* Posts by codejunky

2815 posts • joined 24 Oct 2011

Google internal revolt grows as search-engine Spartacuses prepare strike over China

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Hmm

@ JohnFen

"Yes, I never said otherwise."

Ok then this is resolved, Google complies with the law and provides the service in China. As I have said from the start.

"And the people who work for them."

Erm kinda but no. They can leave the company. They are not in charge. To what degree should business bend to the prejudices of its workers? There will always be more than one opinion for as long as there is more than one person.

"You've moved the goalposts here. I was disputing the assertion that "moral and right have no meaning". I was not asserting that there was such a thing as an "absolute morality"."

Ah ok. I am not trying to move goal posts but to argue morality is easy for and against a lot of 'positions'. Basically they are highly subjective and extremely flexible terms which is why I consider them meaningless.

"Personally, I think the best move they can make is to quit"

I agree. I have done this too, not for a 'morality' issue but for structural changes I disagreed with. I voiced my concerns to management only and then made my exit when the plan I absolutely disagreed with continued regardless.

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Hmm

@ JohnFen

"I'm not saying "don't do business with China". I'm saying "don't do business in a nation where the laws are requiring you to do something objectionable"."

Ok. The nation in this instance is China. To offer this service to the people of China Google will have to abide by the law. Google is not objecting to the law because it wants to provide the service to the Chinese population. Also Google isnt objecting, just some people who dont run it.

"Indeed, and I'm referring to the morality of the people who are deciding what action they should or should not take."

Which are the heads of Google who went ahead to develop this service.

"This couldn't be further from the truth."

Ok please define. What are the absolutes of morality/rightness.

"We're getting into a very nuanced area here. I'll just leave it at this: I both agree and disagree with you here."

Ok, I dont expect us to see eye to eye but you may have considered something I dont which is why I was willing to carry on. Infrastructure is infrastructure but what it is turned to doing is the area of right and wrong (again very fluid and hard to define). But I think this is why some people can be against this and some for, but those in charge of the business make the decisions for the business. This is others complaining about it.

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Hmm

@ JohnFen

"I don't understand the relevancy of this argument. Are those electronics and clothing intended to help the government engage in abuse? I do actively avoid supporting such products."

So you dont want to help their government but dont understand the relevancy of sending them money? What is wrong with doing business in the country to provide a service to their population? Because you dont like their government doesnt really have any weight as an argument.

"I would be happy is Google were even 25% as moral as the average human being."

Which then begs the question of what is morality and based on who's morals. Is that average human being of a particular country, continent, culture or do you actually mean globally?

"You are conflating the legality of something with whether or not it is moral or right. Those are two independent things."

That is because legality is defined while morality or even more amusing 'right' is highly flexible in its meaning. The difference being that moral or right have no meaning.

"No, I'm saying that it's wrong to build an infrastructure that helps a government to abuse its own citizens."

Well thats the entire war machine removed. Even if built for defence it could be turned inward (see US). And the entire welfare/tax system too. Policing too.

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Hmm

@ JohnFen

"No, it's an argument to avoid doing business in nations where the laws are morally unconscionable."

Bad news for you. I am pretty sure with electronics and I assume you have clothing etc you likely buy from China even if it is somewhere in the supply chain. So why should Google be more moral than you (in your opinion)? As I pointed out Google is looking at act within the law, so if you have some problem with that you need to explain your problem.

Are you saying the Chinese do not deserve access to western products and services? All because of their government?

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Hmm

@ doublelayer

Not trying to be difficult but the answer you seem to have provided is that Google shouldnt do business in China and somehow should take up the role of political activist to try to change Chinese law to something [it?] would find acceptable. Yet when they do that in the west people complain about the lobbying and how close Google gets to politics (see Obama).

I seem to have been downvoted a bit but yet business is expected to work within countries laws and on another discussion about the Washington Post people are trying to suggest GDPR should be enforced on US companies. Yet in this case Google is looking to work within the law of the country it looks to serve and yet somehow should reject it? This isnt even China overreaching with something like GDPR or such.

codejunky
Silver badge

Hmm

Is the complaint that Google would be providing something to the Chinese market following the laws of China to do so? Is this an argument for Google not to follow the law? To pick and choose?

Space policy boffin: Blighty can't just ctrl-C, ctrl-V plans for Galileo into its Brexit satellite

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Strangely in the last week or so....

@ Voland's right hand

"That is what the current polls say."

Ok but that really doesnt matter. Just as we can have an election where nearly nobody will admit they will vote UKIP then UKIP get a massive share of the vote. Or polling after an elected government screw up. If we changed our minds every time poll data said something different we would get nothing done. And we cant afford another vote every time poll data changes or we will be voting before the last one has results.

The reason we kept being promised a referendum (even in Blairs time) and never delivering is because people would vote to leave. The French president has already admitted the French wont be given the choice as they could vote to leave. Opposition to the EU is throughout the EU. Our leaving is just ahead of the curve.

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: @codejunky A minority

@ sed gawk

"What I actually said was"

Avatar of They - minority vote to leave

Me - In what world is a majority vote a minority?

You - A world in which less than fifty percent of the population who were eligible to vote, voted on an advisory basis

So I corrected someones big mistake, you misunderstood the difference between population and voter, we continue. Feel free to put your own spin on that.

"thereby making it clear what I meant.."

Of course if you may have intended to mean something completely different and entirely irrelevant (comparing apples and oranges, or in this case population and voters).

