SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the when-in-Rome,-charge-as-the-roamers-do? dept.
Free mobile phone roaming 'not guaranteed' with a no-deal Brexit
Britons visiting the EU could be hit with mobile phone roaming charges in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab said the government would try to force firms to limit charges but he could not give a "cast iron guarantee" on the issue. The EU directive which capped the prices mobile phone operators could charge each other will no longer apply to the UK after Brexit.
Mr Raab said that two mobile operators had agreed to keep free data roaming. And the government is proposing to cap any data charges at £45 a month.
In an interview with BBC Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg, the Brexit secretary said the government was trying to give the "reassurance that consumers need" on the issue of mobile phone roaming charges but admitted that European operators could pass on charges. He said: "No, I can't give a cast-iron guarantee. What I can say is that the government would legislate to limit the ability of roaming charges to be imposed on customers."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by arslan on Friday September 14 2018, @03:52AM (12 children)
Yea.. I find it amusing all these news about post Brexit, the brits will not have access to this and that or will have to fork out extra over what they didn't have to before. Surely, they're not that stupid to think that there's zero repercussion. In one sense Brexit is leaning toward protectionism similar to the platform the God Emperor in Orange ran on...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by zocalo on Friday September 14 2018, @07:19AM (8 children)
Now they might have a point on the Project Fear aspect if they thought the intent was to drum up support for Chequers (which they also seem to hate) vs. a No Deal, but nope - it's all about the Remainers trying to overturn the "will of the people", which absolutely cannot possibly have shifted even one iota in favour of Remain since a legally non-binding referendum that somehow became just that, in name at least. There definitely seems to be a subset of Brexiteers that absolutely cannot accept the possibility that it might not actually work out - politicians and public alike - and I fully expect them all to decry any responsibility for any negative aspects that might result. In the event of a bad deal, it'll obviously (and at least partially correctly) all be the fault of Theresa May's team for failing to get a better deal and settling onto whatever remains of Chequers after the EU is done with it, despite the continued lack of any complete and credible alternative proposals from anyone else in the Brexit camp. On the otherhand, in the event of it all going sideways following a no-deal scenario, at least we'll get to watch some of the Hard Exit proponents like Rees-Mogg and Arron Banks trying to avoid having to publically eat crow.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Friday September 14 2018, @09:22AM (5 children)
Brexit is clearly terrible for the UK economy. On the other hand, the governance of the EU is very not-democratic. It is a tough decision to make, and I can understand why folks voted to leave.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 14 2018, @09:46AM (4 children)
It's a popular talking point, but it's also utter nonsense. Unless you also are of the opinion that the prime minister is a horrible undemocratic institution that should be gotten rid of.
Almost everything needs approval of a democratically elected parliament (with a far more democratic election method that what the UK uses, it is rather hard to consider first-past-the-post in gerrymandered districts particularly democratic), AND of people directly appointed by governments that are themselves democratically elected.
I don't see a way in which the EU comes out as LESS democratic than the UK, and many measures by which it comes out as MORE democratic.
Though some people might think of the EU 20 years ago with no parliament.
Still, that was also all based on people making the decisions being directly appointed by democratically elected governments. That voters in some countries like UK let their politicians get away with blaming the EU for policies they themselves instigated (like free immigration from eastern European countries, the UK was the primary - if not sole - driving force behind extending the EU) is something you can at best partially blame the EU for!
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Friday September 14 2018, @10:14AM
Of course, you don't hear many of those same Brexiteer EU critics complaining about how the general public doesn't get to have a say in who becomes a member of the cabinet, or gets to be Minister of whatever in the UK government. Or complaining about the unelected mandarins in the UK's civil service that hold an obscene amount of power in some cases (the TV shows "Yes Minister" and "Yes Prime Minister" nailed this aspect) for that matter. The UK does it that way because it would clearly be an impractical administrative burden, and even were that not the case it would be extremely unlikely you'd see a high voter turnout for major positions of state let alone the really obscure ministerial offices scattered across the civil service, yet when the EU does the same things it's undemocratic? Then again, many of them seem to be hankering for the days of the British Empire, or possibly even some form of a pre-Cromwell absolute monarchy, so maybe glossing over the few decades that have elapsed since the EEC (as it was then) didn't have a parliament is neither here nor there.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday September 14 2018, @04:02PM (2 children)
I don't think that you are correct. Let's consider, practically, how the UK political system works:
UK:
I vote for a MP to represent me in parliament. The MP subscribes, broadly, to a political party's ethics and policies. She nominates a cabinet that subscribes, broadly, to a manifesto that the government then seeks to execute. The House of Lords acts as a foil to some of the more idiotic stuff, and some of them cream a bit of political influence and probably $$ off the top.
