Slashdot Mirror
EU's Highest Court Delivers Blow To UK Snooper's Charter (theguardian.com)
"General and indiscriminate retention" of emails and electronic communications by governments is illegal, the EU's highest court has ruled, in a judgment that could trigger challenges against the UK's new Investigatory Powers Act -- the so-called snooper's charter. From a report on The Guardian: Only targeted interception of traffic and location data in order to combat serious crime -- including terrorism -- is justified, according to a long-awaited decision by the European court of justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg. The finding came in response to a legal challenge initially brought by the Brexit secretary, David Davis, when he was a backbench MP, and Tom Watson, Labour's deputy leader, over the legality of GCHQ's bulk interception of call records and online messages. Davis and Watson, who were supported by Liberty, the Law Society, the Open Rights Group and Privacy International, had already won a high court victory on the issue, but the government appealed and the case was referred by appeal judges to the ECJ. The case will now return to the court of appeal to be resolved in terms of UK legislation.
Brilliant news, lets hope this judgement sticks.
Isn't the UK leaving the EU?
Not yet we haven't. Try to read and understand the news.
She lost! Get over it!
I thought we threw those EU communists out. What the hell is wrong with the EU? Throw them out already! We're tired of this big government globalist politically correct crap! The EU needs to stop interfering with OUR government!
You could power the national grid by harnessing Davis' cognitive dissonance. A court case decided in his favour against his employers by one of the institutions he's responsible for ridding us of.
I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
huh? This is exactly why the Brexiters voted Brexit. Fuck you and your unelected tyranny.
What?
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
I'm imagining here, but I reckon Brexitards are cool with the Snooper's Charter and big goverment surveillance. Partly because they're mortally fearful, cowardly people who want the government to give them the warm fuzzies by spying on them, and partly because they're fucking cunts.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
David Davis may have been one those that initially filed the challenge but he exited from the complaint on becoming Brexit minister. Suggesting that the price of his principles is being given a cabinet seat. His name doesn't really deserve any mention regarding this since he abandoned it.
Unbelievable that we, as a sovereign nation, have to adjust our laws because of a bunch of unelected twats in Brussels or for this example Luxembourg. Where is the democracy in that?
This only strengthens the Leave argument: why should some unelected non-UK people have a say in whatever laws the UK wants to pass for the UK? Seems like a rational concern to me. The fact that you don't like the law is immaterial to that argument.
EU also ruled that UK police have to delete it's DNA database of innocent people, but that hasn't happened yet hazzit?
It strengthens the Remain argument because it shows that of the two governing bodies: UK Parliament and EU, the EU is the one more disposed towards protecting UK citizens' rights.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
I'm imagining here, but I reckon Brexitards are cool with the Snooper's Charter and big goverment surveillance. Partly because they're mortally fearful, cowardly people who want the government to give them the warm fuzzies by spying on them, and partly because they're fucking cunts.
Yeah, but its's fun to see them try and fail to withdraw money from an empty account a whole two years before payday. Brexiteers may get a stiffy at the mere thought of living in a society with 1984 level surveillance but they'll have to wait at least another two years before they are able to stroke that particular pole and achieve total surveillance nirvana.
If I had "Mod Points", I'd mod you up for that observation...
Several things interest me about this particular piece of legislation:-
1. It Doesn't Work [1] - When the United States located Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan, it was revealed that no telephone line, no internet connection and no cell phone was connected to the compound in which he lived. In fact, it was a "black spot" for services. Instead, trusted couriers carried encrypted USB sticks by hand. Pretty good OpSec, by all accounts. In other words - the really dangerous terrorists out there do not use the internet to plan their activities or communicate with each-other; they are too smart for that
2. It Doesn't Work [2] - When major incidents have happened [such as was the case with the Paris Attacks, the monitoring of the perpetrators [which had been taking place] was not effective in *STOPPING* the atrocity, it was only useful for telling us that within 24 hours of the incident, the partner of one of the terrorists had fled the country and entered Syria via Turkey. Yes, this might be useful at stopping secondary or tertiary attacks, or at finding the support network, but it won't actually stop the event itself.