"Again, people don't vote in G.E. for single issue parties, hence the dismal performance of UKIP"

Actually UKIP did stunning in the election Cameron won by offering a referendum to the population. Libs actually made it into government at all on their promise of tuition free uni.

"I made no such claim, I clarified that I meant you needed to study the subject as your conclusion is demonstrably erroneous, take that as you will."

Ok. So you assume I need an education on the subject which again is your assumption and again I take that as you saying I need an education on the subject. And still am not impressed with your contribution so far. Also I was amused at your mock 'for shame' crap playing the poor victim.

"My opinion is that the .gov in this country is more of a threat to me than the EU28."

Ok. I still wont even take issue with that for the moment. That still doesnt change a majority vote to leave, we should leave, the EU is not roses at all and sticking an incompetent government on top of ours (however bad you want to call it and feel free) does not make anything better. I didnt even defend damage done to this country by our own governments (that you mentioned) only to point out some of the same by the EU gov already.

"made my small business able to protect itself from larger business"

Congrats. And again I mean that. There are always winners and losers in change, and still you said you are fine in or out (which again congrats). Just because you are sitting pretty doesnt mean everyone else is or that people believe this is the best we can have (3 votes so far).

"I not despite the slander"

Please stop crying victim. You wanted to know why you couldnt vote a ducking stool and it be implemented (I explained voting throughout my response to you). Next you said I needed to educate myself after amusingly claiming no benefit to brexit and telling me how I was used (again I explained voting, corrected your statement on FOM, returned your cheap shot with 'selling the UK' to make my point and asked why I should take just your word there are zero benefits). You cried slander with 'for shame' and moaning about 'cheap shots' (HA) and try to rewrite how I need to educate myself to I need to educate myself (I am supposed to take that differently?) and you again now moan the same. Dont dish what you cannot take. Do not discuss if your gonna just cry victim. This is a comment board, expect comments that dont agree with you and serve back.

"you've blusters but not offered any benefit of being out of the EU yet.."

You might have missed it but in the last response to you I said- "Go on lets discuss- economic, democratic, economy, trade, sovereignty. Your choice."

Dont complain I havnt offered anything when I am first giving you the opportunity to choose the topic.

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: @codejunky A minority

@ sed gawk

"It might suprise you to learn, that I think a hard brexit is the best possible outcome"

Thats also my position but for different reasons. Some people seem to think the EU is some wonder. That life ends at its borders. Even that it somehow is the reason we havnt had another world war!

"We are not equal, and our votes don't count the same. Depending on where you live in the country, your vote counted or not, demographics and grade boundaries dominated this referendum and every G.E. in my living memory."

The referendum ignored such boundaries so no. It was a simple majority referendum. In the GE's there was overwhelming votes (in number as well as boundary adjustments) for a referendum, and the only major party for remain was all but wiped out.

"Outrageous slander. I voted in the interests of my country, and the accusation of "Selling the country" is just cheap and shameful, for shame sir, for shame."

I respond in kind. You claimed I needed an education and bated into being weaponised, so dont dish what you cant take. I too voted what I consider in the interests of my country as I accept you did too.

"While we are counting votes, Boaty mc-Boatface won the vote, I don't see you being outraged that "the will of the people" was ignored there, despite that being an *informed* vote."

Thats because on that matter I am a non-voter without an opinion. I dont give a hoot what it was called. Also where would you expect to see me outraged about that?

"just voted the same colour as they normally do, sadly that's British Politica for you"

Except the only major party for remain who would overturn the democratic result in an instant using the weighted voting of a GE (as you point out above) was almost wiped out completely.

"I voted to retain protections against the political class that has decimated this countries youth, manufacturing and education sectors."

Ok. And I voted against adding another government on top of our government which only expands the political class with little benefit but great destruction (e.g. decimating countries to save their currency). Both are opinions and we voted. 3 votes resulted in change.

"Like what, leaving EU28 makes little difference, the vast majority of migration is from outside EU27 in anycase"

Erm, no. Migration was about similar for both, but outside the EU has real requirements while within the EU migration is ridiculously easier as proven by my friends from inside and outside the EU.

"I'm saying that leave or stay, makes no difference to your friends."

Actually it could. Since those wishing to migrate here could be treated like the rest of the world.

"Perchance, is that because I disagree with your conclusion, in support of which, you've offered not a single fact, and instead made an assumption about my unexpressed position."

No its more to do with you assuming I am uneducated on the topic, assuming your opinion is more valid and your expressed position is how good the EU is. And your claim that there is zero benefit to leaving.

"Strawman, I didn't suggest otherwise, I advocated educating yourself on the subject"

Countering yourself in the same sentence doesnt bode well. Go on lets discuss- economic, democratic, economy, trade, sovereignty. Your choice.

"If you think Brexit is going to change that, for better or for worse, I'd be interested to understand how I've been protected thus far and will be exposed."

Ok so you have been protected. Great (I do mean that). And your fine regardless of outcome, lucky you. I am pretty sure then what you have expressed at your expectation isnt about you but of others, and same with me. We just have different opinions. In fact our discussion here started with you misunderstanding voters and population as I corrected someones big mistake.

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: @codejunky A minority

@ John Brown (no body)

"I suspect he was simply countering the commonly stated "fact" (at least by leaver politicians) there is an "overwhelming majority""

Actually the argument of overwhelming majority is far more factual than claiming a minority vote to leave. Overwhelming majority can be argued for the 2 leave votes (referendum + GE) and even by the massive change of policy from an additional GE to actually have a referendum. His claim was absolutely false so counters nothing factually.

