We are now entering the countdown to Brexit - wondering if a fresh approach required to the thinking?
Doesn't matter how we all voted in 2016 nor what people think of Corbyn and how he handled the anti-Semitism row! Bottom line is that M.Barnier has stated that we (the UK) can cut a deal and therefore the UK is left with three options: no deal, abort the process or a deal as per M.Barnier and the EU27.
May's task is to steer the Barnier proposal through Parliament! And one part of the broader landscape has been to extend Carney at the BoE. Make no mistake that Chequers is dead but at a certain point it will morph into whatever the EU are prepared to offer.
Think about that and think clearly! The EU27 will offer a take it or leave it deal and this brings a moment of clarity...
For this in turn determines the precise direction for the TUC and Labour to take - that's those who essentially represent organised labour and progressive values - they can back a people's vote but can they / will they insist Remain (abort article 50) is on the ballot paper?
The fact is that our country is run by think tanks, the media and technocrats such as Barnier and Carney. "Take back control"? You're havin' a laugh! The ERG were simply pretending to represent a true Brexit philosophy but they can't put together a coherent proposal, nor do they have the numbers to topple May.
Only the DUP can pull the plug but why would if that lets Corbyn in?
By the way attempts to kick start a Macron/Blair third way pro Europe liberal metropolitan angle have stalled - about as much traction as Vince Cable! That discussion is for way after Brexit and possibly post Corbyn?
As a nation we have dallied with the Alt-right and we now have an opportunity to tell them to fuck right off! It's not going to be simple/easy but those who deliberately bastardise Rousseau (will of the people) are extremely dangerous.
Which is a neat Segway to the fact that the ERG have just folded on their Unicorn PhD response to the challenge. Why? They simply couldn't agree a position!
A year ago I was hoping that the Tories would implode sometime around now but now the risk to them boils down to accepting and passing whatever Barnier has in mind. For sure the ERG and/or Labour might choose not to support the proposal. But that's impossible to predict without knowing what he has in mind.
There's still time for a BINO Norway deal but nobody significant is backing that option. The irony of course is that when electorate is polled on no deal, remain or this new deal then the economics and ability to see real choices might lead to very different numbers compared to 2016. In summary, to avoid a hard Brexit there has to be a different question - and we simply don't know whether Parliament or the people will settle that question?
I’m not sure that it’s “stalled” certainly it is not being pushed hard at present but I think that’s as much about timing as anything else. It’s far too late for a new left centrist party to emerge and to impact on the mess we are in. I think it will gain traction and support when the time is right. For me that might not be be soon or ever. Much will depend on the Brexit outcome and what happens in 2022 or before at the polls. The mere fact that the conservatives are still in the game given their appalling time in office will be the key. Anything other than a Labour victory will signal time for sidelining the Labour Party as is and offer a softer more electable alternative to the Tories.
I think it will gain huge traction after Corbyn loses the next election and the extreme left refuse to losen their stranglehold over Labour.
That is my hope, anyway.
That's what I think will happen as well. Even if Labour get smashed at the next election the hard left will stand by Corbyn. That will leed to a new centre party being formed. Hopefully with a bright young charismatic leader like in France
We are now entering the countdown to Brexit - wondering if a fresh approach required to the thinking?
Doesn't matter how we all voted in 2016 nor what people think of Corbyn and how he handled the anti-Semitism row! Bottom line is that M.Barnier has stated that we (the UK) can cut a deal and therefore the UK is left with three options: no deal, abort the process or a deal as per M.Barnier and the EU27.
May's task is to steer the Barnier proposal through Parliament! And one part of the broader landscape has been to extend Carney at the BoE. Make no mistake that Chequers is dead but at a certain point it will morph into whatever the EU are prepared to offer.
Think about that and think clearly! The EU27 will offer a take it or leave it deal and this brings a moment of clarity...
For this in turn determines the precise direction for the TUC and Labour to take - that's those who essentially represent organised labour and progressive values - they can back a people's vote but can they / will they insist Remain (abort article 50) is on the ballot paper?
The fact is that our country is run by think tanks, the media and technocrats such as Barnier and Carney. "Take back control"? You're havin' a laugh! The ERG were simply pretending to represent a true Brexit philosophy but they can't put together a coherent proposal, nor do they have the numbers to topple May.
Only the DUP can pull the plug but why would if that lets Corbyn in?
By the way attempts to kick start a Macron/Blair third way pro Europe liberal metropolitan angle have stalled - about as much traction as Vince Cable! That discussion is for way after Brexit and possibly post Corbyn?
As a nation we have dallied with the Alt-right and we now have an opportunity to tell them to fuck right off! It's not going to be simple/easy but those who deliberately bastardise Rousseau (will of the people) are extremely dangerous.
Which is a neat Segway to the fact that the ERG have just folded on their Unicorn PhD response to the challenge. Why? They simply couldn't agree a position!
A year ago I was hoping that the Tories would implode sometime around now but now the risk to them boils down to accepting and passing whatever Barnier has in mind. For sure the ERG and/or Labour might choose not to support the proposal. But that's impossible to predict without knowing what he has in mind.
There's still time for a BINO Norway deal but nobody significant is backing that option. The irony of course is that when electorate is polled on no deal, remain or this new deal then the economics and ability to see real choices might lead to very different numbers compared to 2016. In summary, to avoid a hard Brexit there has to be a different question - and we simply don't know whether Parliament or the people will settle that question?
I’m not sure that it’s “stalled” certainly it is not being pushed hard at present but I think that’s as much about timing as anything else. It’s far too late for a new left centrist party to emerge and to impact on the mess we are in. I think it will gain traction and support when the time is right. For me that might not be be soon or ever. Much will depend on the Brexit outcome and what happens in 2022 or before at the polls. The mere fact that the conservatives are still in the game given their appalling time in office will be the key. Anything other than a Labour victory will signal time for sidelining the Labour Party as is and offer a softer more electable alternative to the Tories.
I think it will gain huge traction after Corbyn loses the next election and the extreme left refuse to losen their stranglehold over Labour.
That is my hope, anyway.
That's what I think will happen as well. Even if Labour get smashed at the next election the hard left will stand by Corbyn. That will leed to a new centre party being formed. Hopefully with a bright young charismatic leader like in France
I've not commented on this thread at all, as I believe people have the right to make observations on politics etc, however today takes the biscuit for me. Michael Gove has said we should support the Chequers agreement and get it agreed with the EU. Then when a new PM comes in they can re-negotiate the deal!!! FFS, why oh why don't they see that support from hard line Brexiters and also Remainers is not forthcoming.....so let May negotiate a deal or no deal and give us, the people, the opportunity to decide what we want to see as our future. I'll declare now, although being of the older generation, I would vote to remain every time and give our youngsters an opportunity to be part of the EU, which, in the main, they wanted. This little 'Englander' mentality is as bad as Trumps protectionist ideas for the USA!! BoJo and co can fuck off to the USA and carry on their 'protectionist' nonsense to their hearts content.
This is the most popular post on this thread from some while @Redmidland and you should contribute more often as I think you've completely nailed the self interested nature of those leading us through Brexit.
For Gove to come out and effectively say to his colleagues they should vote through the Chequers deal so they can get something anything through for now, then bin her afterwards and start again from the outside, shows the utter contempt for the interests of the country the man holds.
I've not commented on this thread at all, as I believe people have the right to make observations on politics etc, however today takes the biscuit for me. Michael Gove has said we should support the Chequers agreement and get it agreed with the EU. Then when a new PM comes in they can re-negotiate the deal!!! FFS, why oh why don't they see that support from hard line Brexiters and also Remainers is not forthcoming.....so let May negotiate a deal or no deal and give us, the people, the opportunity to decide what we want to see as our future. I'll declare now, although being of the older generation, I would vote to remain every time and give our youngsters an opportunity to be part of the EU, which, in the main, they wanted. This little 'Englander' mentality is as bad as Trumps protectionist ideas for the USA!! BoJo and co can fuck off to the USA and carry on their 'protectionist' nonsense to their hearts content.
This is the most popular post on this thread from some while @Redmidland and you should contribute more often as I think you've completely nailed the self interested nature of those leading us through Brexit.
For Gove to come out and effectively say to his colleagues they should vote through the Chequers deal so they can get something anything through for now, then bin her afterwards and start again from the outside, shows the utter contempt for the interests of the country the man holds.
