Forum Topic

Thank, Jonathan - I had a problem with the URL until I noticed the full stop at the end! A useful analysis, although it doesn't help me unravel some of the services stuff with all the cross references to UN CPCs, etc ... and, as I said elsewhere, Johnson's admitted that the financial services element isn't ideal, I think he just meant "services". I note the analysis mentions that given the time and travel constraints its quite an achievement; but that's why it what reckless not to extend trreansition and get a good deal for financial and other services? I still fail to understand how small businesses will find the time and expertise to understand some of this 😟 I'd agree with the analysis that it's good the way is left open for further negotiations but I disagree that the ECJ no longer has an involvement. The agreement doesn't mention it but the EU Q&A notes that have been produced to accompany it make clear that the ECJ ruling have to be taken account of when assessing data privacy adequacy related to the GDPR. As the US has found out with the Schrems rulings this can be disruptive;  so, given this government has emphasised the desire for the UK to be a global technology leader then if one makes the assumption that data - which underpins information, knowledge, AI and many technologies - will be key in the future (the new gold, oil or soil depending on one's view) then it's sad future developments of the GDPR, and adequacy and legal rulings on it will be made unilaterally by the EU parliament, commission and ECJ? At least, that's my interpretation...

Michael Ixer ● 1947d