As for the rest of your comment you are right. I just get sick of these absolute lies and then being a leaver I am accused of being a lier. Often for correcting some serious FUD.

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: @codejunky A minority

@ sed gawk

"They lied to you. This is not about what you want, no-one, least of all the people behind brexit, gives a single shit what you voted for."

You are aware that the alternative (your position) is to invalidate the democratic vote (2 GE 1 referendum) because you disagree with the result. They dont need to give a single shit about me, I hope your not deluded to think the remain politicians give a rats testicle about you either. This is where we are all equal with a vote of equal value and the result is clear.

"You were weaponised against our country and sadly you took the bait,"

The cute thing is you seem to assume I dont think that about you. You voted to sell the country to the EU. The good news is we have a democratic vote where we all get to vote on our belief and remain lost. Twice.

"Incidently, "your friends from outside the EU" have zero to do with European freedom of movement."

Very true. But freedom of movement has something to do with my friends outside the EU.

"Again, there is zero benefit to Brexit, educate yourself, please."

And I am to take that on your word? Why? You dont seem to be very well clued up (in this brief exchange) and I am educated thanks. If you wish to discuss feel free but if it just gets you frustrated that things didnt go your way then I am not going to make you feel any better.

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: @codejunky A minority

@ sed gawk

"TL;DR; 52 % of < 100% is not a majority of the population."

Ahh you too seem to have got this wrong. What he said was- "minority vote to leave" which is an entirely different thing to population. Population for example includes kiddies too young to vote and those who choose not to vote (for whatever reason as is their choice). 52% of voters with an opinion = without grey area or question a majority. Just as 48% of voters with an opinion = without grey area or question a minority.

So either it was a majority vote to leave or you guys need a math lesson.

"voted on an advisory basis"

Did we? 1 GE to get a meaningful vote on our participation in the EU project, 1 referendum (the promised meaningful vote which the gov has gone along with) and a GE where the main remain party was almost wiped out.

"on something with rather more import and less understanding than might have been employed"

That I would agree. Both official campaigns were a complete disgrace and lied badly. The direct threats against the population by Osborne and the abuse of the governments position to rig the vote also being extremely shameful too. I would have preferred an honest campaign from both sides.

"you are unlikely to benefit from Brexit"

Ok. Assuming I believed that I do believe I would be worse off in the EU. I also didnt limit my vote to that either but instead looked at the issue as what I feel would be best for the country. I have debated those points many times which still leaves me believing I am right.

"I hope you can articulate what you think will improve our country, once the removal of our rights of free movement has been completed. "

Only on the basis of freedom of movement? Ok. First it isnt a right, no. Also your right to leave the country is not being removed, and the EU has also decided it will still accept people from the UK which was achieved before the EU anyway. My personal perspective is I have friends from around the world in the EU, Europe, Africa, Asia, US etc and they are all hard working and want to be here. Why are people from the EU better than the rest of the world? Why can my friends from the EU just come and grab a job (which they do well) while the others have to jump through hoops and are equally hard working?

So far however it is wage rises and the housing market coming back under control.

"I don't care, I voted why don't we just get on with it, why haven't we brought the ducking stool back yet."

That is a great example. That is again an inflated sense of self importance and why you might not like democracy where your vote is not worth more than anyone elses even if you feel that it is. I am sure people vote for the monster raving loony party but a single vote doesnt override everyone else just because of a belief in self importance.

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Strangely in the last week or so....

@ Voland's right hand

"Not rebate. Cameron forfeited that. Remember?"

Was that Cameron or Blair? We get screwed over so often its hard to keep track of which EU minion is making the motions.

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Strangely in the last week or so....

@ Avatar of They

"minority vote to leave"

Is this some kind of new math from either the EU or remain (not sure which should be tarnished with this stupidity unless you wish to own it). In what world is a majority vote a minority?

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Strangely in the last week or so....

@ jmch

"It's more likely of course that this is going to end up with no-deal"

I wish I had your confidence for a no deal. Unfortunately I dont think May or the gov has the stones to deliver and we will end up with an outcome that will please nobody but yet be nearer to remain than leave.

EU tech tax talks teeter on brink – reports

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Erm

@AC

"That's why they are never held to account for their actions regardless of what they do."

Except they are taxed as if they were a person and it is the people and economies which suffer for it. And in what way are they not held to account for their actions?

"You're also preaching to the wrong person, I'm a kind of socialist."

Actually you replied to my comment but as a socialist your perspective does make sense (I dont mean that in any funny way). I obviously am not socialist.

"but capitalism doesn't work in it's current form"

Worryingly that is a terrifyingly wrong statement (assuming I understand you). First the desirable countries are capitalists and free market. At the current rate actual poverty could be wiped out globally in our lifetime. Basically it is the capitalist and market based economies which are the most desirable, successful and world leading in progress.

"This world is now based on greed and in the end it will eat itself"

That I would agree with. However the more staunchly socialist approaches (of the Corbyn, Venezuela, USSR) have eaten themselves in short timespans. Your comment about supporting oneself and their family is extremely visible in those staunchly socialist countries.

"None of this is abuse against success, success is fine but when people horde money just the sake of it then it doesn't work or are we going to talk about the non-existent trickle down economy?"

Where is the hoarding? Assuming they put it in a bank it is lent out. If they buy assets they spend it. Unless they lock it away in a vault (where it is inflated away) they are not hoarding and if they do they lose money. That money being spent in the market economy which rewards productive and successful business makes everyone richer. However collected by a government is spent how a government wishes to spend it and is a drain on an economy.

On trickle down how do you think it doesnt work? You have a computer. I assume a car? A mobile? Your groceries are a small percentage of your income? You have white goods? Medical care? Light? Heat?

"People have different view points, you have yours, I have mine however when it all goes tits up don't say I didn't warn you."

Thats cool. It is nice to debate with someone with a different perspective but reasoned. We are unlikely to see eye to eye but we are all free to our opinions and such differences make for interesting conversation.

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Erm

@AC

"What is fair?"

Tbh I hate that question, just as asking what is moral. Both are woolly words that actually have no meaning and can be used to support either side.

"Should we pay tax while corporations shift it around and pay none or move it to a country with the lowest rate?"

That is actually a good question. The opposite side of the same coin is should the government be allowed to steal all it wants from whoever it wants and abolish private property. A government will always want more money, thats not really something disputed by many (even if it took 100%). All tax ends up falling on the smaller, the poorer. So if there is no private property then the gov can take what it wants from whoever for whatever reason (window tax for example). Or do we have private property to which the gov can only take as we are willing to pay for the services we deem them necessary for?

Also a corporation isnt a person. And it is people who consume and so use money, so there isnt a tax on corporations, only a tax on the people which includes shareholders down to the lowest paid worker. Taking money from the economy (tax) literally takes away from the economy, while these corporations are not hoarding it in some vault- it is in the economy and improving lives.

"It sounds like you think corporations should be able to do what they want when the money has been spent in the UK"

You dont? I dont know your salary, but its too much. So lets cream some more off the top because I can spend it better than you can (the government approach). And of course you saying no is just greed and it is pretty likely you are in the top global 1% (you live in a developed country you probably are even on minimum wage) proving you need more taking. And we can even talk smack about how you obviously dont care about people or whatever (its all rubbish but a good excuse to steal from you.

Or as I am saying, the gov has no right to steal from you. Your private property is your private property regardless of my personal opinions of you. Because if you can be made such a victim so can I and those I care about.

"If the government is misusing it then that's up to us as the electorate to sort that out."

That is pretty much my argument. This is an abuse against success. People choose to use products and services from those businesses and are free not to. The gov is getting green eyes over someone elses success. I consider it very dangerous when it should be us who decide, not them.

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Erm

@ DavCrav

"Oh do fuck off with your free man of the land arch-libertarian Ayn Rand bullshit."

Eh? So you dont believe in private property?

"Governments are necessary"

Did I say they wernt?

"especially in Europe where they do nice things like look after you when you are ill"

In this case the suggestion is stealing more which I assume you dont care as long as they do nice things for you? Of course that would suggest they are not stealing from you but others so you dont mind.

"Yank (among others) piss-takers are jeopardizing the whole of our welfare state, and we don't want to end up like you."

I am not a yank. I have nothing against Americans but I am not in or from the US. I am in the UK where our gov is currently sucking tax at a 50yr high (as a percentage of GDP) and grasping to take more. We also keep hearing we are in austerity which is rubbish. Enjoy-

https://www.continentaltelegraph.com/your-tax-money-at-work/there-is-no-austerity-in-the-uk-tax-take-at-50-year-high/

codejunky
Silver badge

Erm

"to claw back more cash from tech giants whose business models pose a challenge to national tax authorities"

To claw back suggests it was the authorities in the first place. The authority isnt providing the popular service that people want, it is the business.

UKFast mulls putting IPO on ice due to six little letters: BREXIT

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: forthcoming meetings in the next few weeks "will shed more light on the situation"

@ Alan Brown

"you have to BE a WTO member to do that and Britain hasn't been one since 1974."

Is there seriously a person left in this country who still believes that crap or are you just saying it hoping someone will fall for it? We are a WTO member, that is not in question nor debate. It hasnt legitimately been so at all at any point.

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: forthcoming meetings in the next few weeks "will shed more light on the situation"

@ A.P. Veening

"It wouldn't surprise me in the least if a revocation of the invocation of article 50 isn't allowed unilaterally. And by now a couple of other EU countries are ready to hit that with a veto. If that is true, remaining isn't possible."

We can only hope. Uncertainty is painful (and unnecessary) but that is the choice of the gov (I dont even blame the EU for that it is entirely our gov).

Blighty: We spent £1bn on Galileo and all we got was this lousy T-shirt

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Well, who'd have thought it?

@ Jamie Jones

Important follow up. Why is there such a huge fight to remain, but no fight to join the EU proper? Some people want to remain, but not rejoin because then we lose our opt-outs etc. The EU is so wonderful and great that we dont want to join it because it is a mess, it is awful and we prefer to be at-least arms length away.

Even with our opt outs there is no vote to remain. A GE demanding a choice, a referendum majority out (remain couldnt even get a piddly 50%) and then another GE where the only party promising to ditch democracy and ignore the referendum are left with a handful of people. A few thousand people wandering the street with some of them maybe knowing what the protest is about doesnt change that they are not an overwhelming majority, nor even a majority!

It is almost like this is the last stand for the lost cause. The desperation to remain now with opt outs is paramount or we would never join such a bad political union.

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Well, who'd have thought it?

@ Jamie Jones

"If you gave a crap about democracy, you would welcome a referendum based on the final situation"

Only if I gave a crap about removing democracy yes. That is not what I want, I like democracy and the people being able to make a choice. We dont have do-overs every time a new government is formed and they 'adjust' their promises. However if you give a damn about democracy you would know we have had 3 votes to say we want a say and 2 of those to say leave the EU. The only democratic option now is to leave the EU. Hell the argument for another bloody vote is to stop brexit, not democratic.

