Brexit, Data Protection, Data transfers, GDPR, Theresa May

Another Brick in a #Data Wall? #Brexit #EUDataP

This article was written on Nov 4th, 2017

GDPR readyUnder the BEERG law of unintended consequences; the unintended outworking of an action or event is often far more significant or impactful than the intended one. And so, while the UK media obsessed on sex scandals and a cabinet resignation, the Brexit process crawled along with the announcement of another round of EU/UK talks next week and a vote in parliament forcing the government to publish 58 sectoral studies on the economic impact of Brexit.

Meanwhile, the most important Brexit consequence of the week may turn out to be an obscure clause in the Second Schedule of the Data Protection Bill, (lines 39 – 45 on page 125) which is currently being examined line-by-line in the House of Lords.

In an article in politics.co.uk last Friday, November 3, Martha Spurrier director of Liberty, an organisation which campaigns for civil liberties and human rights in the UK, drew attention to a little noticed provision in the Bill, Schedule 2, Part 1, Section 4.1 – Immigration, which reads:

The listed GDPR provisions do not apply to personal data processed for any of the following purposes—
    (a) the maintenance of effective immigration control, or
    (b) the investigation or detection of activities that would undermine the maintenance          of effective immigration control,
to the extent that the application of those provisions would be likely to prejudice any of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).

While, as Spurrier notes, the intent of the Bill is as the government puts to “empower people to take control of their data” she says that “it will strip millions of their rights.”
As Spurrier writes, contrary to the stated intentions of the legislation, the real impact of Schedule 2.4 means that:

…any government agency processing data for immigration purposes will be free of those pesky data protection obligations we’ve developed through successive Acts of parliament – and signed up to through the EU’s General Data Protection

In practice, the exemption will create a two-tier data rights regime. When an agency relies on the exemption, individuals will lose their right to know what information is held about them, who is processing it and why.

They will not be able to correct or erase information held about them – which doesn’t bode well considering how much of the data held on us is out of date or just plain wrong.

She goes on to note that the lack of a definition of effective immigration control or activities that would interfere with it “makes it practically impossible to draw up a list of all those who could be caught up”. “The exemption could also be used to facilitate the sharing of personal data between public services and the Home Office if it’s decided checking everyone’s entitlement to access healthcare, education or social housing is necessary for effective immigration control.”

She concludes that the idea “that personal data collected for one purpose can’t be used for another without the individual’s informed consent is the cardinal principle of data protection. This exemption makes a mockery of it and sets a damaging precedent for the privacy rights of all of us.”

What has this got to do with Brexit?

Simply, it is one more potential barrier, and a significant one at that, to the free flow of personal data from the EU to the UK after Brexit.

That public authorities could have such unfettered rights to citizens’ personal data without citizens been aware of what data is being held, could make it extremely difficult for the European Commission to issue an “adequacy decision” on the UK’s data protection regime. Such a decision is vital if personal data is to flow freely from the EU to the UK, without individual businesses having to go through complex procedures to put in place binding corporate rules or avail of standard contractual clauses which are, in any event, been called into question by privacy campaigners as failing to offer sufficient protect for data transferred to the US.

But “data adequacy decisions” are not easy come by and can take years. Only a handful have ever been issued. See here for details.

The EU Parliament is also likely to have a good deal to say on the matter. And what it has to say will not be kind to the UK.

The data economy in the EU was estimated to be worth €272 billion in 2015, or around 2% of the EU-28 GDP. And that figure is expected to rise to €643 billion by 2020, according to the UK’s Department for Exiting the European Union. 43% of EU tech companies are based in the UK and 75% of the UK’s data transfers are with the EU Member States. Over 70 per cent of the UK’s trade in services is supported by personal data flows as the government noted in a position paper last August: “Data flows between the UK and the EU are crucial for our shared economic prosperity and for wider cooperation, including on law enforcement.”

The UK government believe that it is taking the necessary steps to ensure it is aligned with the requirements of EU regulations and to comply with European legislation, post-Brexit.

