EU Approves Unified Full Body Scanner Regulations

OverTheGeicoE writes "The European Union has adopted a proposal to regulate airport body scanners at Member State airports. No Member State or airport is obligated to use scanners, but if they do, the scanners must conform to new European Union standards. Here's a partial list: Scanners must not store, retain, copy, print, or retrieve passenger images; the image viewer must be in a remote location; passengers must be informed how the scanners are being controlled; and can opt out if they choose. Perhaps most importantly: X-ray scanners are banned 'in order not to risk jeopardizing citizens' health and safety.'"

Comments

EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[CmdrPony]

Not only is EU not requiring their use, they are actually putting several limitations on how they're used and saying citizens can opt-out. Good job, EU!

Now, if someone would just kick UK out of EU. It's almost as bad as US.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Neil Boekend]

In Sovejet Europe government controlls commerce.

Disclaimer: I am European and I do think the perfect government is a balance between Communism and Capitalism. I do think these regulations are a good plan.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Pf0tzenpfritz]

I share your opinion, but you should know that the "Soviet XY" terminology has been hijacked by the ultra-right wing. So your comment might easily be misunderstood.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Anonymous Coward]

I would rather the UK not leave the EU otherwise we would be subject to lots more stupid intrusions into our private lives (like we don't have enough already).

The financial mess in the Euro zone aside, The EU (though costly to the UK) has brought some benefit in curtailing the nutters who think they know best for everyone else.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Luckyo]

Are you sure you're not referring to "balance between socialism and capitalism" as it is in Northern Europe at the moment?

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Neil Boekend]

True, hence the large disclaimer. I thought of the "In Sovjet Europe" as a joke, but had to incorporate my true opinion into the post.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[greatpatton]

Costly? Never heard of the UK budget rebate ? As a little reminder:

The UK won the rebate in 1984, after the then prime minister Margaret Thatcher threatened to halt payments to the EU budget. Margaret Thatcher Margaret Thatcher is misquoted as saying: 'I want my money back!' "We are not asking the Community or anyone else for money," she said at a summit in Fontainebleau. "We are simply asking to have our own money back".

And guess who pay for you? The others EU members.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Xest]

Gordon Brown gave up part of the rebate a few years ago, we still put far more in than we get out even with the rebate and always have. Europe does not by any measure pay for the UK, France's farming subsidies are the elephant in the room in this respect if anything.

The UK very much makes a loss in terms of pure money pumped into the EU vs. money returned via EU initiatives by a longshot, the benefit we get out (as is the case for others that put in more than they get out, like Germany) is easier access to the European markets so it comes back and pays for itself in terms of improved trade and better bargaining terms with the rest of the world as the EU can speak as one entity on many topics.

Personally I think it's worth it, but if EU nations want rid of us then have fun trying to fill the funding shortfall that's used to help the poorer Eurozone economies improve like Romania, Slovenia, Hungary, Lithuania etc. I'm sure Germany will be more than happy to spend even more money financing the rest of Europe and France will enjoy being forced to give up it's farming subsidies.

No really, the UK is a backbone economy for the EU, like both France and Germany are. The EU would be massively weaker and poorer without it.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Neil Boekend]

No I am not sure. I just used Communism in the disclaimer because I had used in the joke. Socialism would have been more appliccable.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Xest]

Yeah, it's horrendous, how dare the UK be one of the few countries in the EU capable of balancing it's books making it one of perhaps 2 or 3 economies in Europe whose AAA rating is perfectly safe.

The UK for all it's faults at very least hasn't got anything as bad as France's HADOPI yet, hasn't had anywhere near as bad web blocking orders as in Ireland or the Netherlands, and doesn't at least have as close to the amount of censorship as Germany. Oh, and Sweden is basically a wholly owned subsidiary of the RIAA now. We don't have laws against headscarfs and stuff either which is something. Even outside Europe now that Harper is in in Canada I think the UK is doing fairly well, we're certainly in a much better place than we were under Brown's authoritarian rule 2 years ago.

I suppose you can still hold a grudge over the UK for Iraq, but we haven't been there for a few years now, we're still in Afghanistan, like the rest of Europe. I suppose you can complain about our big brother state but really the reason we have a reputation in that respect is precisely because our population actually stands up and shouts about how unhappy we are with it, which is surely better than most other European states where it's at least as bad but just blindly accepted without much dissent. It's thanks to the fact we do have organisations like Liberty that these things are exposed for what they are attempts at but most the worst stuff our last government proposed that generated all said stories is dead now, the ID card database is gone, many CCTV programmes have been cut/scaled back, libel laws are being reformed. There's still a long way to go of course, but then, find me a country where there isn't.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[mitashki]

Disclaimer: I am European and I do think the perfect government is a balance between Communism and Capitalism.

Actually I do believe the BEST government would use the good ideas from both and refuse to follow the ideologies and propaganda from both. For the record I am an European too (whatever it might mean these days).

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[johnjaydk]

Yeah, it's horrendous, how dare the UK be one of the few countries in the EU capable of balancing it's books making it one of perhaps 2 or 3 economies in Europe whose AAA rating is perfectly safe.

+5 funny

The UK actually have the second highest total-debt-to-gdp ratios in the world. Only slightly below Japan who is wide seen as a bug in search of a windshield.

Total Debt to GDP ratios

Sorry to burst Your bubble but the bond market will discover this fact eventually.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[peppepz]

According to the site of the european parliament, in the 2010 balance of the European Union, the "net contributors" to the EU are:
1) Germany (19.6 %)
2) France (18%)
3) Italy (13.9 %)
4) United Kingdom (10.4%)
5) Spain (9.6%)

Of course these numbers aren't too meaningful, because they don't track the indirect benefits that a member country enjoys for being in the EU. For example, the import fees paid by a country that is importing goods for China, appear as paid by that country in the balance, but they will actually be paid by the final customers of those goods in reality.

But you can read that the image of France being a burden for other member states because of its agriculture subsidies is wrong: they pay to the EU more than what they actually receive, and in particular they pay almost twice as much as the UK.

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 think the UK shoud solve this problem by clearly asking their citizens if they really want to be inside the EU. If the answer is negative, then the UK should withdraw from the union and leave it to the states who are actually interested in its construction.

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.

The "two-speeds" union that is starting to delineate, with the members of the Euro zone having special government structures, might be a good step in this direction; but it's still too soon to tell.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Anonymous Coward]

Nowhere can be as bad as they are used in the US ... and *nowhere* else has the TSA we must deal with ... NO ONE.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Rogerborg]

Ah, yes, but our currency has a picture of a real proper God's anointed Queen on it, not a bunch of abstract squiggles and random Godless squinty-eyes like the Monopoly money they use in Japan. There's your difference right there.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[petermgreen]

The UK actually have the second highest total-debt-to-gdp ratios in the world. Only slightly below Japan

The "total debt to GDP ratio" may be only slightly below japan but the government debt is a MUCH smaller proportion of the total debt than with japan.

But more important than the amount of debt is what that debt is denominated in. If a government has debts denominated in their own currency they can order their central bank (in practice they probably won't even need to make the order) to offer them unlimited loans at a fixed interest rate so the only way they will default is if they chose to do so.

OTOH if a government has large debts denominated in a currency under outside control they are at the mercy of the countries that control those currencies. That is why greece and italy are in so much trouble, they sacrificed their financial sovereignty by joining the Euro.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Anonymous Coward]

Those figures you point to are distorted by our disproportionately large financial sector. Which given that they're backed by gov.uk means that they actually have a vested interest in keeping our bond prices stable. As far as actually managing our government debt, we do quite well, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15717770

A big problem with both Italian (and French debt) is that a lot of it is short-term and constantly has to be renewed. Hence depending on the given prevailing market circumstances their actual lending costs as they auction off more bonds can sky rocket. Because UK's debt is more long-term (averaging 13 years maturity) it gives a greater opportunity to get our shit together, and consequently gives the market less reason to panic.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[SkunkPussy]

yeah fucking manchester airport uses scanners and they're mandatory. pisstake. at least this is going to change.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The UK actually have the second highest total-debt-to-gdp ratios in the world.

Your source appears to be nearly two years out of date. A lot has happened in that time, so I don't think we can read too much into those figures today.

Back then, a large chunk of that UK debt was down to the financial institutions in the City; the government debt level was towards the lower end on the chart. However, we can't see how much impact the various bail-outs have made from that data.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Raumkraut]

Last I heard this was not true. You absolutely can opt out of being scanned at Manchester. Of course, if you do so, you'll also be opting out of catching your flight...

Alas, I suspect that the UK government will, if at all possible (and even if not), interpret the EU's requirement for the right to opt out of scanning in a similar fashion.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Xest]

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.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Xest]

Which doesn't really matter when we have an actual plan to solve the problem that we've been following for a year now, unlike countries like the US and the Eurozone nations who are still actually trying to figure out what to do.

The bond markets don't care about the fact the problem is their, they care about the fact we're solving it. It's the nations that aren't tackling it that scare the shit out of them, that's why things are so bad for Greece and Italy right now - because they're still only just now trying to get austerity measures passed.

Taking 2009 figures doesn't exactly help your case in this respect either, part the reason Britain has such a strong AAA status is because since that period, particularly with a new government, we've been tackling the problem pretty well.

Another reason is of course that not being in the eurozone means we have the flexibility needed to deal with a crisis, something Greece and Italy do not.

But regardless, well done on posting some arbitrary out of date figures that prove nothing in relation to the current situation and demonstrate that you actually have no idea what the fuck you are on about all the same I guess. Finding out of date figures that tell maybe 1/20th the total story in determining credit rating status doesn't really demonstrate anything. Credit rating takes into account far more numerous factors as varied as political competence, variation of industry, and strength of currency in dealing with financial issues at hand and it is this combination of factors that places the UK in such a firm position with it's AAA rating.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Anonymous Coward]

OTOH if a government has large debts denominated in a currency under outside control they are at the mercy of the countries that control those currencies. That is why greece and italy are in so much trouble, they sacrificed their financial sovereignty by joining the Euro.

