We are ruled by fucking idiots

The EU appears to want to make the hyperlink something which creates a copyright claim.

Morons, fucking idiot morons.

47 thoughts on “We are ruled by fucking idiots”

  1. Sigh…..The EU wants to implement a click tax. OK, the money would go to the owner of the content but the government would get their slice eventually.

    Just when I thought I could vote for the UK to stay in the EU, reality happens along and gives me a good slap in the face.

  2. Anyone who looks at the pages of the Guardian must frequently be astonished by the ignorance, lack of self-awareness, and hypocrisy on show: but all that is as nothing compared to the reactionary stupidity of the European project in all its forms.

  3. yep, total fuckwits.
    Are you sure the story is not an ironic parody thingy demonstrating such a massive stupidity that it generates obvious outrage?

  4. It’s a wet dream for the Brussels Empire Nomenklatura – these pea brained micromanaging empire builders, if a computer programme could be developed to ‘cash in’ on this ridiculous idea, the administration involved would be monumental – but actually more paper clip counters……. that’s the idea ain’t it.

  5. I’m not sure using this as a reason to vote to leave the EU is valid. Our own UK politicians are just as capable of making stupid decisions. And it is the EU and it’s net neutrality ruling that is making Cameron’s Snoopers’ Charter illegal, so the EU like everything has good and bad bits.

  6. Owen Smith – you aren’t combining with one of the Guardian’s leading halfwits as part of a new comedy duo ‘Alas Owen Smith and Owen Jones’ are you?

    In answer to your point – that’s a variant on the strongest pro European argument, as deployed by the late Auberon Waugh that the EU acts as a bulwark against the stupidity of our own politicians – It’s a tempting position but the EU has been responsible for so many calamities I have to reject it ultimately.

    The EU is yesterday’s programme – it is literally dying (look at the demographic projections for two thirds of the Member states) and the proposal listed above is symptomatic of the predominant mindset which seems to be a ludicrous desire to extend bureaucratic control over something so big and unwieldy as to defy bureaucratic control! I would agree basing a desire to leave the EU solely on this particular proposed lunacy would be extreme, if it weren’t symptomatic of a centrifugal style of decision-making which ultimately cannot work….

  7. Off-topic (well, specifically, at least) and a year-and-a-half old, but a beauty:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/05/03/unrequired-reading/

    This Congress is officially expecting 4,291 written reports, from 466 federal agencies and nonprofit groups. Legislators have demanded reports on things as big as Social Security, as small as the House’s employee hair salon and as far afield as the state of Little League baseball.

    But as the numbers got bigger, Congress started to lose track. It overwhelmed itself. Today, Congress is not even sure how many of those 4,291 reports are actually turned in. And it does not try to save copies of all the ones that are.

    So some agencies cheat and send in nothing. And others waste time and money sending in reports — such as the one on dog and cat fur — that simply disappear into the void.

  8. > the strongest pro European argument, as deployed by the late Auberon Waugh that the EU acts as a bulwark against the stupidity of our own politicians

    That’s a good argument for having two legislative bodies fighting each other on a roughly equal footing. It’s not a good argument for having one overrule the other. There’s no way to predict which one will be more lunatic from one day to the next.

  9. I’m not sure using this as a reason to vote to leave the EU is valid. Our own UK politicians are just as capable of making stupid decisions.

    I’m with (I think) Ian B on this: the argument for leaving the EU is, for me, weakened by the fact that Britain’s own ruling classes would simply seek to replicate the Brussels idiocy having convinced themselves of its necessity already. Faced with a choice of EU idiocy within the EU and British idiocy outside the EU, I think I’d take the former simply because, for me personally, one or two of the EU laws on free movement of people and residency rights have worked out very well recently and I shouldn’t want to lose them.

    I’m afraid the option of not being ruled by any petty bureaucrats simply isn’t on the table at the moment.

  10. You’re sure that the story isn’t being pushed by an idiot? I can agree that we’re ruled by fucking idiots, but Julia Reda has an agenda and is not too bright either. Just search for her name on El Reg. Google “julia reda site:theregister.co.uk” and you’ll find she’s tried this tactic of scaremongering over nothing.

  11. Politicians are in the main ignorant of most of the things on which they legislate. They are like those managers (the same mindset in fact) who do not understand the business they run so have to ask the opinions of Consultants for every decision. In politics, for “consultants” read “lobbyists and special interests”. This is why they are so easily bamboozled by nonsense from anyone with a slick PR machine, be they business lobbyists or “progressive” single issue fanatic groups.

    As to the idea, it is beyond stupid. A key point here is that anyone publishing on the web is displaying the information in the public square. It is effectively saying you have to ask permission from Joe’s Cafe to tell somebody else where Joe’s Cafe is.

    But then, we are dealing here with profoundly ignorant people, in the main.

  12. Tim Newman:

    I’m in favour of leaving the EU, but am of the opinion (as is Sean Gabb at the Libertarian Alliance btw) that we should not expect things to improve if we do in many areas and may get worse, since it would give free rein to the idiocy of our own ruling class. The point being that the idea that idiocy is “imposed from outside” is largely false.

    To use my own bete noire as an example, progressivism, Brussels didn’t invent it. They have been infected with it from the Anglosphere countries in which if was developed. As such one of the best arguments for leaving the EU is to reduce the harm being done by the nutty fanaticism emanating from our own country.

    The EU did act as a brake in the past, but the effect admittedly is weakening. But whatever, the one thing we won’t get from leaving the EU is more liberty. We would probably (on balance) end up with even less.

  13. What S2 said.

    With the further twist that we have the chance – only a small chance, admittedly – of influencing policy in our own country, as opposed to no chance at all at EU level.

    Defeatism is not an attractive quality.

  14. Assume, just for the hell of it, that those who dribble for a job win this argument, then is “hxxp” (or any other kind of substitute) a link?

    Click on it directly and nothing happens. Copy, paste and edit on the other hand? Or maybe somone develops a browser app to speed that bit up!

  15. Just to mention that the “small chance of influence” is a mirage. The influence at either level is in the hands of acceptable insider groups, of which “we” are not a part (though we are welcome to give them our support of course).

  16. We have small chance at influence but more chance at making trouble for the Westminster gang on our own turf. The Brussels sewage farm could give a shit about what we do but the MPukes still have to be elected over here.

    SBML: I agree this Reda female and her “Europe without Borders” crap is not to my liking but even idiots can serve as a canary in the mine, so to speak.

  17. Discussion of the EU aside, can anyone explain to me what ‘making hyperlinks copyright’ is supposed to mean? And where does the nice lady get the idea that anything of the sort is planned?

  18. The EU is rotten to the core – mainly because of its democratic deficit. The sooner we leave, the better.

  19. “…for me personally, one or two of the EU laws on free movement of people and residency rights have worked out very well recently and I shouldn’t want to lose them.”

    Good for you, but you could have cut your self-serving preamble. Moreover, for many UK residents, that freedom of movement has not worked out so well.

  20. Seen the latest scaremongering? Enda Kenny is claiming that the UK leaving the EU would bring back the Troubles.

    Firstly, his reasoning is that the EU were really helpful in negotiations because they could provide disinterested third-party intermediaries. That may well be true, but what’s being an EU member got to do with it? EU countries also provide negotiators to Israel and Pakistan and all sorts of other places that aren’t members. John de Chastelain is Canadian. Hans Blix is most famous for dealing with Iraq, who I’m pretty sure weren’t in the EU at the time.

    Secondly, and more importantly, in what way is this different from “Do as we fucking tell you or else”?

  21. SBML :
    Google “julia reda site:theregister.co.uk”
    I’m sorry, you can’t Google Julia Reda any more, she’s demanding cash for it.

  22. That’s any reference work down the tubes, then, they’re full of links to other works. A few of my books are fully 25% bibliography.

  23. Hold on, I’ve just followed that link (eek? am I in breach of anything?) and the article starts with:
    “The European Commission is preparing a frontal attack on the hyperlink….”
    “Making search engines and news portals pay media companies for promoting their freely accessible articles.”

    That’s TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS.
    Jeez!

  24. jgh>

    Quite, hence my question above. I can’t work out a) what she’s alleging or b) where she thinks anyone’s said anything of the sort.

  25. Good for you, but you could have cut your self-serving preamble.

    Well, yes. I could have written out the lyrics to Me and Bobby McGee, too. What’s you’re point?

    Moreover, for many UK residents, that freedom of movement has not worked out so well.

    Yes, there are winners and losers to any policy. Most of us on here probably would like to see the public sector trimmed back, but those who benefit from it are not going to favor it, are they?

  26. “Just to mention that the “small chance of influence” is a mirage.”

    So you must believe that Ed Miliband as PM would have reacted to the “refugee” crisis in the same way as the current government (which itself scraped into power despite 4m votes having gone to UKIP).

  27. “for me personally, one or two of the EU laws on free movement of people and residency rights have worked out very well recently and I shouldn’t want to lose them”

    Honest, but shocking.

