Er "draw up new contracts" ?
How exactly will that make a company that is now part of a 3rd party country suddenly complaint with EU law ?
The UK has reportedly moved closer to agreeing the terms for data transfers with the European Union post-Brexit amid concerns about the impact it will have on business. According to The Times, citing unnamed government sources, negotiators on either side of The Channel have reached a "tentative agreement" on the exchange of …
Pretty sure that as the High Court has already ruled the IPA as incompatible with EU law (this) there will be no adequacy deal, let alone an "adequacy-plus" one unless substantial changes to the Act are made.
Especially as the six months the High Court gave the government to amend the act seems to have expired today with no changes having been made!
Typical Brexiteer - No collateral just an empty brain and no comments.
Ram your blue passport up your arse and I hope you feel all of the ramifications of voting to protect the likes of Rees-Mogg, Banks and the rest of the off-shore tax-dodging arseholes that want to destroy my country to serve themselves by whipping up hysteria over immigration.
You fell into the trap.
I hear the sound of one hand clapping. You won, get over it.
The UK government has consistently said it is ready to start talks over an adequacy decision, which involves the EU assessing whether a country has the same standards of data protection
Surely the EU is already assured of that, since we are part of the EU and abide by EU law. We therefore must already provide assurance of adequacy to the EU.
So surely we need to ensure that EU data protection law is written into UK law - which is what I thought that the Great Repeal Act (or whatever it is called now) is going to do - and then we continue to provide assurance as we have been doing up till now.
I can see that contracts would have to change to refer to the appropriate laws.
What am I missing?
The EU are willing to overlook things like security services mass slurping every piece of data that travels inside a member state's networks, less so for non-member states.
They also need a dispute resolution scheme in case of future divergence, this is usually the ECJ, one of Mayhem's red lines.
What am I missing?
That post-Brexit we will be in a different legal position. Not just the loss of the "national security" get-out on slurping, but also that we might change our laws or interpretations as part of the Henry VIII bill being pushed through, and that we[*] have already stated we won't be bound by the European Court of Justice decisions.
So those on the other side will need to assess what we are actually doing when the laws have settled.
You did not think that simple logic and common sense would prevail? It hasn’t so far...
* = The government. Not necessary an indication of the people's views
If he EU approves Safe Harbour why would they object to what the UK does - as the UK is compliant with current EU regs
Err... Let me rephrase that question for you.
Case 1. You go into the cage of the 800 pound bad tempered gorilla and object to her stealing one of your bananas.
Case 2. You do the same with a budgie.
You should be aware that a budgie when roused can give quite a nasty peck.
Sure. But it does not remove your head so at most you need a bit of plaster.
By the way, speaking as someone who has kept budgies for 10 years as a kid - they do not peck. They BITE. If they are really pissed they will hang on whatever they managed to get from you as skin like a bulldog and draw blood. Though mine did that only when I was trying to shove some antibiotic down their throat with a syringe.
@ Voland's right hand
"Case 1. You go into the cage of the 800 pound bad tempered gorilla and object to her stealing one of your bananas."
I do like this honest observation that the EU really cant play with the big boys. The idea of clustering together to throw its weight around and not be bullied was such a cute idea but in practice the EU just doesnt have that capability,
"A Labour minister? Did we have a general election and I didn't hear about it?"
I am wondering what happened to those lib guys too. At one point both lab/lib were going to the EU for what seemed like a negotiation while of course not being elected. I can only assume labour are trying to appear important or relevant still since their hard left leap.
The normal process of obtaining an adequacy decision can, from past experience, take a year or more, and Barnier is correct in stating that the EU rules only allow a third country (not a prospective third country) to apply, so we will have to wait until Brexit day before we can do so. There's no good reason why we should get special favours from the EU just because we're British - indeed Barnier has already stated publicly that this will not happen.
Whether or not we ultimately get an adequacy decision is important of course, but what we should be worried about immediately is this hiatus period during which we have to operate as if we had no comparability with Europe on data protection.
I've been actively pressing at the highest levels for specific guidance on what contingency plans and action UK business should take to ensure continued lawful processing of the personal data of subjects in the EU, but apart from a general reply from the Secretary of State to the effect that the existing standard contractual clauses (SCCs) will suffice for controller to controller and EU controller to UK processor transfers, I've so far obtained little other than optimistic superficialities or continued silence, and the clock is ticking.
What everyone seems to have overlooked is that even if the SCCs can be used in all cases (which I rather doubt), it won't be sufficient just to include them in EU/UK contract documents and walk away. The obligations imposed by the SCCs will force many businesses to modify their data protection management regimes (for example, to support the right of the EU party to audit, or to provide for the financial resources evidence requirement of Set 2, II(f)).
Data Protection is one of the few 'compliances' that can't be conducted using a perfunctory annual audit approach, all the more as once we leave the EU any tacit expectation of compliance by virtue of operating under a common regime will cease to be available to us, so scrutiny of relevant data processing by UK organisations will become much more stringent.
As there are only five months left for businesses to get everything in place including renegotiation of contracts, liaison with sub-processors, resourcing, implementing new procedures and the rest, it would be a really kind gesture on the part the officials responsible if they could document some specific detailed guidance that businesses can implement. We actually needed this guidance months ago, but it still seems to be on the back burner despite being at least as important as, and likely to affect many more British businesses than, the Irish border question.
but surely UK ministers have been buttering up the EU heads of state for months now to gain goodwill for future trade agreements? After all, it just takes one country with a grudge to veto a deal. Remember how Wollonia blocked the deal with Canada for months until they were given sweeteners to compensate their farmers?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019