Thank you @Bournemouth Addick very kind of you to make such a nice comment. I generally stay away from 'political' threads as I don't wish to force my views on anyone. However yesterdays idiotic statement from Gove really annoyed me. Everyone should be thinking about what the young people of the UK want, and not what the likes of right-wing/left-wing politico's and sadly many of my generation want!! I heard an oldie this morning saying we should act like the Victorian British did and make everything a great success. I was minded to ask him, as I did with my father-in-law, what can we now offer the world that they need? Before we went into the 'Common Market' we had a coal industry, a thriving steel industry, UK owned car makers. They have all now gone, to all intents and purposes, and our manufacturing industry has shrunk. Many of my old friends who I worked with in the City, are saying their companies are seriously looking at upping sticks and going to Frankfurt, Paris and Brussels to carry on their business, so there goes a large %, potentially, of our GDP. However leaving all that to one-side, it seems to me we cant even agree what WE want when March 29th 2019 comes, so how the hell can we think we know what the future generation wants!! Its beyond me, but I would hope that someone, somewhere pushes for a vote on the final deal. The way I see it is, we asked the politicians, by a very small majority, to take us out of the EU, BUT seeing as they cant agree on what that looks like we should be asked if what they offer us is what we want. So if, as May is saying, its her way or No deal, then give me the status quo any day of the week, at least we know we can travel freely, get medical treatment freely and use our driving licences to drive without any extra paperwork in Europe. When I travel currently outside of the EU, which as many of you know I do frequently, I am not afforded short queues, free medical treatment or the ability to drive without extra paperwork and cost. Once that hits home to many people and they have to start queuing and paying, my guess is many will moan and blame the EU, which once we are no longer members, will treat us as they do with any other non-EU citizen. I really do expect that many people haven't realised this yet, but they will when queuing at a customs area waiting to get into Spain et-al!!
EDIT - I just want to add, every country I have worked in recently, India, China, Indonesia, UAE to name a few, have all asked me why has the UK decided to leave the largest trading block we have on our doorstep. Not one person has said to me that we chose right.....in fact they think we are mad. The other points raised is, when we were with the EU we were not that 'interested' with building free trade with said countries, but now we are clamouring to do a deal, they see that as two-faced.
As the UK government have shown no real interest in what will happen to Gibraltar, Spain have inevitably moved in to try to deal with things that are in their interest. Another example of the UK government completely sleepwalking in the negotiations and shooting themselves in the foot.
Brexit will probably mean the loss of Gibraltar and Northern Ireland from the UK and possibly even Scotland at some point. Is this what was meant by 'taking back control'? One of the greatest things about the UK has been its diversity, with the constituent nations sharing the same direction. Now it seems it's just about England, and the smaller countries or overseas territories don't matter. Surely sovereignty applies to them all, not just the biggest ones.
I’m not sure that it’s “stalled” certainly it is not being pushed hard at present but I think that’s as much about timing as anything else. It’s far too late for a new left centrist party to emerge and to impact on the mess we are in. I think it will gain traction and support when the time is right. For me that might not be be soon or ever. Much will depend on the Brexit outcome and what happens in 2022 or before at the polls. The mere fact that the conservatives are still in the game given their appalling time in office will be the key. Anything other than a Labour victory will signal time for sidelining the Labour Party as is and offer a softer more electable alternative to the Tories.
In answer to you and others, yes it's all about timing and events. As others have noticed the path taken at the Labour Conference is unclear - not many will know the motions nor how they will be composited, amended and voted on. Mayor Khan is the latest to support a second vote with the actual deal on the ballot paper - we will see whether they shift their poilicy - perhaps they might retain the right to support a vote if the deal is perceived to damage UK interests?
There is a tricky balance between those in Labour who want to prioritise a general election through a collapse of the government and those who see the opportunity to win a second referendum, even if this keeps May in power until 2022. Surely Labour will hold together (aside from Hoey and Field!) and await cracks in the Tories. The bookies have 2019 as a favourite for the next election.
We can assume that the trigger is a collapse in the Brexit process leading to the fall of the government. For a Macron style third way to emerge, Corbyn has to fail in the next election AND Labour fail to select a competent successor. No idea who the candidates might be but assume McDonnell, Thornberry, Khan and Burnham? How will the 540,000 members and trades unions members vote with that choice? Just because Corbyn came on the scene with a more radical break with neoliberal reformism and following the SNP by denouncing "austerity lite" does not mean that he and his supporters automatically nominate his successor.
