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.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS