Be afraid...

Not unexpectedly, the goal of setting up a European Public Prosecutor, allowed under the Lisbon Treaty, is gathering pace:

The Belgian presidency is stepping up plans to establish an EU-wide public prosecutor in charge of protecting the bloc's financial interests and unifying procedures for gathering criminal evidence, despite reluctance from some member states, notably the UK.

The UK has an opt-in via the Justice and Home Affairs Opt-In Protocol and also a veto:

Under the Lisbon Treaty, an EU public prosecutor's office "may be established from Eurojust," but only if all member states agree.

but (my emphasis):

The idea is not universally popular among the 27 member states. Mr De Clerck admitted that there was "still a lot of reluctance" on this issue in some national quarters, with the UK being "the most vocal." A major objection is that the prosecutor may override national investigators or even order them to start an inquiry.

Rightly so. Unfortunately the 'UK being vocal' is normally the first step in acceptance of EU wishes as per my golden rules:

...experience teaches us, that what really happens with a so-called eurosceptic Tory party is:

1. Britain claims proposals are unacceptable.
2. Britain attends negotiations isolated, and so a row ensues.
3. Behind the scenes lots of horse-trading happens.
4. Neville Chamberlain David Cameron will emerge waving a white piece of paper exclaiming that they have secured the best deal for Britain.
5. It later emerges that far more was given away than won.
6. Said opt-outs will erode over time, especially now EU law is supreme and thus they will leak like a sieve.
7. Britain will, as a result, be integrated further into the EU supranational state.
   

And this is precisely what will happen here. My Tory MP when I wrote to him would not categorically rule out opting-in. And the EPP is also a classic example of the so-called Lisbon Treaty 'red lines' leaking like a sieve.

Even if the UK veto's the establishment of a EPP, the Lisbon Treaty still allows for one under enhanced co-operation (Article 280), where if at least nine Member States wish to continue with establishing a EPP they are able to do so. Whilst Britain would largely be protected by its opt-in, this would not apply to legislation such as the controversial European Arrest Warrant and now the EIO. So UK citizens could still be forced to face prosecution in another EU member state - without asking the permission of the UK Government or the Director of Public Prosecutions and without prima facie evidence.

Given the abuses of the Arrest Warrant and that the EIO has yet to take its final form, protection of UK citizens from abuses by the state is on a rapidly accelerating downward trajectory.

Be very afraid...

A Further Loss Of Sovereignty

Open Europe reports:

Home Secretary Theresa May has just announced to the House of Commons that the UK has decided to opt in to negotiations on the European Investigation Order (EIO). It will give foreign police forces the right to compel UK police to seek and share evidence on suspects. This clearly poses fundamental questions about safeguards for civil liberties and the new pressures it will place on police resources.

Let us first give May some credit for giving a statement in person and allowing questions to be put to her rather than issuing a mere written statement (She has done good work on parliamentary scrutiny of EU issues in the past). However, it should also be said that MPs have not previously had the chance to scrutinise the proposal either in the European Scrutiny Committee or in the House.

The truth is that, although May did her best to push the 'nothing to see here line', the Government cannot guarantee how the final directive will look until after negotiations with other member states and MEPs in the European Parliament, which under the Lisbon Treaty now have powers to co-decide in justice and home affairs.

May said that signing up to the directive did not present a loss of sovereignty. But John Redwood made the valid and important point that if the UK doesn't have the ability (which it doesn't) to opt out of the European Investigation Order if it ends up as something "different to what was advertised" after negotiations then this must imply a loss of sovereignty.

The Home Secretary admitted today that there are aspects of the current proposal the Government does not like. This will now be decided by qualified majority voting, meaning the UK is powerless to veto the EIO either if these unwanted elements are retained or if new and unforeseen amendments are added along the way.

This is not to mention the fact that, as a result of Lisbon, the European Court of Justice will have the power to make rulings on how the EIO is interpreted in the UK.

Well what a surprise. It just confirms what I blogged here yesterday:

And once the UK has decided to opt-in there is no right to opt-out even if the outcome of the negotiations is not acceptable.

We're running out of political solutions.

Red Lines

The Daily Mail reports that the Tory-led coalition Government are set to allow foreign police forces jurisdiction on British soil;

Ministers are ready to hand sweeping Big Brother powers to EU states so they can spy on British citizens.

Foreign police will be able to travel to the UK and take part in the arrest of Britons.

They will be able to place them under surveillance, bug telephone conversations, monitor bank accounts and demand fingerprints, DNA or blood samples.

Anyone who refuses to comply with a formal request for co-operation by a foreign-based force is likely to be arrested by UK officers.

These new powers would come under the European Investigation Order (EIO), which is intended to compliment the controversial European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and the European Evidence Warrant (EEW) to be implemented by 2011.

The EIO Directive has been proposed on the basis of Article 82(2)(a) of the Lisbon Treaty. This means that the proposal is subject to qualified majority voting so no member state has a veto.

The UK, however has an opt in as part of its infamous red lines negotiated by the previous administration, so it could decide not to take part in the process at all, and let the other member states continue on their own. But no, as the Mail reports, the coalition cannot wait to sign up quick enough:

But ministers have made a dramatic U-turn since joining the pro-EU Lib Dems in government, and the wide-ranging powers are due to be approved later this week.

Whitehall insiders say ministers have been persuaded it has many benefits. In particular, police say they will gain from the fact that the arrangements will be reciprocal, making it easier for them to track suspects overseas.

Ministers have been persuaded? I bet they have, by the Foreign Office whose loyalty is to the bureaucrats in Brussels not to us.

Even worse, not only will the EIO allow any EU police force to start investigations on UK soil, but no judicial authority is needed to verify whether there are reasonable grounds for an offence to have been committed. Even in this country the police can’t investigate on a whim, they need to have reasonable grounds.

But even if Cameron promises (and we know what these are like) that the EIO should be subjected to judicial scrutiny, if we decide to opt in it would be very difficult to amend the draft proposals anyway. There is no guarantee that the EIO would not pass in its current and highly dangerous format. And once the UK has decided to opt-in there is no right to opt-out even if the outcome of the negotiations is not acceptable.

Once again the Tories are shown to be complete Europhiles, as Richard North points out:

But now we have the Tories back again, we can look forward to another leap forward in European integration, just as we do every time we have a Tory government.

Amusingly, and not surprisingly, just before the election, the Labour was accused of wanting to sign up to the same proposal:

Minutes of a parliamentary committee show Labour is quietly backing the idea. Home office minister Meg Hillier said: 'We would in principle support a new and comprehensive instrument based on mutual recognition that covers all types of evidence'.

And the Tory response? Tory justice spokesman Dominic Grieve said at the time:

'In supporting this proposal, Labour is yet again showing its relish for surveillance and disdain for civil liberties'.

The voters outside looked from Labour to Tory, and from Tory to Labour, and from Labour to Tory again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.