"especially as the first was run on illegal campaigning and lies."

Yes it was. Both official campaigns lied. The gov and BoE abused their position. Rigged the vote and still lost badly. Yet the remain propaganda campaign has continued long after the votes. And not for democratic preparing for the next election to fight to rejoin the EU but instead to overturn the 3 democratic votes.

"But then, you know that current polls show that over half the voters want to remain, which scares you no end. Democracy? When it suits you."

Such polls similar to before the referendum. 1 vote for a referendum, 1 referendum and another general election where the remain party almost wiped out completely. At what point are you confused about democracy?

"Now, even ignoring the fact that he already lives in the EU, and you're taking that away from him, explain how he can move to Europe?"

What argument is that? You go to Scotland and tell them they didnt deserve an independence vote because they already live in the UK and it would be taking that away from them. Also how are you confused about how he can go to Europe? He could emigrate to the EU. It has not been taken away from him, it still exists. Why does his minority opinion overrule democracy? That is not very democratic.

"Removal of free travel and immigration rights doesn't just apply to the UK and the "bloody foreigners pinching our jobs, houses, and benefits""

Travel isnt free. You actually perform a transaction of money for passage by train, boat or air. Or is your argument that the EU doenst want him? Because he is free to leave the UK.

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Well, who'd have thought it?

@ Jamie Jones

"His claim was only amusing if you find others misfortune funny."

His claim was amusing because it was not only crap but not even polished crap. How is it his misfortune that he lives in a democracy and is free to leave for the very place he is claiming to desire to be?

"Because of backwards people like you, we aren't "free to go"."

Erm, why? Why cant he go? Its just over there. He can go.

"Hope that is clear."

Not really. Sounds like you are moaning but there is no clear reason. Seems your comment exists only so you can call me backwards. I dont really know how to respond to that without being condescending- awww, there there

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Well, who'd have thought it?

@ HolySchmoley

Sorry if it wasnt clear to you but 'No we aint' was to the amusing claim that those voting leave took away his supposed 'right' to be in the EU. As I said "No we aint. The EU is just over there, feel free to go.".

Hope that is clear.

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Well, who'd have thought it?

@ Roland6

"An insightful comment Codejunky!"

I wasnt trying to be funny with him, just pointing out that we have not taken away his 'right' to be in the EU, it is in existence without us its just over there. And his 'right' to want to be in the EU does not undermine 3 votes to remove ourselves further. The worrying part is he thinks he has a 'right' over all these people he seems to dislike.

"This perception of separateness I think is key to understanding some of the relationship issues this country (and probably its just the English) has with the EU and Continental Europe over the decades."

It is to be expected to have a long and not all happy relationship with such close neighbours. Throw in the geographically close and conflicting empires throughout history and it isnt shocking that another empire is not warmly welcomed. Even throughout the EU the populations are unhappy with the EU, this isnt a UK or English thing.

It amazes me the fight to remain but only because we opted out of so much. The EU project is so wonderful and desirable that we do not wish to join it proper, and even with our arms length participation the majority voted for change in 3 votes, leave in 2 votes.

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Well, who'd have thought it?

@ Pen-y-gors

"No, we are a 48% civilised country"

So accept the results of the 3 democratic votes? 1 GE for a referendum, 1 referendum and 1 GE.

"No, they should all spend the rest of their days in a 10x10ft cell in Dartmoor, only coming out for 12 hours work a day breaking rocks in an open-air quarry, regardless of the weather. The whole thing being livestreamed 24/7. Vindictive? Moi?"

I think you are rubbing up against that civilised but when talking of vindictive dreams. At least leave voted for change (3 times).

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Well, who'd have thought it?

@ Pen-y-gors

"I've lived in the EU for many years, still do. It's a little country called Wales. I want to continue living in the EU, but a bunch of mindless, selfish, gullible twats are taking that right away from me."

No we aint. The EU is just over there, feel free to go. If you consider the majority of the UK to be mindless, selfish, gullible twats then you might be happier over there. And please take those other remoaning mindless, selfish, gullible twats with you. Stop trying to take the UK away from us. You cant even get a democratic majority in 2 votes (referendum and GE).

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: UK contributions

@ Trollslayer

Not forgetting the signed agreement Cameron was proud of that our contribution would not be used to bail out Greece. And of course it then was.

codejunky
Silver badge

Meh

On the plus side we dont get ripped off by the EU for any of their other ideas. I am glad to hear one MP is challenging if building our own is worth it.

Washington Post offers invalid cookie consent under EU rules – ICO

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Nothing. Nadda. Zip. Zilch.

@ Wapiya

"I quite disagree. GDRP (Article 3) rules require anyone who uses data from anyone residing in the EU to abide by the rules."

In the UK superinjunctions can be used to hold back information. Which is then printed anyway in other countries who do not follow such law. A better example could be that China censors its media, so why are we not censoring to the same standard to appease them?

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Nothing. Nadda. Zip. Zilch.

@ Dan 55

"In the age of the Internet, you must get over this physical presence thing."

I agree but probably not as you are thinking. Just because the internet is present in every country shouldnt mean we follow every countries laws (otherwise there would be no internet) but instead that countries stop trying to impose territory restrictions outside their territory.

"However WaPo does have a physical presence in London as shown above so by your own criteria should also follow the GDPR."

