Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

EU Parliament Rejects Asylum For Snowden

samzenpus posted about 6 months ago | from the you-don't-have-to-go-home-but-you-can't-stay-here dept.

EU 88

cold fjord writes "Euronews reports, 'MEPs have rejected a demand from the European Green Party that urged EU governments to grant asylum to whistleblower Edward Snowden. The move came during the adoption of a European Parliament committee inquiry into the NSA spying scandal. As Claude Moraes, a centre-left British parliamentarian, explains, member states have the final say over who they allow to remain inside their borders. "The European Union does not have the power to grant asylum as the European Union, so this is something for individual member states," he told euronews. "And the issue of asylum within this report therefore does not become a relevant issue for the European Union."'"

cancel ×

88 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Reject? (4, Insightful)

mbone (558574) | about 6 months ago | (#46243221)

They didn't reject it (or not). They are unable to grant it, so the issue is moot.

Re:Reject? (3, Insightful)

bazmonkey (555276) | about 6 months ago | (#46243237)

Agreed. There's a distinct difference between rejecting a request because one does not agree, versus because one cannot acquiesce in the first place.

Man: Give me $1,000,000.

Me: I don't have $1,000,000.

Would it be fair to say I rejected the man's request for financial help?

Re:Reject? (4, Funny)

Mashiki (184564) | about 6 months ago | (#46243583)

According to the article snip-it here on /.? Yes. You're also a bottom feeding 1% who doesn't feel for the little guy.

Re:Reject? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46244841)

He is an uninformed, arrogant, self-serving coward.

Re:Reject? (2)

davester666 (731373) | about 6 months ago | (#46243589)

Yes, you cheap bastard. At least write him an IOU!

Re:Reject? (0)

cold fjord (826450) | about 6 months ago | (#46243633)

Agreed. There's a distinct difference between rejecting a request because one does not agree, versus because one cannot acquiesce in the first place.

The EU did both in this action.

Re:Reject? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46244487)

No it didn't. The EU can't do both, that's the whole point. It is simply not within the EU's jurisdiction to grant EU-wide asylum requests, and although the EU is welcome to give an opinion on the matter of whether or not individual member states should grant asylum to Snowden, they did not in fact do so.

So they both rejected it and didn't reject it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46245241)

Sounds like the EU parliament is in fact in a state of superposition and their cats are better than your cats.

Re:So they both rejected it and didn't reject it (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about 6 months ago | (#46245671)

Sounds like the EU parliament is in fact in a state of superposition and their cats are better than your cats.

Sounds like a job for the cat hacker. [slashdot.org]

Re:Reject? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46243747)

Yes, it's fair to say so. If you are a Christian, which is the majority of people in America, then you are required to give charity to those who need it. You should have taken out a loan for 1 million and given him the money if he needed it. Jesus would have done it.

Re:Reject? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46243921)

Or, to put it into more familiar terms:

Man: Give me a $1,000,000 car.

Me: I don't have a $1,000,000 car.

Re:Reject? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 6 months ago | (#46243285)

Yes up to each member, so that will have to be worked out by each country depending on their laws and mil dependance the USA.

Re:Reject? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46243377)

If you read the whole summary, you might get a clue as to why it is up to each member country (hint: the EU can't force a member country to grant someone asylum, would you expect that they should?).

Re:Reject? (3, Informative)

cold fjord (826450) | about 6 months ago | (#46243545)

They didn't reject it (or not). They are unable to grant it, so the issue is moot.

No, they actually did reject calling for it in a nonbinding resolution, and they can't force it. (And I find it somewhat odd that they can't force it given the other actions that the EU imposes on its members from time to time.)

MEPs say No to Snowden asylum in Europe [euobserver.com]

A European Parliament committee on Wednesday (12 February) voted against calling for asylum protection for former US intelligence agency contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Re:Reject? (2)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 6 months ago | (#46243641)

Well, the issue of asylum is just something the member states have not allowed the EU final authority over. That said, you're right that they might have issued a non binding directive in this case, but in majority voted against. Which is regrettable, I think, but possibly was the right thing to do (even if for all the wrong reasons). Individual member states are much easier to bully into submission, and don't think for a minute that some of the people out to get Snowden would think twice about that.

Why are they unable to grant it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46244435)

Because all the information available shows that the EU is not the USA and is a soverign state apart from it, hence they can grant asylum to anyone they like.

Breaking News (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 6 months ago | (#46246947)

IETF rejects demand for asylum for Snowden

In a surprise move today, the IETF (also known as the Elders of the Internet) rejected a demand from IT professionals that Edward Snowden be granted asylum everywhere that has an internet uplink. While Snowden has gained widespread support from concerned IT professionals, the IETF indicated that it was incompatible with their goals.

'The IETF is committed to creating strong standards and RFCs for internet-related tasks,' they wrote. 'It is neither in our interest nor our mission scope to grant asylum to people, nor do we have the authority to do so.'

Political activists around the world have condemned their stance as shortsighted and disappointing. Slashdot Editor Samzenpus however expressed hope that the move would generate sufficient backlash to drive clickthroughs.

Renowned OS developer Linus Torvalds and Google CEO Larry Page also denied an appeal for asylum, indicating both that they had no sovereign territory and that they were corporations, not nations.

Re:Reject? (1)

jopsen (885607) | about 6 months ago | (#46252759)

Many things in the EU is actually just statements, so they rejected a statement calling for member countries to grant asylum,
Such, statements have no legal implication or effect, but it is a very strong political message to send.

If they had decided to do this, they would essentially have endorsed Snodowns actions. It would also be a strong message to send the US, saying that the EU is willing to help people who stand up to the criminal activities conducted by the US government.
Yes, spying is illegal! it's a clear human rights violation.

IOW (2)

msauve (701917) | about 6 months ago | (#46243251)

"We'll punt." (not sure how well that phrase carries to Europe)

Re:IOW (1)

hubie (108345) | about 6 months ago | (#46243269)

It isn't punting if they don't have the authority to grant it in the first place.

Re:IOW (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 6 months ago | (#46243315)

Don't the British punt on a body of water, e.g. punting on the Thames?

Re:IOW (1)

zmollusc (763634) | about 6 months ago | (#46243705)

Well, a punt is too heavy to carry (irish people may argue with this) so floating it on water is the obvious way to move it around. You could fit wheels to it, i suppose, but then it would be more of a cart.

Re:IOW (1)

icebike (68054) | about 6 months ago | (#46243869)

Don't the British punt on a body of water, e.g. punting on the Thames?

El Reg uses the term punters for subscribers or customers paying for a service, like monthly phone bills.
Like much of english slang, I have no clue where that came from.

Re:IOW (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 6 months ago | (#46244525)

Don't the British punt on a body of water, e.g. punting on the Thames?

El Reg uses the term punters for subscribers or customers paying for a service, like monthly phone bills.
Like much of english slang, I have no clue where that came from.

Actually, in its original intent of that use of the word, it meant a gambler. Someone placing a wager or risking a hazard of some sort For example, by sponsoring something). Which probably says something about customer service these days since it now gets used to refer to customers.

It has been suggested that the word is related to "ponder", since wagering is something that hopefully one does only after consideration.

Not united enough (1, Interesting)

tsa (15680) | about 6 months ago | (#46243331)

That's the problem with the EU: the member states have far too much power still so the EU can not function as one entity in matters like this. This gives enormous problems who come in shiploads to Italy for instance.

Re:Not united enough (2)

icebike (68054) | about 6 months ago | (#46243877)

That's the problem with the EU: the member states have far too much power still so the EU can not function as one entity in matters like this. This gives enormous problems who come in shiploads to Italy for instance.

Or its the sole saving grace of the EU.

I suppose if tyranny is your cup of tea, a continental directorate would be more to your taste. A world wide one would be Nirvana.

Re:Not united enough (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 6 months ago | (#46245101)

The tyranny! They restricted the amount of salt our bread can have! We must rise against them if we are to have any hope of being free!

They imposed the use of SI units! Tyrants! We must rise up against their neo-imperialist units!

They forced everyone to use the same emergency number! The nerve! Now we can't have an emergency number different than those of other countries! This is an attack on our freedom!

*End euroskeptic impression*

You people fit perfectly in Life of Brian's "What have the Romans done for us?" sketch.

You're all just a bunch of xenophobes pretending not to be.

Re:Not united enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46243989)

or the italian mob who has free-range over the entire EU.

That's the good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46244041)

The less power the EU has the better. Italians can handle their own shit. Sink the damn shiploads of problems, I guarantee the problem will disappear.

Re:Not united enough (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about 6 months ago | (#46244259)

"the member states have far too much power"

So you have a poster of Stalin on your wall at home? The member states have LOST too much power which has been ceded to a lot of unelected beaurocrats in brussels. So much for democracy.

"so the EU can not function as one entity in matters like this"

Good. At least not all of us will have to suffer the consequences of all the left wing bleeding heart socialists that brussels is infested with.

Re:Not united enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46244649)

I never understood why we let that little shit hole Brussels be the boss.
Even though I hate France as much as any other European they deserve it more than that tax haven.
although ideally it would be Germany or the Netherlands of course, or even Switzerland.

Re:Not united enough (1)

nosfucious (157958) | about 6 months ago | (#46246073)

The Swiss have sensibly stayed out of the EU. Hence there might a little problem if they decided to put the capital, in say, Frick, or Frauenfeld, or Fribourg.

Although, (and despite what Germany would like), they are picking and choosing which regulations they would like to cooperate with. There are many bilateral agreements between the Swiss and the Eu.

Re:Not united enough (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 6 months ago | (#46245113)

How about you vote in European elections instead of staying at home?

Unelected...

Hitler was elected and that worked out very well... /s

Re:Not united enough (1)

ultranova (717540) | about 6 months ago | (#46250315)

"the member states have far too much power"

So you have a poster of Stalin on your wall at home?

This is modern times. You can presume he has a digital pane which can display an icon of evil that best stereotypes opposition to your political ideals in your mind. However, we might wish to extend beyond mere mortals - has anyone mapped Azathoth [wikipedia.org] on the political compass?

At least not all of us will have to suffer the consequences of all the left wing bleeding heart socialists that brussels is infested with.

I honestly can't tell if posts like yours are supposed to be straight arguments or parodies. It's worrisome for democracy that Poe's Law [tvtropes.org] applies to politics just as much - or perhaps even more - than it does for religions.

Re:Not united enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46244263)

Good.

If none of the member states want to grant Snowden asylum, I'm glad the EU lacks the power to overrule them.

Re:Not united enough (2)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 6 months ago | (#46244309)

That's the problem with the EU: the member states have far too much power

I'm Portuguese. If the EU had any more power, I'd be in a chain gang, slaving for Germany.

Re:Not united enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46244429)

That's the problem with the EU: the member states have far too much power

I'm Portuguese. If the EU had any more power, I'd be in a chain gang, slaving for Germany.

Considering that the only reason Portugal and the other PIIGS have not yet defaulted is that Germany is paying the bill that remark is low.

Re:Not united enough (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 6 months ago | (#46244443)

Why don't you go call your mother a PIIG?

Re:Not united enough (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 6 months ago | (#46245139)

While I object to the use of the term "Pigs", I agree with you.

Despite all the anti-EU rhetoric floating around, this country would be closer to Venzuela in appearance if it weren't for the EU.

Re:Not united enough (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 6 months ago | (#46245359)

Miguel de Vasconcelos.

Re:Not united enough (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 6 months ago | (#46245787)

Excuse me?

Re:Not united enough (2)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 6 months ago | (#46245129)

I'm Portuguese too. If the EU had any more power, people like you wouldn't even think of such ridiculous rhetoric.

Don't blame others for our problems, we caused them. And we sure as hell won't get rid of them if people like you insist on blaming others.

Re:Not united enough (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 6 months ago | (#46245347)

Yeah, the good old blame game. Like we had any choice.

Re:Not united enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46245973)

Yeah, the good old blame game. Like we had any choice.

So you are blaming someone else for the blame game?

Re:Not united enough (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 6 months ago | (#46246085)

Who in this thread used the word "blame" for the first time? A clue for you, it wasn't me...

Fun at EU gov level (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 6 months ago | (#46243361)

You have the mil NATO side of many EU members who have totally connected their domestic telcos to the storage and computing power of 5 competing nations (and a few more).
Kind of hard for the EU to compete in a global marketplace if the US gov is given all data in realtime :)
Then you have the post WW2 refugee commitments and protection laws.
How does the EU make it all work out after Snowdens EU telco related whistleblowing?
"NSA inquiry: what experts revealed to MEPs" has some hints:
http://cryptome.org/2014/02/eu... [cryptome.org] shows some of the EU thinking on Snowden, the NSA and tame telco staff in the EU.
page 16 and 17 show a simple overview of what the NSA did in the EU, onto transborder access, lack of encryption.
Page 26 has 'likely to originate from state entities acting on behalf of foreign governments or even from certain EU national governments that support them" i.e. staff been more helpful to the US than protecting their own govs?
In the face of junk encryption and useless open telco networks it seems the EU has a lot to thank Snowden for.
The good news is the crypto and networking information is out, governments and companies can fix their network use.
As for Snowden, Russia is safe. The press has the whistleblowing material. How the EU mil will work to stop any EU privacy reforms or quality encryption work will the fun to watch over time.

That's a Faux Knews style headline (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46243365)

They didn't reject it. In fact, they said they want to give it, but the law doesn't allow them to. The want to, but they can't. The liars at Fox News of course claim his request was rejected. It was not.

Euronews.com: now Fox News. (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46243379)

>The liars at Fox News of course claim his request was rejected. It was not.

Euronews.com: now Fox News.

Nice... (0)

MobSwatter (2884921) | about 6 months ago | (#46243393)

We want your evidence that the US phucked up, but ur out in the cold... Speaks loads about credibility of government(s)...

Re:Nice... (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 6 months ago | (#46243413)

Depending on where you are in the EU:
We only ever share with the NSA.
We used to work for Moscow but we only share with the NSA.

Where? (5, Insightful)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 6 months ago | (#46243433)

If the EU granted asylum where would Snowden live? The EU has no land; It's constituent sovereign nations have the land. For Snowden to live somewhere the country would need to accept him which makes the acceptance by EU a moot point. What if the EU gave him asylum but some of the constituent countries disagreed? Could the EU override the decisions of a sovereign country on a political issue?

Some people have an issue with the EU acting too much like an overriding country. If the EU gave asylum it would be acting like such a country.

Re:Where? (3, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | about 6 months ago | (#46243825)

"Could the EU override the decisions of a sovereign country on a political issue?"

You obviously don't live in the EU. The answer, unfortunately, is "yes".

Re:Where? (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 6 months ago | (#46244077)

The answer, unfortunately, is "yes".

Why is this unfortunate?

Re:Where? (2)

ledow (319597) | about 6 months ago | (#46244241)

Which of the thousand examples do you want?

The UK did not want to give the vote to prisoners. They voted against it through to the EU courts.

The EU said they had to.

Now they have to.

Immigration is the one in the news at the moment. We pretty much have to allow any EU member's civilians (including the new members and future member) to settle in the country without question and it's ILLEGAL for us to impose immigration limits or demands on them (such as proving they have a skill / job / money / etc. like you often have to to live in foreign countries), because the EU say so.

I'm not saying I disagree or not (my girlfriend is European and wouldn't be in this country without that same rule, and at least it's kicked the whole "there are no jobs" arguments into touch as people are FLOCKING to our country to take up all the jobs that "don't exist".... and yet still our UK benefits scroungers use it as an excuse for sitting on their backside), but again the EU overrides our highest powers.

And, yes, technically somewhere, we've signed away that right to the EU so they can override things but that means nothing - the basic question is can the EU override individual member state's desires? Yes. They can. Because by joining the EU you tend to have agreed to them doing so.

And, if anything, the UK is the biggest exception to the rules as we fight them on an awful lot of issues and yet politicians keep discouraging us from leaving the EU while the UK public has asked for a vote on the discontinuance of EU membership many times. It's going to be the next election "big issue", that's for sure.

Re:Where? (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 6 months ago | (#46244351)

Now they have to.

Ah yes, the old ECHR thing. The police also decided they wanted to have everyone's DNA in perpetuitiy for no other reason that they're a bunch of authoratarian dickheads. Appatently now they are not allowed to.

because the EU say so.

Because we agreed to cede authority to the EU over such things in order to join the EU. We can always leave: the EU cannot force us to stay. The thing is the labour government massively fucked up over that one, in otder to try to prove some sort of strange point. We were allowed to control immigration for a fixed period after member states joined. They thought it would be a good idea to basically block everything and let it go off a cliff after the maximum time, which simply punts the problem down the road. They were allowed to have a staged policy which they chose not to take.

I and yet still our UK benefits scroungers use it as an excuse for sitting on their backside), but again the EU overrides our highest powers.

I really don't know what your point is here.

And, yes, technically somewhere, we've signed away that right to the EU so they can override things but that means nothing - the basic question is can the EU override individual member state's desires? Yes. They can. Because by joining the EU you tend to have agreed to them doing so.

Again I don't get your point. We decided the EU was worth joining. In order to do so, we had to agree to play by their rules. We always have the option to leave, so ultimatley the EU can force us to do nothing.

The EU only has one lever: do what you agreed or you won't get to play with us.

What on earth makes people think that others will give us any sort of special treatment for nothing in return?

Re:Where? (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 6 months ago | (#46245207)

It boils down to this:

The EU stands for a number of non-optional principles. You can't cherry pick.

The incentive for upholding those principles is the common market.

If you want the advantages, you must live with the perceived disadvantages.

Honestly, I think it's pure xenophobia to advocate restrictions on movement within the EU. Unfortunately, xenophobia seems to be back in vogue these days.

The real problem is trying to blame others for your problems (I mean this in general, not you personally). While that attitude exists, nothing will be solved. Some solutions are likely to be unpopular, but if you're forcing people to work instead of being lazy, it's not like they contributed anything to society anyway.

Re:Where? (1)

antientropic (447787) | about 6 months ago | (#46245765)

Which of the thousand examples do you want?

The UK did not want to give the vote to prisoners. They voted against it through to the EU courts.

The prisoner voting thing was a decision by the European Court of Human Rights [bbc.co.uk] , which is not an EU institution. If you want to criticize the EU, please inform yourself a bit better first.

Regarding immigration: yes, you have to let those foreigners in because that's what your government agreed to after a democratic process. In fact, the UK has traditionally been one of the biggest supporters of freedom of movement...

Re:Where? (1)

severn2j (209810) | about 6 months ago | (#46245809)

As our (UK) government seems so insistent on passing laws to undermine any sort of civil liberty we may have had and basically falling over itself to be the US's lapdog, while alienating us from the rest of the world, it seems to me that the EU is our best chance for undoing some of that damage. They may not be very good, but there a damn sight better than our government (including the opposition parties).

Re:Where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46244287)

Why is this unfortunate?

Because it further distances people making rules from people affected by those rules.

Re:Where? (3, Informative)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | about 6 months ago | (#46244295)

It would seem that some people find it hard to understand why any sovereign nation would subject it's decisions to peer review and subject itself to blanket over-arching authority. Speaking from a UK perspective, this is completely understandable given the experience most people have.

While some EU regulations have had direct consequences for the masses both positive and negative (eg: metric-only selling practices, declaration of human rights) there has been a tendency in the media to wildly exaggerate (and in some cases completely fabricate) some of the things coming out of the EU's regulatory system (eg: Bombay Mix must be called Mumbai Mix, all EU member states must use the EU flag for their sports teams) while under-reporting the retraction of some of the sillier ones (eg: cucumbers must be straight, limits on how bent bananas can be). However, there is no smoke without fire and some of the EU's enforced regulations are truly head-scratching (eg: bottled water packaging cannot claim to combat dehydration, diabetics banned from driving*).

An interesting case is the media and political representation of the European Declaration of Human Rights. It is frequently portrayed as a way for criminals to either evade punishment or force the provision of luxuries (eg: TV, porn) in prison. However, it also states that prisoners should be allowed to vote in elections, a right the UK denies it's prisoners who account for 0.0015% of the overall population, so granting them voting rights in accordance with the declaration would make no measurable difference to the overall elections but may have some effect on local elections where adding the prison population to the electorate could cause a significant political swing and require consideration during a campaign. The media represented this as a further attempt by the EU to soften the punishment prison was supposed to be and politicians couldn't agree to this without fearing they appeared soft on crime to the electorate. When issues are this muddied by the agendas of politicians and media outlets, it's very difficult to accurately gauge the true effect of the declaration

As an intelligent human being taking a scientific approach to the governance decisions of the country, I would refrain from making any judgement call on whether EU membership has been an overall positive or negative thing for the UK as the debate has been skewed by the media's misrepresentation and used by politicians to score political points with particular demographics. Unfortunately I am very much in the minority when it comes to making such assessments.

*Genuine but currently unenforced

Re:Where? (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 6 months ago | (#46244365)

However, there is no smoke without fire and some of the EU's enforced regulations are truly head-scratching

Some of them are, but all countries have plenty of weird laws on the books.

As for the fruit and veg ones, that was just yet more pointless and shrill screeching by the tabloids: there are already plenty of odd regulations about what makes a vegetable Class I, II or III etc.

As for the diabetics one, that's not at all head scratching. It's a condition that can cause you to pass out. Likewise epilepsy is restricted. Now whether the risk is big enough is another question, but the reasons behind it are not head scratching.

However, it also states that prisoners should be allowed to vote in elections, a right the UK denies it's prison

It declares no such thing. That's all intrepretation by the judges. Unfortunately, it does not matter how well you word a law, nothing can stop judges from intrepreting it in a stupid way.

Re:Where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46244635)

Unfortunately, it does not matter how well you word a law, nothing can stop judges from intrepreting it in a stupid way.