Greece is in trouble because IT FUCKING LIED about its financial condition to the EU before adopting the Euro. Had they told the truth, the rest of the EU would have left them to rot (most probably). Italy didn't lie about its finances, they made real sacrifices to adopt the Euro, and frankly without it Italy would have been in for the worse.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Anonymous Coward]

That figure is mainly driven by the bank debts. Now, the UK has one of the largest concentrations of banks in the world, and those banks do tend to have assets. None of the UK banks failed the recent EU stress test, although some only passed because of previous government cash injections. So, that's not particularly worrying. If you just look at government debt (which has to be paid by taxes, not revenue on assets), the UK is only at 59%. Compare Japan at 197%, Italy at 107%, or Greece at 120% (after debt reduction). The UK government really isn't in a bad shape, and the GP discussed that government's AAA rating.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Cyberax]

"Which doesn't really matter when we have an actual plan to solve the problem that we've been following for a year now, unlike countries like the US and the Eurozone nations who are still actually trying to figure out what to do."

That doesn't matter anyway since this 'plan' has caused a near-dip into recession and actually slowed down the recovery...

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[gx5000]

Can they give frequent travelers hand outs on what to do once you've been so irradiated you need medical attention ?

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Xest]

Yes, but it's taken an axe to our deficit.

There's no point having 1% growth and maintaining a massive deficit, when we can instead settle for 0.5% growth and eliminate our deficit.

I don't like the Tories, but they're fiscally more sane than Labour who had it's hands over it's ears regarding the deficit and even now who's party members are harping on about how we should spend some more, increase the deficit for the sake of growth.

Our austerity measures aren't pleasant, but they're the sensible thing to do and they've taken us off the risk list and put us in a position of being one of the most promising economies to get behind in the short to medium term. It may take slightly longer to get back to healthy growth this way, but at least there'll be no real risk of going bankrupt if we follow through with it, which is kind of more important. Losing a year or two of 2 - 3% levels of growth over the next 20 years or so is much less of a big deal than running the risk of defaulting which would result in 10 - 20 years of lost growth and serious strife instead.

To give you an analogy, imagine you have a mortgage of £100,000 against your house and you have to make repayments every month or lose it. Imagine you work in an industry where you make £25k disposable income each year but there's a 40% chance of being made redundant. Would you rather just pay off your mortgage and secure your house seeing your wage go up 1%, 2%, 2%, 3% respectively each year over the next 4 years, or would you rather spend it on things that you can survive without but get a pay increase of 2%, 2%, 3%, 4% over the next 4 years but have the odds stacked against you being made redundant, seeing no pay at all come in as a result, losing your house, having to declare yourself bankrupt, and basically start your life all over again with a black mark against your ability to get a new mortgage even 5 years down the road?

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Cyberax]

I predict that your deficit is going to GROW in near- and long-term since the revenues have fallen and you'd need even more austerity. In short, it is already an epic fail.

"Losing a year or two of 2 - 3% levels of growth over the next 20 years or so is much less of a big deal than running the risk of defaulting which would result in 10 - 20 years of lost growth and serious strife instead."

Who told you that an austerity just causes you to 'lose a few years'? It is going to lower the base of growth, and quite significantly and for a quite a long time. While at the same time adding to STRUCTURAL problems of unemployment by allowing people to lose qualifications.

And in return you get exactly what? "Business confidence" is worth shit, and it has actually fallen. Slashing deficits NOW NOW NOW NOW doesn't do anything with long-term deficits which mainly depend on ability to sustain growth.

So, why?

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[johnjaydk]

Your source appears to be nearly two years out of date. A lot has happened in that time, so I don't think we can read too much into those figures today.

Ups. My bad. The UK have in fact overtaken Japan by now in total debt to gdp.

Debt by nations

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[marcosdumay]

Since they are not part of the Euro, the UK can simply make some inflation (the old trusted way) and devalue themselves out of debt.

11 of each 10 keynesian economists say that works. We'll soon discover if they are right.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[peppepz]

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.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Sorry, I think perhaps you misunderstood me. My point is that total debt isn't really very interesting. Whether debt is effectively owed by the tax-paying public or by private financial institutions matters, for example. Obviously these things aren't completely independent, as all the bail-outs and rescue funds prove, but they're not the same thing either, which means an unlabelled chart of some aggregate figure has very little value.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Xest]

No, that's simply FUD, the amount we're cutting isn't even close to the reduction we'd see in tax receipts. Whilst a slowing down may blunt the speed of deficit reduction ever so slightly, it's not going to prevent reduction or make the deficit worse. Getting the balance between growth and reduction is tough, but again, as much as I would like Osborne to fuck right off once things are sorted, he seems to have a working balance right now.

"Who told you that an austerity just causes you to 'lose a few years'? It is going to lower the base of growth, and quite significantly and for a quite a long time."

The fundamental point is that economic growth for a developed economy like ours is determined massively more prominently by what's going on in the rest of the world than minor disagreements internally. You'll only lose a few years because we're not growing now, when the rest of the economy picks up across the globe then things will pick up for us too. Those countries trying to grow right now during the recession look impressive, but they'll be no better off than us when global growth picks up because we'll then start to grow at pretty much the same rate but they'll have massive deficits and lose any benefits of their growth on the much greater interest they'll be losing paying those debts.

Unemployment again makes great headlines, but at 8.1% in the UK, that's still better than the 9% in the US, 9.6% in France, 8.3% in Italy, and of course, far better than the 20% in Spain. It's of course not as good as Germany's 6.5%, but then Germany is a stronger economy than us all round anyway - they can concentrate on growth because they don't have the debt risk we have. Fundamentally then this demonstrates that growth now at the expense of deficit reduction as has been the US path for example doesn't mean lower unemployment rates anyway, so the assertion that this deficit reduction is going to put us at a significant unemployment disadvantage is false - despite our austerity measures we're still doing better on unemployment than nearly everywhere else. Frankly it's also not the skilled workers that tend to suffer longer term unemployment anyway, so there's really no noticable risk of skills loss from it.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[BenoitRen]

Belgium: "in-house divorce"

Belgium hasn't gone bust, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[mikechant]

Our austerity measures aren't pleasant, but they're the sensible thing to do

A lot of economists think that the austerity measures are too extreme and could drag the economy into a vicious downward spiral where increased unemployment and decreased economic activity actually make the deficit worse, leading to the government having to chose either cutting spending even more to try to meet the deficit targets, further worsening unemployment (and so on) or losing credibility massively by abandoning the targets (causing the dreaded bond yield increases and their consequences).
Credibility lost by abandoning the targets for something less 'austere' would be much worse than if the targets had been set more moderately in the first place...

So it's possible that slower deficit reduction (over two parliaments rather than one) will turn out to have been the most sensible and prudent option.

We'll find out in the next two years or so who's right. Although I'm sure if it all goes tits up, the govt will claim it's the eurozone and the world economy entirely to blame and nothing to do with 'overenthusiastic' austerity measures.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Xest]

"and thus I stilll don't see how they demonstrate that France needs UK's money to go on."

I never said this, I'm not claiming France is subsidised by the UK, I simply made the point that if someone is worried about UK rebate, then they should be even more concerned about French farming subsidies and that the UK most certainly does pay it's fair share, arguably more so than other members, rebate or not.

"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?"

Not at all, your concern seemed to be that the UK is a hindrance to the EU, I was merely making the point that our government recognises the importance of it and is much less a hindrance than many other EU governments. It seemed odd to attack the UK over this, when there are much bigger offenders in the EU.

The problem is that in the UK we're an inherently pessimistic set of people, we like to bitch and moan, but when it comes to people tend to realise that well, maybe, actually, it's not that bad after all.

Of course the right wingers thrive on this, they feed on it, really the BNP are just tha Nazis by a different name, UKIP are just the BNP in nicer suits and with bigger houses, and frankly the right wing Tories are just a set of UKIPers who prefer the power of being in an electable party of their actual principles to jump to UKIP.

But don't assume that because the far right plays on Britain's pessimistic attitude that when it comes to, when Brits realise that without European Union membership jobs will go as companies leave Britain to mainland Europe, Scotland will have every justification to split from the UK and ironically join the EU, somewhat isolating us on our own island, the economy will weaken as skilled people leave the UK decreasing benefits and making the country poorer, and the chavs will have less easy travel to Southern Spain on their alcohol fuelled holidays, that the British people wont stop and think well hang on, maybe the EU is actually kind of a good thing. If we do ever have a referendum, and the UK opts to leave the EU, I'll be leaving the UK behind despite having lived here all my life, if not only because it'll be fucked as a nation, but I genuinely don't think it'll ever come to that.

As an aside, I don't know where that 22% figure comes from in the eurobarometer survey, it seems odd that it'd be so much drastically lower than polls commissioned by eurosceptics at a time of hyped up euroscepticism in the UK. Perhaps this simply demonstrates my point that when people in the UK are really pushed on the subject they do begin to recognise the benefits of it and drop the pessimism.

Besides, on a more positive note most Eurosceptics I've met in my life tend to be the much older generations 60+. Not to worry, they'll be dead soon :)

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Darth_RayDar]

... balancing it's books ... for all it's faults ...

Aargh! - "it's books" = "it is books" and "it's faults" = "it is faults". And you fault a few countries for faulty books because of a few misplaced commas/decimals (depending what country you're in)?

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[johnjaydk]

My point is that total debt isn't really very interesting. Whether debt is effectively owed by the tax-paying public or by private financial institutions matters, for example.

I understand your point clearly. BUT recent history have shown that private debt have a nasty habit of becoming public debt in a crisis. My point was to show the amount of debt that the UK government is going to inherit if the wheels come off those financial institutions. It will resemble Iceland ...

Now, the UK debt is of longer maturity and therefore less volatile and it's denominated in pounds so Bank of England can just run the press and inflate the stuff away. But it's still a dicey operation.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Xest]

See my reply to the other guy who responded at the same level as you, despite our supposed overly drastic austerity measures we've still got better unemployment stats than countries like the US who have taken the alternative route of getting higher growth by spending hundreds of billions in stimulus, so I'm not sure that argument actually has any real validity.

As you say though, only time will truly tell.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Cyberax]

Nope. Not a FUD. Wanna bet?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15653282 - trade is flagging,
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt - debt is growing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/oct/31/business-confidence-lowest-for-30-months - business confidence craters.
Deficits are not significantly affected.

However, economy has slowed down into almost a double-dip so lost revenue growth over 10 years would be more than "savings" from austerity.

So, remind me, what austerity program tries to achieve? I distinctly remember words like 'business confidence' and 'spur the investments' - both have demonstrably failed to happen.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Xest]

"http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15653282 - trade is flagging,"

No, the trade deficit just spiked for a month.

"http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt - debt is growing."

Well of course it is, that's what happens when you have a deficit, and it'll continue this way until you eliminate the deficit, which is kind of the point in what I've been advocating.

"http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/oct/31/business-confidence-lowest-for-30-months - business confidence craters."

That's great, but the economy still grew 0.5% last quarter.

"Deficits are not significantly affected."

Yes it is, the government deficit reduction is still perfectly on track, well, actually, it's ahead of schedule. It was about £178bn when Labour left power, it's set to be down to about £122bn this year:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/oct/21/government-borrowing-september-budget-deficit

The original plan was to eliminate it by 2015, it's quite possible we'll do it earlier.

So what happens when the deficit is gone? well, if we're smart we start running a surplus, what do we do with surplus? we reduce that afformentioned national debt that you mentioned is growing.

I'm not entirely sure you understand all this, it seems a bit odd you'd complain about debt growth, whilst complaining about deficit reduction - of course when you're spending more than you're making your debts are going to increase, what do you think happens? This is the whole point in eliminating our deficit, so we can reduce our debt or at very least stop it growing.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Cyberax]

So want to bet that by 2015 deficit will not only be present, but would actually grow? I'm willing to be an equivalent of 30g of gold (so not to depend on currency fluctuations) or a case of your favorite beer.

"So what happens when the deficit is gone? well, if we're smart we start running a surplus, what do we do with surplus? we reduce that afformentioned national debt that you mentioned is growing."

It won't be gone because if this "reduction" continues on track, economy would crater and reduced revenue and added unemployment benefits would wipe out most of the deficit reductions. A good strategy is to borrow like crazy because interest rates are low right now, invest money into the economy and THEN repay it during good times.

You might notice that your article states:
"Rachel Reeves, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said: "While these figures are better than many feared, the chancellor's borrowing targets have already been revised upwards. The government is already set to borrow £46bn more because of the slower growth, higher inflation and higher unemployment George Osborne's failed policies have delivered. ...

Analysts said spending restraint had been the big factor in reducing borrowing last month. Michael Saunders at Citi said core central government outlays – Whitehall spending excluding interest payments on the national debt and welfare benefits – were 3.7% lower than in September 2010, the biggest year on year drop since 2002. Tax receipts are also up on last year, although the underlying increase of 6% is slightly below the forecast made by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility in March. Economists warned that the stalling of the economy since last autumn may start to take its toll on the public finances over the next few months, particularly if the crisis in the eurozone intensifies."

So not only a part of the savings is already going to be wiped out by increased borrowing to offset the growing unemployment, it doesn't also count the increased welfare.

I'm not going to analyze it further, but it seems likely that a significant part of the savings was a result of normal economic recovery! I.e.growing tax revenues and lowering welfare payments. Both have nothing to do with austerity.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[peppepz]

Perhaps the media gave me a wrong impression, but I heard that Belgium stayed for something like 500 days without a government for causes ultimately linked to mistrust between the two largest cultures making up the country. The TVs showed some people demonstrating in the streets with the Belgian flags, so at least some Belgians did feel the need to show their support for the country's unity, which means that some others called it into question. I know that the country hasn't split, that's why I put the quotes and talked about an "in-house" separation - my apologies if the expression wasn't felt as appropriate. I'm certainly not fond of borders.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I agree that the UK economy hardly smells of roses, but there is one major difference in that if it's currently private-sector debt we're talking about, there is always another option, even if it has side effects that may not be desirable: you can let the big financial players who made bad investments lose their money and, if necessary, fail.

I don't understand enough serious economics and international politics to know why the big economic powers didn't do this right from the start, and whether there is a genuine economic justification for the bail-outs or it really was down to politics and backroom deals. It's obviously not as simple as the hang-the-bankers brigade tend to see it, but it seems to me that they are correct about one fundamental thing: by bailing out (some of) the banks, governments have effectively undermined the basic premise of capitalism by leaving private interests with much of the reward but the public with much of the risk.

Now we seem to have taken things a step further, so we're expecting wealthy Eurozone nations (Germany, for example) to bail out not only the banks based in their own countries but also the banks based in other countries (not necessarily within the Eurozone), because those other banks were foolish enough to lend money to another Eurozone country still (Greece, for example) that was unlikely to pay it back. This effectively leaves the German (for example) taxpayer subsidising foreign investors who have been doing quite nicely off the high interest rates on Greek (for example) government debt for a while but should now be paying the piper, all because Germany and Greece share a common currency in the Euro so if the Greek economy fails then Germany gets hurt too.

Now, the UK is outside the Euro, and is refusing to directly fund any Eurozone government bail-outs. Moreover, the financial giants in the City seem to have relatively limited exposure to the most risky Eurozone government debt, so the government can probably let them take their licks and eat their humble pie without risking serious long-term damage to the UK economy. In that context, there really are big differences between the UK's financial strength and that of several other G20 nations who are more closely tied up with the whole Euro mess.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Xest]

You can find analysts arguing whatever you want to find them arguing in this economic crisis, but fundamentally what matters are the facts.

The deficit is declining well ahead of schedule, a drop of £56bn in a year is pretty impressive.

Growth is still reasonable compared to similar economies, unemployment is still better than most other countries. The people who actually depend on these things - the money men who lend the money and don't want to lost it in a default believe our plan is superior to the alternatives too.

You can argue "yeah but it wont work, it'll make the deficit worse and send us back into recession" all you want, but people have said that since before the austerity measures were even set in stone, yet that hasn't turned true.

I prefer to stick with the facts, and the facts are that it's already working well right now, maybe that'll change, but so far it's working great, and short of a Eurozone default which will cause problems whatever method you take through the financial crisis there's no evidence yet that it's going to fail. I don't even know how the deficit will grow, you think the Tories are going to turn round and say "Right, that's that eliminated, let's spend £20bn on an ID card database we don't want and can't afford and get the old deficit up again"? No, that's the Brown/Balls path.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Alioth]

Not only did Greece lie, but Wall Street colluded with Greece to help them hide the debts. And the nascent eurozone, in a breathless headlong rush to get the euro going failed to do their due diligence.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Teun]

De Gaulle might have opposed the UK joining the EEC but once the fact was there the French immediately joined the Brits in vetoing full rights to the EU parliament, an unholy alliance that so many years later still stands.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Cyberax]

Why is it impressing?

Does it cost a reduction in rates? Nope, they are already pretty low.
Does it cause greater growth? Nope, it has almost caused a new recession and still might.
Does it create more jobs? Nope, unemployment has grown.

So nope. If UK could do at least something from the list above AND reduce deficit at the same time then it would have been impressive.

And I'll gladly bet you money that austerity measures will fail one way or another. They might lead to all-out recession or they might be quietly swept under the rug.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[xelah]

Except that the reason other euro states want to bail out Greece isn't so simple. The Greek government owes a lot of money to banks in other euro countries. If the Greek government were to default then it might lead to those governments having to bail out banks suffering losses on those debts. Having Greece default through a falling currency wouldn't be any easier for those banks. I'm sure that trying to save the euro is contributing a great deal (and contributing to wanting to bail out the Greek government rather than the banks), but the incentive would still be there even if Greece had already left the euro.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Darinbob]

Except this isn't a commerce issue really.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[purpledinoz]

The UK has an official national debt of 62.6%, but if the bailouts to the banks are included, it's 148% of GDP. Why the UK taxpayers should pay so dearly for those criminal bankers is beyond me. But good thing the UK stayed out of the Euro zone... at least they can print their way out of trouble.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[xelah]

So it's possible that slower deficit reduction (over two parliaments rather than one) will turn out to have been the most sensible and prudent option.

We'll find out in the next two years or so who's right. Although I'm sure if it all goes tits up, the govt will claim it's the eurozone and the world economy entirely to blame and nothing to do with 'overenthusiastic' austerity measures.

I don't think we'll ever find out who is right. There's no low risk strategy, no obvious right answer, and we probably won't know what would have happened had the alternative course been taken. Slower deficit reduction might have resulted in a sudden withdrawal of new credit with worse consequences than a more controlled cutting of government spending, but we won't know whether or not that would have happened. We also won't really know what effect it would have on longer term growth, or as a result of entering the next crisis with more debt, or as a result of it affecting our trade balance (eg, reducing our exports), or as a result of crowding out private sector investment (public borrowing has to come from somewhere, and that means the government having to attract funds away from other investment opportunities, so a direct effect of high debt is higher rates and tighter credit all round).

What REALLY upsets me is not the argument over whether cuts must be 12% or 20%, but politicians persistent abuse of public finances for shorter term personal political gain. Surpluses in 98-02 turned to deficits during a boom to further Gordon Brown's personal ambitions (and he's just an example, it doesn't seem to be unique to a party or country). The failure to pay down debt and prepare for recessions during good times is an important part of this crisis and it's utterly contemptible.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Xest]

"Why is it impressing?"

Because unlike many other Western countries right now, it means we have very little chance of going bankrupt. Like countries such as Canada, and Germany, we're capable of weathering the storm.

Saying it doesn't cause a reduction in rates is laughable, it's the reason rates are low in the first place, if we took your option they wouldn't be, they'd be like Spain's, France's, or Italy's

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[shutdown -p now]

I do think the perfect government is a balance between Communism and Capitalism

Those are (primarily) economic systems, not modes of government.

Oh, and it sounds like you're, essentially, describing Keynesian economics.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[shutdown -p now]

I don't understand enough serious economics and international politics to know why

I've had to re-read this three times to make sure that it really says what it says. On the Internet. In Slashdot comments, of all places!

Hell must truly be freezing. ~

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[AmiMoJo]

Sounds a lot like Marxism. Let's have capitalism, just the socialist kind where it benefits everyone directly rather than relying on "trickle-down" from the rich which is really just "how little can we give away and not have people lynching us".

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[AmiMoJo]

Only slightly below Japan who is wide seen as a bug in search of a windshield.

Quite the opposite in fact. Japan is seen as an incredibly safe place to invest, particularly the Yen. Just look at the exchange rate over the past few years. In 2007 it was up at 225 Yen to the Pound, now it is 125 Yen to the Pound. The relative worth of the Yen verses the Pound doubled in the space of four years.

They decided to run their economy with massive debts back in the 50s, and it has never really worried investors because they have always made good on them. Even when doing so hurt their economy and resulted in the 'lost decade', something the UK is probably about to experience since we are basically doing exactly what they did.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[AmiMoJo]

If a government has debts denominated in their own currency they can order their central bank (in practice they probably won't even need to make the order) to offer them unlimited loans at a fixed interest rate so the only way they will default is if they chose to do so.

And where does that money come from? They have two options. They can metaphorically print it, i.e. devalue the currency, or the central bank can loan the money from other countries in which case they are in the same position as they are now.

Before the Euro what usually happened in Europe is a one or two countries would get into real difficulty and experience very high levels of inflation and currency devaluation, and because other countries in the EU were dependent on them for trade they got dragged down too. Now they are forced to support each other and they will all be better off for it in the medium to long term.

If you disagree then explain the strength of the Euro on the currency markets. It is still doing well against the Pound and the Dollar. Germany in particular is doing very well, having just given everyone a 5 billion Euro tax break because they are on target to take 14 billion Euros more in tax revenue than expected this year, and they have the lowest level of unemployment for 20 years. Wisely they kept making stuff and didn't become too reliant on financial services to drive their economy, plus they have a very stable currency. The UK is on the sidelines, tied to the fortunes of the Euro but unable to influence it in any way, so arguably we gave up as much or more control over our destiny by staying out.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Cyberax]

Nope. UK has all the chances to go 'bankrupt' (in the sense of requirement for _really_ high inflation to avoid it).

Canada is NOT 'weathering the storm', it enacted a REAL stimulus program quite soon and fast and avoided most of the crisis. Sweden used even more aggressive stimulus (at one point in time it has offered NEGATIVE interest rate) and right now has low unemployment with good growth. Poland devalued its currency and enacted a stimulus, so again the worst has been avoided.

"Saying it doesn't cause a reduction in rates is laughable, it's the reason rates are low in the first place, if we took your option they wouldn't be, they'd be like Spain's, France's, or Italy's"

Again, that's demonstrably not true. Ireland had made real and savage austerity cuts and right now their rate is more than that of Italy. Latvia's bond rate is about 6% even though there's a brutal austerity program in progress. While Sweden enjoys 2% rate. US with its humongous trade and budget deficits has 2% rate as well.

So nope, austerity and bond rates are not linked directly.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Neil Boekend]

Do you really believe the scanner manufacturers don't charge for their equipment?

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Xest]

"Nope. UK has all the chances to go 'bankrupt' (in the sense of requirement for _really_ high inflation to avoid it)."

It does if it gets itself into a situation like Italy where the rate on bonds is unsustainable, that's kind of the point.

"Canada is NOT 'weathering the storm', it enacted a REAL stimulus program quite soon and fast and avoided most of the crisis."

This is comical, Canada wasn't hit very hard because it already had sane laws governing the financial practices of it's banks, didn't have to resort to the kind of bailouts most other western countries did which is what drastically increased their debts.

It doesn't matter if Sweden and Poland enacted a stimulus in their respective countries, if they haven't gotten rid of their debt it's going to come back to bite them at some point and this is what you still don't seem to get. Besides, Sweden was, like Canada much more sensible in it's fiscal and banking policy well before the recession and Poland is a growing economy like China (although to a much lesser extent) - when you're a poor country to start with the scope for growth is good regardless - Brazil and India are two other examples.

Ireland only made cuts once it was forced to after the EU was forced to bail it out, the fact it had to be bailed out is what caused it's high rates.

You just don't get it so I'll give up here, all I can say is thank god Brownites like you who got us into this mess by lumping everything on the credit card with no plan to pay it off are no longer in charge and thank god we're not like Greece, Italy and Spain as a result of this. Presumably you're aware that Britain was going to lose it's AAA rating and the very reason it didn't was the austerity cuts? No? Didn't think so. If we were on such a wrong path as you believe we wouldn't have such low rates, we wouldn't have positive responses from the people who actually lend the money, and we wouldn't still have an AAA rating. You can believe what you want but it goes completely and utterly against the facts of the situation and there's a word for that - it's called dumb ignorance.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Cyberax]

"It does if it gets itself into a situation like Italy where the rate on bonds is unsustainable, that's kind of the point."

Japan has like 2.5 times its GDP in debt, yet it bond rates are low. The problem with Italy is their lack of their own currency, and UK has avoided this problem by not joining the eurozone. Conversely, problems of Italy can be solved by loosening ECB rules to allow it to act as the lender of the last resort.

"This is comical, Canada wasn't hit very hard because it already had sane laws governing the financial practices of it's banks, didn't have to resort to the kind of bailouts most other western countries did which is what drastically increased their debts."

So did Spain and Italy. Both had good banking regulation, yet it hasn't helped them with their lending problem.

"Presumably you're aware that Britain was going to lose it's AAA rating and the very reason it didn't was the austerity cuts? No? Didn't think so."

Who cares about AAA ratings? The assholes in rating agencies can't find their own asses with two hands. Certainly markets don't care about AAA ratings at all, as witnessed by US bond market.

So we have the same situation repeating again, and again, and again, and again - austerity doesn't work. It causes economic growth to flag, does nothing for business confidence and so on. There are literally no examples of working (in the sense 'doing something good') austerity measures.

But wait! We'll soon have opportunity to see how austerity doesn't work for France and Italy!

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[mikechant]

I don't think we'll ever find out who is right.

As you say, we can't run the alternate what-if time-line through, but this is always the case.

But in practical terms the austerity program will be seen (by most people, in retrospect) to have failed and been the wrong strategy if the UK ends up with high unemployment and low growth and *still* misses the deficit targets by a significant margin (due to revenue collapse exceeding even severe spending cuts).

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[BenoitRen]

There are several explanations for the country not having a proper federal government yet, but the root cause of the political unrest of the past four years or so is a voting district called Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde (often abbreviated to BHV).

The current voting system in Belgium consists of the Flemish being able to vote for Flemish politicians, and Walloons being able to vote for Walloon politicians. An exception is made for Brussels, as it has the special status of being a bilingual district. Furthermore, because a significant amount of people in the neighbouring towns speak French, their voting district is merged with Brussels. This was a temporal concession made more than 40 years ago to give the French speakers time to adapt.

The problem is that no expiration date was set and the Flemish politicians think it has been going on for long enough. It has also been deemed unconstitutional by the constitutional court as the current system is unfair to Flemish citizens not living in the BHV voting district. So they want to split it, but the Walloon politicians have been refusing to cooperate. Their cooperation is needed because no community in Belgium can single-handedly decide something that affects another one.

Right now the political parties have reached an agreement to split BHV, but the remaining political parties that will form the actual federal government are still talking about the federal budget.

Ultimately, this is a political issue. The two cultures themselves get along fine most of the time.

I hope this clears things up. I tried to not be too detailed and may have simplified a couple things in the process.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Grumbleduke]

The UK for all it's faults at very least hasn't got anything as bad as France's HADOPI yet, hasn't had anywhere near as bad web blocking orders as in Ireland or the Netherlands, and doesn't at least have as close to the amount of censorship as Germany. Oh, and Sweden is basically a wholly owned subsidiary of the RIAA now.

I'm so glad that the Digital Economy Act and s97A CDPA 1988 were figments of my imagination. I'm glad that the London police aren't extra-judicially working with the IFPI to block payments to sites they don't like, and aren't pushing Nominet into letting them seize domain names based on a mere accusation. On top of that, I'm glad the UK doesn't criminalise people for making harmless jokes on Twitter or for insulting people. While headscarves aren't illegal, the Police can remove and seize anything they think might be being used as a disguise. On the topic of censorship, the UK recently made it potentially illegal to draw stick-figure porn of overage people.

I suppose you can complain about our big brother state but really the reason we have a reputation in that respect is precisely because our population actually stands up and shouts about how unhappy we are with it, which is surely better than most other European states where it's at least as bad but just blindly accepted without much dissent.

The UK has the occasional protest, where people wander through the streets, accompanied by the police, a few of whom get arrested (for the wonderfully-vague "breach of the peace") and everyone goes home happy that nothing will change. Unlike peaceful places like Greece or France.

It's thanks to the fact we do have organisations like Liberty that these things are exposed for what they are attempts at but most the worst stuff our last government proposed that generated all said stories is dead now, the ID card database is gone, many CCTV programmes have been cut/scaled back, libel laws are being reformed.

ID cards went because they were expensive and ineffective (and no one wanted them)... although the database seems to still be around, although mainly used for foreigners. The DNA database is still up and running, despite being declared illegal, most of the "anti-terrorism" legislation New Labour introduced is still on the books aside from the bits the courts struck down (although they're mostly still on the books, just not being applied), including the various 'unreasonable stop-and-search' powers, and while libel-reform is in the works, and has some vague government backing, only last week the responsible minister pointed out to a meeting of the libelreform campaign that there's no guarantee it will happen any time soon. CCTV was never that big an issue (it was vastly exaggerated in the media), so I'll give you that one. Oh, and the UK also imprisons people for not disclosing passwords.

The UK's blasphemy law

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US

[Xest]

Yes, my point wasn't that the UK has no problems, it has plenty, you've done a pretty good job of listing some of the worst ones. My point was simply that the UK's problems are no worse and no more numerous than other nations, as I say, the likes of Sweden has allowed far more RIAA/MPAA interference of it's police, judiciary, and government than we have, and France's use of weaponry against protestors and rioters is far more brutal, as is it's allowance of content industries to dictate it's national laws and the level to which they are embedded within government (Sarkozy's wife is a music artist which I suspect is a large part of that).

Sometimes they get it right

[captainpanic]

In between ceizing all the power from the individual member states, and destroying all our economies by pumping the money into the bottomless pits of high interest, sometimes they do something right. Thanks EU :-)

Shall we also allow everyone to bring a bottle of water onto the airplane? There's a lot of money to be saved by reducing the silly safety measures.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[Ihmhi]

Nearly every time I read about the EU doing something that doesn't outright fuck over its citizens, I think to myself, "Man, they must have heard about how we're all about freedom and citizens rights and just ran with it." Is it a bad thing when a foreign entity better represents your home country's ideals than your actual home country does? I think that may be the case here.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[serviscope_minor]

Is it a bad thing when a foreign entity better represents your home country's ideals than your actual home country does?

And that's why despite everything, I prefer being in the EU.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[captainpanic]

Nearly every time I read about the EU doing something that doesn't outright fuck over its citizens, I think to myself, "Man, they must have heard about how we're all about freedom and citizens rights and just ran with it." Is it a bad thing when a foreign entity better represents your home country's ideals than your actual home country does? I think that may be the case here.

Are you American? And are you claiming that freedom and citizens rights are an American invention? Because I am European, and we had such Freedom when you were just a couple of tiny villages we like to call colonies, and when the majority of the native Americans were still alive and thriving.

I'll give an example: the Dutch fight for freedom in the 16th/17th century. Already in the 15th century, the Dutch were free. Amsterdam was rules by citizens, not by a nobleman or clergyman. Citizens. And America hadn't even been discovered. And this idea spread throughout the entire country, which rebelled against the religious oppressive Spanish and became free.

Or how about the French revolution? English parliament? You do know that democracy was already in use in the ancient Greek times, do you?

If you're not American, then all the above is still true, but I should have used a different tone.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[buchner.johannes]

In between ceizing all the power from the individual member states, and destroying all our economies by pumping the money into the bottomless pits of high interest, sometimes they do something right. Thanks EU :-)

Shall we also allow everyone to bring a bottle of water onto the airplane? There's a lot of money to be saved by reducing the silly safety measures.

Your statement doesn't make sense. The EU is nothing but the member states, and its bodies are just representatives from countries. So it is the member states doing the things you say: "The member states ceizing all the power from the individual member states, and the member states destroying all our economies by pumping the money into the bottomless pits of high interest".

If not all the participating countries would agree and sign a agreement for each action taken, nothing would happen!

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[Luckyo]

Technically your "home country ideals" are actually french. US constitution borrows from ideals of French Revolution extremely heavily.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[Anonymous Coward]

Being from Denmark, a country where we actually get to vote on new EU treaties, I used to vote no. But I'm starting to think that voting yes might be a better idea, not because I think the EU is a good idea, but because time and time again, we see the EU limiting the evil that our own politicians come up with.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[laejoh]

Eh? It's the other way round I'm afraid. The french were heavily influenced by what happened in America. Check the dates!

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[klingens]

I read this a lot of times, but repetition doesn't make bullshit right.
According to Wikipedia: "The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787" and we all know the French Revolution started with the assault on the Bastille on July 14th, 1789. So how can a piece of written paper borrow ideals from a revolution that started almost 2 years later?

Both the French Revolution and the US Constitution are products of the Enlightenment Era or Age of Reason as it's also called.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[Anonymous Coward]

Well shit, son. I'm European and I share any disdain you may have for this American sense of superiority. However, the truth is that the US is the only country on earth (except very small island nations and places like that) where (in theory) the government can't expropriate your property for public interest, where you can have guns and where no speech is restricted. Sure, they are slowly becoming a democracy and these rights have been eroded during the 20th century, but the point is that at a particular time in history, American citizens had a set of right that no other nation in history had had before (at least for such a long time), so yeah, I recognize the existence of such thing as "American ideals", no need to take that away from them.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[lordholm]

The Union cannot legally seize any power from the member states. The Union is formed on voluntary conferral of powers by the member states.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically your "home country ideals" are actually french. US constitution borrows from ideals of French Revolution extremely heavily.

Hé, les américains! disparaissez de ma pelouse!

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[Luckyo]

You do realise that IDEALS of French revolution were stated before the revolution actually happened?

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[nickco3]

It may shock you to learn this, but your home country's stated ideals are all European in origin.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[Neil Boekend]

People are made (partly) of water, while splitting it would end their life. It has been demonstrated that terrorists are willing to end their lives for their cause, so if you limit their availability of water they might simply go on and split their own water.
I say: ban humans on planes!

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[nickco3]

Eh? It's the other way round I'm afraid. The french were heavily influenced by what happened in America. Check the dates!

The US Bill of Rights was not adopted until August 21, 1789. These are all amendments, remember, for some reason they didn't make it into the original document.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[nickco3]

I read this a lot of times, but repetition doesn't make bullshit right.
According to Wikipedia: "The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787" and we all know the French Revolution started with the assault on the Bastille on July 14th, 1789. So how can a piece of written paper borrow ideals from a revolution that started almost 2 years later?

Both the French Revolution and the US Constitution are products of the Enlightenment Era or Age of Reason as it's also called.

The US Bill of Rights was not adopted until August 21, 1789. They were passed by amendment, remember, they didn't make it into the original document.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[thej1nx]

>We shouldn't allow water in planes, I tell you.

Humans are 60-70% water aren't they? We really need a way to dehydrate folks before they board the planes. I propose feeding people to a giant sugarcane crusher, as soon as they clear security!

(Laugh if you must, this will probably soon be implemented by folks who brought us the arrest-pilot-for-mentioning-that-searching-pilots-for-weapons-is-stupid-since-they-can-crash-planes-anyways and kick-kid-off-plane-for-reading-book-with-bomb-image-on-cover!!! you never know!)

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh, you haven't heard of the American Eminent Domain laws have you? That is used to grab property and gun control laws are rife in most states. 'Live Free or Die' only applies to Wisconsin. The 'underground railway' has indeed been running for centuries From the USA To Canada, not the other way around.

The Statue of Libertas in New York, was a present from a Frenchman (G. Eiffel) and was probably meant as a joke...

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[rolfwind]

where (in theory) the government can't expropriate your property for public interest

Eminent domain.
Kelo v. City of New London decision.
Asset forfeiture (especially coupled with drug excuse).

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[peppepz]

where no speech is restricted

Indeed, in America free speech is much more protected than in Europe. But you have to be careful even there. Revealing certain secrets can cost you death penalty.

the government can't expropriate your property for public interest

You mean that if a city needs to build an highway, and there's a single house standing in its way, and its owner doesn't want to sell it, then the highway will have to make a 180-degrees arc around that house? I'm surprised - if things worked this way in my country, then we couldn't build any public infrastructure.

where you can have guns

Really, you can have guns in most countries. In fact, I don't know a single country where you can't. (And I still have to be convinced that it's a good idea...)

Sure, they are slowly becoming a democracy and these rights have been eroded during the 20th century

I think they actually improved during the 20th century. Think about the concentration camps for japanese Americans in the 40s, or mccarthyims in the 50s, or the various racial-based laws they had until the 60s. I don't think any of these would be possible today.

They still have a problem understanding that rights are universal and not bound to the physical boundaries of their country. For example, in 2003 ten CIA agents kidnapped a person in Italy and flew him into Egypt where he was tortured. I don't think such behaviour would be accepted inside the USA. And by the way, many details of this story are known because of the leaked Wikileaks cables, for which an American citizen is currently risking his life.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[captainpanic]

Brussels gets more control, and more power, and the member states all have to walk in line. It is less and less possible to have large differences in laws and regulations between the member states. That's what I meant to say. Sorry if you didn't understand me straight away.

Participating countries are often put under enormous pressure to sign some new laws that they are against (but that the majority is in favor of). In addition, the EU has grabbed a bucketload of power with the Lisbon treaty.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[dave420]

Every single thing you wrote about how great the US is is wrong. Categorically, demonstrably wrong. You are talking about "enlightenment ideals", not American ideals, and they started firmly in Europe.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[f()rK()_Bomb]

Why is this a problem though, national borders are a stupid concept anyways, if we ever want to achieve a united world government you need to push people to do things they don't realise are good for them.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[MichaelSmith]

I propose feeding people to a giant sugarcane crusher, as soon as they clear security!

This way might work

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[Anonymous Coward]

We are all Africans!

Now please calm down, and stop crediting continents with the inventions of ideals (yes, I'm an African anonymous coward!).

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason is that the founders basically said that "All rights not in this document go to its citizens and can be further adjusted by its state governments" but some states were worried that there wasn't a "Bill of Rights." The founders initially resisted because they felt like it would limit rights because it would make it seem like you get these rights but not others.

Which is basically what has happened. If it's not in the Bill of Rights, you really have to fight for it to be considered a "right." Not only that, but the federal government size/scope exploded upon the "interstate commerce" line being interpreted that the federal government basically gets to do everything it wants. We have totally warped what the original design of the USA was and now we have a dominating federal government with very little flexibility and power still passed to the states.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[DarkTempes]

The Acadians might beg to differ with regards to Canada.

And every year more people move from Canada to the USA than from the USA to Canada (and if we talk per capita the difference becomes much larger).

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[mcvos]

The EU has some really good ideals, but at times really crappy implementation. In the US the original really good ideas seem pretty much dead.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[wienerschnizzel]

Great. It's also the only western country where the government agencies and their subsidiaries can torture you and you cannot sue them for that.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[mcvos]

They are related, and both based upon the same enlightenment ideals. I dare say that the US was initially a lot more successful at implementing them, however. The rule of terror and the various emperors weren't exactly what the enlightenment thinkers had in mind.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[DrXym]

The US enshrines freedom of speech but it doesn't enshrine an individual's right to privacy. The EU does via the Directive on Data Protection so it offers a lot more protections to individuals. It prevents some of the abuses that we see mentioned in the US. e.g. companies reading their employees private email without permission, personal information being used outside of its stated purpose, or being sold and merged without a user's permission, etc. The US does have some protections in place around some particular areas, e.g. personal health information, HIPAA and protections to curb nuisance caused by personal data such as junk faxes, telemarketers. But its nothing compared to Europe.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[Goth Biker Babe]

I have one thing to say about who's representing who's ideals?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

Remember that the Pilgrim Fathers left England because they wanted less religious freedom. They wanted everyone to follow their brand.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[realityimpaired]

While it's true that the Brits did expel most of the Acadians when they took over the maritimes, most of the Acadians came back and resettled under British rule. There's a reason that New Brunswick is the only province in the country that officially recognizes both French and English as official languages. Frankly, the Brits should have done the same thing to Quebec... we wouldn't have anywhere near the number of stupid problems caused by morons trying to rewrite history had that actually happened.... Quebec actually believes that they were treated worse than the Acadians when the Brits won the war....

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[alfredos]

you can have guns

You say that as if it was a great thing. What is so cool about everyone in a country with a nine-digit population (which statistically makes the percentage of insane people millions) being able to have deadly weapons with them at all times?

Personally, in that regard I feel much more secure in my country (which is in the EU, by the way) because people can carry guns if: (a) they work for the police, (b) they work for the army (and then not at all times) or (c) has been life-threatened, and a judge decides the threat is serious. All of them have to pass an exam to assess their suitability to carry guns, kind of ensures his/her sanity. Add to that another special permit for sports, which does also require an examination, and allows only for certain classes of weapons and ammunitions. Net result? No guns in the streets. Almost no deaths by gunfire. When there is a shot in the street, it hits the news because it's so rare.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[realityimpaired]

The problem is, most Americans have never heard of Locke these days, even though the so-called "American Ideals" are basically a restatement of the ideas he put on paper in the 16th century, and were acknowledged to be so by the founding fathers of his country.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[realityimpaired]

And FYI, the French revolution came long after the American one. You'd have done better to talk about the French enlightenment, and better still to learn history before lecturing on it.

You do realize that the American revolution was actually a French revolution, right? Bought and paid for by the French, won by virtue of the fact that the British were too busy beating up the French, and led by military leaders who were trained by a French general (an openly gay one, at that). The Germans had a hand in providing some of the funding and training as well (which is why the language of commerce in the US was very nearly German, not English), but basically, if it weren't for the French providing a distraction for the English back in Europe, the American revolution never would have succeeded. Don't believe me? Look up the campaign from 1812-1814, when Madison decided to annex Canada. The story about why the White House is painted white came from that war....

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[nickco3]

Who gives a flying fuck where it comes from? Do you think "what would we ever do without the Arabs" whenever you write down some numbers?

Of course not. However, if someone here posted that the Arabs were doing a better job of implementing our number system than we were, I would call them out on their error.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[tsa]

Despite everything, I think the EU is still the best place to live in the world.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[TheRaven64]

So, please tell me, do you picture this happening in the US? The way the US is going it wouldn't surprise me that shit like this has happened in the 20th century, but I doubt very much stuff like this happened *under the full protection of the law* before FDR times.

Did you read the case the grandparent cited? Kelo v. City of New London upheld (at the supreme court level) the right of the state to use eminent domain laws to transfer ownership of land between private parties. This ruling means that any use that can possibly be justified - however vaguely - as serving the public interest is legal according to the fifth amendment.

If your argument is that the USA has a bit of paper that protects your rights, but doesn't enforce it, and is therefore good, then I think you won't find many supporters...

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[zippthorne]

Everyone thought they were so fundamental and obvious that they didn't need to be stated, and they didn't want to create the impression that those were the ONLY rights reserved for the people....

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[Gmooron]

Best French comment on /. ever ! (granted, there are not so many of them)

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[nickco3]

Nobody gets credit for ideas they neglected to write down for being too obvious.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[DarkTempes]

I have serious doubts that 'most' went back to Canada.
I definitely remember from history class that a large percentage died in the expulsion (disease/boats going down) and that many did not return.

Granted I'm part cajun/acadian and the history books our schools picked on the subject may have been biased...
I'm not also not sure that great of records were kept so maybe no one really knows.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[LordLimecat]

Hogwash, next youll be telling me that our founders were European in origin, or that France has a president.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[moronoxyd]

There ain't no arrogance like European arrogance.

'God's own country'
'nuf said.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[nickco3]

The EU has done more to spread freedom and democracy than any other organisation on Earth. It projects soft power with a single carrot, the offer of membership.

The first success was rehabilitating Germany after the War. Spain, Portugal and Greece all used to be military dictatorships. Now happy, prosperous, modern democratic states. Admittedly there's been some unrest recently in Greece, but there is zero possibility of another military coup, it will stay free and democratic no matter what. That's because of the larger structure it belongs to.

Then it rehabilitated central and eastern Europe. All the countries that were offered membership are free and democratic. Every one of them. Doesn't that strike you as odd? All the non-EU candidates (Ukraine, Russia) are not. Coincidence?

Turkey is far nicer place than it used be. The army stays out of politcs. The Kurds and other minorities are being treated reasonably. All thanks to EU negotiators banging on about human rights during 30 years of talks.

What other organisation can boast such an effective record at democratisation?

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[Cyberax]

"So, please tell me, do you picture this happening in the US?"

Quite easily. Google for 'zoning laws'.

It probably won't lead to demolition of your house, you'll just be sued and forced to rebuild it.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[nickco3]

I wouldn't dream of it, old bean. That really would be a step too far.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[AndyMcL]

"Live Free of Die" is the great state of New Hampshire. Wisconsin is the "Eat Cheese or Die" state. ;-) http://www.eatwisconsincheese.com/wisconsin/default.aspx

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[hedwards]

And yet that's how it worked out in the US. The EU might not be the US, but they certainly are doing their level best to be us. Right now they're still fighting for the rights of the population, but how long does it last before people forget why those protections were in place and get sufficiently scared to vote for politicians promising safety?

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[sbrown123]

>Nearly every time I read about the EU doing something that doesn't outright fuck over its citizens, I think to myself, "Man, they must have heard about how we're all about freedom and citizens rights and just ran with it."

I always think "this must be the first step towards something bad". And it is funny that people have to mention when there is an EU rule that a member state can opt out of like it is the exception rather than the norm.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[Ihmhi]

Are you American? And are you claiming that freedom and citizens rights are an American invention?

Yes I'm American, and no I'm not claiming that we invented it. Sure, a lot of us over here are stupid, but I don't think there's very many of us (much less any that would be on Slashdot) who would be so incredibly lacking in mental faculties that they would claim that Americans actually invented the concept of freedom. d:

I'm mainly saying that we keep saying "Land of the free, land of the free" like a mantra, and yer we're really letting the government fuck that up. It'd be like our country being called "Land of the High Quality Espresso", except we don't have espresso. We have freeze-dried, decaffeinated coffee - and a hobo shit in the pot.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll give an example: the Dutch fight for freedom in the 16th/17th century. Already in the 15th century, the Dutch were free. Amsterdam was rules by citizens, not by a nobleman or clergyman. Citizens.

My favorite little American factoid is related to that. Many people believe that the Pilgrims sailed to the Americas to escape religious persecution. This is not true! They in fact fled from the Netherlands due to the stifling religious freedoms forcing them to deal with non-believers!

They had their religious freedom. They were allowed to practice their silly beliefs in peace. However, due to the freedoms the Dutch had, the Puritans found that their children were leaving the church and "becoming Dutch."

Solution? Pack up and move to what would become the good ol' USA so that they wouldn't have to deal with those pesky freedoms that were stealing members away from their church!

Incidentally, the Puritans in the US? They're still around. They're just not called "Puritans" any more. The church split into two groups during the 19th century, so they're now either "Congregationalists" or "Unitarians" depending on which side their ancestors took. (Europeans familiar with Unitarians will not be surprised to learn that US Unitarians have nothing to do with European Unitarians, other than the obvious (rejection of Trinitarianism).)

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[modecx]

I'm an American, and even considering the millions of potentially mentally unstable people, criminals and so forth, I feel plenty safe amongst my armed peers. In fact if some dude straps a piece on and openly carries it down the sidewalk, I'm inclined to trust that person more than (a) the police or (b) the military.

Anyway, if you've had your life threatened, isn't it kind of too late to jump through what is bound to be a several month bureaucratic nightmare, in hope of some method of self-defense? Anyway, good luck if you're an average peon with a legitimate and urgent need, those rules exist only for the aristocracy.

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[jbengt]

But Locke was a Liberal!
He was probably a secular humanist!
There is no place for a godless communist like that in our American Ideals!

< /sarcasm >

Re:Sometimes they get it right

[xelah]

No, instead they get to pay patent royalties.

I wish more people....

[surfdaddy]

....would opt out. I'm not an easily paranoid type, but I resent getting x-rayed for non-medical reasons. It's apparent that the correct research has not been done on the safety, and even if the chances of risk are slim, why take the chance? It's reactive security anyway. Opting out is my own little method of civil disobedience. If everybody went for the pat-down the whole system would collapse and they would have to abandon those damn xray scanners.

Re:I wish more people....

[gulikoza]

I opted out at the JFK flying to Paris last month. The TSA agents were very professional, the pat-down wasn't as bad as advertised here sometimes (TBH, I've gotten more invasive pat-downs at some concerts or other public events...not related to airports at all!). They even took and carried all my carry-ons from the x-ray machine to the table so I had plenty of time to put everything together (laptop...) after the pat-down. I hate it when you have to rush, putting on the shoes and belt, storing laptop.... while people are waiting behind you at the carry-on x-ray.

Re:I wish more people....

[clickety6]

I wish more people would opt out

I did. I just opted out of flying to the US altogether.

Re:I wish more people....

[Anonymous Coward]

Already did that 9 years ago, no way I'm ever going to fly to the US again under any circumstance, even if it means cancelling a business meeting. These so called security measures are completely ridiculous. How can any sort of government disallow bringing a plastic bottle of water on an airplane, but still allow it when it's in a sealed plastic bag, all with a straight face?

Re:I wish more people....

[Anonymous Coward]

Modded funny - but I bet there are a lot more people, like myself, who are avoiding visiting the US for all the security idiocy. Whenever I need to fly (I live in Canada), I always opt for itineraries that do not go via some American airport. I'm not even sure if a transfer flight in the US means having to go through security, but frankly I don't care, nor will I take the chance if I can avoid it.

Re:I wish more people....

[tsa]

I'd love to come to the US one day, but I think that as long as the TSA exists I will have to go there by boat.

Re:I wish more people....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not even sure if a transfer flight in the US means having to go through security...

Yes it does. I also no longer fly to or through the US despite until 2009 visiting every year or two for business and pleasure.

I don't like being interrogated every time I enter the country despite all my paperwork being in order.

If i have no choice but to go again i will be using the Canadian border in the hopes that will be better.

Re:I wish more people....

[clickety6]

I guess that's why the USA just launched a new tourism board - specifically not to attract people to visit the US?

Re:I wish more people....

[Anonymous Coward]

I was going to opt out. Then I realized I had my wife, two kids, two pieces of carry-on luggage, three backpacks, and two bins of wallets, shoes, etc. to deal with. And while my flight didn't leave for another hour, boarding starts in 15 minutes, my wife was stressed, I was hungry, my kid had to pee, and I didn't know how far away the gate was. So I opted for the "fast & easy" solution.

It's harder to make rational decisions than you think when traveling.

Re:I wish more people....

[Moskit]

They made opting out opressive.

When you opt out, first you are told that you will have to wait. How long? Agent does not know. 15minutes? 1 hour? Agent cannot answer you that question.

You then stand aside from the queue, behind a barrier, watching as 10, 20, 50 people give up their dignity (hande hoch! raus!) in the machine. They all look at you as if you were the one giving up dignity, or were "put in a corner" like a bad child who did something wrong.

Just before you were put aside, agent tells you that once you opt-out, you cannot go through the machine if you change your mind. You have to wait, for unspecified amount of time.

While you wait, agent will ask you why you don't want to cooperate for security of all people. Whatever you say (privacy, radiation, health), he will tell you that you should do more research on the subject, because what you say is not true (privacy is assured, radiation is non-existent, there is no health concerns, you are just troublemaker).

Some time later, say 10 minutes, another agent decides to come around and takes you for the manual search. Just before that he fills out a survey why you you opted out. You may notice how few people decided to do it based on how many are in survey before you.

You can now opt for a privacy room, or let them do the pat in screening area behind the machine. Whole proces takes another 15 minutes or longer, as the agent gathers your belongings from the scanner, changes his/her gloves etc.

Search itself is not much different than what you undergo at European airports if you are selected for secondary screening. They just pat you, paying extra attention to waistband and other thicker areas of clothes (hems, collar, sewing lines etc).

I would say that at every step during opt-out you are being persuaded to just give up and go through the machine, and threatened by vague mentions implying you might miss your plane. It probably depends on the agent, but voice used during the procedure reminds of what a police officer who-knows-better would use on an interrogated person.

Easy to see why sheeple just go hands-up into the naked machine.

Travel to/from USofA those days reminds me strongly of travel to Soviet Russia in the past. All in the name of security, of course.

Re:I wish more people....

[6Yankee]

As long as this nonsense exists, they'll be facing an uphill struggle. If you're a US citizen, go there, click the Apply button at the bottom left, pretend you're from the UK, and see how long it takes you to get to the point where they want money from you ($14 IIRC). After that, you have to wait to see whether you'll evn be allowed to come to the US and be fingerprinted like a common criminal. Now do it again for the wife and kids, because I didn't see any way to fill that out for a group (but I may have missed it). Oh, and this is for countries within the Visa Waiver Program.

Faced with that, I bet a nice holiday in Europe starts to look a whole lot more attractive...

Re:I wish more people....

[chrismcb]

The TSA agents were very professional

Of course they were professional. But that doesn't mean what they are doing is unconstitutional, expensive, time consuming, and completely useless.

The first time I was patted down since the machines went in place the guy pretty much stuck his hands down my pants. no they "run the back of the hand" across the top of my pants. But it is still wrong. The last time the only thing the agent did that was unprofessional was talking to me, from across the room, when my back was turned. But the whole procedure was still wrong.

Re:I wish more people....

[chrismcb]

You do realize that this isn't just a US thing.

I was flying from US to Germany, through Paris. I got a bottle of water on the plane to Paris. When I got to Paris I had to go through security again... And they took my water away.

Re:I wish more people....

[rsborg]

This is not my experience, repeatedly. Of course, the specific implementation (ie, airport) may matter. San Francisco and Charlotte (international flights) seemed to be very reasonable to accept not doing the backscatter x-ray (might be because I traveled with family, SFO even had a separate line, we just went through the metal detectors, they even said families don't go through the x-ray).

Re:I wish more people....

[gulikoza]

Of course I'd rather not be touched, but choosing between this and being irradiated in a machine without any real testing I chose the pat-down. Now, I don't like it but I've been poked and groped trying to see Bon Jovi, a basketball game and many other occasions as well as in Paris on my way to the JFK. The pat-down at the JFK wasn't really much different from all the others.

Now what can we do about it? Not much really...while you might get angry at some government agency for touching you at the airport, all that private security at various event will tell you either go with it or go home. And not enough people go home to make a difference. Not many people even question the safety of the backscatter machines, I was the only one I could see opting-out and asking for a pat-down. At the moment I don't really see any other option for my "protests" :-). Sure I might stay home, but then nobody will know about it :-).

Re:I wish more people....

[Moskit]

I had such experiences exactly at SFO...

SFO now has millimeter wave scanners, not backscatter x-ray (at least for international flights). In the past with x-rays it was much easier to opt-out, just as you wrote. Recently the procedure seems to be different however - hopefully others can add to that.

Did you fly in-country, or international ? Maybe treatement is not the same.

Of course it is possible that the main difference is in people (TSA?) manning the check at the moment.

Ah the supreme irony....

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it ironic that the country that epouses individuality above all and has and endemic "fear" of government is the one being fucked over security, while the europeans show a little bit of rational thought on this whole issue ?
And for the note, we had had over the last 4 decades terrorism in europe, and we have coped to live with it. What did you say ? Our societies didn't collpase and we sure as hell didn't transform in some kind of paranoid security state.
That 1997 Escape from New York was prophetic to a level you yankees can't even seem to fathom anymore.
Enjoy your prison guys.

Re:Ah the supreme irony....

[ledow]

It's partly because, of course, the Europeans are a number of otherwise independent states so it's like a democracy on an international scale - chances are that SOMEONE will kick up a fuss about something that they disagree with and concessions will have to be made (e.g. the UK still isn't in the Euro for various reasons, Germany doesn't want to be involved in more Greek bailouts etc.).

When you have internal opposition on the scale of national governments, it's a bit more even and controlled than when you have only internal opposition that consists of singular people (who, history has shown, can be corrupt, swayed or just chosen so that they are all of a certain age / mindset).

That said, I've never seen a country less free than America. The only sad fact is that they don't notice it. At least the Chinese KNOW where they are (whether they care or not is another matter) but the US just don't seem to understand what they are doing to themselves and what they are letting slip under their noses. So long as they have their guns and their god, they seem perfectly happy to let a multitude of sins pass through with their approval. Hell, they were close to getting national healthcare and they managed to balls that up too.

And the Americans I've spoken to in person just don't get this... they don't understand that, actually, the stereotype of an American that doesn't know or cares what happens beyond its borders is a little more than just a stereotype. They don't care that, even today, their government imprisons and (still probably) tortures people who haven't gone on trial by doing it on foreign soil. That's "freedom" to them, because it's applied to a different type of person - non-Americans. Try to move on a guy from sitting on Wall Street, though, and it makes the news for days on end. When they show the Olympics you only see Americans winning and *NOTHING* else.

America has many problems, like just about every other country in the world, but it's like those countries that call themselves The Democratic Republic Of, or the People's Republic Of, etc. They are anything but. Land of the Free? Yeah, Land of the Free so long as you stay within our borders, have enough money for healthcare, and never ask for anything we don't want to give you.

Re:Ah the supreme irony....

[nickco3]

It's partly because, of course, the Europeans are a number of otherwise independent states so it's like a democracy on an international scale - chances are that SOMEONE will kick up a fuss about something that they disagree with and concessions will have to be made

Actually, the European Parliament has a much better record of standing up for citizens rights than the Member Governments, who are usually the villians in such arguments.

Re:Ah the supreme irony....

[tsa]

The USA is more and more a Land of the Free Corporations since 2000 or so :(.

Re:Ah the supreme irony....

[ledow]

I have a mental checklist of things I notice about people when I meet them.

Almost without fail, those who openly and spontaneously profess a love for their country are those who don't actually realise (or won't admit) it's failings and are part of the cause of those failings. "America is the best country in the world" is a typical example that I often hear.

But those who openly and spontaneously put their own country down actually care about it enough to do so and "love" their country more.

Personally, I detest some of the things that my country has done (not least, following America into a fake "war") - I think they are abhorrent and reckless and thoughtless - but I detest them because I'm *disappointed* that it was my country that did them.

Literally, my country should be better than that. We aren't, because we did them, but we should be. And it's because I care about what my country does to its own people, people in other countries, its reputation, etc. that I am more likely to tell people the things we did wrong rather than the things we do right (How many Brits know about the Singapore pull-out in WW2? How many Americans realise how the UK treated the Ghurka despite what they've done for us?)

The UK isn't "free" (because I don't think there can be such a thing) but we are certainly "freer" than a lot of other places and yet I still point out all the stupid restrictions we have at every opportunity because I want my country to be *better*. It seems to me that a lot of the Americans I meet think their country is already "the best" and "free" and so they don't strive to better their country and its image in other countries. Everybody should just love them because they are the best (and if you watch the movie Love Actually, you'll see a very contrived but incredibly accurate depiction of how the US treats the UK politically and what our response SHOULD be).

It's like the difference between "We did what we thought was best" and "We should never have done that". Both statements may even refer to the same incident, but one attitude is superior, the other a lesson to learn from, and either tells you a hell of a lot about the people who say them.

Re:Ah the supreme irony....

[hedwards]

That's to be expected. That's how it's worked out in the US for the last couple hundred years. There are abuses by both the states and the federal government, but when you take a look at it by and large the states have been where the most egregious violations of human rights have occurred. And typically the people crying out for states' rights are usually complaining about being told that they can't abuse their fellow citizens or allow corporations to run amok.

The Federal government does have issues in those arenas but not anywhere near as bad and they'd mostly go away if the small states were made to give up their undo influence on the legislature.

Re:Ah the supreme irony....

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone

You are almost correct. US Constitution only applies to certain parts of the US.

Re:Ah the supreme irony....

[chrismcb]

while the europeans show a little bit of rational thought on this whole issue ?

What rational thought are the europeans showing on the issue?

Re:Passenger can opt out...

[Shimbo]

Hopefully this means they will not be allowed onto the plane.

No.

'In addition, passengers are given the right to opt out from a control with scanners and be subject to an alternative method of screening.'

Re:Passenger can opt out...

[thej1nx]

Dear clueless, opting out does not mean you do not get searched/screened. You can only opt-out of this specific mode of screening and be screened by an alternate method instead. But I guess you are either an exhibitionist or a voyeur, depending on which side of the scanner you happen to be. Personally I would prefer a non-xray and zero-health-risk form of scanning that obscures my actual body by representing it as silhouette or line drawing instead. We need machines that are sophisticated enough to accommodate the fact that the security personnel do not need to look at every mole and scar on my body, and need only to look at the external objects I am carrying on my person(and/or hidden objects concealed inside the body).