However, the watchdog's hands are somewhat tied here since the Washington Post is a US-based organisation and is outside its jurisdiction. I (nor WP) need provide no more answer than no. Actually they could do less than that and file the complaint in their dustbin shaped 'in' tray. No matter how much you complain, moan or argue. You are welcome.

"Facebook and Twitter do follow German hate speech laws by the way."

I like how you say that as some form of revelation.

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Nothing. Nadda. Zip. Zilch.

@ Dan 55

"If WaPo really don't want to offer a service to EU readers they can put up a "we're not serving the EU" page. However, they are."

Why? WP puts up their content for people to access. They are happy for people to access wherever in the world. Some people in the EU might even go as far as VPN to access US services because of the anal retentive EU. People dont have to go to WP if they dont like it, instead this is a gov problem of not liking something people in another country do.

"I assume you also believe Facebook and Twitter and so on should not follow German hate speech rules for users in Germany either?"

Depends what physical assets they have there and if Germany would be cutting them off or even threatening jail if zuck came near the EU. Instead this is a regulator stomping its feet and making a little noise but nothing more.

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Nothing. Nadda. Zip. Zilch.

@ Dan 55

"Presumably, then, Apple should just offer one year warranty as they do in the US. Why bother following the law in countries they sell abroad to?"

So you are comparing a physical item being physically sold somewhere against people in the EU being the ones intentionally going to the US (internet) and buying within the US? This is the virtual/internet problem governments seem to struggle with too. Reality is reality, that is where the borders are and jurisdiction pretty much ends without cooperation between governments.

Of course the EU is welcome to copy the Chinese model of blocking anything they disagree with. Firewall themselves from the outside world and so on.

Just realised this also applies/agrees with John Brown (no body) about the physicality of territory. Even if I disagree this is WP's problem.

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Nothing. Nadda. Zip. Zilch.

@ DavCrav

"You mean the law? Yeah, it tends to mean that, actually."

Ha what a pointless response. They are not breaking the law, that is why the UK/EU can do damp squib about it. Because WP is not breaking the law, WP is in the US not the EU nor UK.

"I bet you if you want to sell stuff to Chinese people, and even if you are just nearby, and the Chinese government tells you to change your website, you do it"

So when is the EU gonna start building its great firewall of the EU to keep those dissenting voices from being heard? But no as the article says- "but the UK's privacy watchdog can only issue it with a firm telling off.". Aww didums.

In short WP have done nothing wrong because they are outside the jurisdictions where they would be doing something wrong. And so the people who read it can go on reading it without politics and government getting in the way.

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Nothing. Nadda. Zip. Zilch.

@ Paul Kinsler

"But some newspapers and news sites quite successfully expand their readership by deliberately appealing to and attracting people from other countries."

Which is done by appealing to them. That does not require they follow every brain dead idea of every foreign countries government, but by actually providing what the people want.

"As I understand it, the WP is quite a respectable newspaper, and so could well be of interest to many people in the EU who might subscribe."

And those people will use it regardless of the governments crying. So no problem at the WP side. Just because a country (or in this case the EU) would like everyone to bend to their will doesnt mean providers outside that jurisdiction will.

"So whilst the WP can indeed say "Bollocks to EU", might it not be more pragmatic for them to fix their site"

You assume by that the site is broken. Which leads to a big problem because under China's laws a lot of the internet is 'broken' and so all should be fixed to praise the Communist party? Or do we say bollocks to that? Of course we do and so bollocks to the EU imposition, they have no right, no jurisdiction and the WP site is not broke unless WP feel the change is necessary.

codejunky
Silver badge

@ Pascal Monett

"It remains to be seen how long this will remain acceptable to the public before a global push to stop tracking starts up."

While framing it as stopping tracking to stir up the public seems to be working so far, most people still want access to the things they use and that is more important to them than government control for our own good.

It would be interesting to see the publics opinion on the EU's 'walls' from the outside.

codejunky
Silver badge

@ A Non e-mouse

"All that the WP has to do is"

Nothing. Nadda. Zip. Zilch. They are in the US and so this bollocks has limited effect of them. It is up to users if they want to use the site.

Brexit: UK will be disconnected from EU databases after 2020

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Ah, the UK gov

@ Adair

"which makes the most wonderful scapegoat, right on our doorstep."

So you should be cheering brexit. We leave and therefore wont have the scapegoat to blame, we will need to sort our own government out and we all all happy.

"and in a way that engages the support of a decent majority of the population (something at least approaching a consensus)"

Something we never had for joining but had 3 votes out of 3 to have a choice and leave. There is absolutely no consensus to remain by a long shot.

"so that the nay sayers have to acknowledge that the nation as a whole generally supports the move."

That is called democracy, I agree they need to acknowledge the 3 votes (2 GE 1 referendum), they dont.

"I think that as things stand we are probably better off remaining in, and getting our own house in order"

Which wont happen as you say there is a scapegoat. One that inflicts its own damage.

"which on all the evidence to date is doing nothing but harm to this country."

That would be the FUD I assume? The evidence is actually pretty good for voting leave so far. The argument that brexit was causing harm lost its legs pretty quickly. Now its will cause harm in the future. Just as the 2 recessions predicted for brexit didnt happen and now its some point in the future (aka blame the next business cycle recession on brexit).

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Ah, the UK gov

@ Roland6

"at least, definite about where the UK would be on 30-Mar-2019."

This does seem to be the biggest sticking point with our currency which swings with gov revelations and EU releases.

"remember everything in the UKIP plan about the WTO can be regarded as being rubbish as it is based on a flawed understanding of how the WTO operates."