Why is this unfortunate? The principle of separating legislators from the judiciary is ancient by now, and the system is well-understood. You just have to understand that judges take in all the facts of a case, not just the facts that the media chooses to report, so while their decisions may look "stupid" because the media paints them that way, typically they are far from stupid once all appropriate considerations have been taken and research done. Not that judges don't make mistakes, but there are systems for dealing with that too. Nothing unfortunate here; this is about the only social system we have invented as a species that actually works as designed.

Re:Where? (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 6 months ago | (#46244957)

Why is this unfortunate? The principle of separating legislators from the judiciary is ancient by now, and the system is well-understood.

It's unfortunate because it's flawed. I'm not saying I know of a better way of doing it though. Basically because the judges get to interpret, they can basically turn the law into anythning they like and may interpret in a manner which is utterly at odds with what the law means.

The legislators pass laws to solve a problem. If the judges enforce something different to what the law says, then it begins to break down.

Re:Where? (1)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | about 6 months ago | (#46260117)

However, it also states that prisoners should be allowed to vote in elections, a right the UK denies it's prison

It declares no such thing. That's all intrepretation by the judges. Unfortunately, it does not matter how well you word a law, nothing can stop judges from intrepreting it in a stupid way.

Well, there we go - I thought I was reasonably well informed, turns out the arguments being thrown around have far more hyperbole embedded in them that I suspected. Kinda makes a mockery of having a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU if the electorate is being misled by politicians and media outlets.

Re:Where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46246037)

some of the EU's enforced regulations are truly head-scratching (eg: bottled water packaging cannot claim to combat dehydration

That's part of a set of regulations aimed at limiting the marketing of basic necessities such as water.
For the most part, tap water within EU countries is of excellent quality. There's really no reason to buy bottled water unless you need the portability.

So marketing companies did as they will and started making shit up. Since they can't claim tap water is bad for you -- that would get them immediately in hot waters with the advertisement watchdogs -- they go the other way and claim their water has components which presumably you won't find in regular tap water.

One of the things they were doing was implying that their water was better at killing your thirst than regular water. Of course they could't come out and say it, so they went about it in a roundabout fashion, simply saying it's a thirst-killer or some stuff.
Nevermind the stupidity of it all. Even if it were true, why would you want to buy water at 100x times the price just to drink a bit less of it?
But that's the reality of the consuming public -- they're stupid. And get off your high horse, we all make stupid purchasing decisions one way or another, which is why advertisement watchdogs and legislation are so important.

Try reading Bad Science [amazon.com] to get an idea on how companies like to stretch the truth, and why it's important to limit their ability to do so.

Re:Where? (1)

antientropic (447787) | about 6 months ago | (#46246143)

However, there is no smoke without fire and some of the EU's enforced regulations are truly head-scratching (eg: bottled water packaging cannot claim to combat dehydration.

Now you're propagating sensationalized British tabloid stories yourself, as explained here [theguardian.com] .

Re:Where? (1)

GuB-42 (2483988) | about 6 months ago | (#46248163)

bottled water packaging cannot claim to combat dehydration

Less stupid that you might think.
Of course, bottled water works against dehydration... Like almost all non-alcoholic beverages and some types of solid food.
But the reason why this law exist is to prevent sellers from implying that bottled water is the best way to combat dehydration, which is not true. Tap water, soda, juice, etc... work just as well. And in some cases, like when you need electrolytes, there are better alternatives.
You may call it over-regulation but I think that it does make sense.

No. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46244129)

You clearly do not understand the political structures that you live under. The EU's competencies are clearly defined in treaties. As such, its source of legitimacy is the member states themselves and it cannot, by definition, overrule them, only set conditions on their continued membership in the organisation. Those competencies primarily lie in the establishment and maintenance of the single market. Most member states choose to accept the conditions it sets because the single market is beneficial to them. There is even an example of a country (sort of) that chose not to: Greenland.

Now, the grandparent spoke poorly when he asked if the EU could override a political issue, since virtually anything can be called a political issue. However, most people who study these things differentiate between "low politics" that do not touch a country's sovereignty (such as labeling rules on food) and "high politics" that do touch a country's sovereignty (such as foreign policy). With the exception that the treaties specify that member states agree to institute democratic rule and accept a common approach to basic human rights, the treaties are very careful to avoid any wording that could be construed to give the EU competency over "high politics". They do establish certain coordination structures for "high political" things necessary to ensure the integrity of the single market (border control and common military action), but these are governed under a completely separate paradigm than the single market that allows countries to conserve every ounce of sovereignty.

Now, I personally am a Euro-skeptic, but most of the criticism that the EU gets is frankly uninformed tripe. If the Brits want out of the EU, then they are free to leave at any time... but they want access to the single market, now don't they?

More vile propaganda from Slashdot owners (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46243435)

The EU parliament had ZERO right to grant anyone, let alone Snowden, asylum, so they stated that legal fact. Slashdot's owners spin this into a 'rejection' of Snowden story.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, America's no.1 ally alongside its Siamese-twin, Israel, passed new laws identifying ALL forms of anti-government activity as TERRORISM, including the act of women driving cars. The owners of Slashdot, alongside the owners of all zionist controlled mainstream media outlets, ignored this story.

Slashdot exists to lionise Israel and demonise Syria and Iran. Slashdot exists to claim the regimes in nations targeted for Holocaust by Team Obama are as bad as the Nazis, whereas regimes like that found in Saudi are "changing for the better". And, of course, the owners of Slashdot wouldn't engage in such vile and evil propaganda unless it had an active effect on most of you that visit this site.

Re:More vile propaganda from Slashdot owners (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46243507)

Where's your allah now? Forsaken you? Feeling left out? No one returning your calls? Convert! and get yourself a REAL god, one who puts his name on the back of the US dollar! Besides, you should have thought of that before invading the embassy, raghead!

Re:More vile propaganda from Slashdot owners (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46243617)

Where's your allah now? Forsaken you? Feeling left out? No one returning your calls? Convert! and get yourself a REAL god, one who puts his name on the back of the US dollar! Besides, you should have thought of that before invading the embassy, raghead!

As an American, I'd like to tell the world that not all Americans are xenophobic white trash
morons like the piece of shit who wrote the crap quoted above.

By the way, that stuff about the "real God" is comical. There is no god, not of any flavor,
and the entire notion of religion is a construct designed to control people who are weak enough
to be bamboozled by fairy tales. Religion is a bad thing far more often than it is a good thing,
and the entire world would be a better place if religion simply disappeared. Of course for those
with actual intelligence, religion is not a factor already, because those with intelligence use
reason rather than fairy tales as a means of guidance in their lives.

.

Re:More vile propaganda from Slashdot owners (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46243629)

Obama is without intelligence? Say that to your president infidel and see what you get.

Re:More vile propaganda from Slashdot owners (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46243631)

The Communist countries were officially atheist, tried stamping out religion, and managed to kill 100,000,000 people in the last 100 years. If you think that people that believe in God aren't intelligent then you believe in fairy tales yourself.

Re:More vile propaganda from Slashdot owners (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about 6 months ago | (#46244279)

Believing in some ineffable higher power is one thing , believing in the clearly made up sub harry potter level childrens stories that are laughably known as religious texts is another entirely.

Re:More vile propaganda from Slashdot owners (1)

chilvence (1210312) | about 6 months ago | (#46249743)

I'm tired of this argument. Russia might have been officially atheist, but it drank deeply from the well of the quasi religion of communism as a substitute. For all intents and purposes, that WAS the religion, and the intelligent people were the ones that saw through the dogma. And then got gulag'd. Scientology has no 'god' either, yet somehow gets to call itself a religion. Do you think it sets a good example for the idea of religion in general?

So what are we actually getting angry about here when we say religion is dumb - are we angry about the non existence of god, frankly I don't care if it is true or not, or are we angry the willingness of certain types of people to wrap themselves in written bullshit made up by somebody else without actually thinking for themselves? When you stop using your own common sense to make decisions, you abandon what we think of as a solemn duty.

More bullshit from ColdFjord (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46243503)

This isn't news.

It is thinly disguised propaganda.

I don't need to read crap by this douche nozzle who calls himself
ColdFjord.

What the fuck is wrong with you Slashdot people that you allow such drivel to be
published ? Are you really so desperate or so stupid that you cannot see this is
BULLSHIT ?

Re:More bullshit from ColdFjord (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46243611)

It isn't news? Tell it to the newspapers, television and radio stations that carried it, wanker.

Re:More bullshit from ColdFjord (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46249201)

It isn't news? Tell it to the newspapers, television and radio stations that carried it, wanker.

You're just another internet shit talker.

What you don't know is that you will get bone cancer this year and it will kill you.

Re:More bullshit from ColdFjord (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46252519)

You're just another internet shit talker.

