In many ways political decisions taken by the European Union in recent years have begun to impose heavy new burdens on business security.
The opening up of the single market in the 15 EU member countries, and the total abolition of border controls between nine of those countries under the Schengen agreement, has made it far easier for criminals to cross from one state to another without hassle or hindrance.
Yet there has been a conspicuous lack of any corresponding build-up in collaboration between the police, customs officers, immigration officials and other law enforcement agencies in the member countries.
That may be about to change. In the Finnish town of Tampere in October (15th to 16th) a far-reaching agreement was reached by the heads of the 15 EU governments to create “an area of freedom, security and justice in the European Union.”
Eurosceptics may not agree with some Euro-enthusiasts who see this as the first step towards setting up a single judicial and police system for Europe. But it is, on the face of it, a blueprint for increased collaboration between EU law enforcement agencies on a scale never before attempted.
Uniform status
The new EU approach is three-fold. Under the heading of asylum and migration policy the EU leaders have committed their countries to work towards a Common European Asylum System.
In time — probably five years — this will mean that there is a single procedure for assessing asylum applications throughout the EU and that refugees granted asylum will enjoy uniform status in all member countries.
On immigration the EU heads have called for “an approximation of national legislations on the conditions for admission and residence of third country nationals based on a shared assessment of the economic and demographic developments within the Union as well as the situation in the countries of origin”.
Decisions to be taken here should “take into account not only the reception capacity of each member state but also their historical and cultural links with the countries of origin. The legal status of third country nationals should be approximated to that of member states nationals.”
The European Commission has been asked to propose, before the end of 2000, legislation imposing severe sanctions against illegal immigration. Member States, with Europol, “should direct their efforts to detecting and dismantling the criminal networks involved.”
The UK Home Secretary Jack Straw also announced that Britain would sign-up to the so-called Eurodac regulation, which among other things will establish a fingerprint register of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants.
Taken as a whole these moves would put an end to “asylum-shopping” and could eventually lead to an EU-wide “ghettoisation” of non-European ethnic groups within the community, according to EU experts, with quite unpredictable results.
It may be that Asians would come to the UK from other EU countries because of family ties here, but gypsies from east European countries would no longer be barred from entry into Germany and France and so less likely to seek UK residence and work.
Probably the net effect would be a reduction in immigrants into Britain, at least relatively. Mr Straw said that the UK courts had become “too liberal” in granting asylum and for this reason it was necessary to adopt a common European definition of genuine refugee status.
Justice without borders
The second thrust of EU policy will be to create “a genuine European area of justice” where the cornerstone of policy is the mutual recognition of judicial decisions.
The suggestion is that the courts in one member country will no longer have to “interpret” a decision made in another’s courts — a process that is seldom speedy and can often mean criminals slipping the net while judges ponder warrant requests.
It will follow logically from this that extradition will become irrelevant and the expectation is that extradition procedures will be formally abolished among the EU member states “so far as persons are concerned who are fleeing from justice, after having been finally sentenced.”
The attitude tht I get, from whatever country in Europe, is that this is a matter for business to address and that basically the police forces have not fot the resources, the manpowerm or the time
The blueprint for the “area of justice” also provides for litigants in one member country to have the right to take civil actions in the courts of any other EU Member State.
Crime fighters
The third part of the package concerns the EU-wide fight against crime where the first call is for a major strengthening of co-operation between the crime prevention organisations of the member countries, possibly funded by the EU.
A far more prominent role is foreseen for Europol, the organisation set up in The Hague to improve the effectiveness of the competent authorities in the Member States in the field of prevention and combating terrorism, illegal drug trafficking and other serious forms of international organised crime.
Among other things, Europol will be specifically empowered to crack down on money-laundering as a crime in its own right and not, as now, only when it occurs as part of other criminal activity.
Europol’s enhanced cross-border activities will be linked to the work of a new “Eurojust” unit of prosecutors and magistrates which will initiate and direct investigations within any country’s national borders and would then co-ordinate operations across the EU.
The summit saw this as a crucial step in the fight against money-launderers, drug traffickers and organised crime rings but there has been concern, notably in some quarters in Britain, that such a public prosecution office could extend its powers into other areas, possibly leading to the Corpus Juris idea of a single legal system for the EU, an idea vehemently opposed by the Conservatives.
There is also to be a European Police College to train senior law enforcement officials in cross-border crime prevention techniques and a European Police Chiefs Operational Task Force to exchange experience and information and plan operations.
These were British initiatives and there is a good possibility the units may be located in the UK.
Not before time
There was no official reaction to the EU proposals from the Association of Security Consultants but Mike Cahalane, who handles standards and representation for the ASC, said he thought that most of the 66 members would say that if the legislators were now acting in this area “then it’s not before time”.
He thought that most consultants had felt “for some time now” that the EU was not doing enough to help law enforcement agencies tackle the rise in cross-border crime that had followed the opening of internal borders.
Graham Seaby, chairman of the ASC, agreed that the Association had not considered the EU paper but said that as an independent security consultant it was his personal view that “in dealing with business clients, the police force efforts generally throughout Europe are pretty unresponsive”.
Mr Seaby — whose consultancy operates across Europe — said that “even I, as a former senior police officer, have no confidence in the police aiding business to deal with crime...The attitude that I get, from whatever country in Europe, is that this is a matter for business to address and that basically the police forces have not got the resources, the manpower, or the time, and so there’s nothing they can do.”
Mr Seaby said that what the European institutions had said in the past about this problem “sounds to me like political hype”. Referring to the latest proposals he said “the idea’s grand, and I applaud the sentiments behind it, but with the examples of present police response and police effort in various countries and also the restrictions that are being placed by member governments in the EU on the police forces and on investigative actions, it seems that things are actually going completely in the other direction.”
Mr Seaby does a lot of work in transport logistics “and when you’ve got lorries and so on trundling across borders and aircraft transporting freight, then the whole question of co-operation between the police forces of the various countries is absolutely essential.”
It was true that between some countries now transfer was so easy that the driver might never know a border existed.
“It’s good for business, I have to agree, not to have these restrictions, but it does also of course give open avenues for the movement of other things like crime,” Mr Seaby said.
Source
SMT
