On 15/11/2016 11:59, Roland Perry wrote:
I lead for the UK ISP industry, and the outcome was modelled on the
agreement I hammered out with the initially extremely sceptical
rightsholder lawyers. Because of the way the UK is famous for coming
with mutually acceptable compromises, we punch well above our weight in
the drafting of a lot of EU law.

Does brexit mean the end of those "do you very vaguely understand how
the intertubes work so will click yes, or do you not care so will click
yes" cookie messages?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

In message , at
00:02:22 on Wed, 16 Nov 2016, Arthur Figgis
remarked:
I lead for the UK ISP industry, and the outcome was modelled on the
agreement I hammered out with the initially extremely sceptical
rightsholder lawyers. Because of the way the UK is famous for coming
with mutually acceptable compromises, we punch well above our weight in
the drafting of a lot of EU law.

Does brexit mean the end of those "do you very vaguely understand how
the intertubes work so will click yes, or do you not care

about being tracked by third parties

so will click yes" cookie messages?

It means we could repeal that particular bit of ePrivacy law, which is
widely regarded as an example of legislating for the law-abiding
criminal, and is an inevitable consequence of the website wanting to
make changes to the user's computer that would (in theory) otherwise
fall foul of the pre-existing eComputer Misuse Act.

However the ICO has already relaxed their stance:

http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2...-new-guidance-
on-implied-consent-to-cookies/

"implied consent is valid as long as website operators are
"satisfied that [their] users understand that their actions will
result in cookies being set."
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 07:26:03 +0800, "Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:

On 08/11/2016 23:46, Optimist wrote:
The legal action currently in play is exactly that: does it require a
successor Parliament (such as we have) to repeal the various European
Union Acts, or can bit be done under the skirts of the Royal Prerogative
apparently held by the PM-du-jour.

Not quite.

But triggering Article 50 would NOT repeal the European Communities Act - that requires legislation.

True. However, triggering Article 50 would mean that we *will* leave the
EU and that will take away rights that Parliament granted when it passed
the European Communities Act.

The Crown (including the Crown's ministers) does not have the right to
overrule Parliament's wishes or take away what Parliament has given.
This has been a *written* part of the Constitution at least since the
Bill of Rights, with plenty of case law to support it, and part of the
Constitution for longer than that - ask Charles I.

There's another aspect here though - the referendum. Legislation for this had been passed by
Parliament last year. The people were told that the decision was theirs, and that the government
would implement that decision. So effectively Article 50 was de facto triggered by the referendum
itself.

Of course there are those desperate to block the decision playing the "advisory" card, but that
really will not do as no MP mentioned during the campaign "Oh, by the way, peasants, if you vote the
wrong way we'll ignore your decision anyway" (indeed Cameron said that in the event of a Leave vote
he would begin the process to leave) so in that case MPs would just be exposed as utterly cynical
liars and not fit to represent the people.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 07:26:03 +0800
"Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:
On 08/11/2016 23:46, Optimist wrote:
The legal action currently in play is exactly that: does it require a
successor Parliament (such as we have) to repeal the various European
Union Acts, or can bit be done under the skirts of the Royal Prerogative
apparently held by the PM-du-jour.

Not quite.

But triggering Article 50 would NOT repeal the European Communities Act -
that requires legislation.

True. However, triggering Article 50 would mean that we *will* leave the
EU and that will take away rights that Parliament granted when it passed
the European Communities Act.

Pity May didn't trigger it while she had the chance before those immigrants
won that legal challenge (one can only hope one night down a dark alley...).
The EU wouldn't give a damn about legal squabbles here, once its triggered its
a done deal as far as they're concerned and all legal challenges would have
been moot.

--
Spud

On 16/11/2016 09:27, d wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 07:26:03 +0800
"Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:
On 08/11/2016 23:46, Optimist wrote:
The legal action currently in play is exactly that: does it require a
successor Parliament (such as we have) to repeal the various European
Union Acts, or can bit be done under the skirts of the Royal Prerogative
apparently held by the PM-du-jour.

Not quite.

But triggering Article 50 would NOT repeal the European Communities Act -
that requires legislation.

True. However, triggering Article 50 would mean that we *will* leave the
EU and that will take away rights that Parliament granted when it passed
the European Communities Act.

Pity May didn't trigger it while she had the chance before those immigrants
won that legal challenge (one can only hope one night down a dark alley...).

Racist and fascist.



--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:55:45 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 16/11/2016 09:27, d wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 07:26:03 +0800
"Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:
On 08/11/2016 23:46, Optimist wrote:
The legal action currently in play is exactly that: does it require a
successor Parliament (such as we have) to repeal the various European
Union Acts, or can bit be done under the skirts of the Royal Prerogative
apparently held by the PM-du-jour.

Not quite.

But triggering Article 50 would NOT repeal the European Communities Act -
that requires legislation.

True. However, triggering Article 50 would mean that we *will* leave the
EU and that will take away rights that Parliament granted when it passed
the European Communities Act.

Pity May didn't trigger it while she had the chance before those immigrants
won that legal challenge (one can only hope one night down a dark alley...).

Racist and fascist.

Racist? Against which race exactly? Be specific.

As for fascist I can't think of anything more pro-authoritarian than some
people who weren't even born here who seem to think they have to the right to
question the implementation of the result of a referendum of the natives.

--
Spud

In message , at 10:28:50 on Wed, 16 Nov
2016, d remarked:
Pity May didn't trigger it while she had the chance before those immigrants
won that legal challenge (one can only hope one night down a dark alley...).

Racist and fascist.

Racist? Against which race exactly? Be specific.

A racism charge doesn't have to specify a specific race.

As for fascist I can't think of anything more pro-authoritarian than some
people who weren't even born here who seem to think they have to the right to
question the implementation of the result of a referendum of the natives.

Gosh, you are confused. Many of the people with a vote in this country
weren't born here (if that's what you mean by 'native').
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 10:43:33 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:28:50 on Wed, 16 Nov
2016, d remarked:
Pity May didn't trigger it while she had the chance before those immigrants
won that legal challenge (one can only hope one night down a dark
alley...).

Racist and fascist.

Racist? Against which race exactly? Be specific.

A racism charge doesn't have to specify a specific race.

Not for a delusional **** spewing liberal no, but for any rational thinking
person, yes, it does otherwise the term is meaningless other than a playground
insult designed to shut down debate.

As for fascist I can't think of anything more pro-authoritarian than some
people who weren't even born here who seem to think they have to the right to
question the implementation of the result of a referendum of the natives.

Gosh, you are confused. Many of the people with a vote in this country
weren't born here (if that's what you mean by 'native').

And I doubt many of them voted leave not that I give a **** about their
opinions in this context anyway.

--
Spud

Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 10:28:50 on Wed, 16 Nov
2016, d remarked:
Pity May didn't trigger it while she had the chance before those
immigrants won that legal challenge (one can only hope one night down
a dark alley...).

Racist and fascist.

Racist? Against which race exactly? Be specific.

A racism charge doesn't have to specify a specific race.

As for fascist I can't think of anything more pro-authoritarian than some
people who weren't even born here who seem to think they have to the right to
question the implementation of the result of a referendum of the natives.

Gosh, you are confused. Many of the people with a vote in this country
weren't born here (if that's what you mean by 'native').

And many people who were born here did not have a vote e.g. those using
EU freedom of movement to work in Europe.

--
Mark

In message , at 12:06:26 on Wed, 16 Nov
2016, d remarked:

not that I give a ****

Yes, I think we got that message loud and clear.
--
Roland Perry