By Bruno Waterfield - 19th September 2006
The tide has turned against “resistance” to reduced national vetoes on EU justice decisions, the European commission said on Wednesday.
The commission and Finnish EU presidency have tabled proposals to shift key policing and crime fighting powers over to EU decision-making procedures.
Brussels and Helsinki are ramping up pressure, highlighting immigration crises, paedophile murders and August terror conspiracies to jump governments into line during informal talks.
The commission believes that the question has been taken outside the traditional political mould by the rise of new security and crime threats.
“There is resistance but this is not an ideological issue, the commission is convinced that the practical needs of the moment are with its approach,” said the official Brussels spokesman.
'Citizens expect'
Finnish justice minister Kari Rajamäki will tell colleagues that EU decision-making by qualified majority votes, rather than unanimity, was needed to boost security.
“Moving towards qualified majority voting in the field of police cooperation is important for the EU’s internal security.
“At the moment, decision-making on internal security issues is artificially divided,” he said.
“Qualified majority voting can be used on issues concerning immigration… whereas issues relating to police cooperation require unanimity.”
“The EU must be able to make decisions more effectively with regard to combating cross-border security threats. Citizens rightly expect this of the EU.”
Forward to 1999
Europe’s interior ministers begin a summit in Tampere with Thursday discussions on immigration before moving to future, controversial, developments in EU justice policy.
The Finnish EU presidency is hoping to emulate a 1999 meeting that led to the development of new European level justice decision-making.
An alleged August terror plot targeting transatlantic flights has revived EU debates over the rules governing transfers personal data to security agencies, ministers will consider tougher European measures.
A summer of illegal immigration crises on Europe’s southern sea borders – especially in the Spanish Canary Islands and Malta – have generated new calls for extra funding for and coordination of EU level action to secure frontiers.
Ministers will also kick-off a highly political autumn and winter discussion over the question of widening the scope of EU justice decisions.
From unanimity to QMV
The European commission has tabled proposals to shift key policing and crime fighting powers over to EU decision-making procedures, from unanimity to qualified majority voting.
European commission president José Manuel Barroso and justice commissioner Franco Frattini see the package key to speeding up the EU’s response to crime and terrorism.
Cross-border “hot pursuit” by police officers, sharing data on highly mobile terror suspects or child pornographers and procedural rights for crime suspects are central to the proposals.
Barroso, Frattini and the Finnish EU presidency see the new initiative as important to show a “Europe of results” following last year’s demise of the EU constitution.
Opposition
But opposition is expected from Germany, Ireland, Slovakia and the UK and proposals will be squeezed before coming before EU leaders in December.
Berlin has constitutional problems with greater EU justice powers which clash with the prerogatives of Germany’s regional Länder governments.
A tussle between the national federal government and the Länder legislatures has already followed EU justice measures – such as the European Evidence Warrant.
Länder have key justice powers and have resisted EU decision-making in policing areas and more moves are regarded as constitution cherry picking.
Germany is unwilling to reopen rows after last year succeeding, with difficulty, in securing Länder agreement for the EU constitution.
Ireland and Slovakia are concerned over the legal basis for new EU data surveillance measures, both Dublin and Bratislava have launched a courts challenge.
The UK is prepared to consider policing measures on a case by case basis but will resist the drift to EU as opposed to inter-governmental justice policy.
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.