In addition, we don't know where Brexit is going nor whether they can find a solution to the Irish border which is acceptable to the government, the DUP, the Irish and the EU27. In short it's complicated and there will be many more articles written by those far more informed than us over the next four-six months.
That the clowns such as Gove and Farage are being revealed in all their duplicity is very telling. For a Minister to openly state that he hopes to cut a deal with the EU and then change it within a couple of years shows just how deluded he is! The EU27 don't trust the Tories especially after their denials within minutes of agreeing the first phase last Christmas - nobody trusts the Tories to stick to their word nor to be able to deliver agreements through the Commons.
We live in interesting times but the time is not yet ripe for a new force to enter the fray, especially if it's driven by those who have failed in the past such as Blair and Cable. First there needs to be a fracture in either the Tories and/or Labour.
As the UK government have shown no real interest in what will happen to Gibraltar, Spain have inevitably moved in to try to deal with things that are in their interest. Another example of the UK government completely sleepwalking in the negotiations and shooting themselves in the foot.
Brexit will probably mean the loss of Gibraltar and Northern Ireland from the UK and possibly even Scotland at some point. Is this what was meant by 'taking back control'? One of the greatest things about the UK has been its diversity, with the constituent nations sharing the same direction. Now it seems it's just about England, and the smaller countries or overseas territories don't matter. Surely sovereignty applies to them all, not just the biggest ones.
England and Wales were the only ones that voted for Brexit, so no surprise that they will be all that is left of the United Kingdom when all is said and done.
Seems like a good idea to me. We need some more push back against the big tech companies. Especially those that have contributed to the erosion of democracy in the West by facilitating Trump and Brexit.
I think your view might depend on whether or not Google, Facebook et al were to allow material that you had created be published without your permission.
While I am unlikely to cry too much for media corporations, it seems to me that, in many regards, unlicensed publication on the internet is currently harming (and will continue in the future) the breadth of original artistic material that we can consume (for me, the increasing amount of formulaic films and derivative music seems to match the sweeping advances of the internet behemoths - who are no more lovely than the media corporations).
It is worth remembering, for all the famed democratisation of the internet, that independents also suffer from the unlicensed reproduction of their material. Should they not be able to get paid for their output?
And, for all that Google and co don't like it, it's a democratic decision, taken by the EU Parliament (amending as needed), remind me how loudly the leading lights of the internet complain about restrictions in China, for example.
8 weeks or something now. The idiots involved on our side are going to offer some spectacular bollocks between now and then. Should be very entertaining what comes out in the next few weeks
Seems like a good idea to me. We need some more push back against the big tech companies. Especially those that have contributed to the erosion of democracy in the West by facilitating Trump and Brexit.
What a load of crap.
Nothing in this bill would have stopped that. How is banning aggregator sites from linking to CNN going to stop people from "facilitating Trump"?
I think your view might depend on whether or not Google, Facebook et al were to allow material that you had created be published without your permission.
While I am unlikely to cry too much for media corporations, it seems to me that, in many regards, unlicensed publication on the internet is currently harming (and will continue in the future) the breadth of original artistic material that we can consume (for me, the increasing amount of formulaic films and derivative music seems to match the sweeping advances of the internet behemoths - who are no more lovely than the media corporations).
It is worth remembering, for all the famed democratisation of the internet, that independents also suffer from the unlicensed reproduction of their material. Should they not be able to get paid for their output?
And, for all that Google and co don't like it, it's a democratic decision, taken by the EU Parliament (amending as needed), remind me how loudly the leading lights of the internet complain about restrictions in China, for example.
They are not "publishing." At... all.
They link to the original site.
People seem to be missing the fact that individuals can also now be charged for linking to a website. Linking is not "publishing."
Basically, these are dumb laws being made by Euro morons who probably don't even know how to use a cell phone.
Seems like a good idea to me. We need some more push back against the big tech companies. Especially those that have contributed to the erosion of democracy in the West by facilitating Trump and Brexit.
What a load of crap.
