It is being suggested that the latest talks this week in Brussels ended in some acrimony. Looking at the technical papers tabled and published by the UK it is easy perhaps to see why. The one on Security, Law Enforcement and Criminal justice (HERE) is a case in point. Once again, it talks about the "strongest possible relationship" on law enforcement and criminal justice". It lists the 40 or so measures of the EU in which we participate at the moment and it sets out the reasons why we should continue with many of them even though we will be a third country.
I would have thought we have just voted to give up the "strongest possible" relationship but the paper looks like we are already reapplying for membership.
We withdrew from all 130 of the EU's criminal justice measures in 2013 (HERE) and (HERE) and then opted back in to the ones we liked, including the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), all this under the then Home Secretary Theresa May. In something that looks uncannily like the 2013 process, through Brexit, we are now leaving the EU altogether but we still seem to think we have the right to pick and choose which measures we will participate in.
On the EAW, the paper says, "Given the high volume of extradition requests under the EAW between the UK and EU Member States, this outcome would not be in the interests of either party in bringing criminals and terrorists to justice".
It is this arrogant assumption that we know what's best for the EU that must infuriate the Commission and the other EU members and it's really not a surprise that the unnamed EU diplomat, at the press briefing this week end said we have not yet come to terms with the consequences of the decisions we have made, in the referendum and afterwards. These technical papers are all cherry picking on an industrial scale. As a member of the EU, a country can negotiate all sorts of opt outs and opt ins but a third country has no rights whatsoever.
The UK paper itself recognises (page 7) there is no precedent for the EU to have an agreement with any third country on European Arrest Warrant (EAW) - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and says the similar function with Norway has taken five years to negotiate and still isn't in force!
When releasing the paper David Davis said (HERE), “A relationship based solely on existing third country precedents, as some seem to be suggesting, would lead to a substantial and avoidable reduction in our shared security capability. Our citizens depend on this, let’s not let them down.”
The senior EU official said they shared the UK’s concerns but that “this is a consequence on the UK position and it is incumbent on the UK to take the responsibility for its own decision”.
Having urged people to vote to become a third country, Davis seems to be surprised we will become a third country and now he doesn't want to "let them down".
This morning in The Telegraph, Davis is at it again, saying (HERE):
"Our proposals on security, for example, are not about bending rules or 'membership-lite' - they are about protecting people - nothing more, nothing less. We face the same threats and have shared values - criminals and terrorists do not respect borders."
He said that it is the "first duty" of Governments to keep their citizens safe.
But it is exactly about "bending rules" and "membership-lite" and as for it being the first duty of government to keep citizens safe - this is an insult to the British people. He has made us less safe and he knows it.
