Slashdot Mirror

It's simple. The EU is similar to the US Federal government. The member countries are subject to EU law where applicable, they have signed treaties to that effect.

If a member country does not apply the relevant law correctly, charges will be brought before the The Court of Justice of the European Union.

If the member state loses the case it will be subject to punitive measures until it corrects the situation. There is a lot to lose for the member country in question.

I can't see anything in the act about that:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/58

It seems to just reiterate the 6 year maximum period for a claim against a product. Other than that the act just seems to be about setting limits for civil procedings relating to things like mortgages and such.

Searching for myself I managed to find this, which does mention 2 years:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=31999L0044&model=guichett

But however this is interpreted for a UK consumer still relies on it's implementation under UK law, and as there's no mention of the 2 year limit in any UK legislation then it's of no benefit to UK consumers.

I did find this however, which potentially clears up the confusion:

http://www.whitegoodshelp.co.uk/wordpress/eu-2-year-guarantee-sales-of-goods-act-gives-us-6-years-to-claim-for-faulty-appliances/

Effectively it seems to be the case that as the UK's 6 year period exceeds the 2 year period then our law is actually superior and so we have no need to change existing legislation. The downside is the EU law doesn't seem to outlaw putting the burden onto the consumer after 6 months to prove it was faulty from the outset, and so that has remained part of UK law.

Still, if you can find anything to demonstrate otherwise I'd like to see it, I've no doubt it'll come in useful one day, but as it stands it seems to be business as usual with the 6 month rule.

Well, here's the press reports on the ruling.

More importantly, here is the summary from the EU Court of Justice, the judgement of the court, the directives involved and the opinion of the court, but in French ad the English translation isn't up yet.

This is the information any of us have to work with, when it comes to understanding the ruling. Bearing in mind that none of us (except for three sheep and a hedgehog) are lawyers, a definite answer is impossible. I read it that ISPs are absolutely required to be common carriers, at least within the EU, and that common carrier status may not be infringed even at the request of a major corporation or pressure group.

Well, here's the press reports on the ruling.

More importantly, here is the summary from the EU Court of Justice, the judgement of the court, the directives involved and the opinion of the court, but in French ad the English translation isn't up yet.

This is the information any of us have to work with, when it comes to understanding the ruling. Bearing in mind that none of us (except for three sheep and a hedgehog) are lawyers, a definite answer is impossible. I read it that ISPs are absolutely required to be common carriers, at least within the EU, and that common carrier status may not be infringed even at the request of a major corporation or pressure group.

Well, here's the press reports on the ruling.

More importantly, here is the summary from the EU Court of Justice, the judgement of the court, the directives involved and the opinion of the court, but in French ad the English translation isn't up yet.

This is the information any of us have to work with, when it comes to understanding the ruling. Bearing in mind that none of us (except for three sheep and a hedgehog) are lawyers, a definite answer is impossible. I read it that ISPs are absolutely required to be common carriers, at least within the EU, and that common carrier status may not be infringed even at the request of a major corporation or pressure group.

Well, here's the press reports on the ruling.

More importantly, here is the summary from the EU Court of Justice, the judgement of the court, the directives involved and the opinion of the court, but in French ad the English translation isn't up yet.

This is the information any of us have to work with, when it comes to understanding the ruling. Bearing in mind that none of us (except for three sheep and a hedgehog) are lawyers, a definite answer is impossible. I read it that ISPs are absolutely required to be common carriers, at least within the EU, and that common carrier status may not be infringed even at the request of a major corporation or pressure group.

The original claim also included health benefits besides hydration.

No, the original claim was dehydration and its effects:
The claimed effect is “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance”.
Source: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1982.htm

concomitant/knkämitnt/
Adjective:
Naturally accompanying or associated.
Noun:
A phenomenon that naturally accompanies or follows something.
Synonyms:
adjective. attendant - accompanying
noun. concurrent

Source: http://www.google.com/search?q=concomitant

The claims were found to be unsubstantiated, the press of course simplified this to the point of hysteria.

The scientists were found to be idiots, and the press, the public, and the politicians forced to put this into law were found to be publicly ridiculing the scientists.

Roger Helmer, a Conservative member of the European Parliament, called it "stupidity writ large."
"The euro is burning, the EU is falling apart and yet here they are: highly paid, highly pensioned officials worrying about the obvious qualities of water and trying to deny us the right to say what is patently true," he told the Telegraph.
Source: search google for "eu dehydration" and get your own sources. It's all over the news right now, and the EU is a laughingstock.

Next time someone tells me Americans are fat, I'm going to give them a link to one of these articles and respond that Europeans are retarded.

interesting. It seems that the bottled water lobby wanted to declare dehydration a disease that was cured or prevented by their water. The EU decided they were full of shit and said no. Here is the text of the decision

Before stepping in the turd of a UKip MEP you should read and digest the real story.

The official document

It looks to me, from reading the decision, that the application was based on the claim that the water is treating a human disease.

The Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 defines reduction of disease risk claims as claims which state that the consumption of a food âoesignificantly reduces a risk factor in the development of a human diseaseâ. Thus, for reduction of disease risk claims, the beneficial physiological effect results from the reduction of a risk factor for the development of a human disease.

And while the applicant states that dehydration is a human disease, it looks as though the panel does not agree, rather that dehydration is merely a condition of water depletion.

Further, looking here http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutrition/claims/community_register/authorised_health_claims_en.htm, it appears the EU has a list of authorized health claims for food. Since water is not in this list, a claim would not be allowed to be made for it.

It looks like the applicants need to get their claim approved, "that water treats or prevents a human disease" added to Article 14. Then they might be allowed to put the claim on their labeling.

> Or, more likely, a board stocked by the lobbyists from various soft drink companies.
Of course, you do realize that most bottled water companies are owned by or are divisions of the major soft-drink companies?

The proposed claim does not comply with the requirements for a disease risk reduction claim pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006

Article 14 states:

In order to ensure that the claims made are truthful, it is necessary that the substance that is the subject of the claim is present in the final product in quantities that are sufficient, or that the substance is absent or present in suitably reduced quantities, to produce the nutritional or physiological effect claimed. The substance should also be available to be used by the body. In addition, and where appropriate, a significant amount of the substance producing the claimed nutritional or physiological effect should be provided by a quantity of the food that can reasonably be expected to be consumed.

Source

I fail to see how it doesn't comply...

(If you look at the date on the document I just linked to, you'll notice that this was all published in February, which makes it remarkable that so many journalists happened to leap on this story at the same time, completely independently of each other, without anyone copying what anyone else did or churnalizing each other in any way whatsoever).

So what about the actual claim? Well you can read the EU's ruling here (PDF), and the first thing to note is that this isn't really a rule so much as a piece of advice, which member states are free to interpret as they wish.

...The specific health claim tested is outlined in the ruling:

The regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance.

The claim wasn't submitted for a genuine product, but was created as a deliberate 'test' exercise by the two professors, who were apparently already unhappy with the European Food Standards Authority. The panel were well aware of it's absurdity too, noting drily that "the proposed risk factors," the conditions addressed by the hypothetical product, in this case water loss, "are measures or water depletion and thus are measures of the disease (dehydration)."

Leaving that aside, there are two major problems with the claim: drinking water doesn't prevent dehydration, and drinking-water doesn't prevent dehydration.

Firstly, "regular consumption" of water doesn't reduce the risk of dehydration any more than eating a pork pie a day reduces the risk of starvation. If I drink half a pint of bottled water while running through a desert in the blistering sun, I'll still end up dehydrated, and if I drink several bottles today, that won't prevent me from dehydrating tomorrow. The key is to drink enough water when you need it, and you're not going to get that from any bottled water product unless it's mounted on a drip.

Secondly, dehydration doesn't just mean a lack of water, or 'being thirsty'; electrolytes like sodium are important too. If salt levels fall too far, the body struggles to regulate fluid levels in the first place. That's why hospitals use saline drips to prevent dehydration in patients who can't take fluids orally, and why people with diarhhoea are treated with salt-containing oral rehydration fluids. Presumably the next big investigation at the Express will expose the shocking waste of NHS money on needless quantities of saline solution, when jolly old tap water would work just as well.

So the ruling seems pretty sensible to me, or at least as sensible as a ruling can be when the claim being tested is vexatious in the first place. It's accurate advice, and it prevents companies selling bottled water from making exaggerated claims for their products, which is a good thing. They even have the support of the British Soft Drinks Association, who tweeted just as this piece was going live with the following statement:

The European Food Safety Authority has been asked to rule on several ways of wording the statement that drinking water is good for hydration and therefore good for health. It rejected some wordings on technicalities, but it has supported claims that drinking water is good for normal physical and cognitive functions and normal thermoregulation.

It's also an great opportunity to challenge received wisdom, and to make the point that keeping the human body hydrated is about much more than just drinking tap water when you're thirsty. Unfortunately, it seems a lot of journalists are more interested in promoting second-hand hysteria than informing their readers. Which is a bit sad.

the tl;dr; version is that industry wanted to advertise that their water would prevent the disease of dehydration, and the science board said no, as a matter of fact it can't prevent that as a blanket statement- you can drink a ton of water and still get dehydration from other diseases. If you want to label it is a miracle cure you can forget it. They are not saying that drinking water will help if you are thirsty, they are talking about science, something you level 1's apparently don't get.

The longer versions are here.

The document

Condensed version

the tl;dr; version is that industry wanted to advertise that their water would prevent the disease of dehydration, and the science board said no, as a matter of fact it can't prevent that as a blanket statement- you can drink a ton of water and still get dehydration from other diseases. If you want to label it is a miracle cure you can forget it. They are not saying that drinking water will help if you are thirsty, they are talking about science, something you level 1's apparently don't get.

The longer versions are here.

The document

Condensed version

And here's REGULATION (EC) No 1924/2006 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL, as referred to by the decision. Article 14 is

In order to ensure that the claims made are truthful, it is necessary that the substance that is the subject of the claim is present in the final product in quantities that are sufficient, or that the substance is absent or present in suitably reduced quantities, to produce the nutritional or physiological effect claimed. The substance should also be available to be used by the body. In addition, and where appropriate, a significant amount of the substance produ- cing the claimed nutritional or physiological effect should be provided by a quantity of the food that can reasonably be expected to be consumed.

Actually, according to the original decision, it is not not about bottled water, but (any) water in general.

However, as far as I understand, this conclusion was not reached because water would not prevent dehydration, but because they don't think dehydration is a disease. Which kind of makes sense – dehydration could be a symptom of a disease, but it is not a disease in itself. And the applicant asked a panel that verifies claims about products reducing the risk of a disease to verify a claim about a medical condition that –the board concluded– was not disease, so the board rejected the claim (or actually concluded [direct quote]: "The Panel considers that the proposed claim does not comply with the requirements for a disease risk reduction claim ...")

The original decision.

Even the European Parliament has spoken out against SOPA in a resolution on the transatlantic summit in two weeks:

[The European Parliament s]tresses the need to protect the integrity of the global internet and freedom of communication by refraining from unilateral measures to revoke IP addresses or domain names;

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/factsheets/mix/mix_fr_en.pdf

This is a chart from 2004, but even when you count all energy sources (gasoline included) nuclear is still 40%. Electricity is around 50% of power usage, I had no idea that half started being "relatively small."

At the same time they release a directive that includes optional web censoring. For the sake of our children, of course!

Look, you may have a point about the directive, but you're trying hard to ruin it with that word optional.

At the same time they release a directive that includes optional web censoring. For the sake of our children, of course!