Nothing in this bill would have stopped that. How is banning aggregator sites from linking to CNN going to stop people from "facilitating Trump"?
What kind of an idiot are you?
Where did I suggest that was the case! I merely indicated that I applaud and agree with any movement to mitigate the pernicious influence of big tech companies.
I think your view might depend on whether or not Google, Facebook et al were to allow material that you had created be published without your permission.
While I am unlikely to cry too much for media corporations, it seems to me that, in many regards, unlicensed publication on the internet is currently harming (and will continue in the future) the breadth of original artistic material that we can consume (for me, the increasing amount of formulaic films and derivative music seems to match the sweeping advances of the internet behemoths - who are no more lovely than the media corporations).
It is worth remembering, for all the famed democratisation of the internet, that independents also suffer from the unlicensed reproduction of their material. Should they not be able to get paid for their output?
And, for all that Google and co don't like it, it's a democratic decision, taken by the EU Parliament (amending as needed), remind me how loudly the leading lights of the internet complain about restrictions in China, for example.
They are not "publishing." At... all.
They link to the original site.
People seem to be missing the fact that individuals can also now be charged for linking to a website. Linking is not "publishing."
Basically, these are dumb laws being made by Euro morons who probably don't even know how to use a cell phone.
Countries in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones...
I think your view might depend on whether or not Google, Facebook et al were to allow material that you had created be published without your permission.
While I am unlikely to cry too much for media corporations, it seems to me that, in many regards, unlicensed publication on the internet is currently harming (and will continue in the future) the breadth of original artistic material that we can consume (for me, the increasing amount of formulaic films and derivative music seems to match the sweeping advances of the internet behemoths - who are no more lovely than the media corporations).
It is worth remembering, for all the famed democratisation of the internet, that independents also suffer from the unlicensed reproduction of their material. Should they not be able to get paid for their output?
And, for all that Google and co don't like it, it's a democratic decision, taken by the EU Parliament (amending as needed), remind me how loudly the leading lights of the internet complain about restrictions in China, for example.
They are not "publishing." At... all.
They link to the original site.
People seem to be missing the fact that individuals can also now be charged for linking to a website. Linking is not "publishing."
Basically, these are dumb laws being made by Euro morons who probably don't even know how to use a cell phone.
From my reading of the legislation (and discussions about it), it is specifically aimed at corporations such as Google, etc., not individuals, and it is the corporations' approach to the legislation that is in question as much as the legislation(indeed, the Article 13 of the legislation has been amended by those EU Parliamentarians struggling to wield a mobile phone to limit the burdens on SMEs and individuals and to avoid automated blocking of content).
Equally, Article 11, which deals with links, is clearly aimed at sites like Google, etc. and other news aggregators like News Now who rely on having large numbers of links to other peoples' articles to draw traffic to their site (including, for example paragraphs of the text). It exempts legitimate private, non-commercial use of links, so the threat to individuals is limited.
The corporations are required to ensure that their platforms are not used for unauthorised dissemination of copyrighted material, something from which they derive considerable revenue, while at the same time claiming that they have no control.
As far as I can make out, the real fear associated with the legislation, even prior to amendment was not the legislation per se, but how the internet corporations would respond to it (ham-fistedly).
And the discussion about whether or not people like Google are publishing or merely providing a platform is a wider one than this legislation.
Google one of my songs and you can listen to it for free - I get nothing. Even Google some of my tv films or my books and you can get them for free and I get nothing. We live in an age where people expect to get things for nothing so I'm delighted that the EU is trying to restrict this kind of theft.
"...Taxes will have to rise if Brexit brings strict curbs on EU workers because they pay far more to the public purse than British-born residents, a study warns today.
Migrants from the EU contribute £2,300 more to the exchequer each year in net terms than the average adult, the analysis for the government has found...
...Oxford Economics, which carried out the assessment, said this meant the value of EU citizens to the economy was the equivalent of slapping 5p on income tax rates..."
Indeed...and I cant think of a more disgusting article of a man who is a champagne socialist, who rattles on about being a man of the people who in fact would just walk on you if you got in his way....perfect couple hope they marry.
I don't' think I have ever read such nonsensical bollocks. It is obviously aimed at morons and other low information members of the population.
