4 ms·

Brexit is giving the UK politicians the chance to enact some pretty draconian laws _without_ the European courts being able to stop them because it's illegal or

Brexit is giving the UK politicians the chance to enact some pretty draconian laws _without_ the European courts being able to stop them because it's illegal or goes against human rights. The fact that the EU is _following_ us into some of this madness is not a good thing and certainly doesn't imply that the UK is onto something good.

gadders 9y ago
Which laws are those?
- John_KZ 9y ago
  Even though at the time they only ban neo-nazis, the UK can now criminally charge you for having opinions they dislike. That's not a step forward. Also surveilance and anti-privacy laws in the UK are horrible.
  - 111_1_111 9y ago
    Germany has been actively policing thought-crime since the 1930s. EU or no, you can't stop fascists from abusing their power.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- detuur 9y ago
  The porn filter springs to mind.
- BuildTheRobots 9y ago
  The snoopers charter that got enacted recently keeps getting proven illigal, so they keep changing the law. Currently politicians have said a number of times that they'd like to get rid of human rights. There's currently talks about making social media platforms responsible for editing content rather than acting as a transport layer. There's plenty more, I'm sure others can chime in.
  - gadders 9y ago
    >>Currently politicians have said a number of times that they'd like to get rid of human rights. That's not true at all. They may want to leave the European Court of Human Rights but that's not the same as suddenly rolling back loads of human rights in the UK. I'm old enough to have been an adult before Tony Blair signed the European Convention on Human Rights into law in the UK. People's rights didn't massively change for the better when that was signed, so I wouldn't expect them to change for the worse if it is repealed.
- ben_w 9y ago
  Investigatory Powers Act 2016, currently being challenged under human rights laws that are a requirement of EU membership.
vixen99 9y ago
Well the British electorate can decide on whether they like those laws and kick out the executive and those laws if they do not. But I guess that's `populist`. Illegal is a loaded term. Bit like 'international law' which boils down to mean international agreements.
- ben_w 9y ago
  Can do that with MEPs, too.
  - timrichard 9y ago
    Except that the real power is with the Commission, not the MEPs. It's the opposite of the UK parliamentary system, where the (elected) House of Commons initiates legislation and the (unelected) House of Lords occasionally returns it with small suggestions for change. Here, the MEPs effectively rubber stamp the legislation initiated by the Commission (who knows, they may even make it to the Commission one day if they behave). It's all very well trotting out the line that "they can can shortcut Parliaments and pass the sort of laws that any right-thinking person should support, or the proles on the street might not understand", but that's the crux of my objection. The democratic rights of the populace were never yours or theirs to subvert or give away. As Tony Benn wisely said, "I'd rather have a bad Parliament than a good King".
    - ben_w 9y ago
      I have never understood why proposing, rather than analysing and modifying, laws is considered more important. Every so often the UK House of Lords gets in the news for “wrecking amendments”. There is enough power in each domain that I am comfortable with only the MEPs being directly elected in the EU, and with leaving the Lords unelected in the UK until (like this will ever happen) there is enough time to replace them with a carefully thought out alternative.
      - timrichard 9y ago
        I have to disagree about the House of Lords just as a point of principle, because I don't agree with a higher authority made up of the clergy, aristocrats, and political stooges. There are some exceptions, but I don't think it's an unfair caricature by the British people that the HOL are symbolic, senile or sedated.
amarant 9y ago
agreed, they're most definitely not. I was just trying to express my frustration with this suggested policy.. I accept whatever punishment the internet sees fit for my careless violation of Poe's law

gadders 9y ago

Which laws are those?

John_KZ 9y ago
Even though at the time they only ban neo-nazis, the UK can now criminally charge you for having opinions they dislike. That's not a step forward. Also surveilance and anti-privacy laws in the UK are horrible.
- 111_1_111 9y ago
  Germany has been actively policing thought-crime since the 1930s. EU or no, you can't stop fascists from abusing their power.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
detuur 9y ago
The porn filter springs to mind.
BuildTheRobots 9y ago
The snoopers charter that got enacted recently keeps getting proven illigal, so they keep changing the law. Currently politicians have said a number of times that they'd like to get rid of human rights. There's currently talks about making social media platforms responsible for editing content rather than acting as a transport layer. There's plenty more, I'm sure others can chime in.
- gadders 9y ago
  >>Currently politicians have said a number of times that they'd like to get rid of human rights. That's not true at all. They may want to leave the European Court of Human Rights but that's not the same as suddenly rolling back loads of human rights in the UK. I'm old enough to have been an adult before Tony Blair signed the European Convention on Human Rights into law in the UK. People's rights didn't massively change for the better when that was signed, so I wouldn't expect them to change for the worse if it is repealed.
ben_w 9y ago
Investigatory Powers Act 2016, currently being challenged under human rights laws that are a requirement of EU membership.

vixen99 9y ago

Well the British electorate can decide on whether they like those laws and kick out the executive and those laws if they do not. But I guess that's `populist`. Illegal is a loaded term. Bit like 'international law' which boils down to mean international agreements.

ben_w 9y ago
Can do that with MEPs, too.
- timrichard 9y ago
  Except that the real power is with the Commission, not the MEPs. It's the opposite of the UK parliamentary system, where the (elected) House of Commons initiates legislation and the (unelected) House of Lords occasionally returns it with small suggestions for change. Here, the MEPs effectively rubber stamp the legislation initiated by the Commission (who knows, they may even make it to the Commission one day if they behave). It's all very well trotting out the line that "they can can shortcut Parliaments and pass the sort of laws that any right-thinking person should support, or the proles on the street might not understand", but that's the crux of my objection. The democratic rights of the populace were never yours or theirs to subvert or give away. As Tony Benn wisely said, "I'd rather have a bad Parliament than a good King".
  - ben_w 9y ago
    I have never understood why proposing, rather than analysing and modifying, laws is considered more important. Every so often the UK House of Lords gets in the news for “wrecking amendments”. There is enough power in each domain that I am comfortable with only the MEPs being directly elected in the EU, and with leaving the Lords unelected in the UK until (like this will ever happen) there is enough time to replace them with a carefully thought out alternative.
    - timrichard 9y ago
      I have to disagree about the House of Lords just as a point of principle, because I don't agree with a higher authority made up of the clergy, aristocrats, and political stooges. There are some exceptions, but I don't think it's an unfair caricature by the British people that the HOL are symbolic, senile or sedated.

amarant 9y ago

agreed, they're most definitely not. I was just trying to express my frustration with this suggested policy.. I accept whatever punishment the internet sees fit for my careless violation of Poe's law