In what way? I know Clegg got it wrong and a few others claiming we had to charge maximum WTO tariffs or something. We are already a member in our own right too.

"It looks as if this really will run to the last minute, however, might be advisable to save some popcorn for the encores..."

Tbh this was expected. Apparently the EU have form for last minute but I dont credit our gov with much better (as above the current uncertainty). I must admit to slightly harbouring the hope that May would be kicked out and a hard brexitter taking charge. But since we are practically at the end of the negotiation period this is a bit late for a hail mary.

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Ah, the UK gov

@ Adair

"Codejunky, your paranoia is showing. One common theme of many who favour 'Brexit' is their determination that everything they are unhappy about -- EU, the state of the nation, the fiasco of 'Brexit' -- that it is all someone else's fault."

You might wish to elaborate. In what way is any of what I have said paranoia? Stating the facts is not paranoia. And for someone who apparently doesnt care either way remain or leave you really do seem to have a problem with the idea of brexit. So far you tell me its bad but dont seem to have a reason only how bad our gov is (which is not a reason).

"the state of the 'British' nation is the responsibility of all of it's inhabitants (the EU is a sideshow)"

And since you dont care if we remain or leave there shouldnt be an issue for you that we are leaving.

"'Brexit' is a stinking excretion by a nation that is being poorly led"

I dont disagree. As in the comment you are responding to explains clearly.

"They have completely failed to address the actual causes of their distress, i.e. not their location, but themselves."

Ok thats fine, so we leave the EU and your fine with that. So all your polishing turd comments dont matter in the context of brexit, you are fine with that. And we agree the gov isnt great. So what is the problem apart from an excuse to bash leaving the EU?

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Ah, the UK gov

@ Adair

"they are effectively wishful thinking so far as the actualitie of our situation is concerned."

Just as the fantasies of what remain would be. The idea that leave is somehow so bad is why such arguments cant be taken seriously.

"The point of belonging to the EU is a very old one - simply symbolised by a bundle of sticks bound together contrasted with a single stick"

The EU is based on an old way of thinking with protectionist blocks. Remainers at one point were accusing us of wanting to go back to the days of an empire etc, while fighting for an outdated construct.

"On the strength of present performance not a particularly healthy one"

One where the gov is determined to remain. I agree, which is why I voted leave and want us to leave the EU.

"there is no clear vision for the nation as a whole that everyone can cleave to with some integrity and hope"

Same inside the EU. Less than half wanted to remain, over half wanted to leave. The country was sold to the EU without the nation but somehow that now matters when the vote didnt give the 'right' result. As for integrity and hope, yet again not attributes of the EU. A place increasingly unpopular with the populations of the member countries.

I too dislike the lack of a plan. We voted leave in a referendum where the gov rigged the vote, threatened the population, produced so much FUD and actively refused to prepare for the possibility of voting leave. Then handing the job to a remainer who is trying to keep us in when all sensible negotiation has been telling the EU to shove their attempts to own the UK. The guaranteed outcome we can do unilaterally is leave. That is our starting point and only if the EU is serious about some mutually beneficial deal should we bother to entertain negotiation.

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Ah, the UK gov

@ Silver badge

"I suggest you reread that 'plan'; in light of what we now know."

It is still the only one with a plan. It was to leave, brexit, be out of the EU. It didnt have the uncertainty attached as we have now with a gov trying to remain in all but name. The country would be leaving and looking out to the world and the EU's worst fears of the UK using its competitive advantage would be reality.

Of course we can only look hypothetically at how it would have gone but it seems to have avoided all of the problems we face currently.

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Ah, the UK gov

@ Adair

"If it's any consolation I don't particularly care whether we leave or remain"

Ok thats good. I actually do care and after the long road to actually get a democratic choice for the first time on this project and I did vote leave and that was the result. 1 election to get the vote, 1 referendum where the result was returned and 1 election confirming to carry on.

"The how and why of Brexit has been abjectly poor, the evidence for that is all around us - including our discussion."

I agree. Both campaigns lied their arses off and I originally thought the official leave campaign was there to make remain look legitimate, until I saw the quality of both campaigns and felt embarrassed these people are our politicians.

"Brexit is most likely to prove a very poor choice - there is no evidence to suggest otherwise cand plenty to support that assertion."

Well thats bollocks. We can see the state the EU is in. After 20+ years of being trapped in it we voted out. It is in multiple self inflicted crises and looking further inward while trying to figure some way to implement 'ever closer union' without more members leaving. It is highly unpopular throughout the EU and that is before we debate if we like 'it'. There are plenty benefits in leaving which is why the EU keep asking us to sign away our competitive advantage.

"At no stage has anyone supporting 'Brexit' presented a cogent and substantiated argument as to why leaving in the manner that we are is going to result in a situation that is equal to or better than remaining and having a seat at the table."

Then I suggest going through my post history and read the many times I have done so as well as the various offers of various topics where the UK will be better off. Very few remain positions seem to hold much merit only fear.

"Added to which the chief proponents of Brexit don't seem to care that they have no useful plan."

To a point I agree. The only party with a plan to leave was Farages UKIP. May seems so desperate to remain while that not being a legitimate option that neither leave nor remain seem happy. I have no faith in her.

"Presumably they hope that at best they will become the new leaders of the new regime and reap their rewards, and at worst they will be free to plunder the wreckage. Either way there is no evidence whatsoever that any of them give a shit about the wellbeing of the nation and its many inhabitants - especially the most vulnerable to economic and social crisis."

