1. It is way easier to change the minds of the people in your home country rather than in several countries.

2. My country of birth, Sweden, has more history of rejecting stuff like that.

Sweden is a small player compared to Germany and France, so I am uncertain how much weight our words have.

But the issue they're raising is that the issue isn't being reported and examined by others and especially not journalists who are best placed to raise wider awareness of this.

> When the NDRE law was implemented in 2008, the Director-General (...) wrote that "there is this idea that the NDRE is going to listen to all Swedes' phone calls and read their e-mails and text messages. A disgusting thought. How can so many people believe that a democratically elected parliament would treat its people so badly?"

> However, 13 years later, in May 2021, Sweden was found by the European Court of Human Rights to have violated personal privacy due to the NDRE law. The Swedish government was urged to immediately correct these problems of legal uncertainty. Instead, however, the parliament did the exact opposite: they voted to extend the NDRE law in November 2021.

In fact, it's completely opposite - Swedish government is trying hard to spy on their citizen, and the EU is trying[1] to stop that.

[1] By sending strongly worded letters, and fails to achieve anything. There goes the idea that EU is some kind of a totalitarian dictatorships that forces countries to do what it wants.

You might want to check the article as to Swedes and Sweden's involvement in the drafting of this in the first place. And the NDRE is another thing which the country happily introduced and expanded upon. As far as mass surveillance of populations go, Sweden's not on the side of protecting privacy.

Willing to exit EU might however be completely orthogonal to preferences regarding surveillance laws. I mean, such politician might just as well propose similar laws like Chat Control after the country leaves the EU. And looking at some of the specimens around here that would not even be unlikely.

It feels more or less impossible to influence EU-politicians. I don't know who they are, what they do or barely how the EU system works. It is too complicated for laymen to get into in general.

If a local politician proposes a stupid law as this one, I can call them up on my phone while when EU does it you don't even know it's happening.

It is extremely easy to find out. You even had an election where you voted for one of them (if you showed up for the vote). Here you go [0]. Start sending them emails about this.

[0] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/search/advanced?count...

I did send them an email. Only one replied.

I did not intend to use this as such argument.

Wrt not being able to even reach EU-politicians: that's a bit far fetched, no? Maybe you don't know who they are but it's easy enough to look that up, for my country the first hit is spot on and the second one is a Wikipedia entry saying the same. Likewise for questions like 'how does EU parliament work'.

The pessimist says "Things can't get worse, I'll vote to leave the EU", the optimist says "Things can always get worse, let's stay in the EU".

"the fact that UK is one of the Five Eyes" is attested to on the NSA's own domain: https://www.nsa.gov/Helpful-Links/NSA-FOIA/Declassification-...

…although the "and that's bad" part of Five Eyes is tied to what Snowden released.

And if you remember, there were two main topics surrounding Leave campaigns:

1. We pay to the EU more than we get - which was absolutely correct btw. 2. Anti-immigration sentiments - which is sad if that's a synonym for racism. At the same time, the UK has changed extremely in the past 7 decades. From a white Christian country with very distinctive culture became an extremely multicultural country with places where "natives" are a minority. I am pro-immigration and pro-multiculturalism, but I can understand why some people have an issue with such a quick change.

I know OP is stating that as an opinion, but I don't think it is based on a knowledge of the UK reality and there would be very little evidence supporting it.

The voters got targeted messaging for what they were most likely to believe, but taken as an aggregate the campaigns were contradictory.

(This also means that most people who say they aren't getting the Brexit they voted for are probably sincere and justified in that, even though people like me did tell them this at the time).

> We pay to the EU more than we get - which was absolutely correct btw.

As with recent claims of progress in nuclear fusion, it depends on where you draw the boundary of the system.

The EU, being a free trade agreement with the unusual extra layer of some democratic self-updating that most FTAs don't bother with, also made it easier to do business and thus create wealth.

I know this isn't important to your point, but I do find it rather bizarre that the EU, which is mostly white and Christian, got the flack from people who say they want a white Christian country.

That said, I saw such nonsense at the time, racists blaming the EU for too many Africans and Middle Easterners.

I would add a third pillar of the Brexit campaign to your two: "take back control", from all the people who didn't like the EU limiting what the UK could do. This included the Human Rights Act and ECHR even though that's technically not the EU.

That last bit connects to the right to privacy.

I think in this one, you aren't right. Prominent Vote Leave politicians are against state surveillance.

> The EU, being a free trade agreement with the unusual extra layer of some democratic

I think this shift has happened during M.Thatcher. Initially she was for the common market, but later she has learned about the political agenda that wasn't often in the interest of the UK. Honestly, it has started even before, I believe Enoch Powell will have older critical speeches on the same topic. It's nothing new in the British politics.

Which confirms:

> I would add a third pillar of the Brexit campaign to your two: "take back control"

Yes, absolutely. But not for the reason you say. Taking back control might really be based on the fact that many EU countries are way more left-leaning, financially irresponsible, poorer, etc. Taking back control equals decreasing influence of such countries on the reality of ordinary British citizen. But this is something that really goes back for many decades. It isn't something that would be suddenly used by surveillance-favouring people.

> EU, which is mostly white and Christian, got the flack from people who say they want a white Christian country.

People opposing such a quick change (out of racism, ignorance of benefits of immigration or pure conservatism) might see the EU as pro-immigration and pro-multiculturalism (which it openly is for a while now already). And again, leaving the EU might give people more powers to stop this from happening. The fact that it is hurting the UK a lot now is a different topic.

Some were, some weren't. Broad tent is necessary for anything at this scale.

I'm surprised you list Frage among the supporters of human rights, given:

• https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nigel-farage-human-righ...

• https://www.gbnews.uk/news/nigel-farage-told-human-rights-la...

Hannan is quieter about it, and generally puts a positive hopeful tone through his speeches and writing, but still disfavours the institution and appears to believe that the UK doesn't need an outside court because, to paraphrase, "we're the goodies not the baddies": https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/717100/Conservative-...

Not on your list, but there is also Boris Johnson: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12656214/boris-johnson-europea...

(Though with him I will grant you he's so pathologically disconnected from the concept of truth existing in objective reality that it's difficult to say what his goals were beyond self-aggrandisement).

> Taking back control might really be based on the fact that many EU countries are way more left-leaning, financially irresponsible, poorer, etc

Eh, if that was a strong part of it, there wouldn't be so much anti-German sentiment.

And I saw a lot more people going "look how badly Greece was treated" than "Greece is what happens when you mess up, and they got lucky with a massive bailout".

> pro-immigration and pro-multiculturalism

Hmm.

Well, people do put things in a single category when words are similar, let alone identical, so I can believe this error occurred.

But I will still call it an error, as the "pro-immigration and pro-multiculturalism" I see in the EU is between EU countries rather than across the exterior borders. I take the view that, with the post-war meaning of the term, "Fortress Europe" is a thing (and that's bad): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_Europe

Obviously I acknowledge there are people who say that "it's not a thing and that's bad". Since the referendum, three such people have managed to combine holding the position (emphasis on "and that's bad") as the UK Home Secretary while also being the children of migrants from outside the EU.

As a brit, let me tell you that leaving the EU will not solve this problem. Your local politicians will just do that anyway.

She seemed nice, and did eventually (albeit briefly) lead a splinter party.

But it didn't stop the Bill becoming an Act.

Anyway, it is way easier for a citizen to affect your local politician rather than some other random countries politicians that don't care about you.

What about the Swedish NDRE, which was found by the ECHR to violate personal privacy, and when urged to correct it they instead extended it? (as per the article).

But it will make responsibility clear. Out of the EU, no domestic government can claim plausible deniability on a directive like this, claiming not to support it yet there being nothing they can do about it - while secretly wanting to implement something like that anyway, but without the political fallout.

The distinction isn't meaningless but it's certainly a generous one when left to stand on its own.

The commissioners hold little allegiance to the spirit of democracy and these proposals are either career boosters or pet projects for them. They're not just going to pass it on to the parliament and leave it at that. They're going to do their best to finagle behind the scenes, horse trade, intimidate and pull from their endless infatuation with coddling the children the most fantastical justifications that, by pure chance I guess, smear any opponents.

> As a brit, let me tell you that leaving the EU will not solve this problem. Your local politicians will just do that anyway.

But it will help. No modern government will pass a law that grants its citizens more privacy. It's better to have a many smaller ones, each with different rates of deterioration (re privacy) than a super government where every little nudge towards the eventual zero-privacy Internet affects us all at once.

Sadly, residing in a region formerly part of the Russian Empire, together with last year's events, kind of kills the glee I felt in the past whenever I fantasized about the EU disintegrating, which is to say voting to leave the EU would only makes sense if online privacy was the only thing you cared about.

GDPR was passed not that long ago.

Then you read Utah and California have comparable proposals yet I've seen a single mention of them in the whole comment section.

Sorry, I should have been more careful. It's a citizen versus a consumer thing; GDPR is about the latter and does not give you any real privacy gains in regards to your government except in areas where your relationship is business like.

Some Menial Low-Stakes Agency is required to handle your email and address details appropriately, sure, but meanwhile Europol was still able to mass collect data and have the Commission cover for them after they were found out.

You could of course argue that authorities can still make up any kind of law enforcement related reason to exclude you anyways :)

Edit: My point is sorta that the exceptions are a whitelist not a blacklist.