We must conclude that many Brexiters are indeed devious, ignorant and stupid. What's in their Christmas crackers, I wonder, all bang and no snap?

What no red white and blue snoopers charter?

Has anybody said the eu is all bad?

You seem to have conveniently forgotten about the EU's Data Retention Directive, which under that worthless degenerate Tony Blair saw the genesis of this unprecedented government surveillance (which no doubt is why the filth in the Labour Party are as keen on it as the filth in the Tory Party are). While the EU has since revoked that directive, it has not said that the minimum levels of surveillance stipulated in that directive are now illegal, thus to claim that the EU says the snooper's charter is 'completely illegal' is incorrect.


Speaking of ignorant, another one who's seemingly forgotten all about the DRD

I could I suppose ask the opposite question have any of us remain voters said it is all good?
I was certainly in agreement with what Corbyn said several years before I was aware we shared the same views, that of, while the EU is far from perfect, it would be better to remain in it and try to reform it than to just completely give up on it,

I mean, I know to some people 40 years is a long time, and indeed it is when compared to the individual human life span, but it is a tiny amount of time when compared to the evolution of human society, I think in many ways the leave vote represents a flaw with modern society which is one that says " me me me I want it and I want it NOW I don't have the ability or the patience to see the long game"

As for May and her repressive "we, ...sorry, YOU, are all suspects" attitude, I am quite happy to see her once again get slapped down for overstepping the mark, of course she will appeal, that is standard for them, but I doubt that they will win.

Seems irrelevant as emails are not collected automatically anyway - more left wing paranoia, or panic . The purpose is to be be able to establish the links of someone found to be implicated in terrorist or criminal activity, and then follow up - it seems entirely within any sensieble interpretation of the European law. its obvious that a few hundred state employees are not going to be reading everyone's emails - even if they have something they want to keep hidden there. When you don't have that sort of capability, you end up where Germany is today - because its blind to who is doing what, and can't unravel the connections between terrorists when it finds one. .

So is David Davies leaping up and down outraged that once again a European court has stuck its nose into British Laws made by our sovereign parliament, or has he gone into hiding ?

Has the Mail called the European judges the enemies of Britain?

Davis and Co won in the British courts. It was the government that appealed to the ECJ. Without the EU there would have been no option for the government to appeal and the British courts ruling would have stood.

The result would have been the same without the EU, only we would have had it quicker and the law as is likely wouldn't have ended up on the books in the first place.

If you're against this law then the EU (ECJ) have hindered, not helped.

It's not just spying and data retention. Section 56 also give the government ridiculous powers to potentially abuse in court, any evidence gathered by these powers and GCHQ can not leagally be questioned. they could in fact make up some complete BS and it couldn't be questioned in court.

This is a horror bill and damned right it should get the axe. Thankfully it has.

For the true story please see below.

"The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will tomorrow (Tuesday 12 April 2016) consider critical questions around the lawfulness of state powers to require the bulk retention of people’s communications data, to which police and other authorities can authorise their own access.

The Court will hear a legal challenge brought by MPs David Davis and Tom Watson, represented by Liberty, as well as a case referred by the courts in Sweden, Tele2 Sverige v Post- och telestyrelsen.*

In a case that could have profound repercussions for the Government’s new Investigatory Powers Bill, judges will be asked to clarify whether blanket retention of and self-authorised access to communications data – records of emails, calls, texts and web activity – by police and other authorities breach people’s fundamental right to privacy and protection of personal data.

Mr Davis and Mr Watson launched a legal challenge to the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA) – the Government’s current surveillance law – in 2014.

In July 2015, the High Court found key parts of it breached fundamental rights because they do not include rules to ensure data is only accessed to help prevent and detect serious offences, and because access is not authorised by a court or independent body.

The Government appealed, and Court of Appeal judges sought clarification from the CJEU in December.

The "snoopers charter" is a threat to everyone, regardless of your social or economic level.

Initially we know it'll be used against those at the lower social levels, but it is also bound to move upwards because it's so easy.