Sounds about right. The only consolation being we can vote them out and replace them. But I am under no illusion that the EU cares about us at all. They dont have to fear us voting them out and our jellyfish in power dont want to leave.

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Ah, the UK gov

@ Adair

"any fundamental change is normally and sensibly handled by: a. offering an 'advisory' referendum (which this one technically was except the politicians decided to overlook that constitutional legality), with a view to using the result as a means of assessing how to proceed,"

Ok, so joining the EU was invalid due to the fundamental change not involving a referendum. Instead the referendum was for a common market trading block.

"b. when any decisive vote us taken (whether in the referendum or later) that a 'super-majority' is required to avoid the divisive mess we are now in with the country split down the middle and riven by entrenched positions."

Ok. So we had a general election to get a referendum, a democratic vote (majority win) referendum and then another general election where the only main party for remain got almost wiped out. Done. So why are the remainers still so entrenched? What is wrong with them?

"but seem mostly interested in serving their own interests."

Like the idea of a peoples vote where remainers want to stop us from leaving? Leave has won 3 votes so far!

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Ah, the UK gov

@ Adair

"But what we do have is being a relatively small country now outside our immediate neighbour's 'club'"

Which has the total and absolute relevance of saying supercalifragilisticexpialidotious. Aka a completely worthless statement.

"and also the largest trading bloc on the planet."

Again so? Most countries are outside of it too.

"but the world is not the world where Britain once called the shots, looting and slaughtering it's way to wealth and influence"

Ahhh the self hating view of history. Do you not think most of Europe has plenty to hate about themselves too? That doesnt mean we can make it right by selling out the country and punishing ourselves now.

"Instead we will join all the other middling nations who have to take what they can get from the big players"

Big players like China and the US? The EU doesnt even compare. We are part of the developed world, unlikely to end up in such a severely damaged state as Greece and some other members of the EU (unless we elect Corbyn ofc) and throughout the leave process the EU keeps fearing we get a competitive advantage aka not trapped in the EU rules and regs.

"And there will be an immediate and painful cost to the nation, which as usual will be borne by those least able to cope. So much for 'social justice' and the 'well being' of the nation."

Oh so now we should ditch democracy for the good of the people! I didnt see that coming but no. But with full employment and wages rising (shockingly due to less migration) that is another poor argument. And yes there could be a shock but we only need to look at the state of the EU proper (Eurozone) to see how bad things could be and prolonged.

"Mind you, no doubt the poor deserve their poverty, they clearly lack what it takes to succeed in the 'survival of the fittest', 'dog eat dog' world of those who are so keen to have a 'clean break', whatever the cost."

And now tar any view opposite as heartless and your position need no fact or realistic position. A clean break already shown to reduce food prices which is an effective wage rise for EVERYONE including the poor. So in the same spirit- you obviously think the poor should starve and the EU drag us all down in their multiple self inflicted crises.

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Ah, the UK gov

@ Adair

"You're right, there is no consensus, because of the incompetent and self-serving way the whole thing has been handled."

So how should it have been handled? How do we ask the people if we should be in the EU? This is a problem the EU is noticing as a lot of the other members are having the same problem with people not liking the EU.

"The EU is largely a very convenient scapegoat and distraction that politicians and other stirrers have used quite shamelessly to excuse and justify their deeds, or lack of them."

That is a dead on statement. But also we gold plate EU law into UK law. Remove the EU and both of those go away.

"And now, in a crass and bungled attempt to deal with the internal politics of his own party Cameron leads us into the present clown-show."

True. Only one party had brexit planned and that was UKIP. This would be done, dusted and in a bow by now.

"Inside or outside the EU the only people who are going to fix 'Britain' are us"

Ok, I am fine with that. So we can be happy to be out because we need to fix our gov and can focus on that anyway. But for us leave voters we dont have the bad governance of the EU above our bad government.

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Ah, the UK gov

@ Adair

"Codejunky, I don't think you understand what I said at all, or you choose not to."

Your reply contained nothing of substance only that I re-enforced your views to you. I wasnt trying to misunderstand, I am all for discussion.

"It's not about 'majorities', it's about how people live and work together when they disagree. A very small majority merely emphasises the need for consensus."

And there is none. No consensus. We were dragged into the EU, the majority has been against the EU for a fair time (long enough for multiple promises of choice without delivering), and a desperate campaign to force a lack of democracy. A democratic option was made available in which people made their choice and the result was derived. That is how such disagreements are resolved. Unfortunately the losing side is determined to inflict their minority view on the rest of us. This wouldnt even be a discussion if remain won.

"The referendum and 'Brexit' are a classic example of how NOT to do democracy and how NOT to implement a fundamental change."

Ok. Then you can be proud to know that 2 elections as well as the referendum delivered the result. If you feel it is too complex for the people to vote on then you can be proud to be ignored by the gov as they conduct brexit. If you feel the country should be trapped in the EU without a referendum nor choice then maybe you should move to France. According to their president they would probably vote out, but he wont give them that choice.

Joe Public wants NHS to spend its cash on cancer, mental health, not digital services

codejunky
Silver badge

Shock

So people would prefer the National Health Service to invest in healthcare! With radical ideas like that we could end up with a health service that was any good! Of course that means there is no chance.

Health secretary Matt Hancock assembles brains trust: OK, guys. Let's cure NHS IT

codejunky
Silver badge

Oh no

Please dont. Just back away and leave their IT alone. Let them sort themselves out, they cant really do a worse job than the gov dreamers who keep breaking it with new rubbish at great expense.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018