But seriously, way too many more folks die in just road accidents. Why are we wasting all this effort and money on this instead of putting all that funding into automated driver-less cars, instead of going overboard with something that has statistically caused far few deaths... I mean assuming the goal is actually to save human lives and not just massage the ego of certain countries.

All for them

[neokushan]

To be honest, as long as these scanners aren't misused (which these regulations are supposed to prevent), I'm all for them. If there's one thing I hate about flying, it's going through security. Queuing up, taking your shoes off, emptying your pockets, rushing through only to be searched anyway, it's fucking awful and if these scanners mean I'm more able to just walk straight through, I'm all for it.

Re:All for them

[Anonymous Coward]

To be honest, as long as these scanners aren't misused (which these regulations are supposed to prevent), I'm all for them. If there's one thing I hate about flying, it's going through security. Queuing up, taking your shoes off, emptying your pockets, rushing through only to be searched anyway, it's fucking awful and if these scanners mean I'm more able to just walk straight through, I'm all for it.

They won't mean that you can just walk straight through, at least not in an EU airport.

You will still be forced to remove your jacket, belt, shoes and watch. you will still be forced to unpack your laptop and your toiletries (and you had better make sure your toiletries are in the regulation sized bottes and a clear bag!). You will still be forced to walk through the metal detector than is programmed to go off randomly. You will still be subjected to random swabbings of said laptop and toiletries.

The only diffrence is that after doing that you would THEN be asked to go through the perv scanner.

Re:All for them

[isorox]

To be honest, as long as these scanners aren't misused (which these regulations are supposed to prevent), I'm all for them. If there's one thing I hate about flying, it's going through security. Queuing up, taking your shoes off, emptying your pockets, rushing through only to be searched anyway, it's fucking awful and if these scanners mean I'm more able to just walk straight through, I'm all for it.

Until the hysteria of the last 10 years, you didn't take your shoes off anyway.

You still need to take your shoes off for the radiation booths (at least they did at BWI last month, I opted out), you still need to empty your pockets.

My last flight to America (from LHR), I actually took a leatherman wave through in my hand luggage. Had a 3 1/2" locking blade. While they strip old grannies, they let forgetful muppets like me through with something that could actually kill a couple of people in the right (wrong) hands. It still couldn't hijack a plane with it though.

+5 LOL

[TuringTest]

Hé, les américains! disparaissez de ma pelouse!

Where are mod points when you really need them?

separate scanners for ladies and gentelmen

[Bigos]

If a scanner can show your body will there be a chance that a woman can opt out and go through a scanner only for ladies?

Re:Passenger can opt out...

[GauteL]

I do agree that we've taken it too far with airport security. Most of the regulations are utterly pointless and often ignored. As an example, think of the clear plastic bags to store your toiletries in. It isn't enough to just leave your toothpaste visible on top of your suitcase, it has to be visible INSIDE a clear plastic bag.

Having got used to this nonsense in the UK, I once went through security at a central European airport when heading back to Heathrow. Having lost my plastic bag on my trip, I asked the security guard if they had any plastic bags I could use. He pointed to his colleague and told me to ask him. This colleague was placed AFTER the security scanners. This airport had the exact same Airport regulation rules as in the UK, and all the security posters told me to use the bags, but they were obviously less anal about it. I just smiled, thanked the guy and didn't bother.

OK, X-Rays are banned

[drinkypoo]

But what about terahertz radio imagers, which also might be hazardous?

Re:OK, X-Rays are banned

[amstrad]

Do you have any evidence that it is harmful? Because I have not seen anything convincing. Let's look at some facts:

1. - Frequencies used in security applications have a water penetration depth of on average 0.3mm. So any potential damage is limit to surface layers of skin.
2. - A purely mathematical model suggests that photon energies involved have a potential to break bonds in the loaclized sites of the DNA helix which may interfer with RNA transcription. No practical experiments have been done to confirm this.
3. - Probabilty of these photon interactions is extremely small due to the tiny photoelectric cross section of the bond sites.
4. - You're body is exposed to orders of magnitude more radiation which is actually ionizing from cosmic and terestrial sources daily.

Re:OK, X-Rays are banned

[fish waffle]

A better question is to ask what evidence is there that it is surely safe? Let's consider those facts with the opposing bias:

1. - Frequencies used in security applications have a water penetration depth of on average 0.3mm. While this should result in damage mainly to surface layers of skin, the damage caused by further penetration when individual and localized exposure exceeds the average, or from repeated and long-term exposure is unknown.
2. - A purely mathematical model suggests that photon energies involved have a potential to break bonds in the localized sites of the DNA helix which may interfere with RNA transcription. No practical experiments have been done to show this is safe or desirable.
3. - The probability of these photon interactions is non-0 and represents a risk that is likely small, but nevertheless uncertain.
4. - While your body is exposed to orders of magnitude more radiation cosmic and terrestrial sources daily, there is no rational necessity to add anything to that exposure merely to satisfy demonstrably ineffective security theater.

Re:Passenger can opt out...

[Neil Boekend]

Terrorism is a way of warfare through fear. The US has already lost this war (TSA, PATRIOT and the general reduction in civil rights). The EU just makes sure we don't lose it as well.
Correct me if and where I am wrong, for this is not my field of study.

Re:Passenger can opt out...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

So something even more unpleasant than being virtually strip-searched, like the US "enhanced pat-downs", can be expected shortly in the UK then?

I'm afraid I'm not optimistic about this as far as the UK goes. I'm in the "doesn't fly because it's so unpleasant these days" camp, and I'm also in the "annoyed that they are spending lots of taxpayers' money on security theatre" camp. I've heard one too many rumours about people who refused the body scanner winding up on a terrorist watch list and one too many reported excuses about how "almost everyone is happy to go through" to have any faith that our authorities are going to behave in what I consider an acceptable fashion on this one.

I content myself with the fact that the airline industry appears to be dying a slow, painful death at the hands of consumer wallets. They can spin reaction to one intrusive/unpleasant security idea after another all they like, but I don't really believe anyone is choosing to fly because of those checks who wouldn't otherwise. However, I'm quite sure that some people are not flying, or flying only when they absolutely have to, as a result. Sooner or later, that's going to hit them where it hurts the most -- their bottom line -- and it will hit businesses and tourism too.

should have used a different tone

[KlaymenDK]

If you're not American, then all the above is still true, but I should have used a different tone.

+1 Excellent use of pre-emptive after-the-fact diplomacy! :-)

Re:Passenger can opt out...

[LoRdTAW]

"It isn't enough to just leave your toothpaste visible on top of your suitcase, it has to be visible INSIDE a clear plastic bag."

Well fuck you for even thinking clear bags are enough! Obviously you support terrorism because if you were a patriot you would not only support clear bags but clear toothpaste bottles and toothpaste. Same goes for shaving cream, shampoo, luggage, clothing and electronics. Next time I fly I will put all of my belongings into clear plastic bags and wear this: http://www.zap2it.com/news/custom/photogallery/movies/zap_seethrusuit_bruno_pg,0,5475799.photo I have nothing to hide.

common sense

[apcullen]

Is it me, or do these limitations just seem like basic, common sense?

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any

[Kartu]

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

That on top of having second highest debt to GDP ratio in the world (only Japan has worst record) and recent riots.

Re:Britain's violent crime record is worse than an

[Xest]

For some arbitrary definition of violent crime yes. We have a lower murder rate, lower levels of rape and so forth however which is arguably what matters more in terms of violent crime. I'd much rather put up with a slightly higher chance of being punched at the pub on a Friday night by a drunk if it means a drastically lower chance of just outright being shot dead next time I do my weekly shopping on a Saturday afternoon. Of course, avoiding both would be nice and I can't say either have affected me yet, but it illustrates the point.

I covered debt to GDP elsewhere, it's meaningless by itself, and the riots? are you kidding me? Britain has one set of riots over a few days for the first time in god knows how many decades and that's something that stands out? Countries like Spain, Greece, France and so forth have riots of that scale on a seemingly annual basis. France for example:

2005: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4413964.stm

2009: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_2009_French_riots

2010: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322441/France-riots-Demonstrations-pension-reforms-continue-ninth-day.html

Yeah, I don't think Britain's riot situation is too much to worry about right now to be honest, if Britain can be criticised for having some kind of problem, it's sure as hell not riots.

Britain has a lot of faults, but fundamentally my point was simply that compared to other nations, there's certainly not any more, and in many cases an awful lot less to worry about here. Pulling random faults out the hat proves what exactly? That Britain is a somehow worse country in general than many others? No, it doesn't.

The true purpose is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Terrorist are more likely to show up at a security checkpoint and blow themselves up right there with all the people arround. Even if the scanners can detect everything, many items are still allowed that can be used as a weapon.

The true purpose of implementing full body scanners is to implement control over transportation. Soon there will be police and military at the borders of each state.

You will not be able to go anyplace without a proper government issued documents (i.e. REAL ID). Just like Nazi Germany did.

Mod parent insightful

[hedwards]

That's precisely what I did. I'm probably going to be moving overseas next year and I'll be flying out of Vancouver rather than the US so that I don't have to be molested as a precondition to boarding my plane.

Learn history yourself

[aepervius]

"And FYI, the French revolution came long after the American one."

It can be argued that 1776 and 1793 aren't that far remote from each otehr , especially in a time where news traveled by boat, horse and foot. Calling 17 years a very long time is quite interesting. Furthermore it is not arrogance to point out that what you think the US invented, was actually already existing centuries before. US folk were not spontaneously generated in north America. They came from other culture and their baggage.

israeli has more secuirty then US airports

[Joe_Dragon]

israeli has more security then US airports

Where are the specs?

[gr8dude]

Can anyone point me to the specs?

I checked ICAO's website, they are usually the ones who standardize these things, but they have no references to such a decision. I wonder where this "partial list of requirements" came from. All the search results point to the same press release, which lacks technical details.

Re:Passenger can opt out...

[chrismcb]

The clear plastic bag does several things. It is supposed to limit the total quantity of liquids. It also prevents spills from the liquids as it goes through the XRay device.

Of course I've seen many people have multiple plastic bags.

And on more than one occasion I was told to place my liquid (or chapstick) in a plastic bag AFTER I went through screen. I guess they were afraid I might spill the liquid in the airplane.

Re:Passenger can opt out...

[chrismcb]

Terrorism is a way of warfare through fear. The US has already lost this war

The US hasn't lost the war, they are winning it. The TSA does a terrific job of terrorizing the population.