She is the complete opposite of a monarch. She is a self made business woman who has gained a forensic understanding of the UK's political system and rule of law and its relationship with the EU. She clearly knows more about this stuff than the vast majority of the population. Criticising her for clearly and demonstrably knowing more is like a crazy idiot dismissing the diagnosis of a cancer specialist because they believe anybody who claims to know more about a subject than anybody else is acting like an aristocratic despot and should be ignored!
I don't' think I have ever read such nonsensical bollocks. It is obviously aimed at morons and other low information members of the population.
She is the complete opposite of a monarch. She is a self made business woman who has gained a forensic understanding of the UK's political system and rule of law and its relationship with the EU. She clearly knows more about this stuff than the vast majority of the population. Criticising her for clearly and demonstrably knowing more is like a crazy idiot dismissing the diagnosis of a cancer specialist because they believe anybody who claims to know more about a subject than anybody else is acting like an aristocratic despot and should be ignored!
If you finished more than the first paragraph I salute you.
When the opening piece of an opinion seeks to draw comparisons between a successful businesswoman and Caligula, attention to her personal wealth and that she's somehow representative of an 'elitist Brexitphobia' I don't think I'm the target audience.
*edit - I went back and tried again as I am of the strong opinion that one shouldn't avoid considering views just because they that don't match your own. I got as far this time as, "...this rage of a businesswomen who puked over our vote..." and that was quite enough for me thanks
Comments
For Gove to come out and effectively say to his colleagues they should vote through the Chequers deal so they can get
somethinganything through for now, then bin her afterwards and start again from the outside, shows the utter contempt for the interests of the country the man holds.The way I see it is, we asked the politicians, by a very small majority, to take us out of the EU, BUT seeing as they cant agree on what that looks like we should be asked if what they offer us is what we want.
So if, as May is saying, its her way or No deal, then give me the status quo any day of the week, at least we know we can travel freely, get medical treatment freely and use our driving licences to drive without any extra paperwork in Europe. When I travel currently outside of the EU, which as many of you know I do frequently, I am not afforded short queues, free medical treatment or the ability to drive without extra paperwork and cost. Once that hits home to many people and they have to start queuing and paying, my guess is many will moan and blame the EU, which once we are no longer members, will treat us as they do with any other non-EU citizen. I really do expect that
many people haven't realised this yet, but they will when queuing at a customs area waiting to get into Spain et-al!!
EDIT - I just want to add, every country I have worked in recently, India, China, Indonesia, UAE to name a few, have all asked me why has the UK decided to leave the largest trading block we have on our doorstep. Not one person has said to me that we chose right.....in fact they think we are mad. The other points raised is, when we were with the EU we were not that 'interested' with building free trade with said countries, but now we are clamouring to do a deal, they see that as two-faced.
Brexit will probably mean the loss of Gibraltar and Northern Ireland from the UK and possibly even Scotland at some point. Is this what was meant by 'taking back control'? One of the greatest things about the UK has been its diversity, with the constituent nations sharing the same direction. Now it seems it's just about England, and the smaller countries or overseas territories don't matter. Surely sovereignty applies to them all, not just the biggest ones.
https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/09/17/inenglish/1537169967_017791.html?id_externo_rsoc=FB_CM_EN
There is a tricky balance between those in Labour who want to prioritise a general election through a collapse of the government and those who see the opportunity to win a second referendum, even if this keeps May in power until 2022. Surely Labour will hold together (aside from Hoey and Field!) and await cracks in the Tories. The bookies have 2019 as a favourite for the next election.
We can assume that the trigger is a collapse in the Brexit process leading to the fall of the government. For a Macron style third way to emerge, Corbyn has to fail in the next election AND Labour fail to select a competent successor. No idea who the candidates might be but assume McDonnell, Thornberry, Khan and Burnham? How will the 540,000 members and trades unions members vote with that choice? Just because Corbyn came on the scene with a more radical break with neoliberal reformism and following the SNP by denouncing "austerity lite" does not mean that he and his supporters automatically nominate his successor.
In addition, we don't know where Brexit is going nor whether they can find a solution to the Irish border which is acceptable to the government, the DUP, the Irish and the EU27. In short it's complicated and there will be many more articles written by those far more informed than us over the next four-six months.
That the clowns such as Gove and Farage are being revealed in all their duplicity is very telling. For a Minister to openly state that he hopes to cut a deal with the EU and then change it within a couple of years shows just how deluded he is! The EU27 don't trust the Tories especially after their denials within minutes of agreeing the first phase last Christmas - nobody trusts the Tories to stick to their word nor to be able to deliver agreements through the Commons.
We live in interesting times but the time is not yet ripe for a new force to enter the fray, especially if it's driven by those who have failed in the past such as Blair and Cable. First there needs to be a fracture in either the Tories and/or Labour.
https://theverge.com/2018/9/12/17849868/eu-internet-copyright-reform-article-11-13-approved
Can't understand why anyone would want to leave this cosy club. Without the amendments put in, they would have just kept going until it was accepted
While I am unlikely to cry too much for media corporations, it seems to me that, in many regards, unlicensed publication on the internet is currently harming (and will continue in the future) the breadth of original artistic material that we can consume (for me, the increasing amount of formulaic films and derivative music seems to match the sweeping advances of the internet behemoths - who are no more lovely than the media corporations).
It is worth remembering, for all the famed democratisation of the internet, that independents also suffer from the unlicensed reproduction of their material. Should they not be able to get paid for their output?
And, for all that Google and co don't like it, it's a democratic decision, taken by the EU Parliament (amending as needed), remind me how loudly the leading lights of the internet complain about restrictions in China, for example.
Nothing in this bill would have stopped that. How is banning aggregator sites from linking to CNN going to stop people from "facilitating Trump"?
They link to the original site.
People seem to be missing the fact that individuals can also now be charged for linking to a website. Linking is not "publishing."
Basically, these are dumb laws being made by Euro morons who probably don't even know how to use a cell phone.
Where did I suggest that was the case! I merely indicated that I applaud and agree with any movement to mitigate the pernicious influence of big tech companies.
Equally, Article 11, which deals with links, is clearly aimed at sites like Google, etc. and other news aggregators like News Now who rely on having large numbers of links to other peoples' articles to draw traffic to their site (including, for example paragraphs of the text). It exempts legitimate private, non-commercial use of links, so the threat to individuals is limited.
The corporations are required to ensure that their platforms are not used for unauthorised dissemination of copyrighted material, something from which they derive considerable revenue, while at the same time claiming that they have no control.
A nice, easy to read description of the controversial legislation is available here: https://wired.co.uk/article/what-is-article-13-article-11-european-directive-on-copyright-explained-meme-ban.
As far as I can make out, the real fear associated with the legislation, even prior to amendment was not the legislation per se, but how the internet corporations would respond to it (ham-fistedly).
And the discussion about whether or not people like Google are publishing or merely providing a platform is a wider one than this legislation.
https://independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-workers-uk-tax-treasury-brexit-migrants-british-citizens-a8542506.html
"...Taxes will have to rise if Brexit brings strict curbs on EU workers because they pay far more to the public purse than British-born residents, a study warns today.
Migrants from the EU contribute £2,300 more to the exchequer each year in net terms than the average adult, the analysis for the government has found...
...Oxford Economics, which carried out the assessment, said this meant the value of EU citizens to the economy was the equivalent of slapping 5p on income tax rates..."
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/gina-millers-nasty-elitism-sums-up-the-remoaner-lobby/21545&ved=2ahUKEwj7gIHHrMTdAhXPT8AKHc3-DpoQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw32mkaVOKcESAf1i2AVpI2I
She is the complete opposite of a monarch. She is a self made business woman who has gained a forensic understanding of the UK's political system and rule of law and its relationship with the EU. She clearly knows more about this stuff than the vast majority of the population. Criticising her for clearly and demonstrably knowing more is like a crazy idiot dismissing the diagnosis of a cancer specialist because they believe anybody who claims to know more about a subject than anybody else is acting like an aristocratic despot and should be ignored!
When the opening piece of an opinion seeks to draw comparisons between a successful businesswoman and Caligula, attention to her personal wealth and that she's somehow representative of an 'elitist Brexitphobia' I don't think I'm the target audience.
*edit - I went back and tried again as I am of the strong opinion that one shouldn't avoid considering views just because they that don't match your own. I got as far this time as, "...this rage of a businesswomen who puked over our vote..." and that was quite enough for me thanks