6 ms·

And pretty much ever since the GCHQ/conservative UK government have been freaking out about it and it's been one of the main reasons they wanted out of the EU.

by mtgx 7y ago

And pretty much ever since the GCHQ/conservative UK government have been freaking out about it and it's been one of the main reasons they wanted out of the EU. The GCHQ really, REALLY wanted out of the fundamental charters of rights. I mean the ECJ has ruled like twice or thrice against their mass surveillance activities, but they've managed to buy time by "updating the law" in ways in which a new ruling was needed to show once again that their mass surveillance laws are STILL violating the charter.

andy_ppp 7y ago
I found your comment really interesting, I think there are quite a few vested interests involved in the desire to leave the EU. This and most notably the work on tax havens the EU was doing, the UK being one of the biggest with several opaque jurisdictions being under its control. Saying GCHQ doesn’t make political decisions by downvoting this is extremely naive.
- dhauddye 7y ago
  What's the value of acknowledging that some vested interests hold the view though? At face value I mean. There are lots of legitimate economic reasons to consider leaving the EU, it's not the unilaterally bad decision that's become a meme around here and Reddit, the reason I say this being that it shouldn't be surprising in and of itself as a decision.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    The only economic reason I can think of is “I have a plan which requires violating EU rules, which will be more valuable than the additional trade costs that will be caused in the event that the EU continues to think that that rule we want to violate is a good rule and insists on the UK not breaking it as a precondition for a zero-friction trade deal”. I would be more optimistic if the UK government didn’t appear to hold the position “pivot to a no-manufacturing/service-only economy while simultaneously aiming for a trade deal that only covers food, mining, and manufacturing but not services”.
    - roenxi 7y ago
      > The only economic reason I can think of is “I have a plan which requires violating EU rules, which will be more valuable than the additional trade costs that will be caused in the event that the EU continues to think that that rule we want to violate is a good rule and insists on the UK not breaking it as a precondition for a zero-friction trade deal”. That is basically true. And the economics of this sort of situation is kinda funny; the only way Britain will be materially worse off is if the EU was giving Britain a free ride before Brexit - otherwise market forces will probably kick in and not much will happen in practice. Realistically it is hard to see Britain being worse off because of anything externally inflicted. If anything, their biggest losses will be due to getting the stuff they want; like restricting migrant inflows for non-economic reasons.
      - growlist 7y ago
        > biggest losses economic losses
      - ben_w 7y ago
        > the only way Britain will be materially worse off is if the EU was giving Britain a free ride before Brexit Isn’t that the point of the club? To give all of the members a free ride with each other? In a well-defined way that doesn’t hurt each member but still a free ride?
        roenxi 7y ago
        Not in the economic sense where a free rider under-pays meaning someone else has to be over-paying. If everyone is underpaying then it isn't free riding; it is just sensible business.
        ben_w 7y ago
        Hmm. EU members get advantages from each other that non-members do not get, so by leaving the EU, the UK looses said benefit, which hurts both even if everyone else in the world retains exactly the same trading rules with each as they did before Brexit. I’m not going to be too precise with terminology, but I didn’t realise you were being precise either or I would’ve at least looked up the concept before my previous reply.
- cs02rm0 7y ago
  It's not a GCHQ government though.
- DanBC 7y ago
  GCHQ has nothing to fear from Europe, and Europe has done nothing to hinder the work of GCHQ apart from releasing a few reports about ECHELON. GDPR, and every other bit of EU privacy regulation, has included exemptions for the security services.
ben_w 7y ago
My departure from the UK was initially due to the post-Brexit impossibility of fighting the latest of those laws, the Investigatory Powers Act. There is a technical difference between the EU and European Court of human rights et cetera, but politically they are seen as equivalent by the UK. On the day thre results came in I had been of the opinion “it can’t be too bad, because only an idiot would hold a referendum on something important where the wrong result was possible” — Although it quickly became clear Brexit was inherently a terrible plan implemented by incompetent politicians, and therefore Cameron was in fact an idiot, adding to my reasons to leave the UK.
- Chris2048 7y ago
  > where the wrong result was possible I'm sorry, but the will of the people is never "wrong"
  - gambiting 7y ago
    It can be morally wrong, or financially wrong, or wrong in terms of human rights, or wrong for minorities. There's many types of "wrong". Just like you can make a "wrong" decision for yourself when having to choose between two options, the society can choose "wrongly" when presented with a simple yes/no question. There's a difference between that choice being invalid and wrong.
    - Chris2048 7y ago
      I don't really get your distinction, how is morally wrong different from "wrong in terms of human rights"? Do you mean beneficial?
      - Chris2048 7y ago
        Clearly I've triggered someone who is systematically downvoting all my comments..
  - ben_w 7y ago
    > I'm sorry, but the will of the people is never "wrong" The city I live in has gold-coloured plaques on the ground outside random homes memorialising all those who died because the people elected a dictator. Democracy is “least bad”, not “incapable of fault”.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by mtgx 7y ago

andy_ppp 7y ago

I found your comment really interesting, I think there are quite a few vested interests involved in the desire to leave the EU. This and most notably the work on tax havens the EU was doing, the UK being one of the biggest with several opaque jurisdictions being under its control. Saying GCHQ doesn’t make political decisions by downvoting this is extremely naive.

