Anti-terror call meets mixed reaction

Date: 18/05/06

When European Commission President Jos�anuel Barroso put forward his proposal for member states to lift their national vetoes in certain areas of criminal justice, the choice he presented was a stark one. "Should we wait for another terrorist atrocity before we have effective joint decisions across Europe to fight terrorism?" he asked.

It appears that Barroso's plan, which makes use of Article 42 in the Maastricht Treaty, is finding favour among some member states, especially those countries which already have in place strong bilateral and transnational co-operation with other member states.

Spain, which has seen the benefits of increased co-operation with France on the fight against Basque terrorists has welcomed the plan. "We are in favour of extending the powers," said a spokesman. "We don't only need co-operation with our neighbours but with other European countries."

France, which presented a policy paper just last month advocating similar co-operation on policing and judicial matters, has also been supportive of the plan.

Finland, which takes over the presidency of the Council of Ministers in July, said it thought it was a good idea and saw a need to implement previous agreements on greater co-operation in justice and security. "The overall objective is the need to get on with pan-European laws in this matter. It was accepted in the Tampere programme and the Hague programme," said a Finnish official.

The Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he would welcome any measures to help combat terrorism but Denmark has not given the warmest welcome to the Commission president's suggestion. Denmark is exempt from proposals on justice and security where the veto does not currently apply and so is not expected to be a champion of the Barroso proposal.

The Commission has also registered positive soundings from Lisbon.

The UK said it was keeping an "open mind" on lifting its veto on justice matters with a spokeswoman saying "we will neither automatically reject it or accept it".

"What we want are some clear details...on what the practical benefits are," the spokeswoman added.

While Downing Street has welcomed the plan, the UK Home Office has signalled to the Commission that it is less open to the idea.

The UK has an "opt-in" on justice and security matters whereby it chooses whether to be part of a proposal which does not require unanimous voting. Although there have been hints that it may be asked to lift this 'opt-in' clause, a spokeswoman said this would be "hard to give up".

Ireland similarly has this 'opt-in' clause and has not been particularly supportive of the notion of extending Commission powers in justice and security.

Ireland, supported by Slovakia, voted against a directive on data retention last February in the council, on the grounds that this was a matter for member states and not the EU.

A possible litmus test for the Barroso plan may be the proposal that went before the justice and home affairs ministers last month for greater police co-operation among member states. Again there was broad support among states where such co-operation with other countries already exists but among some of the new member states the notion of relinquishing control in such an area was not welcomed enthusiastically.

Some also question the urgent need for greater co-operation on police and judicial matters. "If you talk to anyone involved in policing what they need to deal with crime is not new laws," said one EU official.

Barroso's use of the threat of another terrorist attack has also been criticised as a way of painting those who oppose the plan as being soft on terrorism.

But the Barroso plan may not be scuppered just by those fearful of losing powers to the EU. It might yet be blocked by those wanting the EU to have more powers, in the shape of the EU constitution.

Because the extension of powers was foreseen in the constitution, Barroso has provoked charges that he is 'cherry-picking' elements of the constitution, instead of trying to get the whole text agreed.

In his defence, the Commission and member states supportive of the proposal, point to the existing Article 42 which allows for justice matters to be moved from intergovernmental law towards community law and so towards qualified majority voting.

Germany, whose support or opposition could be decisive, wants to see the proposed EU constitution implemented in full.

The Commission believes that it can still win over German support, especially in light of the need to fight terrorism. It might also take some encouragement from a reference Angela Merkel made during a recent speech to the Bundestag: "It is in justice and home affairs that we must take harmonisation further even if many member states have to give up their reservations."

The proposal is to be presented by the Commission in greater detail at the end of June and is expected to go before the justice and home affairs ministers in September and then the European Council in December.

It will probably come down to Germany to seek progress on the issue when it takes over the EU presidency in January.

Author looks at reactions from Member States' Governments following the European Commission's suggestions to eliminate the national veto from co-operation in police and criminal justice affairs. Article 42 EC allows for justice matters to be moved from intergovernmental law towards community law and so towards qualified majority voting. The Commission made this suggestion in a paper entitled 'A Citizens' Agenda', adopted on 10 May 2006.

European Commission: COM(2006) 211: Communication from the Commission to the European Council. A Citizens' Agenda - Delivering Results For Europe, 10.5.06 http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/president/pdf/com_2006_211_en.pdf

---