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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS