4 ms·

As somebody who was somewhat in-favour of Brexit (not popular here, admittedly), my view is that it's easier to fight for privacy against just the UK government

As somebody who was somewhat in-favour of Brexit (not popular here, admittedly), my view is that it's easier to fight for privacy against just the UK government, rather than the entire EU bloc. I think if an entity as powerful as the EU puts this into legislation, it's game over. I have a similar view on federal laws in the United States - they don't tend to repeal federal surveillance laws without violence.

estaseuropano 5y ago
But every member has a veto. You never needed to convince 28 countries, you only needed to convince your own government to vote against. Plenty of laws stuck in limbo because one country doesn't like it - but exactly zero laws on the books that sosme country really hates.
- throwaways885 5y ago
  How does a group of citizens get a motion tabled to repeal mass surveillance laws in the EU? Just by sheer scale, it's harder to get the attention of the EU than it is the UK government.
- zajio1am 5y ago
  > But every member has a veto. No, most EU legislation is decided on by ordinary legislative procedure, using qualified majority voting rules in council of EU ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_E... ).
- pyuser583 5y ago
  That’s systems leads to compromises and quod pro quos. That’s not as likely with just one nation state. If Country A wanted strong privacy laws and Country B wanted strong surveillance laws, and both have a veto, then you’ll get paralysis or a compromise. Right now it seems the EU has neither strong encryption as the norm nor a massive surveillance system. Just what one would expect when any nation can veto a law. Now that the UK is independent, it no longer has the paralysis/compromise/status quo dilemma.
  - dkshdkjshdk 5y ago
    > Now that the UK is independent, it no longer has the paralysis/compromise/status quo dilemma. ...so they can now pass all the strong surveillance laws they want without being hindered by the EU? My point: "paralysis" can be good if it prevents you from doing something bad. Perhaps forcing a "compromise" actually leads to (better) solutions that account for everyone's concerns? Overall, it is not clear to me that the UK becoming independent from EU is going to necessarily lead to better laws. Are they going to be easier and faster to pass? Sure. Are they going to be better? Not so sure.
    - pyuser583 5y ago
      The UK constitutional system has been expanding its “checks and balances” quite a bit. In the early 2000s the UK Supreme Court was granted a great deal of institutional autonomy. During the Brexit fiasco, it had no problem flexing its muscles. The House of Lords had likewise been reformed and is much stronger and meritocratic (there’s still work to go on it). Likewise subsidiary nations and municipalities have an increasingly large amount of independence. If Westminster passed surveillance laws unpopular in Scotland, they likely wouldn’t be implemented in Scotland. The best example is probably Northern Ireland. There’s much greater support for surveillance powers in NI. But those expanded powers are combined with much greater accountability and oversight of security services. Some parts of the British Home territory have too little surveillance. Both the City of London and Jersey have a reputation for laundering dirty money - something unthinkable in Northern Ireland. Nothing about the UKs future is clear. But I don’t think they need the EU to prevent them from passing overly broad or weak surveillance laws.

estaseuropano 5y ago

But every member has a veto. You never needed to convince 28 countries, you only needed to convince your own government to vote against. Plenty of laws stuck in limbo because one country doesn't like it - but exactly zero laws on the books that sosme country really hates.

throwaways885 5y ago
How does a group of citizens get a motion tabled to repeal mass surveillance laws in the EU? Just by sheer scale, it's harder to get the attention of the EU than it is the UK government.
zajio1am 5y ago
> But every member has a veto. No, most EU legislation is decided on by ordinary legislative procedure, using qualified majority voting rules in council of EU ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_E... ).
pyuser583 5y ago
That’s systems leads to compromises and quod pro quos. That’s not as likely with just one nation state. If Country A wanted strong privacy laws and Country B wanted strong surveillance laws, and both have a veto, then you’ll get paralysis or a compromise. Right now it seems the EU has neither strong encryption as the norm nor a massive surveillance system. Just what one would expect when any nation can veto a law. Now that the UK is independent, it no longer has the paralysis/compromise/status quo dilemma.
- dkshdkjshdk 5y ago
  > Now that the UK is independent, it no longer has the paralysis/compromise/status quo dilemma. ...so they can now pass all the strong surveillance laws they want without being hindered by the EU? My point: "paralysis" can be good if it prevents you from doing something bad. Perhaps forcing a "compromise" actually leads to (better) solutions that account for everyone's concerns? Overall, it is not clear to me that the UK becoming independent from EU is going to necessarily lead to better laws. Are they going to be easier and faster to pass? Sure. Are they going to be better? Not so sure.
  - pyuser583 5y ago
    The UK constitutional system has been expanding its “checks and balances” quite a bit. In the early 2000s the UK Supreme Court was granted a great deal of institutional autonomy. During the Brexit fiasco, it had no problem flexing its muscles. The House of Lords had likewise been reformed and is much stronger and meritocratic (there’s still work to go on it). Likewise subsidiary nations and municipalities have an increasingly large amount of independence. If Westminster passed surveillance laws unpopular in Scotland, they likely wouldn’t be implemented in Scotland. The best example is probably Northern Ireland. There’s much greater support for surveillance powers in NI. But those expanded powers are combined with much greater accountability and oversight of security services. Some parts of the British Home territory have too little surveillance. Both the City of London and Jersey have a reputation for laundering dirty money - something unthinkable in Northern Ireland. Nothing about the UKs future is clear. But I don’t think they need the EU to prevent them from passing overly broad or weak surveillance laws.