The Home Office’s attempt to use the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, dubbed the ‘Snoopers’ Charter’, to force a backdoor into Apple’s Advanced Data Protection encryption of cloud backups is again in the news. A secret hearing before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal began on Friday, while additional members of the US Congress, from both parties, have added themselves to the growing numbers of notable figures opposed to the Labour Government’s reckless attack on everyone’s privacy. Led by Yvette Cooper, now known also by the moniker ‘Yvette Snooper’, the Home Office continues to remain blind to the way in which creating a backdoor into encrypted data as a way to let the in ‘good guys’ serves only to create a weakness which hostile countries and cybercriminals can exploit. This comes only months after the discovery of Chinese malware which was making use of CALEA backdoors, which the US Government had placed in American telecom networks, provided a striking illustration of the dangers backdoors pose to national security. Not only does the Home Office’s demand threaten the privacy of all Apple users worldwide, it also jeopardises the UK’s relationship with the US where J.D. Vance has warned against backdooring encryption, Tulsi Gabbard has called it a “clear and egregious violation” and President Trump has described the demand as “something you hear about in China”.
In an effort to distract attention from the dangers of backdoors, the UK Government also removed National Cyber Security Centre webpages advising lawyers to use end-to-end encryption to protect themselves against cyberattacks. It has done this even as the FBI, despite a history of pushing for the undermining of cryptography rights, has been newly urging widespread use of end-to-end encryption in the wake of China’s exploitation of CALEA backdoors. Apple is currently blocking the use of Advanced Data Protection in the UK and some in the software industry have described its actions as opening a frontdoor rather than a backdoor. This is only partially the case. While Advanced Data Protection may be blocked, the data already uploaded to Apple’s end-to-end encrypted version of its cloud service remain safe as Apple does not have any way to decrypt them without user involvement.
The Snoopers’ Charter was a Conservative Party creation, with Labour abstaining during the first vote on it. Keir Starmer in 2016 warned against some aspects of it, though seems willing enough to use it now. Labour mostly supported the bill’s later passage with a small number of MPs across many parties opposing it, including the SNP and the Liberal Democrats – a party perhaps best stereotyped as people with the decency to oppose authoritarianism when it arrives under the banner of national security, but who are often unable to see through its disguise when it cloaks itself under cuddlier excuses like ‘safety’ or ‘solutions‘ to climate change. Conservatives who supported the Snoopers’ Charter while their party was in power might now, watching their dearly held special relationship with the US being threatened, realise why it is dangerous for any government to grant itself extreme powers. However much a politician preparing to vote for new powers may trust his own side only to use them for ‘good’, he would be wiser to concentrate on what his most enthusiastic opponents could do with such capabilities at a future time.
Today, the opposition to cryptographic backdoors crosses both ideological and party lines. Even within the frustrating split forming within Reform we see figures on both sides making the case against this governmental over-reach. Zia Yusuf wrote a good Telegraph article, while Rupert Lowe has written: “I want my data to be private, especially from the state.” Those who take a stand against mass surveillance today must not forget this if they ever end up forming a government. Campaign groups including Big Brother Watch, Liberty, Index on Censorship, the Open Rights Group and Privacy International are speaking out against the Home Office’s demand, asking for the hearing to be made public and preparing court cases to challenge the legality of the request.
As is typical of governments seeking ever greater intrusion in to people’s lives, the things being demanded from Apple are not actually needed. Mass surveillance tactics do not catch criminals, who largely know how to evade them. We do not need automated monitoring of all our bank accounts to discover benefit fraud, especially as this would only reduce combined error and fraud losses by just 1.5%. We do not need driving licence photographs to be uploaded into a facial recognition databases, a plan begun under the Conservative Government and now resurrected by Labour. The 10% of criminals who commit the majority of serious crimes are repeat offenders whose images the police already have. And as the worst criminals tend to be known to law enforcement they can be dealt with using powers which have existed for as long as the concept of policing has existed. If all else fails, it’s technically possible to access the device of a specific suspect via an evil-maid attack. There are definite ethical concerns with such tampering, but not on the scale of the damage wrought by indiscriminate backdooring. However, in their quest for ever greater powers, governments around the world routinely overlook workable and targeted solutions in favour of surveilling everyone, at all times, supposedly to catch the worst criminals, but all too often simply as a new way to penalise the most petty of infractions.
The tribunal is being held in secret and we have not heard so much as a pip from Apple about it, nor is the Home Office discussing the statements being made at the tribunal. Neither has even officially confirmed that the tribunal, which began on Friday, is about Apple. What Apple might say in response is also unknown, but too often opposition to government overreach entirely confines itself to arguing within bounds permitted by the very legislation it seeks to oppose, losing sight of much more important questions of basic morality, practical feasibility and the dangers of slippery slopes. Under the letter of the Snoopers’ Charter Apple is banned from even confirming the news about the backdoor demand, and it is thought that the Home Office may not have been appeased by Apple’s move to withdraw Advanced Data Protection without backdooring it. To reiterate, withdrawing the service means that while Britons’ rights to encrypt their data are being curtailed, secrets already within it are not being compromised. But if Apple is to be ‘hung for a lamb’ it has few reasons not to simply re-enable Advanced Data Protection for UK users. Apple could paint any such act of resistance as an opportunity for a de facto vote by the consuming public. It could even offer a returns and refunds for any users who prefer the Government’s stance. It is not hard to imagine who would win in a popularity poll between Apple and a Government which doesn’t seem to have sufficient confidence in its arguments to make them in an open court.
As I have discussed before, Apple is a popular brand, whereas the Government of Two-Tier Keir, Rachel Thieves, Ed Milliwatt and Yvette Snooper has a strongly net-negative approval rating. And Britain, despite the best efforts of those who inflicted cruel lockdowns and who seek to infest our cities with facial recognition cameras, is not yet China. Most importantly in this context though is that Britain is not China in terms of manufacturing capacity. Apple all too regularly bends the knee to Xi Jinping’s monstrous and expansionist regime and has limited AirDrop due to its popularity among protesters. It has removed VPNs, a Hong Kong protest app and the emoji character for the Taiwanese flag. It does so because, entirely of its own making, Apple has grown dependent on Chinese factories: 95% of its products are made there. And whilst many of Apple’s major suppliers, such as Foxconn, are headquartered in Taiwan, the factories they operate are mostly in China, such as at Longhua and Zhengzhou. There is an important lesson to be learned here on the dangers of depending on Chinese manufacturing, and I can’t be the only one concerned to find that a particular electronic or mechanical component I need to order is made nowhere else.
Apple, by contrast, does not depend on manufacturing facilities within the UK. While our nation can be proud to still have some world-class small businesses making highly specialised products, we are not at the heart of the supply chain for mass manufactured electronic consumer goods. The UK Government’s leverage over Apple is therefore very limited. Furthermore, attempting to ban the import of Apple goods would surely generate a thriving black market, making Apple products even more trendy, and pricey, for those buyers who have yet to see the light of Linux.
As one of the big five tech companies, Apple has not been unwilling to expend effort to shield itself from taxes and other government policies which affect its bottom-line. It would perhaps not be a good look for Apple if it failed to stand up for the privacy of its British customers with equal vigour. Smaller companies, such as Open Whisper Systems, the makers of Signal, and Proton, the company behind ProtonMail, make a point of continuing to provide services to customers in countries where they are forced out, taking a ‘different approach‘ to the one Apple has pursued thus far. It would hardly look good for a company with the might of Apple not to show similar levels of courage. Apple should remember that the Labour Government is temporary and, judging by the wave of post-lockdown resentment which has swept individualist politicians to power around the world, a future UK Government would be likely to look favourably on resistance to mass surveillance demands. What is not so temporary is Apple’s reputation: unlike other big tech companies, its primary business is still the sale of a product to the user. Prospective purchasers of Apple products will not readily forget how Apple reacts to this situation.
Make no mistake, if you have secrets of real value, Apple’s encryption product is probably not the one for you. That is not to say it is insecure – it is highly recommended by many reputable sources. But it is nonetheless a piece of software under the control of a corporation which can disable it if it chooses to do so when under pressure. Because it is end-to-end encrypted it cannot disclose user’s encryption keys when pressurised – it never had a copy of those keys – but it can turn the service off. Open source encryption software does not have this vulnerability to corporate and governmental whims; the code can stand for itself. Whereas a highly integrated app with a centralised dependency can be backdoored or threatened into shutting itself down, with open source code there is no organisation upon which a would-be-snooper can apply leverage. If an adversary, be it a government or anyone else, manages to force the closure of the main repository of the code, perhaps by threatening a website such as GitHub where it might be hosted, then copies of the code downloaded earlier can still be shared via other platforms. Contrast this with proprietary software for which it is possible for the corporation which distributes the software via centralised means to restrict, geographically or on other criteria, its availability. If an adversary manages to threaten the main maintainer of a piece of open source software to a sufficient extent that it buckles to a backdooring demand, others can spot the backdoor and create ‘forked‘ software versions without the unwelcome changes. With proprietary software, on the other hand, nobody outside the company that makes it ever checks the source code against backdooring, plus many such programs push automatic updates which the user cannot prevent.
Setting aside backdoors and security considerations for a moment, consider the following. With open-source software you can easily stick with, or roll back to, an older version whenever you encounter an interface which has worsened after an update, an unwelcome new feature added to a product or the removal of a feature you liked. That is not to say it is necessarily wise to run out-of-date versions of software. Outdated versions of internet-facing software such as browsers and system utilities within a computer’s operating system often have vulnerabilities which can be exploited remotely by installers of malware. But it remains possible. For a lot of entirely locally run software, such as photo and video editors, music recording programs, CAD (Computer Aided Design) tools, programming IDEs (Integrated Development Environments) and office suites, it is nice to have the choice of sticking with what you know alongside options for the latest version. Proprietary apps are typically designed nowadays to limit your thinking to within the narrow range of options they show you, much as Sir Humphrey ensures his Minister only ever gets to pick between the options which Humphrey’s civil servants have drafted. For open source options not everything can always be changed readily, but the software developers usually make adjustable everything they think people would be likely to wish to adjust.
If you need encryption for backing up highly sensitive data, 7zip’s AES 256 implementation has stood the test of time. It can be downloaded for Windows and Mac, with most Linux distributions including built-in graphical interface software compatible with encrypting and decrypting this format. GNU Privacy Guard is another particularly well regarded program, although it can be cumbersome for beginners to use. For Apple devices in particular there are cryptographic tools being recommended which appear to replicate much of the Advanced Data Protection functionality. Unbackdoored cryptographic algorithms are already in the public domain and there is nothing the state can do to stop criminals using them, and nothing it can do to stop anyone else either.
What remains to be seen is whether Apple will turn around, say no, and make a laughing stock of the UK Government, or whether the UK Government will, by ruining our relationship with an America which is now casting off the shackles of the surveillance-obsessed Deep State, make a laughing stock of itself.
Dr R P completed a robotics PhD during the global over-reaction to Covid. He spends his time with one eye on an oscilloscope, one hand on a soldering iron and one ear waiting for the latest bad news. He hopes soon to return to writing articles about things other than cryptographic backdoors.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
As we’re not allowed to use ‘profanity’ and ‘abuse’ it’s difficult to comment on this article.
This decision is a firkin disgrace and an insult to the indigenous people of these islands, and those responsible for making the decision are complete Next Tuesdays.
Will that suffice?
“Why, after 14 years of Conservative Government failing to make headway on this, does Kemi still think we need to establish whether leaving the ECHR is necessary? How long does the party need to work this one out?”
I’m not sure this comment is entirely fair. I think she is absolutely correct in what she says. The “crisis” is an invasion. The barriers to repelling that invasion are principally three (nothing to do with the ECHR which is just an excuse):
1) Public opinion. Any action taken that makes a significant difference will need to be forceful, and there will be much hand-wringing from the tens of millions of bleeding heart liberals in the UK.
2) Practical – resources are not unlimited. The more force we use, the less resources will be needed, but see point (1).
3) International opinion. We would come under immense pressure from France (especially if we start dumping them back on French beaches) and many other countries – there will be threats of sanctions and other action, possibly making it harder for us to travel. Look what happened to Truss.
As far as I am concerned we have to accept the costs of a very necessary export drive, illegals first.
It’s either that or the UK ceases to exist in any meaningful way. The costs would be high, though other countries may follow when citizens realise it can be done, at which point it would be much easier. If the whole of Europe were united in this…
Nothing easy is worth having….!
I must disagree with that. Making breakfast this morning was easy, and definitely worth having… 🙂
What a long winded load of tripe answer is that ? Just vote Reform
Not sure what voting Reform has to do with it. Just pointing out that in this case she is correct – the ECHR is essentially irrelevant. It’s just an excuse. The challenges are nothing to do with the ECHR but practical and with public and international opinion and the consequences of any action we take. Whoever you vote for, those are the issues.
Do explain where my logic is flawed.
You seem to be extremely verbose tof perhaps love the sound of your own voice a bit much lots of words to explain not much or the obvious ? We all understand what you seem at pains to explain just seems to be the way you are.
Why don’t you tell us (in a non verbose manner) how Reform or Dorsetman would deal with (a) a boatload of migrants in the English Channel or (b) a boatload of migrants landed on some English beach. Take as a given that they don’t have papers and won’t be telling you where they are from or who they are.
Oh hello triggered !! Personally I would return them to France. Practically I would return them to the last port they were physically at. All European ports are safe
Where and how would you return them to France? Take them to a beach somewhere and hope the French don’t notice? How would you know what port they came from? Why would any of these countries want them back?
Where and how ? To dieppe or Calais where they made their illegal attempt from. A refugee makes their home in the first safe place ie. France it’s a safe country no difference from UK. An illegal immigrant makes their way lllegaly into the UK. Hence pay £3k for a very risky boat crossing or pay £30 for a flight from Paris you choose tof which way you gonna go ?
I’d be delighted if we tried. Not sure the French would want them. Sadly I don’t think it will happen.
That answer seems like you’ve backed down my friend why pipe up if you’re not committed? Verbose ?
Backed down from what?
Once these people have left France, they’ll also be illegal immigrants into France should they return. Or rather, they’ll be illegal immigrants into the EU coming (in case they reached Britain) from a safe state which is not an EU member where they should have made their asylum application instead of illegally immigrating into an EU member state.
You seem to be under the wrong impression that other states are somehow obliged to help the British to deal with their own problems but they’re certainly not. RN ships (for example) being instrumental in violating French/ EU immigration laws is only insofar different from that other people smugglers do that it would technically be an act of war.
Considering that French military doctrine calls for a nuclear first strike in response to a conventional invasion, the outcome could be France and Britain nuking each other. Popcorn!
Of course leaving the ECHR in snd of itself will solve nothing. It is however a necesssry step to regain control.
I don’t think it would make any difference but think we should leave on principle
That’s a nothing reply commit to leave if you believe in it.
Leave what?
“. Nothing to do with ECHR…”. Surely it has been seen time and time again to bear some relationship to the crisis.
It’s just an excuse. If we really wanted to, we’d have done it.
Part of the “migrant crisis” is all the LEGAL immigration that successive governments have encouraged since the end of WW2, our addiction to cheap labour and the pitiful horror we now have of being called “racist”. The “crisis” has been deliberate.
Yep, and this is why I didn’t vote Conservative.
They had 14 years to fix this. And they didn’t.
Oh, they did talk about it, they made promises, Priti Patel furrowed her eyebrows and sounded tough, yeah, yeah, this time next year. Rodney, we’ll be millionaires, we’ll get married darling, just not yet.
End result? Nil. Nada, nothing, sweet FA.
So allow me to express my opinion: you didn’t fix it because you didn’t want to.
Oh, you had excuses, plenty of them. There was always something. Human rights lawyers, Strassburg, hostile media, international obligations, our reputation and all that. While Hungary built a fence and deported all “asylum seekers”, you were coming up with a litany of excuses.
Maybe one day you’ll realize that that’s why you lost the election. You absolutely, positively, definitely deserved to lose and, quite frankly, it will be a long time before we forget about the way you betrayed this country.
Follow the money. The Concriminals – many of them and their backers – are making money off the Great White Replacement invasion. Legal as well as illegal.
Yes, sure, there is money to be made.
But I think the problem is deeper. The absolute majority of the left-wing supporters of these policies won’t be made richer by an Albanian criminal.
I think they are spiritually as well as intellectually bankrupt. The “abomination of desolation” is the expression that springs to mind.
Spot on!
Solution – arrest him and his family and put him on a plane to Albania and F. the ECHR. What are they going to do?
Do human rights extend to those that are victims or at risk of being victims?
Did we consider the human rights of Fred West and how vulnerable he was to suicide?
This is what the authorities think about the human rights of the victims of the organized ( and known about ) rape/grooming/trafficking Pakistani gangs in the UK. Talk about a kick in the teeth, this is absolutely disgusting, but it says it all about the attitudes of those in charge, doesn’t it? Yes, it’s the phantom menace, the ”far right” again. Just don’t focus on the real problem and actual perpetrators;
”A leading UK journalist has expressed outrage after a Wikipedia page dedicated to the grooming gangs scandal in which approximately 1,400 girls were abused over decades was changed.
As Gript previously reported, thousands of girls in the UK were drugged, raped, trafficked, and beaten by groups which were “almost exclusively” comprised of Muslim men, mostly of Pakistani origin according to former Greater Manchester Police detective turned whistle-blower, Maggie Oliver.
Speaking to Gript, journalist Charlie Peters – who has reportedly extensively on the grooming gangs scandal and worked closely with numerous victims – said, “The state-endorsed narrative is that the grooming gangs scandal is a right-wing myth propagated by extremists, with a 2020 Home Office report released under Priti Patel’s leadership facilitating much of that agenda.”
“The grooming gangs Wikipedia article has been maliciously edited to describe it as a “moral panic” propagated by the ‘far-right.’ This false account of the scandal is helping to keep the public and politicians ignorant about what happened and what needs to be done.”
A page formally titled “Muslim grooming gangs in the UK” was changed to say that the scandal, which rocked both the political establishment and the UK police force, was a “moral panic” propagated by the “far right”.
The move has also sparked outrage among survivors of abuse by grooming gangs.
GB News reported the reaction of grooming gang survivors to the changes made to the Wikipedia page as, “It was a scandal where over 1400 children were raped and trafficked around England. I don’t see how they can class it as a ‘moral panic’ when every authority would not act because of racial tension.”
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/muslim-grooming-gangs-in-the-uk-wiki-page-altered-to-say-scandal-is-moral-panic-of-far-right/
Same story, different country. Always, when adjusted for population size, those with a migration background ( including second generation migrants ) are over-represented for criminal convictions. Anyone would think they don’t even want to be in their country of residence;
”In numerous German federal states, the prison population is made up of more than 50 percent foreigners, with the cost of these prisoners totaling €2 billion a year, according to an exclusive report from the Austrian news outlet Freilich.
Already in mid-July, German state media outlet SWR reported that for the first time, more than half of all prisoners in the southern state of Baden-Württemberg are foreigners. Currently, this figure stands at 50.8 percent. Freilich decided to look into the situation in other German states and found that five others also feature prison populations that are more than 50 percent foreign.
The state with the highest proportion of foreigners is Hamburg, which stands at 57.8 percent.
Other states, such as North Rhine-Westphalia, which is Germany’s most populous state, may not reach 50 percent, but the numbers are still extremely high, at 40.4 percent. The top offenders are Turks, Poles, Syrians, Moroccans and Romanians. In Bavaria, the second-largest state by population, 51.1 percent of the prison population is foreign, which includes 4,965 non-German nationals.
It is important to note that these statistics do not include those with a migration background. For instance, there is no data differentiating between ethnic Germans and Middle Easterners born in Germany. The data only shows if the perpetrator has a German passport or not.
In Hesse, 51.4 percent of the prison population is made up foreigners, equaling 2,245 prisoners. The largest groups come from Algeria and Morocco, but other top groups include Turks, Romanians, and Afghans, according to the Ministry of Justice.
As of July 22, 2024, Berlin featured 2,024 foreign prisoners, representing 56.4 percent of the total number, which stands at 3,588. A spokeswoman told Freilich that the largest groups are Poles, Turks, Serbians, and Georgians. In Bremen, the smallest federal state, the number of foreign prisoners totaled 56 percent.”
https://rmx.news/article/germany-over-half-of-prisoners-are-foreigners-in-many-states-costing-taxpayers-billions/
“Always, when adjusted for population size, those with a migration background ( including second generation migrants ) are over-represented for criminal convictions.”
Probably not the Japanese 🙂
But then I am a horrid racist.
Katrina, Sailer, And Japan | Blog Posts | VDARE.com
I have to point out that the “1,400” figure was just for Rotherham and was subsequently raised by the Inquiry to 1,510. And that was then, still just Rotherham. The problem hasn’t gone away in Rotherham or anywhere else. And one should have been too many.
Of course that nice Yooman Rights lawyer appointed in 2009 as DPP knew nowt about it.
There have been proven cases in Telford, Leeds, Banbury, Oxford, Leicester, Peterborough – the list goes on and on and on. We must be approaching 100,000 by now. And let’s not forget the Sikh girls who were first in line for the RoP “Easy Meat” fanciers.
Those showing up on our beaches who have accidentally lost all their papers crossing the Channel should be immediately loaded into Landing Craft and headed off to the Normandy Beaches to go look for them. If the EU wants to fire on them and erect barbed wire entanglement, that is up to them. I would add half a dozen Yooman Rights lawyers to every craft to see that everything was fine on arrival and keep the lawyers’ own documents safe for them in Dover.
Unfortunately, won’t happen.
Why would we imprison someone who committed fraud in an asylum claim. Why not just deport.
The whole political elite snd their masters in the blob/swamp are a disgrace.
I’m not sure if lying about your country of origin should result in a prison sentence, which could be seen as a deserved punishment and possible deterrent to others, before deportation. However the fact that this person lied when claiming asylum should mean they have no right to stay in the UK and if they loose some of their human rights it serves them right. It’s taken for granted that convicted criminals loose some rights e.g. their freedom so why the hell shouldn’t they loose other rights?
Yes, as former Queen’s Chaplain Gavin Ashenden summed it up:
“The whole asylum system is POLITICAL DECEIT.”
Australia.
The Nazi ideology and regime also falsely argued that all social problems / criminality / ‘degenerate behaviour’ etc was down to ‘immigrant’, ‘non-indigenous’ / ‘non-Aryan’ / ‘alien’ etc groupings (most especially those from a Jewish background)…
And we all know how that ended up.
The main originator of the twin mass murderous and totalitarian ideologies of Nazism / Fascism and Marxism – Charles Darwin – first embarked on his anti-spirituality and anti-morality agenda at the very non-Albanian institution of the University of Edinburgh in 1825.
We need to get back to the simple spiritual ideals promoted by eg Jesus Christ and The Buddha of love, compassion, non-violence, self-sacrifice and egalitarianism;
Not yet more imaginary excuses for divisions, hatred, intolerance and violence.
Yes, but can we still deport them if they commit a criminal offence?
Nonsense!
“And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.
34
And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.
35
And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
36
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no SWORD, let him sell his garment, and BUY ONE.
37
For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
38
And they said, LORD, BEHOLD, HERE ARE TWO SWORDS. And he said unto them, It is enough.“
Right then – this chap is 64 years old. There id no mention of his job. Does this mean he is being supported by the tex-payer?
Hmmm thought so. I guess also that yet again his appeal to stay in the UK is being paid for by the tax-payer – again.
I am truly pi$$ed off that my taxes go to support the dross of society. The whole family need deporting – pronto.
Just round him and his family up, put them in a van, drive them to the airport, stick them on a plane and send them back to Albania. How hard is that?
“Why, after 14 years of Conservative Government failing to make headway on this, does Kemi still think we need to establish whether leaving the ECHR is necessary? How long does the party need to work this one out?”
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CONSERVATIVES.
The politicians keep saying we can’t leave the ECHR because of the Northern Ireland agreement. Why is it that every sodding issue seems to be blocked by the bloody NI agreement and seeing as the EU are not bound by the ECHR with their laws and dictats, why do the countries that are part of the EU have to be bound by it. Does this not mean that Brussels can impose a law on a country that could then be rejected by the ECHR. Which supranational body does the country then have to obey? The whole thing is a legal mess, needs tearing down and then rebuilt for the modern world and not some post trans European war situation. Only then should we give credence to it and until then we should be like the other 46 with the 10,000 rejections of the impositions, rather than being one of the most supine, compliant countries.
When I voted your comment up, it already had a strange green “-1”, so my vote only brought the green one up to Zero!