Hard on Crime?

Europhobic and hard on crime - two unmistakable traits of the Conservative Party. But only one of them remains true to their DNA.

Home Secretary Theresa May announced to the House of Commons on 15 October that the UK Government intends to pull out of the EU’s Justice and Home Affairs laws which for many years have served Scotland well. The 133 pieces of legislation include the European Arrest Warrant (EWA), a system that requires EU Member States to arrest and extradite a criminal suspect (or sentenced person) to the issuing state to face trial.

The Lisbon Treaty gives the UK the opportunity, if it wishes, to opt-out of the legislation before 2014 – a concession agreed by the previous Labour Government. London would be allowed to opt back in at a later stage but only with the agreement of Europe’s capitals. Needless to say Theresa May isn’t thinking twice about “repatriating powers from Brussels”. But in doing so she will exclude Scotland and the UK from the only effective tool we have to combat cross-border crime, human trafficking, drug trafficking and money-laundering which costs the country £billions each year.

Yesterday in Holyrood Kenny MacAskill revealed that since 2004 between 60 and 70 criminals were brought back to Scotland through EAW. In answering a parliamentary question he stated that "the attitudes and actions of the UK Government towards Europe are jeopardising the administration of justice in Scotland”.

Indeed ‘transnational criminals’ would welcome Theresa May’s proposals with open arms. What are the odds of the UK becoming a gangster safe-haven with no laws to force London to extradite these criminals back to their home countries? The UK Government would have to establish individual bilateral agreements with EU Member States on crime prevention. Why bother, when a system that works already exists?

It’s called Europhobia. It’s so blinding they’re ignoring the number of recent high profile cases that have been resolved through EAW. Only last month the Sussex maths teacher who disappeared after travelling to France with a teenage schoolgirl was extradited back to England thanks to European Arrest Warrant.

Or what about the London bombings terrorist Hussain Osmain who would have taken advantage of the Italian legal system to stay in Rome and avoid extradition to the UK if the warrant didn’t apply to Britain.

Before the EAW was created in 2004 criminals were able to avoid extradition and face justice, such as Islamic terrorist Rachid Ramda – the mastermind behind the 1995 Paris metro bombings who was only handed over to Paris 10 years later.

Despite the unquestionable success of EAW the Tories argue it isn’t serving Britain well. They point to countries like Poland which use the system disproportionately. Indeed, Poland has become notorious for abusing the legislation by issuing warrants to bicycle thieves and other low-level criminals. In 2009 Warsaw issued 4,844 warrants compared to London’s 220. This is partly due to the fact that Poland has no prosecutorial discretion. They must therefore pursue all suspects on a “no evidence required” basis regardless of the severity of the crime.

The Tories argue that this “abuse” of the system is costly and prevents British police officers from focusing on more serious crime. They have a point. But the solution is to reform the system – not pull out of it. Introducing a ‘proportionality test’ to the legislation and raising the threshold so that only the most serious criminal cases are covered is the most obvious way forward.

Negotiation however, is where the Tories struggle. Europe is all about bargaining and sussing out your allies. The more friends you have around the table the greater the chances of getting what you want. But the Tories have been alienating themselves and alienating Scotland. It’s a one-way war of words across the English Channel with Westminster threatening vetoes and opt-outs at every turn.

Is the Home Secretary so naïve to believe that the other 26 capitals would allow London to opt back into the legislation at a later date without asking for some sort of concession? If I were Bucharest or Sofia I’d be demanding the UK loosened restrictions on Romanian and Bulgarian nationals working in the UK.

It once again shows why Scotland needs independence in Europe. The disintegrating relationship between London and Brussels is damaging. Instead of putting Scots at risk of criminals, sex offenders and terrorists the Tories should be at the heart of European decision-making, working constructively with our neighbours to improve the current set-up and leading the way on reforms. They’d rather throw their toys out of the pram and pander to their backbenches.

And how ironic that non-EU countries such as Norway and Iceland take part in European Arrest Warrant legislation. These countries go even further – they’re full members of Schengen!  

Theresa May’s motivations couldn’t be clearer. This opt-out will be the first opportunity London has to repatriate laws to Britain. Would they ever miss such an opportunity? No matter how successful or useful these trafficking laws may be –Theresa May would rather compromise the safety of Scottish families in the name of euroscepticism. Whatever happened to that party “hard on crime”? 

Vetoed by Spain or Forced in the Euro?

Borders at Gretna and forced in the Euro – that’s as good as the European argument gets for the unionist parties – assuming of course, that Jose Manuel Garcia Margallo, the Spanish Foreign Minister agrees to open the gates of the European Union. If he doesn’t, Scotland would be expelled from the club we are already part of, its people stripped of their EU citizenship and Edinburgh forced to reapply. Needless to say, their rhetoric couldn’t be any further from the truth.

The House of Commons Library recently produced a document entitled “Scotland, Independence and the EU” – a feeble attempt to examine how independence will impact on Scotland’s EU membership. What it does do however, is make three significant concessions. Firstly, that membership will be a matter of political consideration (of the Member States) rather than a legal one, on the basis that no provision exists in the Treaties that sets out what would happen in the event of part of a Member State becoming independent. The Greenland case demonstrates that EU institutions respond pragmatically to political events rather than rigorously applying legal theory. Indeed the European Commission responded to the political, economic and geographic realities of Greenland, despite the lack of provisions in the Treaties for changing Greenland’s status.

Greenland of course also demonstrates that it’s impossible for a part of a Member State to be kicked out of the EU without going through lengthy negotiations. The country secured autonomy from Denmark in 1979, it voted to withdraw from the EU in 1982 but didn’t formally leave until 1985.

Secondly, it acknowledges that the Lisbon Treaty makes automatic membership easier by removing the need to amend voting rights from new Treaty texts. When Ireland narrowly voted against the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 it was feared the decision would put Croatia’s EU accession in jeopardy, as its membership depended on the ratification of the Treaty and its reform of voting procedures. From 2014 every Member State will have only one vote in the Council of Ministers. Weighted voting will disappear but double majority will remain – thus giving smaller Member States a louder voice.And thirdly, it recognises that Scotland could well be recognised as one of two successor states, thereby retaining the opt-outs negotiated by the UK. It concedes that whilst Sweden is legally obliged to join the single currency, as agreed by the Maastricht Treaty it signed up to, it seems unlikely that it will join in the near future.

The truth is that the EU has never forced a Member State to sign up to anything that is against the will of its people. Sweden voted against Euro membership in 2003 and the EU has accepted that political reality. Scotland will not be forced to join the Euro. But even if, hypothetically, it decided to sign up to it, the people of Scotland would be the ultimate decision makers. If Scotland rejected Euro membership in a referendum the case would be closed.

The anti-independence voices are also blind to recent electoral developments in continental Europe. The comeback of the French socialists and the struggle of the Greek pro-austerity parties to form a coalition are already sending chills down spines in Brussels.

If the euro is to survive, Europe will need to have an honest rethink about euro membership, entry processes and deficit regulation. Countries will no longer be able to swan in the Eurozone and it's likely that the bloc will review its compulsory entry requirement.

The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states quite explicitly that any country wishing to join the euro must join the Exchange Rate Mechanism for at least two years. For Scotland to join, its currency would need to be pegged to the euro and would therefore require the co-operation of the Bank of England. Sterling would need to operate within the normal fluctuation margins without severe tensions for a minimum two-year period.

Given that there is no prospect of the UK ditching the pound in the near or distant future, it's difficult to see how such a requirement could be fulfilled. A new process of transition would need to be formulated at European level to allow Scotland to join the currency directly from sterling. Would the classic EU fudge do it? Quite possibly – but it would take time to agree and achieve.

Moreover, an independent Scotland would need its own central bank – another requirement for euro entry – to work alongside the European Central Bank. So, on a technical level it would arguably be a greater challenge to get an independent Scotland to join the euro than to keep out of it.

The Commons paper also dwells on whether Scotland and the UK would be considered two successor states. In a recent response to a question by a Catalan MEP about Scottish independence the European Commission described a future independent Scotland and the remaining parts of the UK as "the parties concerned", implying that both Scotland and the rump UK are being treated equally. While the Commission continues to give very little away, their use of language is very significant.

The Spanish Foreign Minister has stated time and time again that Scottish independence is not a matter for Spain and that the latter would not veto its continuing membership. The idea that Scotland would be expelled from Europe upon independence is not only politically ludicrous, it is legally impossible. The acquis communautaire would only give the EU and its Member States three possible grounds to object to Scotland remaining in the EU: that it is not a democracy, that it is financially insolvent; and that it violates the European convention on human rights. 

The truth is that the Unionists are running out of arguments and running out of steam. Their only option is to make things up - as they do on Europe - therefore destroying their own case and credibility.

READ THIS IN THE HERALD
READ THIS IN THE SCOTSMAN

It's time for responsible banking

The EU’s Internal Market Commissioner, Michel Barnier, last week hit out at banks for ‘excessive’ and ‘unjustifiable’ bonuses paid to executive staff. It follows a new report from the European Banking Authority which shows that bonus rules were “not being implemented consistently across EU Member States”.

The figures are startling but not surprising. The average bonus paid to bank executives across Europe was 122% of their basic salary while in one unnamed EU country the average was 220%. I’ll refrain from speculating on which EU country it could be but I won’t think too hard about it...

The European Parliament now wants bonuses to be capped at 100% of basic pay. Many will argue that this is simply not bold enough. But the fact that some bankers are receiving bonuses 10 times larger than their base salary doesn’t seem to bother George Osborne or David Cameron, who see any intervention from Brussels to propose common sense as a threat to the City of London.

In 2008 Scottish and UK taxpayers gave £1.3 trillion pounds to the financial sector. In return for cleaning up the irresponsible mistakes of bankers the UK Government hit us with higher taxes and cuts. Cuts to public services, cuts to the voluntary sector, cuts to welfare. Over the same period bank bonuses accounted for £13 billion and at the start of last year bankers awarded themselves salary increases of 20-40%.

Prior to the Westminster elections George Osborne pledged to rebalance the UK economy away from investment banking. But his defence of the City of London and his staunch opposition to a financial transactions tax proves where his loyalty truly lies. Surely it’s time to tackle the lucrative banking culture head on and force the banks to make a contribution to society, public finances and to the cost of economic recovery.

The EU only gets involved with tax when it affects the functioning of the Internal Market. Whilst anyone would rightly be sceptical about Brussels encroaching upon the taxation policy of Member States, the European Commission’s bid to establish a Europe-wide and ultimately global financial transactions tax should be supported.

Indeed the SNP has welcomed the proposal to tax financial transactions that take place between financial institutions. But before that can happen the European Commission must convince not only Europe but at the very least the G20, that such a tax, otherwise known as the Tobin Tax, is a good idea. A Tobin Tax will be no use as a Eurozone-only experiment. Europe’s financial centre - the City of London – cannot be exempt from it. And although it is being proposed by the European Commission as a measure for the EU, it must be implemented globally if it is to have any significant impact.

There would be a 0.1% tax on the trading of bonds, shares and derivatives which would create £20 billion per year and help offset cuts to public services. Not only would it help boost recovery – it would discourage risky and unproductive trading. Citizens and businesses would not be taxed; mortgages, bank loans, insurance and other day-to-day financial activities carried out by individuals or small businesses would not be affected.

What is different about the Tobin Tax is that it is largely bottom-up and has the support of NGOs, charities, political parties, economists and trade unions - from Lord Turner, Chairman of the Financial Services Authority, to Oxfam. Over 1,000 economists have so far lobbied the G-20 for the tax to be introduced at a global level. Charities and organisations across Scotland have done the same and Oxfam recently commissioned a poll showing that 62% of Scots want the Tobin Tax to be introduced immediately.

The financial crisis exposed the dangers of unregulated finance and any link that existed between the financial sector and wider society has been broken. Any responsible Government would be working to restore confidence and bridge the gap. The Commission’s proposals, if implemented correctly, have the potential to create a new social contract with the financial sector. But the Tories in London are yet again demonstrating to be out of touch and continue to promote the interests of the few. Scotland’s economy can no longer afford to be held to ransom by policies designed to benefit the South East of England and the City of London.

PUBLISHED IN THE SCOTS INDEPENDENT, MAY 2012

EU Nationals – what’s all the fuss about 60,000 votes?

It was only a matter of time before the euro-noia gene of the Scottish Conservatives disembarked upon the mechanics of the referendum. David McLetchie and his party have made their view clear that EU nationals should be excluded from voting in 2014. Indeed the former Tory leader has argued on several occasions in parliament that the referendum should be based on the UK elections franchise rather than the Scottish Parliament one.  

On similar lines, Dunfermline and West Fife Labour MP Thomas Docherty asked a question in the Commons last month about why a French student who comes to Scotland could be allowed to have a say in the referendum. In doing so the Labour Party has aligned itself with the Tories and is very close to implying that “foreigners” should not be entitled to vote.

So why should EU nationals vote in 2014? In short - because it’s their referendum as much as anyone else’s. The unionists say a French student could come to Scotland, leave the country and never come back. For argument's sake, you could be born in Scotland, receive a free school education, free healthcare, never pay a penny in taxes, vote in 2014, leave and never be seen again. What’s the difference? It’s an utterly empty argument.

The truth is that the vast majority of the 60,000 EU nationals who are registered to vote are not students who live here for a few years and leave. They are people who have settled in Scotland, many who have lived here for decades and now call it their home. They come to Scotland to work; they open businesses, create jobs, pay tax and integrate well in their communities. The consequences of Scotland taking control of its own affairs will impact EU nationals no less than anyone who was born here.

It's true that many EU nationals in Scotland don’t vote in elections; primarily for two reasons: firstly because they’re not aware that they are eligible to vote in certain elections - the fact they can’t vote for Westminster creates confusion - and many therefore don’t register. Secondly, though to a lesser extent, some don’t t feel the same obligation or right to take part. 
It took me some time to convince my own father, an Italian national who has lived in Scotland for over 25 years that he should vote in 2014. Over the past months I’ve spoken to numerous EU nationals who do vote in Scottish elections but who refuse to vote in an independence referendum because they don’t want to ‘interfere’ with a decision they believe should be taken by the ‘Scottish people’ i.e. anyone born in Scotland. It’s not that it doesn’t interest them – quite the opposite. It’s simply a feeling that it’s not a matter for them and not a process they should be involved in.  The Yes campaign will have to make it clear from the outset that this is their referendum too.

So, should we even fuss about 60,000 votes? Yes, and Quebec tells us why. Fewer than 60,000 votes determined the outcome of the Québécois sovereignty referendum in 1995. Looking at the current opinion polls there is reason to believe that whatever the outcome in 2014, it will be a close battle. It’s therefore crucial that the Yes campaign communicates clearly with EU nationals. The message is simple: Scotland’s fight for self-determination is a matter for anyone who lives in Scotland and calls it their home. They must be made to feel included in the process because they will be affected by the outcome. Scotland is their country and 2014 will be their referendum too.

It’s no coincidence that so many Scots-Italians and Franco-Scots are members of the SNP. They have never understood why a distinctly separate nation continues to be ruled by another. It won't be hard to get EU nationals on side but they need to be mobilised. As a prominent nationalist once said, “it's not where we came from that's important; it's where we're going together”.

PUBLISHED IN THE SCOTS INDEPENDENT, MARCH 2012