dhauddye 7y ago
What's the value of acknowledging that some vested interests hold the view though? At face value I mean. There are lots of legitimate economic reasons to consider leaving the EU, it's not the unilaterally bad decision that's become a meme around here and Reddit, the reason I say this being that it shouldn't be surprising in and of itself as a decision.
- ben_w 7y ago
  The only economic reason I can think of is “I have a plan which requires violating EU rules, which will be more valuable than the additional trade costs that will be caused in the event that the EU continues to think that that rule we want to violate is a good rule and insists on the UK not breaking it as a precondition for a zero-friction trade deal”. I would be more optimistic if the UK government didn’t appear to hold the position “pivot to a no-manufacturing/service-only economy while simultaneously aiming for a trade deal that only covers food, mining, and manufacturing but not services”.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    > The only economic reason I can think of is “I have a plan which requires violating EU rules, which will be more valuable than the additional trade costs that will be caused in the event that the EU continues to think that that rule we want to violate is a good rule and insists on the UK not breaking it as a precondition for a zero-friction trade deal”. That is basically true. And the economics of this sort of situation is kinda funny; the only way Britain will be materially worse off is if the EU was giving Britain a free ride before Brexit - otherwise market forces will probably kick in and not much will happen in practice. Realistically it is hard to see Britain being worse off because of anything externally inflicted. If anything, their biggest losses will be due to getting the stuff they want; like restricting migrant inflows for non-economic reasons.
    - growlist 7y ago
      > biggest losses economic losses
    - ben_w 7y ago
      > the only way Britain will be materially worse off is if the EU was giving Britain a free ride before Brexit Isn’t that the point of the club? To give all of the members a free ride with each other? In a well-defined way that doesn’t hurt each member but still a free ride?
      - roenxi 7y ago
        Not in the economic sense where a free rider under-pays meaning someone else has to be over-paying. If everyone is underpaying then it isn't free riding; it is just sensible business.
        ben_w 7y ago
        Hmm. EU members get advantages from each other that non-members do not get, so by leaving the EU, the UK looses said benefit, which hurts both even if everyone else in the world retains exactly the same trading rules with each as they did before Brexit. I’m not going to be too precise with terminology, but I didn’t realise you were being precise either or I would’ve at least looked up the concept before my previous reply.
cs02rm0 7y ago
It's not a GCHQ government though.
DanBC 7y ago
GCHQ has nothing to fear from Europe, and Europe has done nothing to hinder the work of GCHQ apart from releasing a few reports about ECHELON. GDPR, and every other bit of EU privacy regulation, has included exemptions for the security services.

ben_w 7y ago

My departure from the UK was initially due to the post-Brexit impossibility of fighting the latest of those laws, the Investigatory Powers Act. There is a technical difference between the EU and European Court of human rights et cetera, but politically they are seen as equivalent by the UK. On the day thre results came in I had been of the opinion “it can’t be too bad, because only an idiot would hold a referendum on something important where the wrong result was possible” — Although it quickly became clear Brexit was inherently a terrible plan implemented by incompetent politicians, and therefore Cameron was in fact an idiot, adding to my reasons to leave the UK.

Chris2048 7y ago
> where the wrong result was possible I'm sorry, but the will of the people is never "wrong"
- gambiting 7y ago
  It can be morally wrong, or financially wrong, or wrong in terms of human rights, or wrong for minorities. There's many types of "wrong". Just like you can make a "wrong" decision for yourself when having to choose between two options, the society can choose "wrongly" when presented with a simple yes/no question. There's a difference between that choice being invalid and wrong.
  - Chris2048 7y ago
    I don't really get your distinction, how is morally wrong different from "wrong in terms of human rights"? Do you mean beneficial?
    - Chris2048 7y ago
      Clearly I've triggered someone who is systematically downvoting all my comments..
- ben_w 7y ago
  > I'm sorry, but the will of the people is never "wrong" The city I live in has gold-coloured plaques on the ground outside random homes memorialising all those who died because the people elected a dictator. Democracy is “least bad”, not “incapable of fault”.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]