Anti-terrorist or anti-democracy?

DM campaign team Ian Farrow and Marc Glendening examine how legislation being pushed forward by the EU in the wake of September's terrorist attacks has more to do with completing the Superstate than
protecting us from terror.

"It will be difficult to achieve political union without there being the perception of an external political threat. A terrorist outrage would contribute to the perception of an external threat".
European Commission Forward Planning Unit, 1996

Brussels and Tony Blair are seeking to exploit the atrocities of September 11th to drive through a series of measures that will bring forward the creation of a common EU legal and policing system. This is something those working to create a system of government based in Brussels have long wanted to do. At the Tammerfors Summit back in October 1999 it was decided to drop various proposed home affairs measures because some member governments were worried that their adoption would let the cat out of the bag and result in public opposition.

EU leaders now see an opportunity to move more rapidly towards their goal. On 21st September, the Council of Ministers, the main decision making body in Brussels, passed a motion calling for 11 Pan-European measures to combat terrorism. As the Daily Telegraph's Brussels correspondent, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has argued, we should not be taken in by this dishonest ruse.

Ten of these proposals were being lobbied for behind the scenes before the terrorists even struck. As civil liberties groups such as Liberty and Statewatch have stated, the new proposed EU laws will not just apply to suspected terrorists. In any case, Britain, like most other western countries, already has anti-terrorism legislation in place.

Included in the legislation that Brussels wants to see forced through this December will be the following measures:

EU Arrest Warrant

Causing most concern to member states is the European Union Arrest Warrant (EAW). The EAW when issued in one member state will be actionable in all and includes automatic extradition between them. This is essential pre-condition for the formation of the EU's long-desired single legal area. Under the EAW, for example, a British citizen could be extradited to face trial in a court in Athens under a different legal system at the mere request of the Greek police and without the prior provision of evidence.

If the EAW is a necessary measure to defeat the threat of terrorism its use should be limited to acts of terrorism. However, legislation states that it can be used for any alleged criminal offence carrying a term of imprisonment of one year or more.

Definition of Terrorism

Under the proposed common definition any "act of intimidation" committed by "an individual or a group" with the intention of "seriously altering ... political, economic or social structures" will be classified as a terrorist offence. The new law makes reference to the "unlawful seizure of or damage to state or government facilities, means of public transport, infrastructure facilities, places of public use and property." This definition is so broad that individuals engaging in what would traditionally have been classified as civil disobedience could now find themselves being charged as terrorists.

We may give the benefit of doubt to the EU and suggest that this is just a piece of badly drafted legislation completed in haste. We could, but for the "Explanatory Memorandum" attached to the proposal which openly states that the definition "could include, for instance, urban violence." This appears to confirm that the definition will cover public order situations.

Ever since the anti-globalisation demonstrations at the European Union summit in Gothenburg in May this year the EU has been desperate to introduce legislation to control further protests or criticism aimed at it. Tony Bunyan, Editor of Statewatch, has said of the proposal, "There is a deliberate attempt to broaden the concept of terrorism to cover protest such as those in Gothenburg and Genoa."

Eurojust

Eurojust is the EU's public prosecutions agency that will have autonomous power to initiate investigations in any member state. This new body is already investigating 110 cases. Eurojust forms the core of a harmonised legal area for the EU and will form a close relationship with Europol (the EU's police force). Both organisations will remain devoid of democratic accountability. This is the foundation of the EU's federal judiciary and police system and is already arming itself with deeply repressive powers of surveillance.

Freezing of Assets

This proposal is almost one year old and has to date mostly been discussed in secret. The original proposal covers assets connected to drugs trafficking, EC budget fraud, money laundering and corruption. The new wide terrorism definition will be added to its remit. This "freezing" can be ordered without substantive evidence or grounds for suspicion. All that is required for the order to take affect is that a certificate is filled in correctly. With the burden of proof shifted from the state to the accused it will be up to the individual to prove that his assets were obtained lawfully. Needless to say, this represents a massive challenge to one of the most fundamental liberal, British legal principles: namely, innocent until proven guilty.

EuroPol

A massive extension of the powers of Europol (the EU's fledgling FBI) is also proceeding. Europol has been given the green light to form its own anti-terrorist squad with the right to demand any relevant intelligence from MI5 and MI6. Not a reassuring thought considering EU officials were caught selling intelligence information from the Schengen Information System three years ago. Under the protocols establishing EuroPol, its officers enjoy diplomatic immunity from prosecution, for reasons that have never been justified. The Blair government consented to the creation of this sinister organisation without it being debated in Parliament. The Mutual Legal Assistance Convention, signed by Jack Straw when Home Secretary, established the right of Europol or any EU national police force to order the investigation and keeping under surveillance of any British citizen. This would include the interception of letters and e-mails, together with phone bugs.

Conclusion

We are in grave danger of having the long-planned EU single legal area imposed through the back door in total absence of any national debate in Parliament. The present security crisis is of course ideal camouflage for both national governments and the EU to introduce such controversial legislation. As Romano Prodi, European Commission President, so respectfully concluded one month after the World Trade Centre tragedy, "These events have happened at a crucial point in the building of Europe. The current crisis favours integration by highlighting the need for more intense action."