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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS