25/10/2004
So Blunkett has gone ahead and done it â he's agreed to allow QMV for "Title IV" of the Treaty of the European Union, thus extending the Commission's powers in respect of "visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons". (See previous Blogs:
here,
here, and
here.)
For sure, the UK does have an opt-out, but Blunkett has made it clear that he will accept some of the proposals, and the Council has also accepted the
Hague Programme, also known in Community jargon as Tampere II, which has some pretty horrendous implications.
But, as we are constantly finding out, this is by no means the end of it. Last Friday, without any significant publicity that I can discern, the EU commission adopted four more of its Communications on combating terrorism, reinforcing its "anti-terrorism action plan" which was adopted by the European Council in June last year. These too are being discussed by Blunkett and his fellow ministers during their meeting in Luxembourg.
Strangely, none of these communications seem to have been published yet, and the details in the press releases are disconcertingly vague. However, these seem to be all that is available, and they can be read from
here,
here,
here and
here.
The first, entitled: "Prevention, Preparedness and Response to terrorist attacks", sets the framework of the new EU plan against terrorism, proposing the "notion" that
â¦the fight against terrorism must be not only integrated â bringing all different policies together â but also inclusive - including all social, economic and political actors. It proposes a novel way of involving citizens, civil society and Parliaments on a reflection on how to reconcile the different objectives and concerns involved in fighting terrorism.
as well as advocating additional funding of 1 billion â¬/year for âsecurity researchâ from 2007 onwards.
The second deals with terrorist financing, arguing for the need to âenhance information exchange among relevant actors at national, EU and international levelsâ, including âthe need to facilitate co-operation and exchange structures encompassing fiscal authorities, financial oversight bodies, the Justice Department, intelligence community, law enforcement authorities and authorities in charge of administrative freezingâ.
It suggests that law enforcement services should have access to financial institutionsâ databases of account holders and their transactions, notes that member states should ensure that law enforcement services have resources to develop financial investigative skills allowing them to follow money trails, and talks about establishing âcommon minimum standards in financial investigative training in the EU.â
Also highlighted is âthe importance of effective customer identification by banks etc.,â and the commission calls for âcommon EU minimum approach in terms of identification processes used by financial institutions.â
Moving on from there, in its third âCOMâ, entitled âPreparedness and the Consequence Management in the Fight against Terrorismâ, the commission wants to strengthen âthe existing instruments on civil protection and consequence managementâ.
It argues that âcertain emergency situations may be of such gravity and the risk of their degenerating into a serious crisis so great that overall co-ordination across virtually all EU policies is necessary.â Co-operation and co-ordination between all Commission relevant rapid alert systems is, therefore, essential.
Thus, the commission wants to set up âa secure general rapid alert systemâ, which it will call ARGUS, to link all specialised systems for emergencies that require action at European level. With that goes a central âCrisis Centreâ â run by the commission of course, to co-ordinate efforts⦠âand to decide on the appropriate response measures.â
Traditional law enforcement is also needed, of course, but to manage this, the commission is proposing a âEuropean law enforcement networkâ (LEN) under the control of EUROPOL, linked to ARGUS, of courts. This will âserve in particular the EU law enforcement communityâ - the EU law enforcement community? â âusing the current secure communication channels of the Europol network.â
Then, finally, as if this was not enough, we have a COM on âCritical Infrastructure Protection in the Fight against Terrorismâ, which proposes âadditional measures to strengthen existing instruments mainly by the establishment of a European programme for Critical Infrastructure Protectionâ (EPCIP).
This will provide âenhanced security for critical infrastructure as an ongoing, dynamic annual system of reporting where the Commission would put forward its views on how to assure the continued functioning of Europe's critical infrastructure.â
As part of this programme, we also get an EU âCritical infrastructure Warning Information Networkâ (CIWIN), also established by the commission. This will âassist member states, and owners and operators of critical infrastructure to exchange information on shared threats, vulnerabilities and appropriate measures and strategies to mitigate risk in support of critical infrastructure protection.â
And where sectorial standards do not exist or international norms have not yet been established, the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) and other relevant standardisation organisations will propose uniform security sectorial and adapted standards for all the various branches and sectors interested.
People, this is not the march of integration. It is integration at the gallop â new agencies galore, with the commission at the centre, co-ordinating the action. And, as we all know, you cannot "co-ordinate" with also controlling. This is, as Orwell might have said, "double-plus ungood".