Europe wants Facebook to implement its censorship requests globally

A new ruling by the EU Court of Justice seems to compel social media companies to enact EU censorship demands even outside of its jurisdiction.

The judgment was made on the case of Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland, in which the Austrian Green Party politician seeks to force Facebook to remove content that she feels is harmful to her reputation and anything that sounds a bit like it. The court was asked to interpret the Directive on electronic commerce and concluded it doesn’t prevent member states from imposing the following on ‘host providers’, which seems to mean all social media platforms and maybe beyond.

  • To remove information which it stores, the content of which is identical to the content of information which was previously declared to be unlawful, or to block access to that information, irrespective of who requested the storage of that information;
  • To remove information which it stores, the content of which is equivalent to the content of information which was previously declared to be unlawful, or to block access to that information, provided that the monitoring of and search for the information concerned by such an injunction are limited to information conveying a message the content of which remains essentially unchanged compared with the content which gave rise to the finding of illegality and containing the elements specified in the injunction, and provided that the differences in the wording of that equivalent content, compared with the wording characterising the information which was previously declared to be illegal, are not such as to require the host provider to carry out an independent assessment of that content (thus, the host provider may have recourse to automated search tools and technologies);
  • To remove information covered by the injunction or to block access to that information worldwide within the framework of the relevant international law, and it is up to Member States to take that law into account.

In other words, if an EU member state decides a bit of online content should be censored, there’s nothing stopping it legally compelling internet platforms to remove it and anything its algorithms consider to be similar to it on a global basis. This seems to put enormous power of censorship in the hands of EU claimants who can afford to litigate.

“This judgment has major implications for online freedom of expression around the world,” said Thomas Hughes, Executive Director of free speech campaign group Article 19. “Compelling social media platforms like Facebook to automatically remove posts regardless of their context will infringe our right to free speech and restrict the information we see online. The judgment does not take into account the limitations of technology when it comes to automated filters.

“The ruling also mean that a court in one EU member state will be able to order the removal of social media posts in other countries, even if they are not considered unlawful there. This would set a dangerous precedent where the courts of one country can control what Internet users in another country can see. This could be open to abuse, particularly by regimes with weak human rights records.”

As calls for censorship mount, the global policing of speech on the internet is becoming impossibly convoluted. Will the EU now seek to punish Facebook, or whoever, if a bit of content it doesn’t like is accessible somewhere outside of its jurisdiction, and if so how? What if courts in the other country take a different view? As ever the only solution is to not censor in the first place.

Poland signs agreement with US to shore up 5G security

The US and Poland signed an agreement on 5G security, effectively barring Chinese companies from participating in building 5G networks in one of the largest markets in central Europe.

The agreement was signed by Mateusz Morawiecki, the Polish Prime Minister, and Vice President Mike Pence during his visit to Warsaw in place of President Trump, who stayed behind to deal with the expected landing of Hurricane Dorian. The presidential visit was made to commemorate of the 80th anniversary of Hitler’s invasion of Poland.

The two parties of the agreement pledged to protect “these next generation communications networks from disruption or manipulation and ensuring the privacy and individual liberties of the citizens of the United States, Poland, and other countries is of vital importance.”

When it comes to supplier selection, the agreement says, “we believe that all countries must ensure that only trusted and reliable suppliers participate in our networks to protect them from unauthorised access or interference.” Though it does not name China or Huawei, the criteria listed for “rigorous evaluation” read almost tailor-made for this purpose.

Specifically, suppliers should be evaluated on: whether they are controlled by a foreign government and subject to independent judicial review; whether they have a transparent ownership structure; whether they have a track-record of ethical corporate behaviour; and whether they are “subject to a legal regime that enforces transparent corporate practices”.

Other US officials were more straight-forward. “We recognize 5G networks will only be as strong as their weakest link,” said Marc Short, Pence’s chief staff, in a statement quoted by Associated Press. “We must stand together to prevent the Chinese Communist Party from using subsidiaries like Huawei to gather intelligence while supporting China’s military and state security services – with our technology.”

Poland has been one of the more vocal European countries calling for a ban on Huawei, especially after a Huawei employee was arrested charged for spying. The country’s officials had called for a coordinated NATO-EU action. But with any EU-wide 5G security measures not expected to be in place by October and member states given another year to test the measures, Poland looked to the US for a faster solution. The two countries have strong cultural ties. “Nearly 10 million Americans trace their heritage to Poland”, according to Pence.

