We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Name me one good thing about Brexit… Start with this:
Article 13: UK will not implement EU copyright law
Universities and Science Minister Chris Skidmore has said that the UK will not implement the EU Copyright Directive after the country leaves the EU.
Several companies have criticised the law, which would hold them accountable for not removing copyrighted content uploaded by users, if it is passed.
EU member states have until 7 June 2021 to implement the new reforms, but the UK will have left the EU by then.
The UK was among 19 nations that initially supported the law.
That was in its final European Council vote in April 2019.
This Samizdata post from March 2019 contains a list of links to other posts that give the background.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Yes, thank gawd for that!
I must admit that the howls of indignation coming from the Remoaner talking heads is a “pretty good thing about BRExit”. Surely, it’s about time that Hugh Grant fucked off to somewhere continental on a permanent basis?
The only BRExit question I have at this time is which particular alcoholic beverage I will be drinking at 11PM on Friday. My French other half isn’t so happy though, admittedly. 😆
If only remainiac garbage like Heseltine refused to breath nazi british air. I’d be more than happy
Huh. That’s excellent news.
If this is a sign of things to come, then I think cautious optimism is warranted.
Sorry to hear that, John. I’m in sort of the same place with my Argentinian/Italian other half.
Tell them it will pass (it will). Better than telling them they’re wrong — they are, but there’s no sense rubbing your SOs’ noses in it.
EDIT: Every other remoaner’s nose? Yeah, rub it in.
They’re not wrong, as such. The Leave campaign was very explicit that anyone who was an EU citizen would automatically be given UK residency, and everything that entails. That had since been reversed in parliament.
So it may pass, but not necessarily “will” pass. Not quite yet. EU citizens have been betrayed. It may work out ok, but it’s not what we were promised.
It is good, but i would not be surprised if the British version is worse – after all they voted for it. I don’t think UK is much better than EU in regulation.
@neon: Are you a UK citizen? If so I’d expect your SO gets to stay — anything else would be perverse.
Is it really true that the Brexit bill denies residency to EU citizens residing in the UK at the time of Brexit? Does the government intend to not grant that?
Hi Nico – the bill should grant residency to all EU citizens resident in the UK, but there are some hoops – applications and so on.
The issue is that before the referendum, we were told it would be automatically granted, and instead they have to apply, with proof of continued residence for 5 years (which we don’t meet), so the girls are currently “pre-settled”.
As they reach 5 years in next couple of years, they should then get “settled” status, and all will be well, and theoretically they get all the rights they had before.
99% sure it will all work out, but Brexit has been such a rollercoaster that some nervousness is appropriate, especially when the consequences will involve upheaval if it doesn’t work out.
Nico (January 27, 2020 at 7:32 pm), I suspect John meant his SO was a remainer, not a remoaner (or neither but just personally concerned for ease of travel to and from France).
Mocking remoaners is just. Mocking remainers would be the arrogance of a bad winner. The remoaners voted in bad faith, intending that if they won, we’d be made to shut up, but if we won, they would cheat. Plenty of remainers voted in the good faith expectation that if they won, the UK would not leave the EU and if we won then Britain would.
I have yet to hear of Tony Blair complaining that Brexitters are rubbing remainers noses in it. Perhaps he knows better than to do so in public. 🙂
I don’t “rub my partners nose in it” – What would be the point of that?
As a French and Portuguese dual national, resident in France at the time of the 2016 Referendum the accusations of either “Remainer” or “Remoaner” simply don’t apply since my partner was not a part of the demos during the referendum.
The only pronouncements made vis BRExit over the breakfast table have been along the lines of “You Brits are all mad”. His opinions of M. Macron are unprintable.
Given all of the idiocy demonstrated by Brits at all levels since the Referendum, it’s hard to disagree with that assessment. The level of madness does seem to have reduced since the election in December.
Here’s another advantage- for the Europeans! ‘Ever closer Union’ will need to be replaced by a new anthem, and the contest for the new slogan will bring all the Europeans … closer together, ironically.