3. It Doesn't Work [2] - When investigators looked into the perpetrators of the Boston Bombing in the wake of the marathon attacks, it was again discovered that the perpetrators had been monitored by the security agencies, but that even though they had been "red flagged", the responsible agency had discounted the information because they had so much other data to review. The blanket dragnet meant that they spent all their time triaging initial cuts of data, not enough time following up on reasonable leads.
4. It's An Erosion of the Presumption of Innocence - The fact that *everyone* is caught up in the net [unless you are an MP or member of the judiciary, etc] means that every single person in the UK is presumed guilty of an offence - without being charged. The data is being collected "in case you do something bad"...
5. The Damaging Risk Of Leaks - There have been too many examples of data theft or accidential leakage to bother citing examples here; the fact is that such a treasure-trove of data would be too tempting for organised criminals. In the United States, insurance companies reported that in the wake of the TSA requirement for "approved locks" on all airline luggage, claims against theft of valuables from checked luggage have sky-rocketed. A system set up for one benefit - passenger safety - is being abused by another threat - light-fingered airport staff - resulting in millions being claimed, and tens or hundreds of thousands of passengers becoming victims every year. We should expect the same sort of widespread damage once the data is being collected. Remember - it is not being collected and held by a government agency, but by the telecommunications providers. Like TalkTalk. [ Data Leak Central ].
6. Erosion of Basic Freedoms - Perhaps the most significant change, however, is the way that the relationship between the state and the citizen changes as a result of this. Unlike, say, the US [which has a constitution], the UK has no such basic safety net for human rights. What this means is that more and more powers are being given to government and which are being mis-used.
As an example of this, when researchers looked into a similar and previously enacted piece of legislation [the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act], it was discovered that among the more notable and widespread uses of the law came from actions taken by local councils who were spying on residents suspected of "cheating" the school catchment area process. This is a mechanism by which children are enrolled in schools based on their home address. In other words, they way that legislation is "sold" to voting MPs and the way that it is actually used are two entirely different things.
But lastly, perhaps, is the fact that this would/will put so much power in the hands of the state that it makes the individual citizen defenceless against abuse by that state. And that is a very frightening place for us to be.
leave the EU and keep you spying , stay and dont do it
hail Theresa May
David Davis withdrew from the case in July when he was appointed to the Government to oversee Brexit, supposedly in order to avoid the conflict of interest as Cabinet Ministers are expected to toe the line on government policy or resign, and as this puts his personal opinion at odd with the government his silence is only to be expected. Still, given that Theresa May had spent over a decade trying to get this legislation passed it's entirely possible that Davis' appointment to her Cabinet was done specifically to get this result as part of some kind of "deal". Fortunately for the UK's people Tom Watson is more than capable of keeping the pressure on, but the decision now rests back with the UK's Court of Appeal who *should* agree with the ECJ since they referred it to them for an opinion in the first place and are bound by their ruling. Ultimately, it looks like Theresa May will be resorting to the Supreme Court to try and get her way, again.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
This only strengthens the Leave argument:
Not even slightly.
why should some unelected non-UK people have a say in whatever laws the UK wants to pass for the UK?
Because if you refuse to let some non-elected no UK people have a say in your laws then literally no one will sign a trade deal or treaty with you of any sort. Every deal involves agreeing to behave in a certain way. That means you don't have complete freedom over the laws you pass, if you want to actually stay in the trade deal.
Seems like a rational concern to me.
No, it's an irrational concern by utter fuckwits who don't realise that we always had sovereignty and no one will deal with you if you're an ornery dickhead who refuses to agree to anything.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You are confused on my point. Disregard THIS PARTICULAR LAW. I get it that you don't like it (I don't either), but what if the ruling had been the opposite and the EU wanted to spy, and the UK government didn't want it? There was nothing the UK could do. If you don't like your representatives in the UK, then change them.
It certainly wasn't what people asked for. Some faceless bureaucrat I have nothing in common with in Whitehall made this crap up, paid some ivory tower solicitors a bloody fortune that immediately left the country for a tax haven to write it without all the talk of WHAT THE GODDAMNED LAW WAS FOR, and the same bureaucrats ALSO wrote themselves out from under the law.
Not democratic at all. Autocratic? Yes. Democratic? No.
Ah, Mr. Trump - first of all, we're talking about the UK, not the US. Secondly, why don't you create an account and log in. Then you can use more than 140 characters to explain to the world How It's Going To Be.
gtfo no go now and lose all kinds a your economics and ten years on when your unable to afford interent ...it will be better
They can have a say, but not an overruling decision, like what happened here. It seems that the Stay people are irrational emotional utter fuckwits, but that is just my opinion. Good thing the rational side won, in my opinion.
This was "The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014". A piece of emergency legislation in order to provide a short term framework for security services to actually be able to actually do anything after a repeal of the earlier legislation for similar reasons. This will expire a week on Saturday.
It will be replaced by the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. Perhaps this ruling will be used as a precedent for challenges to the latest bill.
David Davis is a little bit of an oddity here. He is typically very much on the right wing, anti-EU side of the party, but he is extremely strongly in favour of human rights protections.
so what does that make the calitards who want to leave the US because their queen didnt win??
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
They can have a say, but not an overruling decision, like what happened here.
So how do you think the EU is actually going to overrule us, eh? All they can do is wag their finger, and tell us what a naughty boy we are and if we keep on not abiding by the rules, kick us out of the club.
And that's precisely the same as every other trade deal ever.
We are and always were a sovereign nation. The EU has neither the ability nor the will to literally enforce anything against us or any other member state. They can say things, take us to court, make pronouncements and ultimately expel us, but under no conceivable circumstances would a complete breakdown agreements lead to anything else. They would send no tanks, no planes and no bombs. They wouldn't however allow our goods, money or people to freely cross the border.
And that is literally all.
I'm curious how you think that's any different from the trade deals we're supposed to be negotiating after we "leave".
It seems that the Stay people are irrational emotional utter fuckwits, but that is just my opinion.
It's interesting that you think that given you show no understanding of the situation at all.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"So how do you think the EU is actually going to overrule us, eh? All they can do is wag their finger, and tell us what a naughty boy we are and if we keep on not abiding by the rules, kick us out of the club."
So basically your argument is that they can't do anything about it really, and the UK is sovereign? So the UK should just stick their tongue out and ignore it, like a boy who finally figured out that his Mom can't spank him now that he is stronger? So what is the point in staying? To create paperwork for the EU court? What a waste of time. Amazingly the UK traded successfully with Europe for hundreds of years before the EU existed.
I'm sorry. Your wrong here.
The Leave argument that our own court can be overruled by EU court in exchange for tariff free trade (note this is not the same as free trade) is demonstrated in this case.
A large portion of the remain campaign tried to gloss over this fact and are still trying to state that it is not so.
Which is fine as long as you always agree with the EU Parliament.
the UK didn't want it, it would veto it so it won't happen. Thats the beauty and pain of the EU policies, they'd need all 28 states to agree before the EU could enact a law like this.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Sure they do because that is what the UK agreed to. You have representatives in the EU, if you don't like how things are done in the EU change it.
Right, good point. I had a bad example. The main point is disregard this particular ruling. It just happens that we (the people) don't like it.
You lack reading comprehension as well as any comprehension about what trade deals and treaties mean.
So basically your argument is that they can't do anything about it really
My argument is they can do precisely as much or as little about it as any party we sign a trade deal with in future.
So all your arguments about how the EU is bad because they have a say over our laws and because they have the final say and can overrule us will apply exactly the same to any trade deals we sign.
So unless you're proposing we sign no trade deals in future, then your posistion is inconsistent and irrational.
Amazingly the UK traded successfully with Europe for hundreds of years before the EU existed.
Yes, and look how that ended, not with a whimper but with a bang.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Security/Police types think that you being 'allowed' to think anything you want is wrong, they think we are all criminals, that there are two types of people, criminals they have caught and ones they haven't caught yet. If they can't control your every move, they do not trust you.
So, until they have 100% control, they are going to complain and push for more and now that the 'think of the children' concept has turned into the One Unbeatable Argument, they will turn everything into that to win.
Forget that in ALL Cases so far their powers were all they needed to do their job and that in ALL Cases so far, THEY dropped the ball in more than one occasion. In Each and EVERY CASE SO FAR.
Right, except now the UK decided not to agree to it any more. Thus Brexit. So they changed it by leaving. Case closed. You can't change the EU via your representatives because you don't have full control over it. That is the argument.
which proof the leavers don't understand what a level playing field is and why it is needed in a trading area like the EU to attempt to allow fair play.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
I'm sorry. Your wrong here.
No you're not and no I'm not.
The Leave argument that our own court can be overruled by EU court in exchange for tariff free trade (note this is not the same as free trade) is demonstrated in this case.
OK, clearly you didn't actually read my post.
I'll spell it out one more time.
Tell me what being "overruled" means? How do they enforce that? The only mechanism they have to enforce it is to refuse to honour their side of the agreements they have with us.
Can you now explain how that differs from the trade deals that the Brexiters would like to see signed?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Amazingly there was a European "trading area" with trading rules that existed long before the EU did. The fact that you don't know about it is proof that Remain are ignorant of recent history.
Why do you keep talking about trade deals? This ruling has nothing to do with trade deals. Trade deals can be negotiated without remaining in the EU. Amazingly trade happened before the EU existed for hundreds of years, and amazingly EU countries are able to trade with non-EU countries too, even today! I know, it is hard to believe. The EU is going to fall apart anyway, you might as well get out now.
Trade deals can be negotiated without remaining in the EU.
Then other people get to have a say over what laws we can pass, which is precisely what you were whining about.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I find it interesting that the individual, David Davis, who filed the complaint with the EU is also a strong member of the Brexit group.
No, no, no, we do not want to be part of the EU. Oh, wait a minute. We want to take advantage of some of its laws. In that case, well, never mind. But for everything else we need to get out of the EU.
It's good to see that the USA doesn't have a lock on political hypocrisy.
fair play trading rules would be open to abuse if not legally binding in some way. James Rees-Mogg MP suggested we could lower our standards to give an edge once out of the EU, if there was no legal binding, he and his cohorts would do it now. ... (i remember the bad 1970s, IMF loans, our economic basket case status and loads of UK workers becoming migrants in EU to get jobs)
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
You make the mistake of arguing with reason against people that use projection as their shield and sword.
Sure. They can be negotiated, they can have a "say", but they can't overrule UK rulings (or claim to have the ability to). I think you I understand what you are saying now: you are saying that there is really no added effect to the EU court rulings, so the UK might as well stay. Seems strange to me. Either you are in an organization or you aren't. Just ignoring things you don't like seems rude to me and damages the strength of the organization itself. I think it would be better to leave, rather than ignore. Good thing most people agree with me.
The problems in the 1970s had nothing to do with that. There was a similar problem in the US at that time. There was successful trade in the UK for hundreds of years.
why should some unelected non-UK people have a say in whatever laws the UK wants to pass for the UK?
Because you agreed to that in the 50's? Anyway, in this particular case, it is because the UK court of appeal (nominated by lawyers) asked for an opinion from European Court of Justice (nominated by governments). ECJ is of the opinion that the law as it is violates the human rights and privacy of EU citizens.
If the UK court agrees, and rules accordingly, then it's possible to challenge the snooper's charter in UK courts. Case by case.
