EU Parliament Rejects Asylum For Snowden

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

Comments

Reject?

[mbone]

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

Re:Reject?

[bazmonkey]

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

Man: Give me $1,000,000.

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

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

Re:Reject?

[cold fjord]

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

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

MEPs say No to Snowden asylum in Europe

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

Re:Reject?

[Mashiki]

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

Re:Reject?

[davester666]

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

Re:Reject?

[erikkemperman]

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

IOW

[msauve]

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

Where?

[jklovanc]

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

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

Re:Where?

[ledow]

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

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

Re:Where?

[ledow]

Which of the thousand examples do you want?

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

The EU said they had to.

Now they have to.

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

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

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

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

Re:Where?

[StoneyMahoney]

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

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

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

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

*Genuine but currently unenforced

Re:Not united enough

[icebike]

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

Or its the sole saving grace of the EU.

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

Final settlement of the issue

[Max_W]

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

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

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

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

The use for the EU

[peppepz]

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

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

Re:Not united enough

[daem0n1x]

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

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

Re:Not united enough

[ericloewe]

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

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

Breaking News

[LordLimecat]

IETF rejects demand for asylum for Snowden

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

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

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

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