The main threat would be "computer says no" situations like what happens with parking/speeding fines which have almost no human intervention from beginning to end.

Now, in your own daily life, the government will be tracking you in a similar fashion to how cars are tracked.

Unless of course the snoopers charter really is kaput. We shall see.

It was a stupid and draconian idea that would eventually be abused by government or some hacker, and was going to cost us more for our internet due to the extra server room ISP's will need to store all the completely useless data.

As for the EU you would do well to remember that empires always collapse and disintegrate.

I suspect we can already see the seeds of its ultimate demise.

You could be right of course, however most empires are usually started and expanded by one nation using military force to conquer, subjugate the people of and exploit the resources of other nations, very few 'empires' come to be created by an alliance which many nations are quite willing and keen to be a part of,
No member nation has been forced to join due to military conquest, therefore ruling out the most common cause of empires ending, civil unrest and armed rebellion of subjugated people.

Also most empires take considerably longer than 40 years to rise let alone rise and fall.

So, apart from there being no one nation using military force to gain dominance over it's neighours, and the fact that every single member nation applied to join WITH the democratic consent of it's citizens, and all of the other things which make the EU an alliance of willing members, as well as the short time span that it has existed compared to almost every other 'empire' there has ever been.

The EU is exactly like an empire.

Seems it's already kicking off and I'm one of the few who saw it coming a mile away.

Creating a de facto Empire in Europe, or whatever name you care to give this artificial construct, was indeed the result of a war and since its creation Germany has once again become the dominant force in mainland Europe, this time by economic means.

It is perhaps telling that we continually hear EU politicians and officials telling us that the UK must pay a price or be punished for having the temerity to leave which tells us clearly that the EU fears that if that does not happen others will begin to examine whether this "construct" is actually worth keeping and if it really works for them.

There is clearly a growing disconnect between many of Europe' s peoples and the edifice that controls many aspects of their daily lives.

I expect that may well continue and in time spell the end of the EU.

Still doesn't make it an empire,

as for the rest of the EU being hard on us to prevent other from leaving etc,
I may be wrong but this approach seems to be widespread amongst most if not all remaining members, the idea that they will be intentionally hard on us "to prevent others from leaving" is one I would only ever expect from some people, usually the people who think that we Brits are better than everyone else and therefore deserve 'special treatment'

Rather than looking on it as a 'club' being intentionally hard on a member who is leaving out of some sort of petulant spite,
try looking on it as a determination to ensure that we DON'T "have our cake and eat it" there should be no question from the other members of the EU of us getting a deal that comes even close to the advantages that membership brings, it's not a matter of 'frightening' other members into staying, it's more a case of maintaining the already existing advantages of membership.

What would be the point of a union of nations if being a member brought no or very few advantages?

Clearly they will have to make the advantages of membership, and the disadvantages of not being a member clear and distinct, allowing one nation to leave while still having all or even close to all of the advantages that the remaining members have would be devaluing the entire concept of the EU.

I would have thought those who voted for leave would at least have understood and accepted this, clearly some really DO think we should be allowed to have our cake and eat it.

I can't help wondering what the headlines in the likes of the s*n and the hate mail would be, if the UK was a committed and enthusiastic member of the EU, and a country like France or the Irish republic had just voted to leave, and they were dithering about invoking article 50, while making noises about wanting to get the best deal possible when they leave, a deal which would be based on them securing as many of the advantages of membership as possible while making the most minimal contribution possible.

I can just picture some of the headlines and some of the threads here.

Have you been on this forum long?

My response as a remain voter to that question was "has any remain voter said it's all good"?

A good point old bean.

You can call it what you wish but the name changes nothing in reality.

I don't envisage it collapsing in the next five years, these things take time, so you may not live to see its demise but I certainly hope to.

This was a big problem for the remain campaign imo. Most remainers were coming at it from a 'Better the devil you know' standpoint. Hard to campaign for something you're not that keen on.