That's all it is. Self-nominating bunch of layers asked the opinion of representative-nominated lawyers about the agreement of two sets of rules. Hardly the unelected overruling the hapless britons...
They can be negotiated, they can have a "say", but they can't overrule UK rulings (or claim to have the ability to).
You keep banging on that point, but you've not addressed teh fundamental point.
Both with the EU and any future trading partners, the only sanction any of them ultimately have is to refuse to uphold their side of the deal any longer. In both cases they have a "say" over our laws because we have to do what they want if we wish to keep dealing under the same terms. In neither case do they have any further mechanism to force us.
Yet you keep asserting there's a difference between the EU enforcing its rules and any random trading partner enforcing its rules.
I think you I understand what you are saying now:
If you think that' you're even thicker than you first appeared! I think that's why I find you so entertaining. You keep surprising me :)
Good thing most people agree with me
After all, 10,000 lemmings can't be wrong!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
" Yet you keep asserting there's a difference between the EU enforcing its rules and any random trading partner enforcing its rules."
No need to insult me. There is a difference. The difference is that you think that TRADING partners are going to give a flying fuck about surveillance laws in the UK and change the trading rules based on if they like some random UK surveillance law that applies to UK citizens? Do you think Canada is going to start slapping a tariff on UK umbrellas because they don't like some UK law that doesn't apply to Canada?
" Because you agreed to that in the 50's? "
EXACTLY. But now we don't agree with it any more. Thus Brexit. Case closed. Not too hard to grasp.
No need to insult me.
No need, but it's fun. And also warranted.
The difference is that you think that TRADING partners are going to give a flying fuck about surveillance laws
Ah, moving the goalposts I see! You complained that they had a say over our laws. You didn't specify it was only *surveillance* laws you cared about. Trading partners will likely want a say over laws such as financial regulations, IP laws, immigration and so on.
So do you mind that? Or do you just take special exception to the EU having a say over our laws?
Do you think Canada is going to start slapping a tariff on UK umbrellas because they don't like some UK law that doesn't apply to Canada?
In a word: yes. If we pass a law that goes against our trade agreement with Canada and refuse to yield then they have a choice: accept our decision or stop upholding their side. If our breach is serious enough, then they will put tarriffs on our imports, including umbrellas.
Why, what do you think will happen? Do you think Canada will let us piss all over any agreement we sign with no consequences?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"In a word: yes. If we pass a law that goes against our trade agreement with Canada and refuse to yield then they have a choice: accept our decision or stop upholding their side. If our breach is serious enough, then they will put tarriffs on our imports, including umbrellas."
This is 100% true, except there is a large subset of laws that trade agreements don't include because they have nothing to do with trade. For EXAMPLE, this surveillance law. This wouldn't be part of any trade agreement. That is the difference. I think you are being disingenuous on purpose here. But I do see your point that the EU rulings are apparently toothless. It also seems to me it is better to leave an organization that you admit you can ignore freely, than stay in it. It seems dishonest to agree to something and then ignore it anyway, and fortunately the people voted to Leave so we won't have to do that soon. Democracy is good.
This is 100% true
Case closed.
This wouldn't be part of any trade agreement.
Except potentially a future trade agreement with the EU you mean. Several non-members agreed to abide by the rulings of the european courts in order to get trade deals. Norway, for example.
But I do see your point that the EU rulings are apparently toothless.
That's your claim, not mine. The rulings very much have teeth: they can cease trade with us which would be incredibly damaging for us since we'd lose fully half of our trade.
It also seems to me it is better to leave an organization that you admit you can ignore freely, than stay in it.
Since that's the case for all trade agreements it appears that you are in favour of Britain going it alone in a very thorough and complete manner.
Basically what this shows is that you are willing to accept restrictions under trade deals that you won't accept from the EU. You alwo won't say why. At this point the only reasonable conclusion is that you have an irrational dislike of the EU.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The EU parliament is in fact elected like any other parliament, and without it's approval EU commissioners can not be seated.
Also, and it is astounding that I have to spell this out, past UK governments have of course agreed and consented to be bound by the EU human rights charter, that they are now violating.
if you refuse to let some non-elected no UK people have a say in your laws then literally no one will sign a trade deal or treaty with you of any sort
I'd love to know how you explain China then. Why would the EU deal with them and not the UK? The notion that the EU would trade with China but NOT the UK over this seems a bit far-fetched, doesn't it?
I agree it might make trade deals slightly more difficult, but hardly impossible. I don't have a stake in Brexit and disagree vehemently with the Snoopers law, but I don't think it's going to have any real impact on trade. Because money.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Even a repressive, brain dead organization like the EU can get something right once in a long while.
I'd love to know how you explain China then.
The EU doesn't have a trade deal with China. Trading is under the WTO rules.
Why would the EU deal with them and not the UK?
I'm sure the EU would trade with us under WTO rules if not trade deal was signed.
he notion that the EU would trade with China but NOT the UK over this seems a bit far-fetched, doesn't it?
Yes, and if you think I meant that then you need to go back and carefully read what I wrote.
I agree it might make trade deals slightly more difficult, but hardly impossible.
If we make deals then we have to agree to let other people have a say over our laws, which was the complaint about the EU that the GP made.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
So since you are so hung up on trade deals, why not just negotiate trade deals? Apparently they are the most important thing in life. You don't need the EU for trade. There must be something that you really like about the EU that you aren't disclosing. I know what it is, but Remain people will never admit to what it is (and it has nothing to do with trade deals).
That same argument advocates a disbanding of the US, since a bunch of unelected "supreme" judges regularly overrule the will of the populations of the states (as expressed in state legislatures)
Agreed. Is that a problem? How far do you want to take it? Should we have one "supreme" set of judges that rule over the entire planet? Why not? It is only logical.
I live in the EU. I can vote for the EU.Also you have iderectly voted for them, just as you indirectly voted for the UK governement.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
The law was brought forward by the MPs, NOT the voters. The discussion was between the MPs and tech lobbyists, NOT the voters. And it was enacted by the MPs vote, NOT THE VOTERS.
Go ahead and show us where the MPs were told to produce this snoopers' charter. You can't because it never happened.
Which applies to all the Canadians working in the UK.
Under the Canadian Constitution, they have an explicit right of Privacy, and this "law" violates the right that treaty protects.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Directly or indirectly, the UK people get some benefit in exchange for ceding that influence. This is the basis for every international treaty and agreement ever. This is why those treaties were signed in the first place.
Is this not obvious?
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Wouldn't it help to know why that agreement was made in the first place, before deciding to tear it down? What was the reason for signing it, what benefits were gained? And once you understand what's at stake, only then choose to stick with it or renegotiate it or whatever.
The issue with Brexit was that a few well-chosen lies (e.g. Brexit bus) can drown out large amounts of boring and tedious truth. This is an increasingly commonplace situation.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Is that the human rights charter that we mostly wrote in the first place?
Our agreement with the EU states that there court can over rule is. Since that agreement is legally binding our law can be legally overridden by the EU court.
This is why article 50 is not necessary for the UK to leave the EU. It just requires the UK parliament to change the law so that the EU has no jurisdiction. This would break the treaty and they could punish the UK eject us from the common market impose tariffs etc. But it could be done.
What you miss is that this is not a EU rule but a decision by the Europeean Court, which is an instance that checks that European countries obey the human right declerations. Even with full Brexit you would still be under this courts jurisdiction because that is a different treaty from tje EU treaty.
No, but I'll take it, you think the Magna Carta will suffice in the 21st century.
Good luck with that!
You keep saying "If we make deals then we have to agree to let other people have a say over our laws" and ignoring other poster's examples of specifics that do NOT NEED TO BE PART OF A TRADE DEAL ... and that is the point. Brexit means that all the OTHER stuff, (like the EU position on immigration, or voting, or wearing culturally-appropriate garments) is superfluous until it is included in a wholly new trade deal.