The Polish officials had conceded that they lack legal tools to ban Huawei from the country’s private sector. This agreement would deter such an interest from the privately-owned telecom companies.

The agreement would also be a significant step for the US to get Europe, including the UK, on board its battle with China and with Huawei. Pence called it “vital example for the rest of Europe on the broader question of 5G.”

Huawei suspected of decade long relations with North Korea – report

The Washington Post has obtained internal documents showing the Chinese vendor and its partners have been working with North Korea’s national mobile operator for over a decade.

A former Huawei employee turned whistle-blower has passed on the documents to the newspaper, which has had them translated into English and shared on GitHub. The two spreadsheets are project logs of Huawei’s business in the China region, which covers North Korea (codenamed A9 inside Huawei). Details include project name, project status, account, country, internal business units, etc.

Huawei and its partners (for example Panda (Beijing) International Tech Limited, Xiamen Baoxin Supply China Co) are shown to have undertaken multiple projects for Koryolink, North Korea’s only mobile operator. The files recorded the latest initiated project with Koryolink took place in 2016, and the latest uninitiated project with the North Korean operator was logged in 2017.

The Washington Post reported that North Korea started building the mobile operator after the late Kim Jong Il (father of current leader Kim Jong Un and son of the country’s founder Kim Il Sung) visited Huawei in 2006. The operator was then set-up as a joint-venture between the Egyptian company Orascom Telecom Holding and North Korea’s Post and Telecommunications Corp. The newspaper claims it has also obtained additional files, not shared externally, that corroborate the case, with Huawei’s internal social network discussion records. Huawei is also allegedly to have developed a special encryption system for “special users” in North Korea.

At the time of writing Huawei has not responded to Telecoms.com’s request for comment, but its spokesperson denied to The Washington Post the company has any business presence in North Korea, though he does not deny the authenticity of the files. The spokesperson also claimed that “Huawei is fully committed to comply with all applicable laws and regulations in the countries and regions where we operate, including all export control and sanction laws and regulations”.

The timing of the report can be tricky for multiple parties. For Huawei, while the litigation in the US related to its business in Iran is still ongoing, the exposure of its long-term business relations with North Korea could become another roadblock to its efforts to be de-listed from the US Entity List. However, if Huawei had used other Chinese companies to ship equipment to North Korea, as was reported, it might have a case to argue that it has not dealt with a country under US sanction directly, which is different from the Iran case, where it is accused to have used its own subsidiary. But there are also cases, in particular system integration and software development projects, where Huawei has direct links. It would potentially need detailed investigation to determine whether American technology has been involved.

For the US it is also a precarious period. President Trump met CEOs from seven US technology companies on Monday, when he promised that the Department of Commerce would respond promptly to the license requests for Huawei sales. Afterwards, when asked about the North Korea report, the President said he will need to explore the issue. A further twist is the President has repeatedly claimed that he and the North Korean leader Kim are good friends.

For the UK and the European Union, the rather concrete case of Huawei’s link to North Korea would undoubtedly lend more weight to the argument that the company should be excluded from the construction of 5G networks, citing security concerns.

Most EU countries complete 5G national risk assessments

24 out of the 28 EU member states have completed 5G risk assessments at national level, laying the groundwork for an EU-wide assessment by October.

The project was launched in March, when the Commission (the administrative branch) responded to the Council’s (the heads of state or government) expectations to see a “recommendation on a concerted approach to the security of 5G networks”. According to the Commission’s statement, the assessment should be conducted on three main areas:

  • the main threats and actors affecting 5G networks;
  • the degree of sensitivity of 5G network components and functions as well as other assets; and
  • various types of vulnerabilities, including both technical ones and other types of vulnerabilities, such as those potentially arising from the 5G supply chain.

All member states were requested to complete the national assessment by the end of June. The Commission does not publish the names of the countries that have missed the deadline.

“The completion of the risk assessments underlines the commitment of Member States not only to set high standards for security but also to make full use of this groundbreaking technology,” Julian King, Commissioner for the Security Union, and Mariya Gabriel, Commissioner for the Digital Economy and Society, said in a joint statement.

