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.

▲

Timon3 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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

▲

flohofwoe 3 hours ago | parent [-]

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 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

▲

timkam 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It may not be sloppiness. Consider the official statement as shared in this comment: 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 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		If it wasn't sloppiness they would have issued the directive on January 1.

▲

flohofwoe 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

▲

formerly_proven 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.