EU:
1. I vote for a government in the UK. They nominate representatives to the European Council, who do *stuff*. Crucially, I *never* voted for an identifiable leadership team, and really I *never* got to vote for an EU manifesto beyond "vaguely pro-EU" or "vaguely anti-EU". *I* never got to vote for expansion in Eastern Europe, or the magnitude of the EU subscription, or any of that stuff which came up in Brexit.
2. I vote for MEPs. They do *stuff*. But MEPs are crucially *not* the people who drive the EU, that is the European Council. They act as a sort of House of Lords, acting as a foil to some of the more idiotic stuff, and then creaming a bit of political influence off the top.
So while the EU institutions look democratic, I never voted for a bunch of people to run the EU and act through some manifesto. To me as a citizen of Europe, the EU feels (and is) very un-democratic. *In practice* the decision making process is highly indirect and largely out of the hands of the electorate.
That's okay if the EU is just a treaty organisation (a sort of European UN), but that is not the case. Primacy is given to, for example, the ECHR, GDPR, and other things. The EU had a very aggressive legislative programme that is completely changing the entire way the UK works, far more rapidly and fundamentally than the UK government itself. I *never* saw GDPR in a party manifesto. I *never* saw accession of Turkey in a party manifesto.
... and let me be clear, I am arguing for a much stronger, much more democratic European Union. I want a European Union where I can actually vote on this sort of stuff, not just a dumping ground for washed up British (and other) politicians as it is at the moment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 14 2018, @05:53PM (1 child)
I understand your criticism about the indirectness, though in all fairness things necessarily get more indirect the more people are governed.
And about your specific points: if you are in the UK and voted for the government in power back then you most definitely DID vote for expansion into Eastern Europe. Maybe the parties preferred not to tell you that, but as said blaming the dishonesty of your national politicians on the EU seems highly unfair to me.
Even more so since people could at any time have protested against it, which largely did not happen.
Also there are a lot of things people didn't vote for that were done in the UK, for example none of the handling of the economic crisis you got to vote for until the next election afterwards (by which time it was not much of a topic anymore).
Also the European Parliament has far more power than e.g. the House of Lords nowadays. However they cannot have full power, exactly because the EU is largely meant to implement only things that ALL member states agree on.
In other words, a lot of the perceived un-democraticness is exactly because the EU leaves most of the power in the hands of its member states! Which means, it is most democratic when you have open and honest local politicians that also tell you what plans they have at the EU level. However since too few people care about the EU, they tend to prefer to not talk much about it...
Btw. all who can, remember to inform yourselves and vote in the next election to the European Parliament! It DOES matter!
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday September 17 2018, @08:29AM
> In other words, a lot of the perceived un-democraticness is exactly because the EU leaves most of the power in the hands of its member states
Exactly my point. This is a flaw in the EU that I think is largely to blame for Brexit.
For example, no one is complaining about the (huge) UK aid budget to Africa - but they do complain about the EU subsidy. Why is that?
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday September 14 2018, @11:16AM (1 child)
> it's all about the Remainers trying to overturn the "will of the people",
Or as I like to put it, the government has a democratic mandate to deliver what the population already regrets voting for.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Friday September 14 2018, @12:40PM
Of course, even if the majority of parliament is currently opposed to the current options for Brexit and they're just going through the motions to deliver what the population already regrets voting for, they've also effectively painted themselves into a corner with the whole "will of the people" schtick - the only realistic way out seems to be to cave in on the second referendum, which would almost certainly mean Theresa May standing down as well with all that entails, so hardly ideal. Of course, given that the Brexiteers never actually defined what Brexit might be during the campaign or since (have deliberately prevaricated in order to attract more votes from mutually incompatible hard- and soft- Brexit positions, even), Brexit can pretty much mean whatever the government says it means at this point. Right now that's currently the Chequers plan which, as an aside, even as a Remain voter I feel is a betrayal of most of the things that many Leave voters actually thought they were voting for - I actually can't think of a single "promise" made by the Leave campaign that is even close to being delivered by it. What's that going to be come October/November when negotiations are due to conclude - and the implications for second referendums, Theresa May's tenure in Downing Street, and a whole bunch of other issues - remains to be seen, but whatever happens it's sure to be an interesting train wreck to watch.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 14 2018, @09:20AM (1 child)
What? [capx.co]
(Score: 2) by arslan on Sunday September 16 2018, @10:45PM
Yes, that article is all about what's bad for the UK, no statement whatsoever about the benefits to the EU or everyone else as a whole - everyone is trying to punish the UK because UK right? What exactly do you think protectionism mean?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 14 2018, @11:57AM
These games also don't have a zero repercussion for the pro-EU side. Making an example of the UK may well mean that future departees don't try as hard to get along. A reset to the EEC (European Economic Community) might not be possible.