“We hope that the outcomes will be taken into account in the process of 5G spectrum auctions and network deployment, which is taking place across the EU now and in the coming months. Several Member States have already taken steps to reinforce applicable security requirements while others are considering introducing new measures in the near future.”

The national assessments will feed into the pan-EU 5G risk assessment, led by the EU Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA), tasked to be completed by 1 October 2019. By the end of the year, a toolbox to mitigate the risks identified at national and EU levels will be developed by the NIS Cooperation Group, the EU’s cross-agency identity responsible for cybersecurity. By 1 October 2020, member states are requested to undertake an evaluation of the effectiveness of the measures taken and determine whether further actions should be taken.

Meanwhile, ENISA will also take the lead to develop an EU-wide certification framework to cover 5G networks and equipment, which member states are encouraged to adopt.

Europe missing its ultrafast targets

With only 20% of European customers adopting broadband services over 100 Mbps, the European Commission is falling behind its own targets with six months to go.

While the targets are certainly ambitious, the European Commission has decided it would like to have 50% of all broadband customers across the bloc subscribing to 100 Mbps by 2020. With only 20% subscribing to an ultrafast service, it looks like it is becoming a big ask as we head towards the mid-point of the year.

There will of course be numerous reasons for a lack of adoption. Some will suggest the telcos are not deploying suitable infrastructure to enough people, while others will say they are charging too much. That said, a more sensible explanation is that irrelevant as to how cheap a 100 Mbps service is, it is still too much; why would a normal person need such speeds today? Without the applications, customers would be paying for redundant speed.

What is worth noting is that connectivity is improving on the whole. The availability of ultrafast broadband has increased to 60% across Europe, up from 57% in 2017, while there have been gains on the mobile side as well. The DESI Report claims that 4G coverage is now almost universal in European homes, while rural coverage is also increasing.

Vodafone Germany tries to placate regulators via wholesale cable deal with Telefónica

Telefónica Deutschland will be able to sell services that run on the combined Vodafone and Unitymedia cable network in Germany, as a remedy measure taken by Vodafone to satisfy EU’s competition concern over its proposed acquisition of Liberty Global.

The two companies announced that they have entered into a definite “cable wholesale agreement” in Germany, whereby Telefónica Deutschland will offer its customers broadband services that use both the Vodafone fixed network and that of Unitymedia. The combined networks cover 23.7 million households and represent a significant upgrade to whatever Telefónica Deutschland customers are currently getting.

“The cable agreement will enable us to connect millions of additional households in Germany with high-speed internet in the future,” said Markus Haas, CEO of Telefónica Deutschland. “By adding fast cable connections, we now have access to an extensive infrastructure portfolio and can offer to even more O2 customers attractive broadband products – including internet-based TV with O2 TV – for better value for money.”

Vodafone’s plan to acquire Liberty Global in Germany (where it trades under the brand Unitymedia), the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Romania, has run into difficulty at the European Union, which raised competition concerns at the end of last year. The Commission was particularly worried that the combined business would deprive the consumers in Germany of access to high speed internet access, and the OTT services carried over it. Vodafone expressed its confidence that it would be able to satisfy the Commission’s demand. Opening its fixed internet access to its competitor is clearly one of the remedies. Also included in the remedy package Vodafone submitted to the Commission was its commitment to ensure sufficient capacity is available for OTT TV distribution.

“Our deal with Liberty Global is transformational in many ways. It is a significant step towards a Gigabit society, which will enable consumers & businesses to access the world of content & digital services at high speeds. It also creates a converged national challenger in four important European countries, bringing innovation & greater choice,” said Nick Read, CEO of Vodafone Group. “We are very pleased to announce today our cable wholesale access agreement with Telefonica DE, enabling them to bring faster broadband speeds to their customers and further enhancing infrastructure competition across Germany.”

Vodafone believed the remedial measures it put in place should sufficiently reassure the Commission that competitions will not suffer after its acquisition of Liberty Global. The company now expects the Commission to undertake market testing of the remedy package it submitted, and to give the greenlight to the acquisition deal covering the four countries by July 2019. It plans to complete the transaction by the end of July. The merger between Vodafone’s and Liberty Global’s operation in The Netherlands was approved by the EU in 2016.

Europe approves new internet rules designed to rein in Amazon and co

As part of the overall Digital Single Market programme, the European Parliament has voted to approve new regulations claiming to protect European businesses and consumers when using online platforms to trade.