You've mistakenly, or dishonestly misrepresented them,

IMHO, mutual respect is the basis for any conversation. That said, if you have better data, show them. The ones you cite coming from the British public television are from five years ago, and still show France paying more than they receive, and thus I stilll don't see how they demonstrate that France needs UK's money to go on.

I'm not sure what you mean here, most countries in the EU have a degree of euroscepticism, but the UK ratified the Lisbon treaty with far less hassle than many other countries that outright voted against it in it's original form. Do you not remember Ireland having to run the referendum on it twice because they said no the first time?

The latest official eurobarometer survey (page 47) says that 22% of the UK citizens have a positive view of the EU. That's _the lowest value_ registered in the whole area composed by the EU and the non-EU countries that are interested in joining the EU in the near future. The EU average is 40%. For comparison, Germany is at 38%. Italy is at 39%. France is at 41%.

The UK ratified the Lisbon treaty quickly because, unlike Ireland, they did not hold a referendum. Is your opinion that such a referendum would have passed, when only 22% of British people have a fully positive view of the EU?

And you think the UK is a stalling point here? really?

Not the only one. It is one of the many, and as the most euro-sceptic country inside the EU, it's a considerable one. What's the country that invariantly has some opt-out in every important treaty of the EU? Including the treaty of Lisbon?

If I've learnt anything over the years it's that alternating opinions blocking legislation is almost always a good thing. When legislation is rammed through without care for minority opinions it's rarely good legislation, and when it's passed because everyone agrees it's generally good.

You can't administer even a condominium when every house owner has a right of veto. How can we suppose to be able to govern a continent, and one with so many different and strong cultures such as the EU, under the same premises? In fact, problems of all kinds keep hitting the EU while the member states are either still quarreling or moving dispersedly.

I'd like to see decreases euro-scepticism in our country

I'd like it too, because I think that Britain is an important part of Europe's culture and history. I like being able to live and work there without hassles. And I feel that there's more that we have in common, compared to what we don't share. But I _do not_ want the people of the UK to be forced into the EU against their will, because history shows that government-enforced cohabitations end up badly sooner or later (Yugoslavia: violent breakup; Czechoslovakia: peaceful split; Belgium: "in-house divorce"). If now they aren't convinced, it's better for them to stay at the window and look at how the others do, and then join later if they do appreciate the end results.

It took a while to find the figures you cite, but I found them here. You've mistakenly, or dishonestly misrepresented them, they are not net contribution figures:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/en/headlines/content/20080605FCS31027/5/html/What-about-the-Net-Contributors%E2%80%9D

Whilst the article is about net contribution it actually avoids the question and those specific figures merely state the amount paid in, not the net amount once returns are received. Once this is taken into account France's contribution drops drastically. Whilst France has improved it's net contribution in recent years you can see the disparity here from back in 2007 under net contribution:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm#start

Or the cold hard historical figures for every year between 1999 - 2007 here if you prefer:

http://www.eu-oplysningen.dk/euo_en/spsv/all/79/

"The problem with the UK in the EU is not economic, it's their political dissent every time that an EU treaty is to be made. Which stems from the fact that probably, most of the UK population is against the EU."

I'm not sure what you mean here, most countries in the EU have a degree of euroscepticism, but the UK ratified the Lisbon treaty with far less hassle than many other countries that outright voted against it in it's original form. Do you not remember Ireland having to run the referendum on it twice because they said no the first time?

Whilst recent polls have shown 49% support leaving the EU and only 40% definitely staying in I don't think come a referendum we would leave, because these polls were commissioned against a background of Euroscepticism - UKIP and far right wing Tories stoking things up against the background of the Euro appearing on the verge of collapse. I think the fact they could still only muster 49% to leave in self interest commissioned polls against that background is quite telling. That's ignoring the fact any referendum would be backed by a campaign pointing out all the Tory/UKIP FUD and how it's actually about bringing back things like employment law so the average Joe can be forced to work more than 48hours in a week benefiting corporations and not the average citizen. Really, less than half against the background of potential Euro collapse and a massive one sided FUD offensive that's been led up to by a year or two long FUD offensive? that's pretty weak.

"I'd rather take an EU that is 10% poorer but that works, instead of one that never acts because every decision is shot down by the crossed vetoes of the member states."

And you think the UK is a stalling point here? really? You only have to look at the painfully slow inaction over the Euro to see the UK is far from Europe's worst offender in acting with haste, and Eastern European and Mediterranean nations bickering over past rivalries be it Cyprus blocking Turkey's entry, or the ex-Yugoslav nations blocking each other.

If I've learnt anything over the years it's that alternating opinions blocking legislation is almost always a good thing. When legislation is rammed through without care for minority opinions it's rarely good legislation, and when it's passed because everyone agrees it's generally good.

I'd like to see decreases euro-scepticism in our country and I think it'll come with time, but I think the UK being in the EU is far better for both the UK and the EU. It's mutually beneficial for everyone.

The reason all GSM phones have it is because it's a US requirement. Having developed the feature for the US market, the easiest thing is to have it on all phones, no matter where they are sold.

I think you'll find its a European requirement. GSM originally meant "Groupe Spécial Mobile", which is a clue to its origin.

My extremely old (early 1990s) GSM phone allowed dialling the emergency number even if the keypad was locked -- either 999, the normal UK number, or 112, which works in every European country (from landlines, too) and every GSM phone.

The European law is from 1991.

I was just trying to make the point that we are being force-fed GM foods

Who, exactly, is forcing you to eat genetically engineered food? Because there's a huge difference between you being too lazy to learn what is GE and what isn't, and someone forcing you to eat it. You're free not to eat it. You're free to buy organic food, or foods containing only crops that aren't genetically engineered. That's like a Muslim saying he's being force fed non-Halal beef. Saying you're being 'force-fed' GE crops is just being dramatic and deceitful.

And before you give me the ever popular 'oh but its not labeled so how do I know?' schtick, then listen up: corn, soy, canola, cotton, papaya (from Hawaii), summer squash, and soon, suger beet and alfalfa. If it has those in it, assume its GE. No other crop currently on the market is GE (well, there were potatoes and tomatoes but they were discontinued, and in Iran they've got GE rice). 15 seconds on Google, now you don't have to play the lazy victim anymore. You're welcome. And for reference, guess what else isn't labeled: fruit from grafted trees or vegetables/grains from hybrid seed. Not the same thing? Funny because throughout history people have made the same accusations at them that people make at GE crops today. I get that agricultural history is pretty boring but it sure is insightful. In fact, no plant improvement method is labeled. If you didn't want food produced with mutagens, induced polyploidy, tissue culture/somaclonal variation, marker assisted breeding, sport selection, your argument holds the same weight. What if I don't want wheat bred from strains altered with mutagenic radiation, or apples selected from sports, or bananas produced from tissue cultured clones plants, or citrus with extra chromosomes? Because guess what, they're all there, on the market, right now, no labeling, no safety testing. The only difference is that no one's ever made stink about them. You're irrationally singling out one thing while irrationally ignoring all the other genetic changes that are made to crops, which are almost always much larger and much more random and less understood than inserting a gene or two with GE

there have been no long term studies as to safety.

So, these studies, this study, this one, this one, this one, didn't happen, and neither did any of these. You might want to do a bit more research before making statements like that. You know, they don't need to do safety testing for any other type of plant improvement, which is genetic modification (although not genetic engineering). I'm not saying they shouldn't be tested, but these things are plants, not drugs. If there isn't anything new in the that is biologically active, there is no reason to think that they're suddenly going to be dangerous (at least, no more than there is for any other type of genetic alteration). The cry proteins & EPSPS proteins (the two main ones inserted in GE crops right now) are NOT dangerous. That's not my opinion, that is the conclusion of pretty much all the literature on the subject, and just you haven't read it doesn't make it any less true.

Call me crazy, but I still want to make my own life choices, and not have the government and corporations make them for me.

Crazy, maybe not, but uninformed, absolutely. And government and corporations are not making the decision for you, they're making it for everyone else. If farmers want to g

Nope.

Actually we have seen a sharp increase in temperature globally. global running 5 year ave.

I'm from Belgium and on my electric bill there is a list of energy sources from which my electricity is made of. Nuclear only has a 2% portion.

Perhaps for your particular region, but an anecdote is not data. This 2004 report shows that 55% of Belgian electricity is generated by nuclear, a later study shows close to the same. Just because your bill claims a 2% mix doesn't mean that is representative of the energy mix in your country.

But what about the nuclear waste that has to be stored for a few thousands of years (although this is only a theoretical assumption).

You really think nuclear physicists don't know how to calculate half lives of fission products? If they didn't, they certainly couldn't operate nuclear reactors. Since there are operating reactors in the world it appears that we are actually capable of performing such calculations.

UK:
http://www.writetothem.com/

UK:
http://www.europarl.org.uk/section/your-meps/your-meps

Rest of Europe:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/public/geoSearch.do;jsessionid=EAF5D554A71EBE16A5E8A71092CD2DB9.node2

Please stop making a fuss about ACTA if you can not objectively tell us what is it going to do and why should we even oppose it.

Read it and judge yourself. See for example article 9 regarding damages, where it happily affirms that:

In determining the amount of damages for infringement of intellectual property rights, a Party’s judicial authorities shall have the authority to consider, inter alia, any legitimate measure of value the right holder submits, which may include lost profits, the value of the infringed goods or services measured by the market price, or the suggested retail price.

Which basically translates into "every download is a lost sell" (and you must pay for it), which is obviously false. If you think a law containing such flagrantly false affirmations doesn't deserve opposition, or you don't care or you are one of the parties writing it :-P

Both this Slashdot story and TFA have a very misleading title. ONE MEP is thinking about this insane idea. It is not even in Parliament for discussion. Another MEP already vehemently spoke against it.

Not quite. Two MEPs suggested this insane idea, and 371 MEPs signed it. This isn't about discussing an insane idea. This is about implementing an insane idea.

Only two MEPs, Tiziano Motti and Anna Záborská, might have suggested this, but 371 members supported it. And the fact that "no one is debating anything" is because the vote was passed way back in 2010-06-23.

This is how EU does democracy.

Only two MEPs, Tiziano Motti and Anna Záborská, might have suggested this, but 371 members supported it. And the fact that "no one is debating anything" is because the vote was passed way back in 2010-06-23.

This is how EU does democracy.

Correction: along with the two ignorant MEPs who authored Written Declaration 29, currently 371 MEPs have signed this proposition. Here is a list of all signatories.

Correction: along with the two ignorant MEPs who authored Written Declaration 29, currently 371 MEPs have signed this proposition. Here is a list of all signatories.

No. It is just one jerk from Italy. The other jerk they have is prime minister. Mr. Motti can be found here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert/committees/view.do?language=EN&id=96760

I don't believe that's the case. According to this report, "So far, 324 MPs have signed the proposal, or the written declaration that it called on European languages". It also mentions that "When more than half, ie 369 members signed up, it can be adopted and thus becomes its official position, but are not legislative in themselves."

So, although it isn't quite the same thing as signing a law, it is in fact a bit more than "one MEP thinking about this insane idea", even when including the fact hat Written Declaration 29 is authored by two MEPs, Tiziano MOTTI and Anna ZÁBORSKÁ.

I don't believe that's the case. According to this report, "So far, 324 MPs have signed the proposal, or the written declaration that it called on European languages". It also mentions that "When more than half, ie 369 members signed up, it can be adopted and thus becomes its official position, but are not legislative in themselves."

So, although it isn't quite the same thing as signing a law, it is in fact a bit more than "one MEP thinking about this insane idea", even when including the fact hat Written Declaration 29 is authored by two MEPs, Tiziano MOTTI and Anna ZÁBORSKÁ.

Because it is processing of personal data?

See 95/46/EC (articles 6 and 7, in particular 6b,c,e and 7a,e; article 2 for definitions).

Actually, it isn't "one ignorant guy". It's at least two ignorant MEPs: from Italy and Anna Záborská from Slovakia. They co-authored the Written Declaration 29, where they state quite bluntly that they want every european citizen being constantly monitored by the police to avoid putting some hypothetical nasty criminal "on the same footing as honest citizens and making it difficult for the authorities to trace them".

More on this in:

• Christian Engström's blog, a Pirate MEP
• EU's Data Retention Directive

Actually, it isn't "one ignorant guy". It's at least two ignorant MEPs: from Italy and Anna Záborská from Slovakia. They co-authored the Written Declaration 29, where they state quite bluntly that they want every european citizen being constantly monitored by the police to avoid putting some hypothetical nasty criminal "on the same footing as honest citizens and making it difficult for the authorities to trace them".

More on this in:

• Christian Engström's blog, a Pirate MEP
• EU's Data Retention Directive

Actually, it isn't "one ignorant guy". It's at least two ignorant MEPs: from Italy and Anna Záborská from Slovakia. They co-authored the Written Declaration 29, where they state quite bluntly that they want every european citizen being constantly monitored by the police to avoid putting some hypothetical nasty criminal "on the same footing as honest citizens and making it difficult for the authorities to trace them".

More on this in:

• Christian Engström's blog, a Pirate MEP
• EU's Data Retention Directive

Actually, it isn't "one ignorant guy". It's at least two ignorant MEPs: from Italy and Anna Záborská from Slovakia. They co-authored the Written Declaration 29, where they state quite bluntly that they want every european citizen being constantly monitored by the police to avoid putting some hypothetical nasty criminal "on the same footing as honest citizens and making it difficult for the authorities to trace them".

More on this in:

• Christian Engström's blog, a Pirate MEP
• EU's Data Retention Directive

The official press release is here. It is much more specific and easier to interpret than the BBC article, which is perfunctory as usual.

It might even be more fun than that. Maybe they know things about you that you never told them, like your gender or age. I would also tend to believe that if they're able to figure out this information about people they're probably entitled to keep the fact of their knowing secret.

Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, but insofar as I understand the law this cannot apply in Europe - in Europe they are required by law to give you access to all personal data stored about you so that you can correct or remove it. See the Personal Data Law, specifically the data subject's "right of access" to personal data.

Unlike some governments, businesses are not subject to "Freedom of Information" queries.

In the European Union, businesses are.

THE DATA SUBJECT'S RIGHT OF ACCESS TO DATA

Member States shall guarantee every data subject the right to obtain from the controller:
(a) without constraint at reasonable intervals and without excessive delay or expense:
- confirmation as to whether or not data relating to him are being processed and information at least as to the purposes of the processing, the categories of data concerned, and the recipients or categories of recipients to whom the data are disclosed,
- communication to him in an intelligible form of the data undergoing processing and of any available information as to their source,
- knowledge of the logic involved in any automatic processing of data concerning him at least in the case of the automated decisions referred to in Article 15 (1);
(b) as appropriate the rectification, erasure or blocking of data the processing of which does not comply with the provisions of this Directive, in particular because of the incomplete or inaccurate nature of the data;
(c) notification to third parties to whom the data have been disclosed of any rectification, erasure or blocking carried out in compliance with (b), unless this proves impossible or involves a disproportionate effort.

Yeah, I know the UK doesn't consider itself to be EU

Er, I don't think you do know that. The larger party in our coalition government wants us out, as do most of the press, but we're still in at the moment, and there are still plenty of us who like it that way.

Right here, http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/index_en.htm, is listed member states of the EU, on their website. And guess who's there.

Here is a PDF file with the list of EU council member countries and information how they voted on this legislation. I'm glad that at least my country (Czech Rep.) voted against it: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st14/st14132.en11.pdf