Slashdot Mirror
UK Government Wants To Kill Net Neutrality In EU
Glyn Moody writes "Not content with snooping on all Internet activity, the UK government now wants to introduce changes to the contentious EU Telecoms Package, which will kill net neutrality in the EU: 'Amendments to the Telecoms Package circulated in Brussels by the UK government, seek to cross out users' rights to access and distribute Internet content and services. And they want to replace it with a "principle" that users can be told not only the conditions for access, but also the conditions for the use of applications and services. The amendments, if carried, would reverse the principle of end-to-end connectivity which has underpinned not only the Internet, but also European telecommunications policy, to date.' To add to the irony, an accompanying text cuts and pastes from Wikipedia, without attribution."
This has nothing to do with left wing or right wing, and allegations that it does are simply foolish. The English Conservative Party has a well-documented history of fascist tendencies going back at least as far as WWII. There were even quite a few Tories who thought Hitler had the right idea, and said so publicly. Sir Oswald Mosley illustrates the point well. First he was a Tory, then a Labour cabinet minister, then he abandoned both parties to found the British Union of Fascists.
You might also be unaware that in its current incarnation the Labour Party is to the right of what has traditionally been the British centre.
In any case, this situation is just another indication of a coercive government doing what it does best: get people under its thumb and squeeze out any hint of thought and activity it doesn't either monitor or control. Just try to find real differences in the position of the Tories and Labour on any issue of substance. Currently, "Right" and "Left" are simply labels of convenience to soothe the party faithful.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Sorry for the pedantry, but I've been seeing this particular malapropism a lot lately. "Populous" is an adjective, meaning "densely inhabited". The noun you're looking for is "populace", meaning a population of people. Yes, they're pronounced exactly the same, so it's a very common substitution.
My parents and brother live in the UK and all that "police state" stuff was just in your head, mate.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Your argument has many flaws. USA becomes a great nation by becoming independent from the British influence. Without the revolution, we would have become another docile Canada (sorry, no pun intended to our good neighbor from the North) because of the spirit of its citizens and the genius of its founding fathers!
We had to fight against British arrogance in our American Revolution to become free. While most of the original 13 colonies were British ones, many other territories and states had a much diverse European population (including French descendants, Spanish decedents, Irish, German, etc.). US are a unique melting pot cultures, not just the English one. We march with the Scottish pipes, because persecuted Scottish found a home away from the oppression of the English. Same for Irish. German population was a big share of the initial US. British have no merit regarding where US is now.
The merit is of the American people who found a free land (with natives, all right), undeveloped (from the European perspective), with a climate similar in many regards to European one. US are Europe 2.0! British readers, please, don't assume merits you don't have in what America has become!
Your Empire has vanished, you are just an island nation now, that's all, living from the memories of the past, when pound was what USD is today, and when London was what is Washington, today. And with your copy-cat economy, Frankfurt am Main in Deutschland will soon become the financial capital of the EU.
You see, Germans got it right, by involving in the EU as a key engine part, they achieve peacefully now goals that they fought - and lost in the past. Deutschland and France look into the future, British are so much anchored in the past. What is your role and influence in today's world? Diminishing every day... IMHO
In the UK there is a final arbiter; and that is the Queen, who must sign off on legislation before it becomes law. Nowdays it is mostly ceremonial, I don't think she has exercised the right to not sign legislation for a long time now (if ever, for the current monarch). But it does mean that there is an additional opportunity to stop any Enabling Act type legislation before it becomes law.
In principle, the constitution in the US is a strong document, but in the end it is people who have to uphold it. Primarily, the Justice Department is responsible for giving legal advice to the executive (and, I guess, to congress too?), and if they routinely give advice to the executive that is borderline or illegal, then there is not much recourse. The courts can usually intervene, but that is a slow process - and of course that depends on the courts finding out about the illegal activities in the first place.
Having a widely held view does not make that opinion interesting or less provocative.
The post does not have an argument it is purely hostile. As I said before, EU treaties were all negotiated and signed by more than one party. If the original poster is unhappy with this he should ask the politicians of his country to negotiate differently and not sign treaties his people don't want !
I'm not sure how to defend against something that lacks an argument. AFAIK Britain has kept to her end of all the EU treaties she has signed, or is that defined as "perfidious" ?
The only other thing I can say is that the British people do not identify with this idea that they are clinging on to the remnants of their empire. As far as they are concerned the British Empire is a relic of history books. It seems that it is the rest of the EU that need to get over it. Do I need to defend that too ?
Politicians are corrupt. There is value(read: profit) in artificial scarcity. By reducing the consumer's expectations you can get them to pay more for the same service. Profit is good for the economy(in theory).
Yes, yes, yes, NO! Profit from artificial scarcity causes a deadweight loss, and is bad for any other industry as well as consumers and therefore the government.
I don't know why my government is doing this, as it sounds like the exact opposite of the changes Britain normally proposes, but I don't understand any of the UK government policies. I would say roll on the general election, but I'm not convinced that Cameron's Tory's will be much better.
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
Hmmm... And what do you think stops the Government from bringing about a dissolution of the monarchy?
Could it be that she rubber stamps pretty much anything they put in front of her?
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Dare I mention that there are more than 2 parties in the UK? The sooner people get out of this 2-party mentality the sooner democracy will come closer to working again...
I swear we should be allowed to give mod points to sigs... "-1, Offtopic"
Dare I mention the first-past-the-post system? Here one only actually has a vote if you live in a Tory-Labour marginal. The Lib-Dems will never get enough votes to form even the coalition that might introduce real democracy.
That won't stop me voting Lib-Dem. I think Clegg/Cable are the guys I want running the country now. I just know it'll never happen.
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.