  28. I often oppose policies that benefit me. It’s fucking absurd that my family should be receiving child benefit, for instance. And I opposed the bailouts, despite working in banking. The world’s bigger than just me.

  29. S2
    Exactly. And I oppose the winter fuel allowance and the free bus pass to which I’ll soon be entitled and wife already receives.

  30. I often oppose policies that benefit me. It’s fucking absurd that my family should be receiving child benefit, for instance. And I opposed the bailouts, despite working in banking. The world’s bigger than just me.

    Well, yes. But I bet you’d not oppose the policy that allows you to live and work in the country in which you reside, nor the one which allows your wife to be with you.

  31. What, you mean, not living in a prison camp? You’re right: I do not oppose the policy of not living in a prison camp.

    You are aware that British people were able to live in France before the creation of the EU, yes? Before the EEC, even.

  32. What, you mean, not living in a prison camp?

    Huh? A policy whereby one has the right to live in France doesn’t make France a prison camp.

    You are aware that British people were able to live in France before the creation of the EU, yes?

    They had the right to? Or they were graciously allowed to, provided certain criteria were met? What about their non-EU spouses? Did they have right of residency in France too?

  33. > A policy whereby one has the right to live in France doesn’t make France a prison camp.

    No, a policy where British people are allowed to leave Britain to live elsewhere means that Britain is not a prison camp. As I said, I’m all in favour. It doesn’t require the EU.

    > They had the right to? Or they were graciously allowed to, provided certain criteria were met?

    What’s the difference? The so-called “right” of free movement within the EU is simply a set of laws that each member state’s politicians have agreed to. And those laws have criteria, just like the old ones did.

    Does anyone seriously think that Britain’s leaving the EU would lead to the immediate forced expulsion of every French person in London? Or is it perhaps a tad more likely that we would continue to allow immigration and residency to foreigners but under a different set of laws and conditions? I’m pretty sure France would be much the same.

    > What about their non-EU spouses? Did they have right of residency in France too?

    I have no idea, but I do notice from history books that France has a long history of containing lots of people who weren’t born in France. Prokofiev lived in Paris with his Spanish wife in the Twenties. That didn’t require the EU.

  34. No, a policy where British people are allowed to leave Britain to live elsewhere means that Britain is not a prison camp.

    I’m not talking about a right to leave Britain. I’m talking about a right to live in France. The two are no the same.

    What’s the difference?

    Between a right an a law? A right means a bureaucrat cannot turn down a residency application based on a trifling error. In places like France, this is important.

    The so-called “right” of free movement within the EU is simply a set of laws that each member state’s politicians have agreed to.

    Yes, hence you are not at the whim of a bureaucrat. This is good.

    And those laws have criteria, just like the old ones did.

    No, they don’t.

    Does anyone seriously think that Britain’s leaving the EU would lead to the immediate forced expulsion of every French person in London?

    No. But would they extend the right of residence to non-EU spouses?

    Or is it perhaps a tad more likely that we would continue to allow immigration and residency to foreigners but under a different set of laws and conditions? I’m pretty sure France would be much the same.

    So Brits would be subject to the same immigration process as the rest of the world? Jesus, even the Americans and Canadaians have a nightmare getting their French residency card.

    I have no idea, but I do notice from history books that France has a long history of containing lots of people who weren’t born in France.

    America has a lot of foreign born persons in it too. Does that mean the visa requirements are trivial? What a silly argument.

  35. And no, it does not require that the EU survives to ensure my wife and I can stay in France, but the argument that all such issues would be seamlessly resolved in the event of a Brexit obviously comes from people without much experience of getting non-EU residency permits.

  36. Aaaaaaand here’s what you originally said:

    > But I bet you’d not oppose the policy that allows you to live and work in the country in which you reside, nor the one which allows your wife to be with you.

    And that’s what I was responding to.

    You have now moved on from talking about laws that allow you and your wife to live in France to talking about laws that allow you and your wife to live in France without having to fill out application forms. Fair enough, but perhaps you can understand why I didn’t respond to that point before you raised it.

    >> And those laws have criteria, just like the old ones did.
    > No, they don’t.

    Obviously they do. They apply to EU citizens and not to non-EU citizens. Your wife is allowed to live in France because she’s married to you but wouldn’t be (at least, not under the same law) if she weren’t. These are criteria.

    > the argument that all such issues would be seamlessly resolved in the event of a Brexit obviously comes from people

    other than me.