No, it is an easy story to find. Just do a search on news.google.com

What you don't know is that you will get bone cancer this year and it will kill you.

I think your subconscious is trying to warn you. You better see two doctors, one for your head, and one for your bones. There is at least one thing wrong with you, and probably more.

Terribly Sorry (0)

Greyfox (87712) | about 6 months ago | (#46243599)

But we don't have the power to grant asylum as the THING THAT WE ARE!

Oh... oh... wait! Motion to give ourselves the power to grant asylum as the guys who run the thing that we're running! No... that would never work! Perhaps you should try Belgium. They'll give anyone asylum!

Re:Terribly Sorry (1)

Megol (3135005) | about 6 months ago | (#46243755)

Contrary to some popular thoughts the EU isn't a federate state. It is a collection of states in an mostly economic co-operation. One can't be a EU citizen as it isn't a state - and as such it isn't possible to be granted asylum on the EU level. It isn't that complicated really.

An individual state could grant asylum _according_to_their_laws_ (which differ*) and then there could possibly be complications if Snowden travels to another EU country. One one hand he would be considered a citizen of the asylum granting nation, however AFAIK there isn't a EU rule that guarantees he wouldn't be extradited.

(* there are some common rules which refugees have to be granted asylum however above that the rules differ greatly)

grant no, recommend yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46243685)

Maybe the EU cannot *grant* asylum, but it can (quite strongly) *recommend* that it be granted to the member states. But let's face it, living between two bullies is bad enough in calm times. Who wants to be the first to upset the Big Overlord in the West?

Final settlement of the issue (2)

Max_W (812974) | about 6 months ago | (#46243987)

I would suggest an international conference of the USA, UK, Sweden and Russia on Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Sarah Harisson, and Bradley Manning.

The best solution would be to send them to live to the North-Eastern Siberia, to Yakutsk or Krasnoyarsk regions, for, say, 10 years. During imperial period such an exile was a punishment in itself. At the same time they would be safe and free. The climate is very cold, but healthy and beautiful. It is another world. Everybody is happy.

Life itself suggests it. Edward Snowden is already almost there. They could work there as school teachers of English language and literature, and IT education.

After ten years emotions would calm down and the situation will be more clear.

Hipocrites (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46244005)

What a convenient excuse. They weren't so happy about less than a week ago when the Swiss tried to exercise the right to decide on their own who they allow to remain inside their borders, though.

The EU is a pussy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46244023)

I live here. The EU leadership are so far removed from day to day sentiment that they've lost touch with the embetterment of European society. It has resulted in decisions like this where the EU pussies out on moral and ethical decisions.

The EU had another chance to set a precedent. A chance to show it can band together as a decision making unit. And they blew it. Yes or no would have been better than "let member states figure it out for themselves". No, we don't think he deserves asylum, or Yes, he gets asylum but let a member state come claim him would have been far better.

Of course these decisions would also require a framework where a member state that accepted him would have their own laws overridden if the US formally requested his return.

The use for the EU (2)

peppepz (1311345) | about 6 months ago | (#46244057)

The EU is losing the support of the masses even in the most euro-enthusiastic countries. As an institution in its whole, people feel that the EU is inexorable when it's time to demand new taxes, dismantle the welfare state, or regulate the length of cucumbers, but then is completely unhelpful, and sometimes harmful, when it's time to solve the problems of the citizens (migration, transportation, environment, defense, foreign policy...) instead of the problems of the banks. Each member state pursues exclusively its own interest with no vision watsoever of the long-term good of the whole continent.

As an EU supporter, I'm afraid that at the next european elections we'll see a triumph of every kind of populism / demagogy / nationalism, left-wing and right-wing, and the people who get elected will work exclusively to suppress the EU from the inside. And I have few arguments against them left. The EU can't carry on by having only the support of the "elite" who can understand the advantages of the common market. They need to conquer back the trust of regular people, or they will disappear.

Re:The use for the EU (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46246093)

The problems you are talking about are the problems with the states. I am in UK, and do you know what happened when they tried to regulate banks? They have to leave the prime minister outside, entrenched in defending the city as he were the mighty crusader of the bankers, was pathetic.

The same happens to people's freedom, I am fed up of queuing for an hour at the passport control every time I come back to Britain, meanwhile crossing borders between other countries is completelly free, the problem is coming back home.

I think the current situation is just not even wrong, or we go in an EU direction or we go back to our little feuds. I cannot see why we have to sustain two different structures.

The EU still follows their constitution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46244167)

Give it about 50 years or so.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>