@Nicolas: How’s about “Vorwärts immer, rückwärts nimmer!” (“Always forward, never backward!”)
Sounds pretty on message for the great experiment of European unity.
In case anyone does not know…..
“Article 13” is not really about protecting commercial copyright (although it is dressed up like that) – it is really a massive extension of CENSORSHIP designed to crush political and cultural dissent.
The United Kingdom is hardly a great bastion of Freedom of Speech as it is (as I have found to my my personal cost), but “Article 13” is an effort to smuggle in creeping totalitarianism.
The European Union has, by pushing “Article 13”, revealed itself to be controlled by forces who wish for “totalitarianism by the installment plan”.
Big Business is going along with this (as it goes along with so many terrible things) – but the real driving force is “Critical Theory” (i.e. the Frankfurt School of Marxism – which hates Freedom of Speech as “Repressive Tolerance”).
“Critical Theory” seeks to “deconstruct” (yes I know that French Post Modernism is not the same thing as Frankfurt School Marxism – but IT HAS THE SAME AGENDA) freedom, which it sees as a “mask” for “exploitation” and “oppression”.
After all if Freedom of Speech (“repressive tolerance”) is allowed – then people might utter opinions, that are “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobic”, “Islamophobic”, “Transphobic” (and on and on), the “Hate Speech” doctrine of Marxism.
Deny people the right to show images or text without permission (covered up as a commercial concern) and you “nip in the bud” the expression of “Hate Speech”, i.e. any opinion that is not approved of by the left.
I am presently watching the BBC – a sportsman has come on demanding that another sportsman should be DENIED EMPLOYMENT because the other man has expressed “homophobic” opinions.
“If it was prejudice about anything else, race, religion, and so on, – we would not even be having this discussion” says the BBC guest.
He does NOT mean that opinions should be allowed to be expressed on homosexuality – as with race (“Black is Beautiful” or “It is OK to be white” – both of which express an opinion on a racial matter) or religion – the sportsman believes that “prejudice” should not be allowed to be expressed on ANY of these matters.
For example, imagine that someone really detested the Roman Catholic Church and explained his opinions on Social Media – the modern “liberal” (really Critical Theory Marxist view) position would be that such a person should be DENIED EMPLOYMENT – although I suspect they would allow people to condemn Christianity, but not Islam (because Critical Theory Marxists, or “liberals” as they now call themselves, are hypocrites).
The whole thing eats itself – for example (according to this sportsman and the BBC) being “homophobic” and “Islamophobic” are BOTH things that should be punished – i.e. people with such opinions should be denied employment and punished in various other ways.
But Islam is “homophobic”, as most major religions are, – one can not “celebrate Islam” and “punish homophobia” AT THE SAME TIME – unless one is total hypocrite.
Any more than one can celebrate “black is beautiful” and punish “it is O.K. to be white” without being a total hypocrite.
At this point the “Critical Theory” Marxists (who now call themselves “liberals”) come back with talk about “power relations”, “structures”, “exploitation” and “oppression”. Seemingly not understanding that it is they themselves who are the oppressors – they are the “power structure”. And they certainly do not allow their theories to be “critically” examined.
Paul Marks’ point (January 29, 2020 at 11:56 am) is valid (and incidentally echoes mine that unequal enforcement of hate speech laws is both part of their tyranny and part of maintaining them – imagine if PC intellectuals had true cause to fear investigation for ‘Christophobia’ 🙂 😡 ). The EU copyright law would have been bad even if enforced with strict apolitical equality – but I see little ‘danger’ of that.
“imagine if PC intellectuals had true cause to fear investigation for ‘Christophobia’ 🙂 😡”
They used to. Only they called it ‘blasphemy’ and ‘blasphemous libel‘ back then.
What goes around, comes around.
Of course they are. It keeps the entry barrier impossible to overcome for any boisterous young start-ups who can’t afford the necessary staff/laywers etc and could present them with serious competition.
Why do you think most regulations of this nature are most vociferously agitated for by Big Business?
Genuine wokeness and a sense of wanting to right wrongs?