TL;DR: Previous deals with the EU as a member != Trade Deals with the EU that are JUST ABOUT TRADE AND NOT RUNNING EVERY FACET OF YOUR LIFE.
(Emphasis added because of your disingineous arguements.)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Right, good point. I had a bad example. The main point is disregard this particular ruling. It just happens that we (the people) don't like it.
More accurately, "It just happens that we ( 51.9% of the people who voted) don't like it."
Absolutely agreed that that's enough to make the move, but please don't pretend that you're "the people" and that the rest of us aren't.
All the examples you can come up with will be bad, as Britain's veto doesn't disappear because you pose a conundrum. Nothing can be foisted on Britain that it didn't agree with. Every time the British government and the EU disagree on something, it's the EU trying to protect Britain and the British government trying to screw it over. Just last week the EU was standing up for the British steel industry while the British PM was trying to undercut it in order to get a favour with the Chinese government. The EU saves Britain from the shortcomings of the FPTP system and the political pandering that comes with it. Every single leave argument boils down to emotion.
So perceptions of something they don't understand, whipped up in a frothy mess by the tabloids eager to sell confirmation bias to their readership. I don't know how you can mention arrogance and unlikeability with a straight face when Britain has Farage, May, Johnson et al. knocking about. If people are going to vote as if this is some sort of popularity contest, then that's another great demonstration of why referendums are for fools and despots. The assumption that Westminster is competent enough to negotiate a brexit, but not competent enough to leave the EU on its own, is baffling - leavers can't have it both ways. Demanding to leave so we can forge trade deals, even when the bodies in charge of making these trade deals say we should stay in the EU. It's a disgraceful display of hubris and nationalism.
But Britain had a veto so nothing the EU could do could mess Britain over, rendering your entire argument moot. You are arguing from emotion, not logic.
You don't seem to know your history. There was successful trade in the UK for hundreds of years, and countless wars. Now there is even better trade with the EU, Britain has a loud voice on the global stage (due to its position in the Anglosphere and the EU), and lots of negotiating power due to that. If it leaves the EU it will be a bit player on the side, with precious little to negotiate with (as other countries don't see much value in appeals to history and the greatness of an empire which ceased to be). Again, you are arguing emotion, not fact.
They can have a say, but not an overruling decision, like what happened here.
So how do you think the EU is actually going to overrule us, eh? All they can do is wag their finger, and tell us what a naughty boy we are and if we keep on not abiding by the rules, kick us out of the club.
That would actually give them more power over us. Right now all the EU can do is say "stahp or I vill ask you to stahp again, jawol". They cant punish the UK in any meaningful way as the UK has veto powers in the EU and restricting trade to the UK whilst it's in the EU would violate the EU's core principles (which they wont do). Once the Brexit begins, they gain power to influence internal policy by restricting trade and as any trade disruption with the EU, which is conservatively 45% of all exports, would be suicide for the UK so politicians will just rubber stamp whatever Brussels demands.
Right now, London can tell Brussels to go fuck themselves all day long. Post Brexit, that is pretty much the only thing that will change.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
"Nothing can be foisted on Britain that it didn't agree with."
Isn't that exactly what this ruling is doing?
Just another day in Paradise
Britain agreed to abide by the court's decisions, so no. And not to mention Britain can ignore this decision all it wants, and just pay the fines. The EU won't start bombing London because Westminster doesn't know how to behave.
why should some unelected non-UK people have a say in whatever laws the UK wants to pass for the UK Seems like a rational concern to me.
This flows from the original idea of the community: the members give up some of their sovereignty for the benefit of all, and in particularly to prevent another war. Later, the common market has been the driving idea instead of war prevention. The cause for concern is therefore the very idea of the EU. As to the non-elected non-UK people having a say, that is the cost of being a member in almost every diplomatic and trade organization on the planet, starting with the UN.