic like Corbyn taking power.
Now lets think through the alternative- the EU. There is no denying without serious delusion that the EU is in multiple crises and mostly self inflicted. The Euro which should have collapsed as eurosceptics predicted was instead continued to the serious damage of economies and the serious impoverishment (your choice of words) of Greece. The damage being so bad that their heath service stopped and relied on the generosity of private drug companies. They are a global threat to financial stability and you want to remain chained to that?
They have a migration crisis thanks to a huge mistake by Merkel which the EU for some reason accepted and adopted. The EU now considering prison camp style accommodation for asylum seekers and migrants while desperately paying migrants to go away.
And the political crisis where the EU is becoming as popular as a burning bag of excrement on the porch. The Greeks failed attempt to rebel as the country was purchased by the EU, Italy voting for a anti-EU and anti-Euro parties to run the country (the EU fearing a rerun as they would gain further majority) and of course the French voting for a president to reform the EU and second place to the national front. The French president admitting the French would possibly vote out if given a choice. And those are but a few.
>The industry begging to remain you speak of is the CBI, so thats big business covered and most of the economy ignored.
Not just big business.
http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/16337319.majority-of-small-firms-in-swindon-have-no-confidence-in-government-over-brexit/
49% were negative or very negative about the outcome of negotiations.
65% were negative or very negative about perception of the government's communications.
Only a small opinion poll of businesses, but this was in a majority leave area and business of all size in this area is against it.
@AC
"49% were negative or very negative about the outcome of negotiations.
65% were negative or very negative about perception of the government's communications."
I can very well believe that considering the gov seems to be trying to force a negotiation with the EU that doesnt want to, we are either in or out. But the CBI want to remain in the EU, the source you link is the unsatisfactory performance of the gov to advice on the way forward. Two very different things.
Wanting to leave the EU and thinking our gov is doing a good job are two different things.I am sure you will find plenty leave voters unhappy with the gov.
Now that's simply not true.
For any voter who's a competent speculator the wildly swinging exchange rates and commodities prices will be a boom time.
"Cheap holidays in other peoples misery" as The Sex Pistols sang.
Of course such people are already likely in the top 5% of UK earners, but you can never be too rich, can you?
@ Roland6
"The UK gov needs to fess up and admit the EUUK gov is a total clusterfuck and thats why we are calling it off."
I am not sure either side will argue with you there :) although I still stand by my contribution.
"It is interesting that the EU is worried that T.May's government may not survive to complete the Brexit negotiations..."
May is a weak remainer with the leadership of the man at the back. The EU are probably glad they dont have to deal with someone with a spine and willing to handle brexit. This would have been over by now.
A fitting metaphor, given that the people in charge of Brexit are behaving like they're a sandwich short of a picnic.
A better analogy, in my mind, is the bunch of spivs who have convinced everyone that a swarm of killer bees are coming and that they should run away and abandon their picnics in the sun to hide away in a cellar eating gruel, whilst they snaffle up all the sandwiches and pork pies for themselves.
Of the course EU member states will feel the effect of a No Deal. Some states (Ireland, Belgium, Netherlands) more than others (Italy, Czech Republic). Some will likely even benefit, Slovakia is fast becoming the EU's car manufacturing powerhouse (and the world leader in cars produced per capita). They would love to see more companies follow Jaguar Land Rover and move production from the UK to Slovakia.
That there will be an effect is obvious and that is the reason the EU has been preparing for a No Deal for some time. What can not be underestimated is the asymmetry of the effects. Even the worst off EU member state will not be as impacted as the UK. All 27 parties on the other side of the table are aware of this, which is why Brexit is not top of the agenda for them.
All in all, there will be a EU-UK data deal at some point but it will be on the EU's terms and probably highly dependent on what agreement there will be on services. Most of the discussion seems to have been on goods so far while services are much more important for the UK as they make up 80% of British GDP.
"the EU has no jurisdiction over America yet they have a data deal"
Not necessarily. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/07/05/privacy_shield_under_pressure_meps_vote/
"I'm unsure why I'm getting down voted for speaking the truth"
In politics the truth can change PDQ. Harold Wilson knew that.
not only are our politicians stupid and vindictive but it's the same for the EU
People get the politicians they vote for. It's the fault of the British voters that the European Parliament is stuffed with useless UKIP MEPs. It's also the fault of the British media that led many by the nose to voting for kippers for MEPs and tories for MPs. It's no coincidence that we are deemed to have the most right-wing press in the free world, where the likes of The Scum and Daily Heil loudly proclaim that we should dismantle arms of government (the judiciary, the Lords) because of their independence from those MPs.
@Loyal Commentator I agree completely with you. What's really ironic is that the House of Lords (which the nazi-like Scum and Heil used to love) is unelected even though they seem to be rather more interested in the welfare of the British population than the elected house. They seem to be the primary home for politicians who have guts, unlike the bulk of the Conservative & Labour ones in the House of Commons.
@ Loyal Commenter
Sorry sir but I'm going to have to disagree with you in the strongest terms possible.
The politicians we vote for have their own agenda that has nothing to do with manifestos or what they present to the public at election time.
e.g. Snoopers charter though there are many many more.
You:
I think everyone when looking at [B]rexit fails to see the simple truth that it's going to hit them as well as us
Article:
However, EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier has indicated that the UK's suggestions might not be possible, saying that a data adequacy decision "can only be taken once we are able to assess the new UK legal framework".
Michel does not seem too worked-up about the effects of a non-deal, do you not think ? He is playing time, they have plenty, we have but little left ... in the meantime, banks and businesses are moving to EU-land, all thanks to that bastard, but can we blame him ? He is defending his courtyard ...
Which way do you think the data is going to flow in a hypothetical UK-US data deal? It certainly won't be from Google or Facebook to us.
And the EU won't allow the US access to EU data via a UK free-for-all slurpgrab. They have the GDPR, if the UK doesn't implement it then there will be no UK-EU data deal.
So any UK-US data deal is just yet another exercise in Brexit foot-gun national humiliation.
"They have the GDPR, if the UK doesn't implement it then there will be no UK-EU data deal."
In theory this should be straightforward as we have a new DPA which implements GDPR more or less. It's the more or less bit that's the problem, namely the wriggle-room HMG left itself to do as it pleases. If anything stands in the way of an adequacy agreement that's it.
My understanding is that, whilst still in the EU, the ICO is a recognised EU body governing the implementation of GDPR. As such, it can play reasonably fast-and-loose with the rules until it gets reigned in for some transgression or other.
Outside the EU, the ICO is not an EU body, so for an adequacy agreement, it needs to be a whole lot more transparent in its workings, to the satisfaction of the ECJ.
I may be a little hazy on the details, but I think that's the gist of it.
"And the EU won't allow the US access to EU data via a UK free-for-all slurpgrab. They [the EU] have the GDPR, if the UK doesn't implement it then there will be no UK-EU data deal."
Precisely. The only legal way of accessing data covered by the GDPR is to be compliant with the GDPR. That is the whole point of it; access of that data without GDPR compliance would be illegal. Thus, the EU would have to regard itself as breaking its own law if it provided access outside of the GDPR.
To be fair, all the so called Red Lines were a personal introduction by Theresa May months after the referendum. The ECJ, for instance, was never featured in the run up to the referendum.
Considering they are May's personal red lines and Theresa May opinions have become irrelevant of late. She'll just row back while claiming she isn't.
Is this a red smelly fish on both sides?
The [prime minister as a good ex-home secretary froths at the mouth at the idea of a court that can over rule her and so hates the ECJ.
The various "we can't agree a technical standard on X because that would require the ECJ as the ultimate authority" stories seem to confuse having the ECJ as the ultimate authority on standards in Europe and it having authority over you.
I work on the left-pond, we sell medical devices in europe and presumably the ECJ are the ultimate court on matters of CE marking and medical device classification - but it doesn't mean our current great leader has surrendered to Brussels.
I recently flew into London on Saudi Airlines. Since we weren't shot down I assume SA have some sort of agreement to fly into Europe - presumably ruled by the ECJ - but I don't think the Saudi regime accepts the ECJ as the ultimate authority over their domestic human rights
To be fair, all the so called Red Lines were a personal introduction by Theresa May months after the referendum.
The 'we must leave the common market and customs union' line was a total invention of May. Many of the leading leave campaigners (IIRC, the usual motley crew of Boris, Nigel, and Slithy Gove, amongst others) are on record loudly proclaiming that nobody was proposing leaving those institutions before the vote.
May made up the 'red lines' in order to look strong within her own party. She doesn't have the intelligence or integrity to admit that they are totally impractical and based wholly on dogma.
There is some speculation that it was actually Boris Johnson who whispered the ECJ Red Line in May's ear. May's previous experiences were all with the ECHR, not the ECJ, and she actually lobbied quite hard for the UK to opt back into the EU justice and security package a few years ago. That kept the European Arrest Warrant available for the UK justice system.
Obviously nobody expects Johnson to know what the ECJ is and how it works. Johnson's wife, however, is Marina Wheeler QC and she is suspected of having persuaded him to get the UK out of reach of the ECJ for some legal-technical reason that goes far beyond my limited knowledge of legal process.
"As such, the government is told to push the EU to start negotiations with urgency"
Moron bangs gums achieves little. How can the UK push the EU to negotiate something when the EU have clearly stated they will not negotiate? Getting this far has been an embarrassing show of asking the EU to negotiate even though they clearly refused it. Negotiation takes 2 willing parties. We are willing, the EU are not and that has been made clear. That isnt to bash the EU, if they dont want to negotiate that is up to them.
"because leaving the bloc without a deal would cause businesses on both sides major problems."
No kidding. The EU will not be happy for long if they lose access to the place performing 70% of the Euro clearing. They can make an EU light one in the EU outside the global financial centre if they want but with the state of their currency and wanting the Euro to be an international reserve currency that will a tough effort for them. The passporting problems intended to punish us pissed off their friends bailing the Euro out but the businesses have bypassed that easy enough. To think this will only be a problem for the UK is an optimistic view (if that is the right way to say it) for the EU.
"The UK government should be preparing for the adequacy process and ensuring that there is no risk of a gap in legal provision for transferring data between the UK and the EU after December 2020"
The UK gov and businesses should be preparing for hard brexit and leaving the EU proper. The government needs to be ready to cut that string and prepare to boost the economy with economically sane policies.
"high chance of a legal challenge to any proposed UK-EU data international agreement"
Why cling on by the fingernails when you are standing on the floor? If such agreements will be so fragile then lets concentrate on doing something useful instead.
"Such alternatives would represent a considerable change from the status quo, would place a bureaucratic burden on individual businesses, a burden which would be prohibitive for many small businesses."
How interesting. The burden of the EU inflicted on small business but a benefit to big business and yet this claim seems to suggest the opposite? Sod off.
"However, EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier has indicated that the UK's suggestions might not be possible"
Unfortunate figurehead of a negotiating team not allowed to negotiate makes some vague comment about being unable to negotiate. Poor guy.
Lets just get out and focus on our own country instead of the EU's needs and desires.
@ Doctor Syntax
"How? UK businesses get cut off from a large part of their home market. What's this economically sane policy you propose to replace that? Print large amounts of money?"
My first laugh is that the EU is printing large amounts of money and we stopped with the QE. First reduce tariffs. Upon leaving the EU food is cheaper to import, reduce the EU protectionism and we can import much more cheaper. For anyone who cries about manufacturing that is a good thing.
Also bin the EU Co2 objectives etc, we have power generation it is the power plants shut down due to regulation. Stop building monuments to the sky and our energy bills will drop considerably (cheaper generation but also stable).
Both of those reduce the cost of living for everybody! The whole country has reduced cost of living. Sounds like a good start. Also we wont be losing access to the EU and all trade stopping, that is project fear.
>Both of those reduce the cost of living for everybody! The whole country has reduced cost of living. Sounds like a good start. Also we wont be losing access to the EU and all trade stopping, that is project fear.
So you want to ruin the environment along with both the farming and manufacturing sectors?
@ Dave Schofield
"So you want to ruin the environment along with both the farming and manufacturing sectors?"
Really? Thats the best you have? Some claims without anything to support them.
@ nsld
"Food won't get cheaper."
You seem pretty alone on that one. Even with the currency drop yes it will due to the protectionist tariffs no longer applying.
"You seem pretty alone on that one. Even with the currency drop yes it will due to the protectionist tariffs no longer applying."
Which protectionist tariffs would those be? You mean the ones protecting former commonwealth and French colonies from the US Banana Megacorps which are on a path to 0% and currently stand at 1p per banana?
You really don't have the first clue, like many people you take a headline maximum tariff and then apply at will without understanding any of the underlying trade deals. Take the great coffee tariff myth in which the EU impoverishes Africa, except it doesn't because its completely false.
Food will not get cheaper, its already got more expensive thanks to weak sterling and intermittent supply, adding in WTO tariff schedules isn't going to make it cheaper even if we go with the Minford fantasy and drop all tariff barriers, unless you plan to ignore PSP rules and throw food safety out of the window.
@ nsld
"Which protectionist tariffs would those be?"
Running with your idea that they are not protectionist why are remainers crying that we will struggle to trade with the EU outside the single market? You are obviously arguing they are wrong so brexit wont be so much of a problem.
However they are protectionist. To start with they are in trade war with the US. But enjoy-
https://capx.co/the-eus-customs-union-is-a-protectionist-racket/
https://fee.org/articles/the-eu-is-still-sweet-on-protectionism/
http://www.continentaltelegraph.com/brexit/proof-perfect-that-the-eu-is-mercantilist-protectionist-not-free-traders/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/10/09/china-protests-the-european-unions-unfair-duties-and-tariffs-on-steel/#4772ef967ff8
"like many people you take a headline maximum tariff and then apply at will without understanding any of the underlying trade deals"
So there must be a trade deal to get around protectionist tariffs? That simply cancels out your idea that they dont have protectionist tariffs.
"Take the great coffee tariff myth in which the EU impoverishes Africa"
4 month ago I posted about this. I quote-
I am sorry if this is incorrect. I must admit the document I am looking at is from 2011 (section9 page5)- http://www.ico.org/documents/icc-107-7e-tariffs-trade.pdf
This points out the 7.5% has an effective rate much higher. I linked to this source from- https://capx.co/how-the-eu-starves-africa-into-submission/
"Food will not get cheaper, its already got more expensive thanks to weak sterling and intermittent supply"
Actually this is stupidity. We are still in the EU therefore if food is more expensive (or even cheaper) right now it is a function of being in the EU.
"adding in WTO tariff schedules isn't going to make it cheaper even if we go with the Minford fantasy and drop all tariff barriers"
Actually dropping the tariff barriers would make imports cheaper, as tariffs make them more expensive.
"throw food safety out of the window."
Please tell me your not one of those who fell for the chlorinated chicken mythical problem? It was funny reading complaints about it against the food safety conclusion.
@CodeJunky
You should really stop taking all that codeïne, it is both bad for your health, affecting your mental health and your sense of reality.
No kidding. The EU will not be happy for long if they lose access to the place performing 70% of the Euro clearing.
You understand that those jobs will move to the EU, right ? To Paris, apparently, because the LCH has offices there - merely 100 000 jobs, according to the BBC article, what's that ? You want more ?
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-40258449
PS: I was a remain advocate yet could not vote. I do not want a second referendum, I do not want the UK to backtrack (they cannot, anymore anyway), I want the leavers to get a good whiff of what Brexit smells like!
@ Hans 1
"You should really stop taking all that codeïne, it is both bad for your health, affecting your mental health and your sense of reality."
Let me guess you are for remain and this was the first thing you could come up with. Leave readers will be shocked, shocked I tell you.
"You understand that those jobs will move to the EU, right ? To Paris"
That is really funny. I am sure bankers will love it there as the French president offered to hold off an additional taxation on them for just 1 year. In your source you may want to notice something- "thanks partly to the widespread acceptance of English law and language and the City's financial power it's managed to corner the market." There is an entire EU and yet that alone is why London is the place of choice. International reserve currencies have to be able to clear outside the EU too so the EU wet dream of the banking sector moving left them nothing but damp.
"I do not want the UK to backtrack (they cannot, anymore anyway), I want the leavers to get a good whiff of what Brexit smells like!"
So be happy. We voted leave, we want out of the EU and if that is how you see yourself I can understand your hurt feelings that someone would vote leave. Maybe you could also want a hard brexit or maybe a sensible trade agreement for mutual benefit while mutually splitting? That way we could both be happy.
@ CrazyOldCatMan
"You really, really don't understand the word "negotiation" do you? Especially one where the two paries have a huge disparity in negotiating power.."
I do. Thats why I am amazed at this insistence on trying to get the EU to negotiate when we have no need for them to. The negotiating power is with the one who gets their way anyway and we can leave without the EU's approval. In no way does that give the EU negotiating power.
We are willing, the EU are not and that has been made clear.
The person put in charge of those negotiations has spent all of four days this year doing his job. It's not the EU's fault that our government is incapable of coming up with sensible suggestions that don't completely conflict with the founding principles of the EU. It's the sheer arrogance of dogmatic leavers who refuse to accept the facts.
"The person put in charge of those negotiations has spent all of four days this year doing his job"
If that is true then surely that is a positive. The EU have said they wont negotiate. The ball is in their court no matter how much we may want to get on with actual negotiation. So why should that person waste their time when there is no negotiation?
"It's not the EU's fault that our government is incapable of coming up with sensible suggestions that don't completely conflict with the founding principles of the EU"
Actually it is. The EU can negotiate whatever it wants, it chooses not to negotiate. That is their choice and I dont care either way. Instead of proposing anything of use the EU have made amusingly stupid suggestions beyond anything we could consider. As I said they dont want to negotiate and thats what we need to be prepared for, no deal.
"It's the sheer arrogance of dogmatic leavers who refuse to accept the facts."
The fact that we are willing or that the EU is not? That isnt arrogance. Arrogance would be trying to cut its nose off to spite its face, as the EU is achieving.
>The ball is in their court no matter how much we may want to get on with actual negotiation.
When will Brexiteers cotton on? The UK is leaving EU - not the other way round. This ballsup is entirely in our court. Lies about "The EU have said they wont negotiate" won't convince anyone.
@ strum
"When will Brexiteers cotton on? The UK is leaving EU - not the other way round."
It doesnt seem to be brexiteers struggling with that concept. We are leaving, what we want is leave, we go. Remain on the other hand seem to think the UK need to negotiate leaving, when leaving just involves not participating in their little project. A trade deal would benefit us both, but it is up to them to be willing to negotiate. They want money, they want a hard border in Ireland, they want they want they want- and we dont have to give them anything. But we are willing to negotiate.
"Lies about "The EU have said they wont negotiate" won't convince anyone."
They made demands. If their demands are not met they wont negotiate. So yes they wont negotiate. They do not accept any solutions to Ireland (apart from the amusing idea of annexing it) and offer no solutions for what is their problem. Oddly they seem to reject a lot of suggestions without making any serious offers. Which of course leads to hard brexit.
That's what you get when you hire a lazy ex-journo with a dregree in Classics for a Foreign Secretary.
Well - it does mean that he knows all the many and various ways that countries and empires have fallen apart in the past and has got a ticklist to make sure that he tries them all..
We are currently on "destroy trade with nearest neighbours". I assume that, after that, it'll be onto "deploy involuntary serfdom to the general populace". Because that worked so well for the Spartans..
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
