EU court backs internet censorship - peados and criminals can now demand Google removes links

Paedophile, misbehaving politician and GP who was unhappy with his online reviews among those inundating Google with 'right to be forgotten' requests after EU ruling

Search engine firm has already received a flood of requests to remove links
Decision by top European court affects 500 million internet users
Requires search services to take down information that could tarnish image
Firm is expecting influx of requests and  process to deal with them
Google will need to build up an 'army of
removal experts' in each of the 28 EU countries, including those where
Google does not have operations

A man convicted of possessing child pornography, a misbehaving politician seeking re-election and a doctor with bad reviews.
These are among the flood of people who have already contacted Google demanding that their internet histories be deleted.
Earlier this week Europe's highest court ruled people now have the 'right to be forgotten', meaning around 500million internet users could have links which tarnish their reputation removed.
An investigation by Mail Online has found a paedophile has asked for stories about his conviction to be taken down from the site while a politician tried to have pieces about his behaviour in office deleted.
A physician who was unhappy about feedback posted on a review site also tried to have links to the page removed.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2629243/Paedophile-misbehaving-politician-GP-unhappy-review-scores-inundating-Google-right-forgotten-requests-EU-ruling.html

As if the EU didn't already do enough for criminals, preventing us from deporting them, trying to make us give prisoners the vote etc, they now rule in favour of them being able to bury the bad news about them!


EU scum!

Didge Mr Liberal will be on in due course to tell us why this is good.

Some how ...I dont think he will.....just a feeling I have.....

I do not think this is a good move, nor am I worried it will have any affect as there are many ways around this, I cannot see how the EU will implement billions of claims, can you? 

Do I agree with this move?

No

Hence why I advocate reform

victorisnotamused wrote:Some how ...I dont think he will.....just a feeling I have.....

best you go for a check up, because that gut must be playing up!

I will add, if the argument here is on laws, it is moot because how many people agree with every law passed in this country?

Silly argument to make on the EU, even more so when I advocate reform or how I fail to see how they will process billions of claims made, it will be an own goal ruling that they will soon realise their error on, showing it would be impractical to implement, being as every Tom Dick and Harry will file suits if there is any mention of their name on the web.

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:Some how ...I dont think he will.....just a feeling I have.....

best you go for a check up, because that gut must be playing up!

perhaps I should have qualified it for the sake of simpletons


some how......I dont think he will (think this is a good thing)......just a feeling I have.....

and I was right...didnt think you would....

This isn't that straightforward though, is it? Consider this....

An example scenario: Alice is a victim of a crime, reports the crime and Bob is arrested and goes on trial. Bob pleads not guilty and Alice participates in the trial as a witness. Bob is sentenced, the court record is made. The Daily News (fictional paper) reports on the court records of the day and has a reporter who attends the more interesting cases, and mentions Bob's sentence and gives some of Alice's statements as quotes.

In that scenario, the court record should always be a matter of public record, a statement of fact. The newspaper certainly has the right to access public record and to make a news story of the set of facts that are in the public record.

But, here starts the problems... Alice applies for a job and the employer Googles her name and comes across the news article. There are many types of crimes in which the public have great difficulty accepting a victim is a victim. For example, rape. It isn't too much of a stretch to say that the culture of victim blaming means that a matter of public record has just had the effect of defaming Alice.

Alice as a victim is never given the opportunity to move on with her life when every person that ever searches for her will find the story very quickly. She has been sentenced too by participating in the justice system, which is an open book.

The newspaper, just as in this case, will argue this is public record and cannot be silenced. Sure, I agree... but that doesn't mean that it's in the victims interest that the information be extraordinarily easy to find.

And Google are a better place in which to attempt to stop the information being found, given that they (and only 1 or 2 other search engines) cover the vast majority of searches made about someone.

Alice certainly does have the right to make information that she didn't explicitly choose to make public and that can cause her harm not be found so easily, even when that information is a matter of fact and public record.

She has the right to not be found (by that method - Google).

