In the UK, we have always had international ambitions and international responsibilities. These obviously predate the EU — we have been trading and doing business in Europe for centuries.
However, for more than 40 years, our membership in the EU has significantly helped us realize our ambitions and discharge our responsibilities. It has also made us safer.
That the EU is now our biggest trading partner and that EU membership makes us attractive for inward investment is well-known. More than 80 percent of UK firms that trade do business with Europe. Less well-known are the arrangements used on a daily basis by our citizens and businesses to form and maintain the different relationships that trading in Europe throws up — business-to-business relationships, business-to-consumer relationships and family relationships — and to resolve differences when they arise.
In the past, our citizens and businesses had to rely on often slow and creaking intergovernmental cooperation, including bilateral and multinational conventions. Now, they can take advantage of EU civil judicial cooperation measures that are far more effective. Almost everyone with any experience in resolving cross-border civil disputes agrees that a return to the old way of working would very obviously be a retrograde step. The business case for staying in Europe is very powerful.
However, it is not just business relationships that have become more international. Those in Britain who engage in serious and organized crime do not confine their activities to within our borders. They increasingly operate across Europe.
The tragic events in Paris in November last year, along with confirmation that seven terror plots have been foiled in the UK in recent months, underline just how important it is that we maintain and enhance our capacity to investigate and prosecute those concerned. To counter these threats, our police and security forces need to be able to act just as quickly and across borders. Information needs to be shared speedily, arrests have to be coordinated and a prosecution strategy devised.
That is why all those involved in the investigation and prosecution of serious organized crime have always made full use of available EU police and criminal justice measures, often with very good results. One of the best examples is the case of Hussain Osman, one of the failed July 21, 2005, London bombers, who placed explosives at Shepherd’s Bush tube station before fleeing to Italy.
As a result of joint UK-Italian intelligence sharing and a European arrest warrant, he was arrested in Rome a few days later and returned to the UK. He was successfully prosecuted and is now serving a 40-year prison sentence.
That is in stark contrast to progress under earlier non-EU arrangements. The return from the UK to France of Rachid Ramda for his part in the 1995 Paris metro bombings took nearly 10 years to come to fruition. The European Police Office, known as Europol, established in 1998, contributes to more than 13,500 cross-border investigations each year.
Four years ago, a UK-led operation across 12 countries dealt successfully with a very large child abuse network. At least 230 children were at risk, including 60 in the UK, and the operation led to the arrest of more than 180 offenders, 121 of whom were arrested in the UK.
Alongside Europol, there are EU arrangements for joint investigation teams, which enable police teams in two or more EU countries to team up to carry out criminal investigations, and Eurojust, which is the body responsible for judicial cooperation between EU member states.
No less useful is the European criminal records information system, which holds details of the previous convictions of EU nationals. When I was director of public prosecutions from 2008 to 2013, we were among the heaviest users of the Eurojust facility. The benefits were obvious. Almost anyone with experience in fighting crime across borders agrees that a return to the pre-EU way of working would be a big step in the wrong direction.
With approximately 3,600 internationally active organized crime gangs operating in Europe, the need for EU cross-border cooperation and intelligence sharing will go up, not down. This is before we factor in the risk of terrorism.
The Paris atrocities are a stark reminder that if we want to remain safe, we need even greater sharing of intelligence, pooling of resources and joint working across Europe.
Britain outside the EU would be less able to respond with the speed and strength we need to tackle complex threats. That is why, alongside the business case for staying in the EU, there is a hard-headed national security case. By flirting with withdrawal from the EU, British Prime Minister David Cameron is now putting all of this at risk.
Keir Starmer is Labour Party member of the British parliament for Holborn and St Pancras.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS