Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK to depart from GDPR

lawgazette.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 659 posts

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#331

Post by tim333 »

arethuza wrote: post #293
mytailorisrich wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, and that would have been absolutely fine. Democracy is to be able to campaign for what you believe in. But equally, politically, and democratically, it is not tenable to call a referendum (which is something quite rare in the UK) and then to ignore the result. So the reality is that the government and Parliament had to abide by the result even if the referendum was legally not binding. Now people are of co…

"Now people are of course free to campaign for the UK to join the EU." Or to campaign to leave the UK - which I suspect is a more achievable and sensible option. I'd doubt if the EU would want the UK back anyway.

Or just individually leave the UK. I find the thing kind of depressing. It's not even as if the leave voters seem happy. It seems more of a my life's crap - lets destroy this EU membership thing - oh my life's still crap. Apart from Boris - at least he got to be PM and seems fairly cheerful. Perhaps the lies on a bus were worth it.

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#332

Post by Nursie »

CodeGlitch wrote: post #327
Nursie wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be wrong, but hasn't Russian interference been more or less proven now? Trump couldn't be tied to it, but it seems like it was there.

Perhaps - I'm not American so I've not been following it that closely. My point was that the first side which started claiming faulty elections wasn't Trump.

I think that's probably not true either - Trump was claiming fraud at every turn, in the republican primaries as far back as Feb '16 - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/03/donald-trump...

He also made repeated claims of "large scale voter fraud" in the lead up to the presidential election of that year.

I also feel there's a real difference between "we have evidence Russia's been up to something, and think Trump may be involved" and "Everything that goes against me is stolen! You can't trust anything!"

> I'm not American so I've not been following it that closely.

Neither am I, but from what I can tell the Mueller report came back saying it didn't have enough to pursue, or really link Trump, but something was definitely up. Various Trump supporters went to jail over that report IIRC as well, having lied. Very murky dealings.

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#333

Post by imtringued »

Nursie wrote: post #257
gmac wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, so the problem is that I find it basically impossible to understand how a well-informed and rational person could come to the conclusions you've come to. The EU isn't perfect, but you'll struggle to argue that it hasn't expanded peace, prosperity and human rights across the continent. This is motherhood-and-apple-pie stuff. Arguments in favour of Brexit thus tend to boil down to immigration and 'sovereignty'. The…

> The EU isn't perfect, but you'll struggle to argue that it hasn't expanded peace, prosperity and human rights across the continent. Is it necessary for the UK to stay in for this peace to continue? Would you like to talk to some of the southern states about the expansion of prosperity that has come along with monetary union? > There's a consensus amongst economists that immigration makes us financially better off.…

>In aggregate, not individually. Great for those of us in the middle classes, but I have a lot of sympathy for those who see their low wages effectively pegged to minimum wage, and who have to compete for those minimum wage jobs with a huge pool of people.

The solution is to create more jobs, not shrink the population. The idea that you get free labor and don't take advantage of it so backwards. It's only working because it's a psychological trick. In aggregate you are worse off.

Literally every country suffering from an underutilized workforce should just utilize it, even if artificially. Restricting immigration is basically equivalent to a waiting strategy where you just hope that the competition (e.g. China) runs into labor shortages and thus your own labor surplus no longer becomes a liability. It works but it's so slow that if you were the politician of a waiting nation you should rightfully be criticized for doing nothing.

>We have stories of fruit and veg going unpicked because labour can't be imported as easily, and the few brits who enquired about the work wouldn't do it, they wouldn't live on the farm and work long days for the lowest possible pay. This speaks to me of industries in dire need of reform, propped up by the importation of those willing to accept standards nobody should have to accept, because of a disparity in wealth between countries.

This is where things get absurd. You are complaining that all those immigrants are stealing all the farm jobs with impossibly low pay but at the same time you never cared a single bit about those jobs and would never do them yourself?

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#334

Post by Blikkentrekker »

vmception wrote: post #9

I honestly get giggles from how unprepared they are culturally for what becoming America-like will do to them. Does anyone else? American-like but with no negotiating leverage and having burned all the bridges to the other economic unions.

Was it not already?

I find that many of the quintessential problems of the U.S.A. were inherited from the British Empire and seem pervasive throughout the Anglo-Saxon world. England too has a district based system, leading to close to a two-party state, and a common law legal system where the judge and juror are often more powerful than the letter of the law.

If anything, the U.S.A. remedied some of the unusual quirks of common law legal systems. — I was recently acquainted with knowledge that in both the U.K. and Australia, a criminal defence attorney would, when his client confess to the crime to him, almost certainly recommend that he be released, and that latter seek new counsel, and that the new counsel be kept in the dark, as apparently the system is designed such that a criminal defence attorney is completely handicapped in defending his client, know he of the latter's guilt. — this is less so the case in the U.S.A., which is rather unique for jury trials, and in most civil law jurisdictions there is no reason not to confess to one's attorney.

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#335

Post by monkey_monkey »

thu2111 wrote: post #305
monkey_monkey wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using quotes to paraphrase your own interpretation of what OP posted (and then ignoring the last sentence which had more meat) is exactly the kind of low value comment you're talking about.

[flagged]

Game of Thrones has really seeped into the consciousness of a certain type of person. This obsession with knee bending...

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#336

Post by Nursie »

imtringued wrote: post #333
Nursie wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The EU isn't perfect, but you'll struggle to argue that it hasn't expanded peace, prosperity and human rights across the continent. Is it necessary for the UK to stay in for this peace to continue? Would you like to talk to some of the southern states about the expansion of prosperity that has come along with monetary union? > There's a consensus amongst economists that immigration makes us financially better off.…

>In aggregate, not individually. Great for those of us in the middle classes, but I have a lot of sympathy for those who see their low wages effectively pegged to minimum wage, and who have to compete for those minimum wage jobs with a huge pool of people. The solution is to create more jobs, not shrink the population. The idea that you get free labor and don't take advantage of it so backwards. It's only working bec…

> Literally every country suffering from an underutilized workforce should just utilize it, even if artificially

Is this not just the broken window fallacy?

> Restricting immigration is basically equivalent to a waiting strategy where you just hope that the competition (e.g. China) runs into labor shortages

I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make here?

Are you trying to say that in order to compete on the world stage you need a surplus of low/underpaid labour? Why is that good for the people that find themselves in that surplus?

> You are complaining that all those immigrants are stealing all the farm jobs

I'm doing no such thing. Please re-read my post after discarding some of your preconceptions.

I'm saying the pay and conditions attached to those jobs are wholly unreasonable. That they should not be run like that in the first place, immigrants or no.

Those companies were only viable because people could be flown in from places where there were lower expectations on working conditions and enough of a wage disparity that it made it worthwhile for those workers to be paid the minimum. They were often made to live in cramped conditions in temporary accomodation on-site, in a way that's totally incompatible with (for instance) a family life. That's not a good thing. That sector needs reform.

(Yes, immigration law was hiding this and contributing to wage suppression. I am in no way accusing any class of people, immigrant or otherwise of "stealing jobs".)

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#337

Post by auganov »

viraptor wrote: post #255
auganov wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the EU cannot show there's a big exit cost it may not last too much longer. Economic growth is so lackluster all across the EU, including new entrants, that few people (who looked at the data) genuinely believe EU membership is a GDP booster. EU's next best bet is to play into the fear that exiting will bring about economic ruin. This works particularly well on newer members who may not be on good terms with core…

We already saw the big exit cost. Tariffs will apply where trade deals are missing. I'm not sure who you expect to use sanctions - EU won't slap anyone with sanctions just because they left EU. Have a look at https://sanctionsmap.eu/ for situations where sanctions have been applied.

There's nothing interesting going on with UK's economy. Seems pretty indistinct from the rest of Europe.

No, I do not think EU would really do major sanctions, but I do think it's something some fear and I do think it's a fear the EU plays into. Many in ex-Soviet and ex-Soviet-satellite countries see EU membership as the guarantor of access and lasting ties with not just Western Europe but the "free world" in general (as in not being part of the Russia/China/Iran/+ club). Even in the UK you see some semblance of this sentiment despite being rather ridiculous. In countries that have a fairly recent history of being excluded for no good reason it seems all the more compelling.

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#338

Post by bananapub »

bb123 wrote: post #274
pydry wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#1 The UK has habitually towed the line on most American endeavors in a deferent way. The invasion of Iraq was one extremely clear example. The phrase "special relationship" which is bandied about a lot embodies this deference. #2 The UK has departed from the trading bloc it does 60% of its trade with. It desperately needs new trade deals outside of it. Since America is the biggest economic bloc outside of Europe and…

The idea that U.K. tows the line on US endeavours in a way that countries like Canada and Australia don’t is absurd. Canada and the US share an enormous border and it’s often joked that Canada is like USA-lite. As for Australia - you may be right, as they’re too busy towing China’s line instead. (Although that didn’t stop them going into Vietnam).

australia goes along with america's stupidity all the time. iraq, afghanistan...Australia introduced conscription of Australians to go to help the US with vietnam.

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#339

Post by tim333 »

hnlmorg wrote: post #73
jleask wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

48% of us realized this

This is the thing that pissed me off the most about the referendum. The result was touted as an overwhelming majority but in fact the percentages are well within the margin for error on a poll that wasn't very well defined from the outset (ie what "leave" meant was different for different people). The only thing the EU referendum conclusively demonstrated was how easily manipulated people are by the media they consum…

There were more remainers than leavers at the time of the referendum. It's just the young ones couldn't be bothered to vote. I mean I know that's how elections work but the "leave is the clear will of the people" stuff was guff.

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#340

Post by andy_ppp »

02thoeva wrote: post #303
andy_ppp wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you supply a link - the UK would need something like GDPR in law (which we currently have rolled over) for the EU to recognise our laws... it seems like it would be difficult and pointless to change to something that slightly differs from the GDPR only to have to implement all of it's concerns for EU data anyway...

The very article we've commented under makes this point, but if you want to see the specific agreement: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_...

Okay well if that is the case I'm less concerned!
Post reply on HN