PS: I know a girl experiencing almost exactly that scenario, who cannot get a news story off of the front page results for her name. This isn't even a stretch scenario. The local newspaper just hasn't bothered responding to requests.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7737061

Victims have rights as well and would anyone deny Alice the right to have Google or any other search engine to not display links to that event in her life? It could even be just a nosey neighbour trying to find out something about a person just moving into the distrct and all of a sudden the whole neighbourhood knows about what happened to her.
The information is still on the internet and in the newspaper articles and a matter of public record but all that has happened is that Google won't direct people to the data just by searching with her name.

Thoughts?

Interesting point Irn, but this is a bad policy from the EU which is not only not practical for implementing but trying to allow people to exonerate their crimes. We have laws in this country that protects victims by naming and shaming, where a woman can know if a person has a criminal record.
This is daft by the EU and like I say is not even manageable and nobody should be able to to censor history

Didge wrote:Interesting point Irn, but this is a bad policy from the EU which is not only not practical for implementing but trying to allow people to exonerate their crimes. We have laws in this country that protects victims by naming and shaming, where a woman can know if a person has a criminal record.
This is daft by the EU and like I say is not even manageable and nobody should be able to to censor history

I'm not defending the policy and agree it is probably unmanageable but all I'm asking is a straightforward question.

So what about Alice?

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:Interesting point Irn, but this is a bad policy from the EU which is not only not practical for implementing but trying to allow people to exonerate their crimes. We have laws in this country that protects victims by naming and shaming, where a woman can know if a person has a criminal record.
This is daft by the EU and like I say is not even manageable and nobody should be able to to censor history

I'm not defending the policy and agree it is probably unmanageable but all I'm asking is a straightforward question.

So what about Alice?

Irn not disputing that a victim has a right to question something, but what if a holocaust victim wishes to deny the story ever happened?
We should never censor history and of course it is not straight forward, but this favours the criminal than it does the victim as I am sure many victims would like the world to know of those who have wronged them. Taking choice examples of those who do not is and should be exceptions to the tule, but not allow something that actually as stated favours the criminal.
Its like Nazi war criminals involvement in the holocaust could wipe out any blame to them if any personal names are mentioned, what next wipe out the names of Stalin and Hitler?

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:Interesting point Irn, but this is a bad policy from the EU which is not only not practical for implementing but trying to allow people to exonerate their crimes. We have laws in this country that protects victims by naming and shaming, where a woman can know if a person has a criminal record.
This is daft by the EU and like I say is not even manageable and nobody should be able to to censor history

I'm not defending the policy and agree it is probably unmanageable but all I'm asking is a straightforward question.

So what about Alice?

Irn not disputing that a victim has a right to question something, but what if a holocaust victim wishes to deny the story ever happened?
We should never censor history and of course it is not straight forward, but this favours the criminal than it does the victim as I am sure many victims would like the world to know of those who have wronged them. Taking choice examples of those who do not is and should be exceptions to the tule, but not allow something that actually as stated favours the criminal.
Its like Nazi war criminals involvement in the holocaust could wipe out any blame to them if any personal names are mentioned, what next wipe out the names of Stalin and Hitler?  

History isn't being censored. The public records still remain where they always were but Google won't give out links to them if someone like Alice asks after a reasonable amount of time for it not to.

Is Alice being unreasonable and would you deny her that right?

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:


Irn not disputing that a victim has a right to question something, but what if a holocaust victim wishes to deny the story ever happened?
We should never censor history and of course it is not straight forward, but this favours the criminal than it does the victim as I am sure many victims would like the world to know of those who have wronged them. Taking choice examples of those who do not is and should be exceptions to the tule, but not allow something that actually as stated favours the criminal.
Its like Nazi war criminals involvement in the holocaust could wipe out any blame to them if any personal names are mentioned, what next wipe out the names of Stalin and Hitler?  

History isn't being censored. The public records still remain where they always were but Google won't give out links to them if someone like Alice asks after a reasonable amount of time for it not to.

Is Alice being unreasonable and would you deny her that right?

Sorry it is being censured Irn, a person who is a criminal can argue the relevance of his story being on the web and many people have to request public records instead of at the touch of a finger to research history.
Your argument is based off a minority view point or an extreme example, as how many victims want their attackers to be named and shamed?

What next, censor the Hillsborough disaster of the Police involved because it was years ago?

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:


Irn not disputing that a victim has a right to question something, but what if a holocaust victim wishes to deny the story ever happened?
We should never censor history and of course it is not straight forward, but this favours the criminal than it does the victim as I am sure many victims would like the world to know of those who have wronged them. Taking choice examples of those who do not is and should be exceptions to the tule, but not allow something that actually as stated favours the criminal.
Its like Nazi war criminals involvement in the holocaust could wipe out any blame to them if any personal names are mentioned, what next wipe out the names of Stalin and Hitler?  

History isn't being censored. The public records still remain where they always were but Google won't give out links to them if someone like Alice asks after a reasonable amount of time for it not to.

Is Alice being unreasonable and would you deny her that right?

Sorry it is being censured Irn, a person who is a criminal can argue the relevance of his story being on the web and many people have to request public records instead of at the touch of a finger to research history.
Your argument is based off a minority view point or an extreme example, as how many victims want their attackers to be named and shamed?

No it isn't. 10 years after the event a woman stops Alice in the street and says... I saw on the internet that you were gang raped about 10 years ago. It must have been terrible for you but credit that you went through and had the baby anyway. Is this him? He must be about 9 by now.

WTF

What makes you think that links to criminal records will not come up when a search is done on Google about someone and that requests by criminals and paedos will be removed? It's public record isn't it and in the public interest that they do.

Didge wrote:What next, censor the Hillsborough disaster of the Police involved because it was years ago?

Why would links to that be removed?

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:

Sorry it is being censured Irn, a person who is a criminal can argue the relevance of his story being on the web and many people have to request public records instead of at the touch of a finger to research history.
Your argument is based off a minority view point or an extreme example, as how many victims want their attackers to be named and shamed?

No it isn't. 10 years after the event a woman stops Alice in the street and says... I saw on the internet that you were gang raped about 10 years ago. It must have been terrible for you but credit that you went through and had the baby anyway. Is this him? He must be about 9 by now.

WTF

What makes you think that links to criminal records will not come up when a search is done on Google about someone and that requests by criminals and paedos will be removed? It's public record isn't it and in the public interest that they do.

Again you are using an extreme example, you did not answer my question whether many other victims would feel the same?
The fact is this favours the criminal because they can challenge any story on them and have no issue with a victim wanting something eradicated, but you ignore the fact that criminals can, which is the point you are missing at each turn
Public records?
You have to request access and on requesting access this will ensure names are omitted.

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:

Sorry it is being censured Irn, a person who is a criminal can argue the relevance of his story being on the web and many people have to request public records instead of at the touch of a finger to research history.
Your argument is based off a minority view point or an extreme example, as how many victims want their attackers to be named and shamed?

No it isn't. 10 years after the event a woman stops Alice in the street and says... I saw on the internet that you were gang raped about 10 years ago. It must have been terrible for you but credit that you went through and had the baby anyway. Is this him? He must be about 9 by now.

WTF

What makes you think that links to criminal records will not come up when a search is done on Google about someone and that requests by criminals and paedos will be removed? It's public record isn't it and in the public interest that they do.

Again you are using an extreme example, you did not answer my question whether many other victims would feel the same?
The fact is this favours the criminal because they can challenge any story on them and have no issue with a victim wanting something eradicated, but you ignore the fact that criminals can, which is the point you are missing at each turn
Public records?
You have to request access and on requesting access this will ensure names are omitted.

No, the public record is not being changed and newspaper articles are not being changed. What is happening is that Google will not return links to events like what happened to Alice where she was a victim and has after several years requested them not to and it has been agreed that they shouldn't.

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:

Again you are using an extreme example, you did not answer my question whether many other victims would feel the same?
The fact is this favours the criminal because they can challenge any story on them and have no issue with a victim wanting something eradicated, but you ignore the fact that criminals can, which is the point you are missing at each turn
Public records?
You have to request access and on requesting access this will ensure names are omitted.

No, the public record is not being changed and newspaper articles are not being changed. What is happening is that Google will not return links to events like what happened to Alice where she was a victim and has after several years requested them not to and it has been agreed that they shouldn't.

You reckon the public record will not be changed?
Good luck on that view
Google will be requested by many who have done wrongs to not have their name slighted, the point you are missing Irn, I back the view for the victim, never denied this, you miss the point though it also backs the criminal to wipe out their name from google search.

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:

Again you are using an extreme example, you did not answer my question whether many other victims would feel the same?
The fact is this favours the criminal because they can challenge any story on them and have no issue with a victim wanting something eradicated, but you ignore the fact that criminals can, which is the point you are missing at each turn
Public records?
You have to request access and on requesting access this will ensure names are omitted.

No, the public record is not being changed and newspaper articles are not being changed. What is happening is that Google will not return links to events like what happened to Alice where she was a victim and has after several years requested them not to and it has been agreed that they shouldn't.

You reckon the public record will bot be changed?
Good luck on that view
Google will be requested by many who have done wrongs to not have their name slighted, the point you are missing Irn, I back the view for the victim, never denied this, you miss the point though it also backs the criminal to wipe out their name from google search.

No Didge. Read Tommy's thread title, it's about removing links. And I absolutely back 100% Alice's right to ask Google not to display links to that awful event in her life that is still blighting her and her child years later because people found it on the internet.

Of course people with a criminal past will ask for LINKS to be removed but what makes you think they will? Here, read what the EU judgement says...

The Court adds that, when appraising such a request made by the data subject in order to oppose the processing carried out by the operator of a search engine, it should in particular be examined whether the data subject has a right that the information in question relating to him personally should, at this point in time, no longer be linked to his name by a list of results that is displayed following a search made on the basis of his name. If that is the case, the links to web pages containing that information must be removed from that list of results, unless there are particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, justifying a preponderant interest of the public in having access to the information when such a search is made.

It's links Didge - not public records

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:

You reckon the public record will bot be changed?
Good luck on that view
Google will be requested by many who have done wrongs to not have their name slighted, the point you are missing Irn, I back the view for the victim, never denied this, you miss the point though it also backs the criminal to wipe out their name from google search.

No Didge. Read Tommy's thread title, it's about removing links. And I absolutely back 100% Alice's right to ask Google not to display links to that awful event in her life that is still blighting her and her child years later because people found it on the internet.

Of course people with a criminal past will ask for LINKS to be removed but what makes you think they will? Here, read what the EU judgement says...

The Court adds that, when appraising such a request made by the data subject in order to oppose the processing carried out by the operator of a search engine, it should in particular be examined whether the data subject has a right that the information in question relating to him personally should, at this point in time, no longer be linked to his name by a list of results that is displayed following a search made on the basis of his name. If that is the case, the links to web pages containing that information must be removed from that list of results, unless there are particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, justifying a preponderant interest of the public in having access to the information when such a search is made.

It's links Didge - not public records

Again you use Alice as an example, not denying her, you are sticking to a poor point of which I have agreed she should be able to, the point is on criminals being allowed to do the same which you are not even addressing Irn.
I am well aware of public records and what you can access Irn, my point is how far will this ruling go on even that, which you are not even contemplating.
So your argument using Alice is still endorsing criminals to allow censorship of their names.
You ask what makes you think they will?


Sorry did you read the link?

I may not like the Mail but clearly many criminals like paedo's will very much request this

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:

You reckon the public record will bot be changed?
Good luck on that view
Google will be requested by many who have done wrongs to not have their name slighted, the point you are missing Irn, I back the view for the victim, never denied this, you miss the point though it also backs the criminal to wipe out their name from google search.

No Didge. Read Tommy's thread title, it's about removing links. And I absolutely back 100% Alice's right to ask Google not to display links to that awful event in her life that is still blighting her and her child years later because people found it on the internet.

Of course people with a criminal past will ask for LINKS to be removed but what makes you think they will? Here, read what the EU judgement says...

The Court adds that, when appraising such a request made by the data subject in order to oppose the processing carried out by the operator of a search engine, it should in particular be examined whether the data subject has a right that the information in question relating to him personally should, at this point in time, no longer be linked to his name by a list of results that is displayed following a search made on the basis of his name. If that is the case, the links to web pages containing that information must be removed from that list of results, unless there are particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, justifying a preponderant interest of the public in having access to the information when such a search is made.

It's links Didge - not public records

Again you use Alice as an example, not denying her, you are sticking to a poor point of which I have agreed she should be able to, the point is on criminals being allowed to do the same which you are not even addressing Irn.
I am well aware of public records and what you can access Irn, my point is how far will this ruling go on even that, which you are not even contemplating.
So your argument using Alice is still endorsing criminals to allow censorship of their names.
You ask what makes you think they will?


Sorry did you read the link?

I may not like the Mail  but clearly many criminals like paedo's will very much request this

When I said what makes you think they will I meant that the request by the criminals and the paedos will be granted. The ruling of the court suggests they won't.

What is poor about Alice's situation which you said is extreme?. It's not. There must be thousands of people who have been victims of crimes like that who still have it brought up years later.

Remember, Didge. This is about a search engine returning links - not altering or removing public records.

Anyway, I've got to go for now but try and give some thought to Alice's situation and the thousands who may be like her and then come back and tell me that they have no right under this ruling to stop Google bringing up links to a past that still brings them and their families a lot of distress because people keep bringing it up.

Not unreasonable is it?

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:


Again you use Alice as an example, not denying her, you are sticking to a poor point of which I have agreed she should be able to, the point is on criminals being allowed to do the same which you are not even addressing Irn.
I am well aware of public records and what you can access Irn, my point is how far will this ruling go on even that, which you are not even contemplating.
So your argument using Alice is still endorsing criminals to allow censorship of their names.
You ask what makes you think they will?


Sorry did you read the link?

I may not like the Mail  but clearly many criminals like paedo's will very much request this

When I said what makes you think they will I meant that the request by the criminals and the paedos  will be granted. The ruling of the court suggests they won't.

What is poor about Alice's situation which you said is extreme?. It's not. There must be thousands of people who have been victims of crimes like that who still have it brought up years later.

Remember, Didge. This is about a search engine returning links - not altering or removing public records.

Anyway, I've got to go for now but try and give some thought to Alice's situation and the thousands who may be like her and then come back and tell me that they have no right under this ruling to stop Google bringing up links to a past that still brings them and their families a lot of distress because people keep bringing it up.

Not unreasonable is it?

So your evidence hinges on the view of people not thinking they won't yet as seen already countless requests have been made showing the view of those who ruled got this very wrong?
I know it is about a search engine Irn but again the facility is there for many criminals to remove the ability to search for them, so it is very unreasonable, because I have no issue with the victims which you are still playing on, which is not even being questioned.

Have a good day

TORONTO – Google has been inundated with requests to remove users’ data following a European court decision requiring the search engine giant to scrub its search results clean of any embarrassing results.

According to a Reuters report citing people familiar with the matter, Google has yet to figure out how to handle the number of requests it’s received following the ruling to remove content.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1334276/google-inundated-with-takedown-requests-after-right-to-be-forgotten-ruling/

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:


Again you use Alice as an example, not denying her, you are sticking to a poor point of which I have agreed she should be able to, the point is on criminals being allowed to do the same which you are not even addressing Irn.
I am well aware of public records and what you can access Irn, my point is how far will this ruling go on even that, which you are not even contemplating.
So your argument using Alice is still endorsing criminals to allow censorship of their names.
You ask what makes you think they will?


Sorry did you read the link?

I may not like the Mail  but clearly many criminals like paedo's will very much request this

When I said what makes you think they will I meant that the request by the criminals and the paedos  will be granted. The ruling of the court suggests they won't.

What is poor about Alice's situation which you said is extreme?. It's not. There must be thousands of people who have been victims of crimes like that who still have it brought up years later.

Remember, Didge. This is about a search engine returning links - not altering or removing public records.

Anyway, I've got to go for now but try and give some thought to Alice's situation and the thousands who may be like her and then come back and tell me that they have no right under this ruling to stop Google bringing up links to a past that still brings them and their families a lot of distress because people keep bringing it up.

Not unreasonable is it?

So your evidence hinges on the view of people not thinking they won't yet as seen already countless requests have been made showing the view of those who ruled got this very wrong?
I know it is about a search engine Irn but again the facility is there for many criminals to remove the ability to search for them, so it is very unreasonable, because I have no issue with the victims which you are still playing on, which is not even being questioned.

Have a good day

Well if you support a victims right to have links removed from what search engines return about them then you surely are supporting the legislation which allows them to ask for that to happen and for their request to be granted but not for criminals who are on public record as having committed crimes for theirs to be granted. If that's the case then you have been on the same page as me because that's what I think is right.
So far all you are giving me back is information that requests have been submitted by crooks and the like to have links removed and of course that's just link and not a removal of data from the internet about public records. These will still be there.

I support the legislation for victims, not criminals, yet criminals can do as the same as victims, and what if a victim does not want that criminal that committed a crime against them have their name removed Irn?

So how is that helping the victim, if the victim has no say in wanting something kept to allow the world to know who committed a crime against them?

Didge wrote:I support the legislation for victims, not criminals, yet criminals can do as the same as victims, and what if a victim does not want that criminal that committed a crime against them have their name removed Irn?

So how is that helping the victim, if the victim has no say in wanting something kept to allow the world to know who committed a crime against them?

You're jumping the gun in saying that the criminals will have the links to their crimes removed. You don't know that.

It's helping the victim because they no longer want information about the awful ordeal that they endured to keep coming back to haunt them just because someone types their name into Google. You agreed with the victims right to that.
The offence that the person committed against the victim is still there and can be found by typing in their name and a link will be returned but a search using the victims name won't return a link.

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:I support the legislation for victims, not criminals, yet criminals can do as the same as victims, and what if a victim does not want that criminal that committed a crime against them have their name removed Irn?

So how is that helping the victim, if the victim has no say in wanting something kept to allow the world to know who committed a crime against them?

You're jumping the gun in saying that the criminals will have the links to their crimes removed. You don't know that.

It's helping the victim because they no longer want information about the awful ordeal that they endured to keep coming back to haunt them just because someone types their name into Google. You agreed with the victims right to that.
The offence that the person committed against the victim is still there and can be found by typing in their name and a link will be returned but a search using the victims name won't return a link.

Didn't know that.

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:I support the legislation for victims, not criminals, yet criminals can do as the same as victims, and what if a victim does not want that criminal that committed a crime against them have their name removed Irn?

So how is that helping the victim, if the victim has no say in wanting something kept to allow the world to know who committed a crime against them?

You're jumping the gun in saying that the criminals will have the links to their crimes removed. You don't know that.

It's helping the victim because they no longer want information about the awful ordeal that they endured to keep coming back to haunt them just because someone types their name into Google. You agreed with the victims right to that.
The offence that the person committed against the victim is still there and can be found by typing in their name and a link will be returned but a search using the victims name won't return a link.

You see you do not read, they will have their names removed from searches to crimes they commit, which is basically taking away a view to know about their crimes.
Again I am all for the victim, have no issue on that front, it should be for them and them only, you miss the point convicted criminals should not have access to clear their names, as the victim should only have that say, not the criminal.

A simple question Irn, do you back the right of a criminal to remove his name from a search engine?

Didge wrote:I do not think this is a good move, nor am I worried it will have any affect as there are many ways around this, I cannot see how the EU will implement billions of claims, can you? 

Do I agree with this move?

No

Hence why I advocate reform

How can you reform a cancer. The EU either is stripped back to a free trade institution or disbanded. Since the French won't allow any negotiations and indeed the Germans as well if Merkel is to be believed Cameron is on a fools errand.

You are equally on a fools errand trying to bamboozle us into believing the EU is merely mildly flawed.

Alright said Fred wrote:

Didge wrote:I do not think this is a good move, nor am I worried it will have any affect as there are many ways around this, I cannot see how the EU will implement billions of claims, can you? 

Do I agree with this move?

No

Hence why I advocate reform

How can you reform a cancer. The EU either is stripped back to a free trade institution or disbanded. Since the French won't allow any negotiations and indeed the Germans as well if Merkel is to be believed Cameron is on a fools errand.

You are equally on a fools errand trying to bamboozle us into believing the EU is merely mildly flawed.

With treatment like any cancer.
The Germans and others are coming more on board that reform is needed, all you are proposing is you believe it is not possible without even trying, that is absurd