  37. You have now moved on from talking about laws that allow you and your wife to live in France to talking about laws that allow you and your wife to live in France without having to fill out application forms.

    Erm, no. I am talking about the right of my wife and I to live in France.

    Obviously they do. They apply to EU citizens and not to non-EU citizens. Your wife is allowed to live in France because she’s married to you but wouldn’t be (at least, not under the same law) if she weren’t. These are criteria.

    That’s like saying criteria is applied to those who wish to use the NHS because they first must be humans. The rights of a spouse of an EU citizen are *not* subject to criteria. That’s the whole point.

  38. other than me.

    You seemed rather confident that my wife and I would be able to live in France in the event of a British withdrawal from the EU. I beg to differ, hence I would prefer Britain remains in.

  39. I would never argue that any government would achieve anything seamlessly.

    > That’s like saying criteria is applied to those who wish to use the NHS because they first must be humans.

    Hardly. Everyone’s human. Not everyone’s an EU citizen. Most people aren’t, in fact. So this is a “right” that applies to a minority of people who meet a given… oh, what’s the word?

    > The rights of a spouse of an EU citizen are *not* subject to criteria.

    That is actually quite a hilarious sentence. But hey, fair enough: you can’t see it.

  40. So this is a “right” that applies to a minority of people who meet a given… oh, what’s the word?

    So a right must apply to every single person on the planet with no exceptions, or the right doesn’t exist? What a silly argument.

    That is actually quite a hilarious sentence.

    When the person you’re arguing with starts using the word “hilarious” in their commentary, it is a sign they are getting desperate.

    I would never argue that any government would achieve anything seamlessly.

    Okay, but you seem to think that I ought not to oppose a Brexit on the grounds that my wife and I could continue to live and work in France, yet now you admit the transition might not be seemless. Perhaps now it’s beginning to dawn on you why I might oppose a Brexit?

  41. Incidentally, it’s clear you don’t understand immigration laws very well. You seem to think that somebody having right of residence in the EU is the same as somebody who can obtain residence via an application process. The name itself should indicate the difference: an application is just that, an application, which can be rejected for any number of reasons, or no reason, or simply no response given. A right allows a person to reside in a country without first obtaining a favourable decision from somebody.

  42. > So a right must apply to every single person on the planet with no exceptions, or the right doesn’t exist? What a silly argument.

    That would be a silly argument, yes. But all I said was that France used to have an immigration law that allowed some people and not other people to live in France based on facts about those people and now has a different immigration law that allows some people and not other people to live in France based on facts about those people. You’re having conniptions that anyone might use the word “criteria” to describe those facts about people. Seems like the ideal word for the concept to me.

    > you seem to think that I ought not to oppose a Brexit on the grounds that my wife and I could continue to live and work in France

    Absolute bollocks. What started this argument was my saying:

    > I often oppose policies that benefit me.

    So no, I don’t think how much you personally benefit from something should necessarily affect which policies you support. That was my point.

    > You seemed rather confident that my wife and I would be able to live in France in the event of a British withdrawal from the EU.

    I merely observed that living in France is something that non-French people have been doing for centuries, with or without the EU. Which they have. I don’t know about your personal situation and don’t pretend to, but the idea that the EU is the one and only way that non-French people can live in France is obviously wrong.

    In general, I’d bet on inertia over mass deportation. Though you never can tell with the French.

    > You seem to think that somebody having right of residence in the EU is the same as somebody who can obtain residence via an application process.

    Nope, I don’t think they’re the same and never said so. I just think that the latter is a thing. You seem to think it’s unconscionable.

    However, the distinction isn’t as clear as you think. If you’ve got citizenship by birth, sure, yes. But non-EU citizens don’t. If France were outside the EU, a non-French citizen could gain the right to live in France by applying for French citizenship. While France is in the EU, a non-EU citizen can gain the right to live in France by applying for citizenship of any EU member state. This right can be applied for.

    > I bet you’d not oppose the policy that allows you to live and work in the country in which you reside, nor the one which allows your wife to be with you.

    Well, I live in Northern Ireland and am married to a Protestant and work in London, so this is a real issue. I’m still a Unionist at the moment, but I’m not an absolutist about it, and the UK’s been getting a lot worse while Ireland has become more developed and civilised and sane. It’s quite conceivable I could support Irish Nationalism at some point in the future (Ulster Nationalism more likely). It could, one day, be what’s best for NI. And, under the circumstances — the Troubles — I’d always support what was best for NI, even if it meant having to apply for residency here and possibly being turned down, or being accepted and then having to apply for a permit to work in London. Seems like a very small sacrifice. Like I said, the world’s bigger than just me.

    > When the person you’re arguing with starts using the word “hilarious” in their commentary, it is a sign they are getting desperate.

    Really? I always think it’s a sign someone’s crap at arguing if they go “Oo! Oo! Only people who are wrong use that word! I win!” But hey. I didn’t bother expanding on it because I think it’s extremely obvious what’s wrong with that sentence, and, given that you wrote it, it’s clear you don’t see it. But, since you object so much, here’s the explanation.

    > The rights of a spouse of an EU citizen are *not* subject to criteria.

    These rights are subject to two criteria: one: being a spouse; two: the person to whom you’re married being an EU citizen. It’s logically the same as “The rights of men over forty with more than two children are not subject to criteria.” Which I find hilarious. I admit that I have an odd sense of humour.

  43. That would be a silly argument, yes. But all I said was that France used to have an immigration law that allowed some people and not other people to live in France based on facts about those people and now has a different immigration law that allows some people and not other people to live in France based on facts about those people.

    Yes, and I pointed out that these laws have, for EU citizens, been replaced by an absolute right. Which is not the same as being allowed by law.

    You’re having conniptions

    Now you’re just being silly.

    So no, I don’t think how much you personally benefit from something should necessarily affect which policies you support. That was my point.

    Yes, I know. You mentioned a policy which by your own admission would be inconsequential if it were changed, and that you opposed it. But when I asked you to consider a change in a policy which you would not find inconsequential, i.e. that which allows you to remain in the country of your residence, you started going on about prison camps.

    I merely observed that living in France is something that non-French people have been doing for centuries, with or without the EU. Which they have. I don’t know about your personal situation and don’t pretend to, but the idea that the EU is the one and only way that non-French people can live in France is obviously wrong.

    Then I suggest you take it up with somebody who has proposed this idea. For my part, I am saying that there is a real concern that my wife or I may not be granted leave to remain in France in the event of a Brexit. This has nothing to do with the fact that foreigners have been living in France for centuries.

    In general, I’d bet on inertia over mass deportation. Though you never can tell with the French.

    That’s because you don’t have experience with the bureaucracy, and – as I have said – you obviously haven’t much experience dealing with immigration. What might happen is all Brits are required to apply for a Carte de Sejour in order to function normally in France, with no guarantee it will be issued in a timely manner or a correct manner, especially with regards to spouses.


    Nope, I don’t think they’re the same and never said so. I just think that the latter is a thing. You seem to think it’s unconscionable.

    That’s because I have experience in dealing with it.

    However, the distinction isn’t as clear as you think.

    Do go on.

    If you’ve got citizenship by birth, sure, yes. But non-EU citizens don’t. If France were outside the EU, a non-French citizen could gain the right to live in France by applying for French citizenship. While France is in the EU, a non-EU citizen can gain the right to live in France by applying for citizenship of any EU member state. This right can be applied for.

    Yes, but it does not become a right until it is granted. What’s your point, exactly?

    Well, I live in Northern Ireland and am married to a Protestant and work in London, so this is a real issue. I’m still a Unionist at the moment, but I’m not an absolutist about it, and the UK’s been getting a lot worse while Ireland has become more developed and civilised and sane. It’s quite conceivable I could support Irish Nationalism at some point in the future (Ulster Nationalism more likely). It could, one day, be what’s best for NI. And, under the circumstances — the Troubles — I’d always support what was best for NI, even if it meant having to apply for residency here and possibly being turned down, or being accepted and then having to apply for a permit to work in London. Seems like a very small sacrifice. Like I said, the world’s bigger than just me.

    It is very easy to uphold principles that are never going to be put to the test. But as I made quite clear in my original post, I am far from confident that a Brexit would result in Britain being better off: I think they’d just replicate the stupidity back home.

    Really?

    Yes.

    These rights are subject to two criteria: one: being a spouse; two: the person to whom you’re married being an EU citizen.

    No, you are wrong. The sentence “prisoners have the right to correspondence” infers the right already exists, and is not subject to criteria.

    It’s logically the same as “The rights of men over forty with more than two children are not subject to criteria.”

    Yes, that it correct: “rights” is the noun you are qualifying, and in the sentence above the rights already exist. You are not applying a condition to their existence. The rights, in the context of the sentence, are a given. If you want to talk about the criteria on which certain rights are obtained, then you need another sentence. I’ll leave you to come up with it.

    Which I find hilarious.

    No, you don’t. Deep down, you know this too.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *