February 15, 2007
Big Brother Europe?
When I started work in Brussels in 2004, fellow journalists warned of the frustrations of covering EU justice ministers’ meetings. They were spot on, because the gatherings often promise much and deliver little. The EU has grandiose plans for an "area of freedom, security and justice." But sensitive initiatives to co-ordinate police and anti-terror work (e.g. cross-border sharing of criminal records) have either taken years to agree or foundered, amid concerns over eroding national powers. Now I wonder whether we are about to see a turning point in EU police co-operation.
On Thursday in Brussels, ministers discuss plans for "hot pursuit" across most of the EU’s internal borders.
So, instead of screeching to a halt at the border, an Austrian police car could chase suspects into Italy. The move would also allow national police direct access to other member states’ fingerprint, DNA and vehicle registration databases.
If the plan wins political backing (it’s a big "if" with some countries hoping for certain exemptions) it would mark a large advance in cross-border co-operation. Some people see "hot pursuit" and database access as the missing link after member states thrashed out hard-fought deals to share evidence and allow swift extradition of suspects.
But what about civil liberties?
Would the database rule bring about a Big Brother Europe? And do you want foreign police chasing you on your home soil?
Also, does this mark a potential change to passing laws in the justice field, which usually require unanimity among the now 27 countries (a rule that the moribund EU constitution would have changed).
In this case, seven member states (including Germany and France) already allow cross-border hot-pursuit and database access between them, thanks to a multilateral pact that avoided the unanimity rule. Now, Germany is pushing to extend this pact EU-wide.
Is this approach a new way to overcome the problem of unanimous voting and speed decision-making? Or is it group pressure going too far?
Well as far as I’m concerned, hot pursuit across borders is a no-brainer. It is eminently sensible, as long as the rules about how it works are clear and don’t cause conflict between police forces.
As for database access, I think it depends on the type of access and the circumstances in which access is granted.
I would be much more comfortable with a right to obtain the results of a targeted search, rather than a blanket access right.
And such requests would have to be explicitly related to a specific enquiry focusing on a specific crime.
Not sure what you mean by foreign police chasing you on home soil - if it was in the context of hot pursuit, the pursued person does not have a leg to stand on, as long as they are aware of the pursuit. I can’t think of circumstances in which someone who is being pursued in one EU country could justify scarpering across the border. If I speed in Italy, the Italian police are quite right to stop me and I should not be able to get away with it by running faster.
If you are talking about foreign police carrying out an arrest outside the context of hot pursuit, that is quite different. And I think the current EU arrest warrant system is entirely satisfactory for that kind of circumstance. Foreign police do not have the right to knock on your door and arrest you in another EU country; they must go through the proper procedures and the arrest, if any, must be carried out by local police, although I have no problem with foreign police being present.
The question about the new approach to decision making - I am not sure this is really that new. It’s essentially “variable geometry”, and exists in a number of areas, including biometric visas (where the UK is in the leading group), Schengen, etc. It can be useful in situations where some countries want to see how a policy works in practice before accepting it, but it can also be dangerous in that if a sufficient critical mass of common policies develops around a sufficiently large core of EU countries, you end up with two EUs and strains that could break the whole thing.
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | February 15th, 2007 at 1:14 pm | Report this commentThis, along with many other EU-related issues, will soon become discussion points at £.com (or poundsymbol.com, for users with <2006 browsers).
Posted by: richard haigh | February 21st, 2007 at 8:59 am | Report this commentWell Chris, if you think this is a no brainer then you have no brain. If police are allowed to chase people across borders, arrest them and take them back with them then clearly this opens up scenarios where a policeman from another country (or someone posing as such) can stop anyone on the streets of Britain and forcibly deport them without any documented evidence. With no land border this issue is of no relevence to Great Britain anyway. It amazes me that pro-EU nodding dog supporters such as yourself will unthinkingly support something that has no practical benefit for the people of this country.
Posted by: John | February 22nd, 2007 at 8:01 pm | Report this commentJohn you say you are amazed at how “nodding dog supporters” unthinkingly support things that have no benefit for our country.
What does not amaze me at all is that the naysayers like you unthinkingly reject anything that has an EU label on it despite the very obvious benefits to our country.
The hot pursuit scenario is obviously applicable to the UK authorities on the border with the Republic of Ireland. Can’t understand how you missed that. I fail to see how it can be against the interests of the UK to be able to pursue terrorist or other criminal suspects across the border into Eire. Moreover, I don’t think you have made any kind of case against the opposite scenario - i.e. Irish police pursuing a suspect across into Northern Ireland.
What you have done is take the concept of hot pursuit and add to it a series of circumstances that are not typically going to be applicable - nowhere does anyone suggest, as far as I am aware, that hot pursuit can be carried on without notification of the host country’s police force. Nor is it normally the case that there is no evidence against suspects; hot pusuit does not start without evidence in civilised (read EU) countries.
There is then the question of whether UK citizens should be able to run across EU borders in the hope of getting away from local police when in other EU countries. I would argue that we should expect tp submit to the laws of any country we visit and should not be running from the police in other EU countries - still less expecting to escape accountability to local laws by scarpering into a nearby country. This of course would apply to an Italian running from the UK into Ireland as well.
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | February 23rd, 2007 at 9:26 am | Report this commentI most certainly did not overlook the UK/Eire border. If you think good community relations in the island of Ireland will be improved by having the Ulster Police or Defence Forces popping accross the border whenever they feel like picking up who they want then you are seriously deluded.
This is an example of EU integration looking for a area where it stick its ugly head, rather than any attempt to address real world problems. Please tell me one real world example where the French police should be allowed to jump on cross channels ferries and pick someone up in Britain that addresses any real world problem. Can’t they simply send a message to have british police intercept suspects when the vessel arrives?
Posted by: John | February 23rd, 2007 at 7:11 pm | Report this commentJohn call me old-fashioned, but I think your statement, “With no land border this issue is of no relevence to Great Britain anyway” is fairly clear evidence that you had overlooked the Eire/UK border.
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | February 25th, 2007 at 7:30 pm | Report this commentI already commented on the issue of hot pursuits accross the Northern Ireland border and see no reason to repeat that. I notice that you cannot provide even one real world example where this proposal brings benefit to the people of Britain. It is simply integration for the sake of integration with no practical benefits and should be rejected.
Posted by: John | February 26th, 2007 at 7:17 am | Report this commentI have just read the article describing the EUs attempt at criminalising, with a penalty of up to three years in prison, any person who publicly expresses an opinion which doubts any aspect of
Posted by: joseph | April 19th, 2007 at 9:37 am | Report this commentthe Jewish holocaust drama . This is outrageous !
The first holocaust revisionist was Professor Paul Rassinier. Rassinier was arrested by the gestapo in 1943 and interned at the Buchenwald-Dora concentration camp complex where he spent the last two years of the war. After being liberated, Rassinier was decorated as a French Resistance leader and also elected to the
the French parliment from the Socialist party. Professor Rassinier confronted the authors of postwar books who had made claims which he knew
or suspected were unfounded (i.e. the killing of prisoners by means of a lethal gas chamber at Buchenwald-Dora). Rassinier kept up the pressure on the authors, who were inmates just as he had been, regarding their unfounded claims and in 1960, the Center for Contemporary History in Munich and Yad Vashem in Israel made an announcement; no gassings at Dachau or any other concentration camp which was located in the Third Reich proper: that meant not only Dachau but also Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald-Dora, Sachehhausen. The gassings took place at the camps located in postwar Poland i.e Auschwitz, Majdanek, Treblinka, etc… The US Army filmed at Dachau what was supposedly a gas chamber and there were eyewitnesses who made made these claims as well. How come it took 15 years after the end of the war to establish that there were no gas chambers or at least no gassing took place at the camps in Germany ? The same goes for the lampshade made of human skins story and also the Jewish soap story . Just war propaganda from various quarters. When Pope John Paul II visited Auschwitz in 1979, the memorial plaques stated that there were between 4 and 4.5 million victims at Auschwitz and 2 years ago at the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz the memorial plaques atated that the number of victims was between 900,000 and 1.5 million. Surely any thinking person might want to ask the question: how come such a large downward revision ? What was the evidence prior and what is the evidence present for the numbers given ? Honest people may want to know or at least ask ! How evil that the EU should even attempt modern day “heresy” laws to frighten its honest citizens
from excercising their basic right of free speech and freedom of inquiry. How can the Financial Times not be outraged at such proposals ?