The “Regulation on platform-to-business trading practices” has been almost two years in the making since the publication of a document titled “Online Platforms and the Digital Single Market: Opportunities and Challenges for Europe” by the European Commission in May 2016.

The EU executives were understandably happy with the passing of the new rules. “We are delighted by the overwhelming support to the new rules on online platforms’ trading practices among the members of the European Parliament. As the first-ever regulation in the world that addresses the challenges of business relations within the online platform economy, it is an important milestone of the Digital Single Market and lays the ground for future developments. Not only will it improve trust, predictability and legal certainty, it will also offer new and accessible options for redress and resolution of disputes between businesses and platforms,” said the official statement, jointly signed off by Andrus Ansip, the Commission’s Vice-President for the Digital Single Market, Elżbieta Bieńkowska, Commissioner for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, and Mariya Gabriel, Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society.

What drove the Commission to undertake such an initiative two years ago was the understanding that there is a lack of a redress mechanism when the European SMEs encounter problems when trading on the global platforms (companies singled out include Booking.com, Facebook, eBay, and Amazon), for example, “delisting without statement of reasons or sudden changes of Terms and Conditions”. The Commission has also assessed the effectiveness of legislative vs. non-legislative measures, but believed an EU-wide legislation is necessary.

The Regulation is aimed to achieve three main objectives as are outlined in the Impact Assessment Summary published a year ago:

  1. To ensure a fair, transparent and predictable treatment of business users by online platforms
  2. To provide business users with more effective options for redress when they face problems
  3. To create a predictable and innovation-friendly regulatory environment for online platforms within the EU

Although it has been approved by the European Parliament, the regulation still needs to be formally passed by the Council of the European Union, which represents the governments of the member states and can be roughly seen as another “chamber” of the union’s legislature. There is no definite timeline on when the Council will make the decision. However, by the reading of the press statement where the Commissioners thanked the member states “for their great efforts to reach a good compromise in a very short period of time. This is yet another positive development ahead of the upcoming European elections,” the Council may not be able to vote on it before the European Parliamentary election in May. After the final approval, the regulation will enter into force 12 months after it is published in the Official Journal.

This is the latest internet-related legislation the EU has made recently. On 15 April the Council passed the updated Copyright Directive “fit for the digital age”, which has proved controversial.  There are also legislation and regulation updates in member states. France has started levying 3% income tax on digital companies with sales in excess of €25 million in France and €750 million globally, without waiting for an EU-wide tax regime as part of the Digital Single Market. The UK, still an EU member state at the time of writing, has not only considered setting up a new regulator to oversee the digital world and started the consultation process of a “code of practice for online services” to protect children, but will also formally introduce the “porn block” on 15 July, which has been called “One of the Worst Ideas Ever” by some critics.

Nick Clegg defends Facebook’s business model from EU’s privacy regulation

Facebook’s head of PR reportedly had a series of meetings with EU and UK officials aiming to safeguard the social network’s business model heavily relying on targeted advertising.

Sir Nick Clegg, the former UK Deputy Prime Minister, now Facebook’s VP for Global Affairs and Communications, met three EU commissioners during the World Economic Forum in Davos and shortly after the event in Brussels, according to a report by the Telegraph. These commissioners’ portfolios include Digital Single Market (Andrus Ansip), Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality (Věra Jourová), and Research, Science and Innovation (Carlos Moedas). Clegg’s mission, according to the Telegraph report, was to present Facebook’s case to defend its ads-based business model in the face of new EU legislation related to consumer privacy.

According to a meeting minutes from the Ansip meeting, seen by the Telegraph, “Nick Clegg stated as main Facebook’s concern the fact that the said rules are considered to call into question the Facebook business model, which should not be ‘outlawed’ (e.g. Facebook would like to measure the effectiveness of its ads, which requires data processing). He stated that the General Data Protection Regulation is more flexible (by providing more grounds for processing).”

In response, Ansip defended the proposed ePrivacy Regulation as a complement to GDPR and it is primarily about protecting the confidentiality of consumers’ communications. In addition, the ePrivacy Regulation will be more up to date and will provide more clarity and certainty, compared with the current ePrivacy Directive, which originated in 2002 and last updated in 2009. Member states could interprete and implement the current Directive more restrictively, Ansip warned.

