No EU means that most states would already have implemented Chat Control. Case in point, the UK.

If the UK citizens want Chat Control they should have it. If they don't, they should not elect a government that wants it. Same goes for almost every issue the EU is pushing. Not everyone in the EU needs Chat Control just because the UK citizens really want a government that will give them Chat Control.

Is there any living person that thinks the UK people want ChatControl? No? Me neither.

If the UK no longer has democracy then that is not something the EU can fix by giving UK chat control.

With 69% of people supporting the Online Safety Act [1] I'm confident there are people in the UK that would also support Chat Control

[1] https://yougov.co.uk/technology/articles/52693-how-have-brit...

Didn’t the surveys indicate a brexit as a pretty big regret once people understood what it meant?

Sure, when you frame the question as, "do you support these measures to ensure children don't have access to pornography?", of course people are going to support it.

Present evidence that the new laws will be a danger to their fundamental rights and maybe you won't get quite as much support.

Also, that survey shows that there's broad support even though the same people don't believe the new laws will be effective. So... that's pretty stupid.

In the meantime we get VPN adverts in the tube.

It depends on how you word the survey. ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA (Yes Minster: the unofficial video on-boarding course for UK bureaucrats)

No EU means that this law would have to passed in 27 different countries whihc would make it much harder to put this many people under surveillance.

So, in this particular case no EU would be a clear benefit because it would give us time to see the effect on this law on the neighboring countries first, just like we saw with the UK and the OSA.

I am becoming more anti-EU by the day and this is just one more nail in the coffin.

Well that escalated quickly, didn't it?

Yes, the EU did escalate things to such an extent that absolutely countries should be considering leaving over the EU’s insane push to destroy all privacy and thus free speech.

No, just Ursula and lobbies among the Denmark wacko against privacy.

The EU began as a simple customs bloc and negotiating tool. It has morphed into a blood sucking behemoth preventing growth and discouraging progress.

Good luck. EU has been producing one Europe crippling law and regulation after another and it still enjoys wide support for some reason. Ursula is facing two more no confidence votes in October so hopefully the tide is changing.

People were told the lie that without the EU there will be war again. Like the economic stagnation and decline of Europe is somehow the final solution and the end of history.

You don't have to convince me. You have to convince people who will immediately reject anything negative about EU, even here on HN (see the coming downvotes).

EU is not enough. I'm sometimes not happy with the decision taken by governments in France, so what really has to happen is HauteGaronnExit, where my departement is freed from the influence of borders decided in a Revolution two centuries ago, of which I was never explicitly asked to approve.

And, come to think of it, I don't like all the decisions taken by the departement either. Surely things will work great when my street is responsible for the electrical grid, immigration or international commerce.

And when I say "my street", I obviously mean "my half of the street". I'm not against odd-numbered houses "per se", but, you know...

down with the EU