4 ms·

This was pretty much a big media nothingburger. The rule isn't new, it existed for decades all the way back to the beginnings of the Cold War. Nobody cared bac

This was pretty much a big media nothingburger. The rule isn't new, it existed for decades all the way back to the beginnings of the Cold War. Nobody cared back then (neither the people nor the army), nobody should care now (there are no sanctions). I guess some journalist was actually reading through the consciption law (as probably the only person on the planet), stumbled over that passage and turned it into an elephant.

croemer 7mo ago
Rules that are not enforced are bad as they create space for arbitrariness and corruption. It was a mistake by gov't, opposition & media that this wasn't spotted at the time the law was revised. The most surprising thing is that the ministry didn't figure this out itself. You'd expect the people drafting laws to consider such things. Thus, it's an indicator of ministerial sloppiness. Not a nothingburger.
- flohofwoe 7mo ago
  > The most surprising thing is that the ministry didn't figure this out itself. Thus, it's an indicator of ministerial sloppiness. This I agree with. Might have to do with law changes requiring a two-thirds-majority in parliament though. They could have communicated earlier and better though.
- timkam 7mo ago
  It may not be sloppiness. Consider the official statement as shared in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=47789061 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=47789061. The ministry of defense will issue an 'exception' that generally applies. Presumably, revoking this exception is straightforward and much easier than passing a new law.
  - croemer 7mo ago
    If it wasn't sloppiness they would have issued the directive on January 1.
- formerly_proven 7mo ago
  The way laws work there is that each law either enumerates the penalties itself or the law of penalties enumerates them. So for each law you only have to check two places to know what the penalties are. In this case, there are none.
Timon3 7mo ago
The rule was literally changed in January. No, it didn't exist all the way back to the beginnings of the cold war!
- flohofwoe 7mo ago
  https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/wehrdienst-auslandsreise-genehmigung-100.html https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/wehrdienst-aus... "Die Regelung habe bereits in den Zeiten des Kalten Krieges gegolten "und hatte keine praktische Relevanz", teilte das Ministerium mit. Sie sei auch nicht sanktioniert. Im Gegensatz zur alten Fassung gilt die Genehmigungspflicht nun auch außerhalb des Spannungs- und Verteidigungsfalls." The rule existed, but apparently they broadened the scope. In any case, even if the rule is ignored nothing happens - so the question is of course why that rule exists in the first place of course.
  - Timon3 7mo ago
    When there's a rule with a condition that meant the rule hasn't applied for decades, and then the condition is removed so that the rule always applies, it's no longer the same rule.

croemer 7mo ago

Rules that are not enforced are bad as they create space for arbitrariness and corruption. It was a mistake by gov't, opposition & media that this wasn't spotted at the time the law was revised. The most surprising thing is that the ministry didn't figure this out itself. You'd expect the people drafting laws to consider such things. Thus, it's an indicator of ministerial sloppiness. Not a nothingburger.

flohofwoe 7mo ago
> The most surprising thing is that the ministry didn't figure this out itself. Thus, it's an indicator of ministerial sloppiness. This I agree with. Might have to do with law changes requiring a two-thirds-majority in parliament though. They could have communicated earlier and better though.
timkam 7mo ago
It may not be sloppiness. Consider the official statement as shared in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=47789061 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=47789061. The ministry of defense will issue an 'exception' that generally applies. Presumably, revoking this exception is straightforward and much easier than passing a new law.
- croemer 7mo ago
  If it wasn't sloppiness they would have issued the directive on January 1.
formerly_proven 7mo ago
The way laws work there is that each law either enumerates the penalties itself or the law of penalties enumerates them. So for each law you only have to check two places to know what the penalties are. In this case, there are none.

Timon3 7mo ago

The rule was literally changed in January. No, it didn't exist all the way back to the beginnings of the cold war!

flohofwoe 7mo ago
https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/wehrdienst-auslandsreise-genehmigung-100.html https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/wehrdienst-aus... "Die Regelung habe bereits in den Zeiten des Kalten Krieges gegolten "und hatte keine praktische Relevanz", teilte das Ministerium mit. Sie sei auch nicht sanktioniert. Im Gegensatz zur alten Fassung gilt die Genehmigungspflicht nun auch außerhalb des Spannungs- und Verteidigungsfalls." The rule existed, but apparently they broadened the scope. In any case, even if the rule is ignored nothing happens - so the question is of course why that rule exists in the first place of course.
- Timon3 7mo ago
  When there's a rule with a condition that meant the rule hasn't applied for decades, and then the condition is removed so that the rule always applies, it's no longer the same rule.