Facebook’s current security setup makes it possible to access users’ communication and able to target them with advertisements based on the communications. Under the proposed Regulation, platforms like Facebook need to get explicit consent from account holders to access the content of their communications, for either advertisement serving, or effectiveness measuring.

There are two issues with Facebook’s case. The first one is, as Ansip put it, companies like Facebook would still be able to monetise data after obtaining the consent of users. They just need to do it in a way more respectful of users’ privacy, which 92% of EU consumers think important, according to the findings of Eurobarometer, a bi-annual EU wide survey.

Another is Facebook’s own strategy announced by Zuckerberg recently. The new plan will make it impossible for Facebook to read users’ private communications with its end-to-end WhatsApp-like encryption. This means, even if consumers are asked and do grant consent, Facebook in the future will not be able to access the content for targeted advertising. Zuckerberg repeatedly talked about trade-offs in his message. This would be one of them.

On the other hand, last November the EU member states’ telecom ministers agreed to delay the vote on ePrivacy Regulations, which means it will be highly unlikely that the bill will be passed and come into effect before the next European Parliament election in May.

The office of Jeremy Wright, the UK’s Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, did not release much detail related to the meeting with Clegg, other than claiming “We are at a crucial stage in the formulation of our internet safety strategy and as a result we are engaging with many stakeholders to discuss issues pertinent to the policy. This includes discussions with social media companies such as Facebook. It is in these crucial times that ministers, officials and external parties need space in which to develop their thinking and explore different options in a free and frank manner.”

The Telegraph believed Clegg’s objective was to minimise Facebook’s exposure to risks from the impending government proposals that could “place social media firms under a statutory duty of care, which could see them fined or prosecuted” if they fail to protect users, especially children, from online harms.

It is also highly conceivable that the meeting with the UK officials was related to influence post-Brexit regulatory setup in the country, when it will not longer be governed by EU laws. Facebook may want to have its voice heard before the UK starts to make its own privacy and online regulations.

EU set to proceed with controversial new online copyright rules

Inevitably the EU Copyright Directive, complete with its widely despised Articles 11 and 13, is continuing its glacial progress along the European rubber-stamping conveyor belt.

Last month we reported that the directive appeared to have hit a road bump, but this turned out to be a fleeting inconvenience, resolved by the most token of concessions. Yesterday both the European Commission and European Parliament announced a breakthrough in the fraught negotiations, from which a miraculous consensus was reached.

“To finally have modern copyright rules for the whole of EU is a major achievement that was long overdue,” said VP for the Digital Single Market Andrus Ansip. “The negotiations were difficult, but what counts in the end is that we have a fair and balanced result that is fit for a digital Europe: the freedoms and rights enjoyed by internet users today will be enhanced, our creators will be better remunerated for their work, and the internet economy will have clearer rules for operating and thriving.”

“This deal is an important step towards correcting a situation which has allowed a few companies to earn huge sums of money without properly remunerating the thousands of creatives and journalists whose work they depend on,” said MEP Axel Voss, who seems to speak for the European Parliament on this stuff.

“At the same time, this deal contains numerous provisions which will guarantee that the internet remains a space for free expression. These provisions were not in themselves necessary because the directive will not be creating any new rights for rights holders. Yet we listened to the concerns raised and chose to doubly guarantee the freedom of expression. The ‘meme’, the ‘gif’, the ‘snippet’ are now more protected than ever before.”

As you can see both spokespeople are doing a heavy sell on the directive because they know it’s unpopular. Not that it really matters because In place of actual democratic accountability, the EU has a self-reinforcing system of largely opaque bodies. This is apparently done to create the impression of rigorous due process but it’s very rare for the real power in Brussels – the European Commission – to receive any significant internal resistance once it has decided on a course of action.

The most unpopular part of the Directive is Article 13, which requires sites to either seek licenses for, or pre-emptively block the upload of, any material that may be copyright protected, or face the consequences of any breach themselves. Close second in terms of public derision is Article 11, which will require a license to reproduce all but the shortest snippets of written content and may apply to things like link previews.

Appropriately enough none of the announcements linked directly to the test of the agreement, but once more we indebted to MEP Julia Reda, who quickly blogged on the matter. “The history of this law is a shameful one,” she wrote. “From the very beginning, the purpose of Articles 11 and 13 was never to solve clearly-defined issues in copyright law with well-assessed measures, but to serve powerful special interests, with hardly any concern for the collateral damage caused.”

The special interests she referred to are big publishers, who she reckons have lobbied the EU to protect their traditional revenue streams. This theory would appear to be supported by the fact that smaller publishers and rights holders seem far less keen on the new rules. Reda, who you can see alongside a small number of other dissenting MEPs in the video below, thinks the Directive can still be stopped if the European Parliament can be persuaded to oppose it but this seems like a forlorn hope.

Zoey Forbes, Technology, Media and Entertainment Associate at law firm Harbottle & Lewis, offers another perspective. “On the surface, the agreed text was an early Valentine’s Day present for creatives and the wider content industry,” she said. “Copyright holders will receive additional revenues from the use of their works online as well as greater protection from online copyright infringement.

“However, as with all things, the devil is in the detail and some stakeholders feel the safeguards offered to the tech industry have not only watered down the EU’s original objectives but will actually leave copyright holders worse off. Conversely, the tech industry and those advocating for freedom of expression are not appeased by these safeguards and continue to oppose the directive on an ideological level.”

The EU is positioning all this as protecting the European little guy from voracious Silicon Valley giants who profit from traffic driven by third party content. There is some merit to that position, but it doesn’t seem to have consulted many little guys, nor thought more deeply about the mechanics of the internet, which rely heavily on the viral sharing of stuff. It’s not at all clear that the stated beneficiaries of this set of rules will, in fact, benefit, but the EU supertanker isn’t about to change course over such minor concerns.

 

Potential return of roaming premiums causes latest Brexit flap

UK parliament has drafted new legislation that would release UK operators from their commitments not to charge extra for roaming in Europe.

The scoop was grabbed by the Huffington Post, which notes that the government will probably release operators from this obligation in the event of a ‘no deal’ Brexit. The apparent rationale is that, since the UK will no longer be able to oblige European operators not to charge UK operators a wholesale premium for roaming, it wouldn’t be fair to prevent them from passing that cost onto their customers.

Those opposed to Brexit have inevitably seized on this latest development as further evidence of what a catastrophe the whole thing will be. Labour MP Tom Watson brought it up in the house of commons and exploited the opportunity for a spot of scripted grandstanding to the fullest, which you can see at the bottom of this piece.

Wholesale carrier service provider BICS reckons it’s unlikely we’ll see a return to the bad old days, however, because operators on both sides of the channel will be aware of how unpopular such a move would be.

“The prospect of a ‘no deal’ in March has fuelled speculation about whether we’ll see the return of roaming charges, and post-holiday ‘bill shock’,” said Mikaël Schachne, VP of Mobility Solutions and IoT Business at BICS. “But with LTE/4G data roaming traffic in Europe surging by 600-800% after the implementation of Roam Like at Home, it would be exceptionally unwise for operators to go against such clear demand.

“In its abolition of roaming charges, the EU set a major precedent, and motivated other operators to offer competitive international tariffs. Most of us have now grown accustomed to using our mobile phones – and all of those data-intensive apps and services – when we’re abroad, to a similar degree as when we’re in the UK. In taking that away, operators risk alienating their customer base, and risk haemorrhaging subscribers to those offering more cost-efficient roaming packages.

“In the event that all UK operators decide to opt out of Roam Like at Home following a no-deal, we’re still unlikely to see the high tariffs that once existed. Roaming packages promote and drive subscriber loyalty, and encourage the use of all manner of mobile services and apps, helping operators to market and deliver additional services, making it in service providers’ best interests to stay competitive.”

Last summer UK operators indicated they have no intention of bringing back roaming, but as the prospect of ‘no deal’ grows only Three seems to be categorically ruling out any kind of hike. That could get interesting for Three if their wholesale roaming partners start getting funny ideas and our advice would be to publicly name and shame any such opportunistic European operators.

There will certainly be all sorts of bureaucratic chaos when Brexit finally happens, but you can’t undo decades of co-dependence overnight. Still, on the plus side, thanks to anticipated shortages of Mars bars, McDonald’s and Magnums we’ll probably all lose loads of weight and look great on the beach. Shame we won’t be able to afford to show off about it on social media, but you can’t have everything can you?