4 ms·

I might be naive but I was expecting that someone would read it and catch things like this. It's a trade deal, not a high school homework. If it's too long to

I might be naive but I was expecting that someone would read it and catch things like this. It's a trade deal, not a high school homework. If it's too long to be read, then are all those details really necessary? It just like contracts, most privacy policies, etc that are written in gibberish, are extremely verbose, yet everyone is afraid to simplify it because "there must be a reason why legal documents are not written in plain English". Sometimes there is no good reason.

Silhouette 6y ago
But that would require proper, diligent scrutiny. I mean, it's only a deal that will affect hundreds of billions in trade every year and numerous other foreign relations issues, indefinitely, and it's only around 1,200 pages long. What could possibly go wrong asking elected representatives of 28 states to approve it with less than a week to even see it and, in the UK's case, a single day of Parliamentary debate? (For comparison, the news today mentioned that Maastricht got more like a month.)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
viraptor 6y ago
There are groups interested in those details which will pick them up when the time comes. If people started bikeshedding the details right now, nothing would be achieved. Raising the browser or hash issue in this case would be like stopping a discussion about moving a 2000 people corporate HQ to another location to make sure that a specific wobbly chair on the 2nd floor gets fixed in the process. It's not the right time and place to discuss it.
- dingaling 6y ago
  But the wobbly chair was thrown out in 2010, yet is still referenced by name in the premises migration checklist. In other words if it's so insignificant as not to be discussed it shouldn't be included at all. Any processes should have been written at a high level with a call out to the specific specialist organisations who implement them.
jonplackett 6y ago
> If it's too long to be read, then are all those details really necessary? I think that's entirely the point. Make it so long no-one will read it = get away with putting anything you like in there.
rualca 6y ago
> If it's too long to be read, then are all those details really necessary? My take is that those details are intentionally left in as is to ensure that the status quo remains exactly the same, thus ensuring that updating a piece of legislation has no unintended consequences. I mean, if the legislation remains the exact same, even citing the exact same software as reference, then there is no doubt regarding where jurisprudence stands.
incompatible 6y ago
It's part of the section "ANNEX LAW-1: EXCHANGES OF DNA, FINGERPRINTS AND VEHICLE REGISTRATION DATA". It's pretty detailed on the exact format of data transfers. Found in https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/948119/EU-UK_Trade_and_Cooperation_Agreement_24.12.2020.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

Silhouette 6y ago

But that would require proper, diligent scrutiny. I mean, it's only a deal that will affect hundreds of billions in trade every year and numerous other foreign relations issues, indefinitely, and it's only around 1,200 pages long. What could possibly go wrong asking elected representatives of 28 states to approve it with less than a week to even see it and, in the UK's case, a single day of Parliamentary debate? (For comparison, the news today mentioned that Maastricht got more like a month.)

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

viraptor 6y ago

There are groups interested in those details which will pick them up when the time comes. If people started bikeshedding the details right now, nothing would be achieved. Raising the browser or hash issue in this case would be like stopping a discussion about moving a 2000 people corporate HQ to another location to make sure that a specific wobbly chair on the 2nd floor gets fixed in the process. It's not the right time and place to discuss it.

dingaling 6y ago
But the wobbly chair was thrown out in 2010, yet is still referenced by name in the premises migration checklist. In other words if it's so insignificant as not to be discussed it shouldn't be included at all. Any processes should have been written at a high level with a call out to the specific specialist organisations who implement them.

jonplackett 6y ago

> If it's too long to be read, then are all those details really necessary? I think that's entirely the point. Make it so long no-one will read it = get away with putting anything you like in there.

rualca 6y ago

> If it's too long to be read, then are all those details really necessary? My take is that those details are intentionally left in as is to ensure that the status quo remains exactly the same, thus ensuring that updating a piece of legislation has no unintended consequences. I mean, if the legislation remains the exact same, even citing the exact same software as reference, then there is no doubt regarding where jurisprudence stands.

incompatible 6y ago

It's part of the section "ANNEX LAW-1: EXCHANGES OF DNA, FINGERPRINTS AND VEHICLE REGISTRATION DATA". It's pretty detailed on the exact format of data transfers. Found in https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/948119/EU-UK_Trade_and_Cooperation_Agreement_24.12.2020.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...