4 ms·
It may be slightly more clever than that. David Allen Green suggests[1] that this moves the legislation so that it is directly implemented by UK law rather than
by omh 12y ago
It may be slightly more clever than that. David Allen Green suggests[1] that this moves the legislation so that it is directly implemented by UK law rather than as a result of an EU law.
This means that the current court ruling wouldn't apply and that it would be almost impossible to mount a similar court challenge in future.
[1] Non-reg link: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&url=http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2014/07/11/drip-drip-drip-the-emergency-surveillance-law-erodes-our-civil-liberties/ http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&url=http://blogs...
- AlyssaRowan 12y agoHe's not to my reading saying it would be 'almost impossible' to mount a similar challenge in the future. The "DRIP Bill" (thanks, that's a great term) is fairly obviously taking the piss with the ECJ ruling, considering it contains a big slice of the "Snoopers' Charter" and is going in exactly the wrong direction. It would, however, require a new legal challenge to the Supreme Court or the ECJ/ECHR to fight this, and they probably think that will take somewhat longer than 2 years, 2 years during which they get more retention, after which they'll probably either renew it or change it a bit again, probably for the worse because some of the Tories like Theresa May and Cameron don't even think this went far enough (wtf?!), and reset the clock again... maybe I'm being cynical, but I think my cynicism is well-earned here. Gah.