Further, to consolidate the relationship, it is proposing “a UK-EU model for exchanging and protecting personal data, […]providing sufficient stability for businesses, public authorities and individuals.” This would ‘build on the existing adequacy model’, and would see continued engagement of the UK Information Commissioner’s Office with other EU regulators. In other words, it wants the UK’s data commissioner to still have a seat at the table.

However, as we have previously noted in these BEERG Brexit Briefings, there is a major obstacle in the way of the EU issuing a “data adequacy decision” as regards the UK, post-Brexit. The Investigatory Powers Act, which came into force at the end of last year, allows the U.K. government to monitor large batches of data, collect people’s browsing records and hack citizens’ phones and computers for security purposes.

The Act was initiated by Prime Minister Theresa May when she was still at the Home Office. Critics, such as the German Green MEP, Jan Philipp Albrecht, have suggested that the Act gives the UK security services more far-reaching powers that the US counterparts. It was concerns over the extent of the access by the US security services to the personal data of EU citizens which had been transferred to the US that led to the collapse of the old Safe Harbour Agreement, and its replacement by the Privacy Shield arrangement.

EU law provides for exemptions from general data protection principles in matters of:
•  national security and defence;
•  the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences;
•  the protection of data subjects and the rights and freedom of others.

But these exemptions only apply to EU and EEA member states. They do not apply to “third countries”, EU terminology for countries that are completely outside the EU/EEA framework. After Brexit, as it has been defined by the UK government, the UK will be a such a “third country”, and so the security exemption will no longer apply. The problems created by the Investigatory Powers Act is securing an “adequacy decision” from the EU will be further exacerbated by Schedule 2.4, as discussed above.

There will be many in the UK who will argue that, even in the absence of an overarching Brexit agreement, the EU will cut “mini-deals” with the UK, including one on data flows. But then again, maybe not. As Sir Ivor Richards said in his comment to a House of Commons committee a week back:

What is going to happen? In the absence of a deal, have the French, Belgians or Dutch any incentive to sort that problem (customs blockages), or do they have an incentive to keep us stewing? In the area of data protection, do they have an incentive ultimately to cobble together some agreement at the last minute in order to keep data flows, or do they have an incentive to maximise the flow of UK business that has to shift to the continent?

The Investigatory Powers Act is already on the statute books. Schedule 2.4 of the Data Protection Bill is not.

Spurrier makes her own arguments as to why the provision should be opposed.

We simply seek to draw attention to the fact that it places another enormous brick in the wall as regards future data flows between the EU and the UK when Brexit bites.

 

 

Article 50, Brexit, British Government, Negotiating, Theresa May

#Brexit, a Dickensian example of: “Please sir, can I have less?”

This article was written on Oct 29, 2017.

Sir-Ivan-Rogers-776583If the absence of economic rationality, as a driving force behind Brexit, was ever in question, comments this week from three very different speakers should put an end to the doubt.

First, the French ambassador to the US, Gerard Araud tweeted:

“Maybe I am too cartesian but leaving the largest free trade area in the world and 53 free trade agreements on behalf of free trade is weird.”

Indeed, much too logic. But that’s the French for you.

Second, Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire founder of Bloomberg and former mayor of New York commented:

Brexit is the “single stupidest thing any country has ever done…it is really hard to understand why a country that was doing so well wanted to ruin it”

Third, and most significantly, speaking to a House of Commons committee, Sir Ivan Rogers, the former UK ambassador to the EU (Photo above with David Cameron), who resigned earlier this year after warning against “ill- founded arguments and muddled thinking” in the UK’s approach to leaving the EU, said:

You cannot know how long a free trade deal discussion will last until you get into it. I have lived through a number of them, including the Canadian one, which we all thought was relatively straightforward, which we kicked off in about 2009, and it still is not in force; and they are one of the more simple partners. You cannot know until you get there. There are things that are simpler with us than with Canada simply because we have been in the organisation. There are things that are more difficult because we are a diverging partner rather than a converging partner.

All trade deals in history are struck between people that are trying to get closer together. This is the first trade deal in history struck between partners who are trying to get further apart. There are some things that are simpler because they know us better and we have been part of their organisation and, by definition, there is a huge degree of regulatory convergence and they know our regulation but we are obviously going to diverge to some extent, and the question that is politically live, including in this House, will be how far we diverge. (Our underlining).

I would take issue with Sir Ivan’s comment that the two sides are trying to get “further apart”. It is just the one side, the UK, that wants to make the break. But apart for that, what he says is right.

Normally, the parties to a trade deal believe the conclusion of the deal will be win-win for all, making them better off than they are now, boosting trade between the parties, enhancing business opportunities rather than limiting them. Getting closer together rather than “trying to get further apart”.

But in deciding to leave the EU, the single market and the customs union the UK will not be better off than it is now. As Sir Ivan said earlier in his remarks to the committee:

… from other capitals often it is read as meaning the Brits would rather like the benefits of three of the freedoms whilst suspending or ending the fourth freedom. The Brits would rather like to have continued, largely unchanged, market access in all the areas that they want, and see no reason why that market access should be diminished…
But if that is what the “Brits” would like, they are not going to get it, Sir Ivan continued:

… The Brits need to understand that there will be a radical difference as a consequence of exiting, in terms of levels of market access in multiple sectors that they care about.

… The British cannot simply expect the world to carry on broadly as is. They cannot suspend free movement of people because that is no longer applicable to them, live outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, but still have everything that they liked about the levels of market access when they were inside the venture.

Given his long experience of the EU, Sir Ivan knows what he is talking about, which is probably a lot more than can be said for many members of the government and many leading Brexiteers.

If Britain cannot expect to have as good terms outside the EU as inside, how does it go about negotiate a lesser deal than the one it has now? The answer, in all probability, is that it can’t. How can the UK government turn around to the motor industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the food industry or the chemical industry and tell them that the agreement it has just negotiated with the EU will put more obstacles in their way when exporting to the EU? More paperwork will be required, more customs checks, longer waiting times at borders will all be part of the new deal.

Read Sir Ivan’s remarks, quoted above, closely. Better still, read the full script of his testimony to the House of Commons committee, which can be found here.

While diplomatically couched, he is saying that if you think the Article 50 negotiations on the financial settlement, citizens’ rights and Ireland are difficult, wait until you actually get to the trade talks. They will be brutal and bloody. Because, as we noted in last week’s blog, what the “Brits” want is to move from a marriage to a “friends with benefits” arrangement and there are no circumstances in which the “jilted” EU will agree to such an arrangement, where the UK gets all the benefits it wants but incurs none of the costs.

Further, Sir Ivan, along with his two fellow panellists, clearly makes the point that the UK government is deluding itself if it thinks that a DCFTA, a “deep and comprehensive free trade agreement” in the Brussels jargon, will be agreed before March 2019, to be followed by a two-year transition period, or “implementation phase” as UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, insists on calling it.

At best there will be an agreement, as part of the Article 50 process, to negotiate a DCFTA during the transition period, by which time the UK will have left the EU. All the transition period does it to buy two more years before Brexit bites.

It is not “hard” Brexit or “soft” Brexit. It is just slow Brexit. Because it will be impossible to negotiate such a DCFTA within the two-year transition. At the end of the two-year transition the UK may still find itself without a trade agreement with the EU.

The UK has gotten itself into an impossible negotiation. The structure and the timetable of the negotiations, which they agreed to, plays against them. The clock ticks remorselessly down. The negotiations open with the UK having all it wants; free and frictionless trade with the rest of the EU. But the price of that trade is the free movement of people, a price the UK no longer wants to pay. If it won’t pay the price, it can’t have trade on frictionless terms. What does it give up as the price of ending free movement?

How do you ask for less in a negotiation?

Those of you of a certain age will well remember the scene from the movie Oliver in which Oliver, approaches the top table in the workhouse and, holding out his bowl, says “I want some more”, to the outrage of Mr. Bumble, who runs the workhouse. Theresa May and David Davis are now both holding out the UK’s bowl to Juncker, Barnier and Tusk and the EU 27 and saying: “We want a lot less than we now have”.

Just how do you negotiate that?

Article 50, Brexit, Divorce, Negotiating, Theresa May

On #Brexit: You can’t always get what you want…

This BEERG Brexit Briefing (#16) was written on Sat Oct 21, 2017

Hammond BoJoWords and phrases can shape reality.

How we describe an issue or event can determines how that issue or event is to be understood. Such “framing” can be particularly important when we are dealing with some something unique, something that has never happened before. How do you describe the unknown? How do you explain the unprecedented?

One way of doing so is to compare the unknown to something known and familiar. This, in the UK at any rate, is what many journalists, commentators and academics have done when writing about Brexit, an unprecedented and unknown event. They have taken to describing the Article 50 discussions between the EU and the UK as being akin to divorce proceedings, with the key argument being about money: how much will the UK have to pay the EU as part of the “divorce settlement”?

Continue reading

Article 50, Brexit, British Government, Irish border, Negotiating

Breaking up is so very hard to do #brexit

Brexit4Over the past number of years, I have been involved, on the management side, in many European-level labour negotiations. But one particularly comes to mind.

The employees’ representatives on the other side had cancelled an agreement that had been in place for close on 20 years. It wasn’t a perfect agreement, it had drawbacks for both parties, but it worked reasonably well in practice.

Further, it was always possible to negotiate small, but important, changes to the agreement as circumstances evolved, old provisions became outdated and new issues and organisational changes needed to be taken into consideration.

In other words, the other side did not need to cancel the agreement but could, instead, have worked on improving it. But they were advised that negotiating a new agreement would be easy and that it would be a lot better than what they then had. Five years on, a replacement is not yet in place.

Continue reading

Brexit, British Government, Michel Barnier, Negotiating, Theresa May

After #Brexit #FlorenceSpeech: Has Anything Changed?

This piece was written on September 24, 2017

857546_1UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s speech in Florence last Friday was designed to unlock the stalled Brexit negotiations between the European Union (EU) and the UK over an agreement on the departure of the UK from the EU. In her speech May said essentially four things:

1. She repeated that the UK would leave the EU at midnight on March 29th, 2019. On March 30th the UK will no longer be a member of the EU, the Single Market and the Customs Union.

As we have said before, this is a decision that can only be reversed by a vote in the House of Commons and agreed to by the European Union, though as we have also noted the EU would be unlikely to allow the UK to simply cancel its exit notice and return to the status quo ante. New conditions for continued membership would be required. Continue reading

Article 50, Brexit, British Government, Brussels, Negotiating, Theresa May

Brexit really does mean #Brexit…. doesn’t it?

This blog was written on Fri Sept 15th.

FlorenceUK  Prime Minister, Theresa May, is to fly to Florence next week to deliver a speech billed as an “important intervention” on the Brexit negotiations. Why Florence? Why not the European Parliament? Florence, a once great banking centre in Europe, its glory days long behind it. A role model for London, post-Brexit perhaps.

A spokesman for May said, “The Prime Minister wanted to give a speech on the UK’s future relationship with Europe in its historical heart. The UK has had deep cultural and economic ties spanning centuries with Florence, a city known for its historical trading power. As the UK leaves the EU we will retain those close ties. As the Prime Minister has said on many occasions, we are leaving the EU, not Europe.” He added that the speech was an opportunity to “update on Brexit negotiations so far.”

Continue reading

Article 50, Brexit, British Government

“Repeal and Replace”: Difficult to do on both sides of the Atlantic #Brexit

Written Sunday September 3rd 2017:

Capture“Repeal and replace” makes for a great political slogan. For Republicans in the US, who minted the phrase, it meant repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”). In January of this year, President Trump told ABC news that “he wanted “good coverage at much less cost” and “a much better healthcare plan at much less money.” Over recent months President Trump has found that while “repealing” might possibly be easy, replacing is a lot harder. To date, the Act has been neither repealed nor replaced.

Now, Brexiters in the UK never used the phrase “repeal and replace”, but that is what they meant.

“Repeal” the UK’s membership of the European Union and “replace” it with a relationship with the EU at much less cost and with much better benefits.

That is, in effect, the prospectus they offered the people of the UK. As Boris Johnson, now the Foreign Secretary, put it, the UK “could have its cake and eat it”.

Continue reading