Soft-Brexit?

I had dinner with an old friend last night, and one of the topics of conversation was Brexit, he’s of the view that the Government will negotiate a transition period which will be like the EEA and close a deal during the transition either the same or maybe like Ukraine’s. In this case, we may well then decide we want to re-join once we know what the final deal is like and they reckon the EU will let us back in. We’d probably lose the rebate, immunity from the Euro and being outside Schengen.

The subversion of democracy by big data

The subversion of democracy by big data

The fabulous Carol Cadwalladyr brings us the next instalment of undoing the surveillance states control over our democracies.

In an article “The Great British Brexit Robbery”, she and the Guardian showed how the Tories and the Brexit Leave Campaigns had used US Data Aanlytics companies to influence the Brexit referendum. It is alleged that the personal data was obtained illegally, its processing was illegal and that it was an undeclared election/referendum expense. The evidence was sufficient for the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Electoral Commission to launch investigations.

Over the last two days, Facebook have suspended Cambridge Analytica & one other company and the latter’s Principal for breaking their terms and conditions and in one case a breach of contract not to pass data on. The story is reported in the Guardian in a story called, “‘I made Steve Bannon’s psychological warfare tool’: meet the data war whistleblower” , which documents the contractual paper trial. This happened two years ago and it is alleged that Facebook knew of it then. It is a crime in many jurisdictions, including California to not notify either the regulators or the data subjects of a breach/leak of personal data.

Sadly 🤔 they have been accused of misleading the House of Commons, select committee inquiry into Fake News. It has been denied that Cambridge Analytica had Facebook data in a verbal submission. Its Chair, Damian Collins, is quite forthright, accusing Facebook of sending under informed representatives to answer the committee’s questions. The word wilful ignorance comes to mind.

As Brits, we need to see if crimes were committed during the 2015 & 2017 General Elections and/or the Brexit Refrendum but this can’t be good for Facebook’s reputation.

ooOOOoo

I wish we still had Storify, this is one for them.

The image is from the Guardian on the story on Parliament’s reaction.

Brexit’s Red Lines

Last month, was it really under 30 days ago, Michael Barnier produced a slide, showing the impact of the British Government’s self-imposed Red lines on the likely end-state of the UK’s relationship with the EU.

It shows that the only option is a bespoke trade deal on the lines of the Canadian/EU one, which famously took 7 years to negotiate.  It also shows that the only other option is a No Deal Brexit.

Second Mandate

Owen Jones posts why he thinks the Referendum vote can’t be wished away, and asks for a considered reply as to why he’s wrong!

I wrote the following; I wrote it for twitter, which is why it is styled as it is, but will reply to the thread by pointing here since it currently has over 250 replies and posting another 9 seems a bit self indulgent.

You and others argue that the Referendum mandate is considered inviolate by the Leave voters, but you don’t know; its mandate has been superseded by the 2017 General Election and it didn’t agree any terms of departure.

It is common sense and the current law, that we should collectively determine if the terms negotiated by the government, when we know them meet the will of the people which would probably need to be by referendum; if departure includes a transitional agreement or joining the EEA, there must be a referendum under Cameron’s European Union Act 2011.

It is not a second referendum on whether to leave, it’s a first referendum on whether a known future is desired. In my words from last year, we are asking ourselves if this is what we meant!

WRT to Labour’s electoral arithmetic, there are more Remainers voting Labour than Leavers. The risk to Labour of supporting an inadequate Tory deal is greater than opposing it. Why do you ask the majority to suck it up, rather than Labour’s Leavers?

Corbyn and his advisors need to be very careful; it’s likely that most of his leadership voters and supporters are Remainers. Most of his closest advisors would seem not to be.

On the messengers, not much to say, when you’re right …. I am not a fan of much of Adonis’s body work but I assume, despite his Progress alignment that he is acting in good faith, the name calling is not helpful but neither is the use of the issue to re-open old wounds.

I agree we need a message of hope, which was missing from the original Remain campaign although it would seem that many have been persuaded to Remain by the debate around the terms of departure. It’s hard, the freedom to learn, love. work and live anywhere in Europe in a human rights based jurisdiction doesn’t seem to be enough.

The Data Flow implications of Brexit

The Data Flow implications of Brexit

Project Fear or Project Reality about Brexit continues and while risks to banking, air travel, radio-therapy and the pan-European integrated manufacturing supply chains are all making the headlines, there is also a serious problem with maintaining data flows particularly of personal data, which underpins both secondary & tertiary sector industries.  This article looks at the threat to trade involving data flows posed by Brexit and looks at the likely shape of US/EU data flow and privacy regulation.

ROFLMAO

I went to Stand Up for Labour tonight, who need money; it was very funny and very right on. Jim Jefferies, not performing, in his stand-up routine on abstinence uses the phrase “a hint of a boo”. Ian Stern, who is very funny, he made me laugh, with the help of my neighbour who was laughing throughout, raised a “hint of a boo” by mentioning Progress. He raised a cheer when slagging off Brexit. There were a couple of hundred people present. The Labour Party’s membership, its new membership, opposes Brexit, and so do the majority of its voters. The old left are playing with fire.

Labour’s New Brexit

Labour’s New Brexit

Today, Labour Conference debated the International Report of the National Policy Forum and a statement on Brexit from the National Executive Committee. I believe the NEC statement was issued to delegates only, on the morning of the debate, which while not unusual is unacceptable. A campaigning comrade, Sacha Ismail posted the words to his Facebook timeline, and I have posted them below. Kier Starmer summed up the debate, and I have posted a video of his speech, which I then comment on. It was a weak speech, which disguises the weakening of Labour’s policy and moves it towards a pro-Brexit position.

Mild Shenanigans

Mild Shenanigans

There’s been a bit of a fuss over the Labour Party’s decision not to prioritise i.e. choose to discuss motions submitted by the membership and affiliates on Brexit. There were proposals to support the single market/customs union and to support free movement of labour. The Trade Unions agreed to ensure debates on the economy, Grenfall and industrial policy took place and it was left to the CLP delegates to determine if Brexit would make it to Conference floor. CLPD & Momentum, claiming to be supporting the Leadership, asked that four, admittedly important, subjects were debated and not Brexit. Many of my friends argue that the Brexit debate was being engineered by Corbyn’s opponents to embarrass him. It’s not true of all who argue for Labour’s current policy, defined in Lab16 Composite 1, of defining red lines and obtaining a second mandate if those lines were not met, are looking to embarrass the leadership.