The Home Office is to announce a review of UK extradition agreements with other countries, including the controversial and some say unbalanced agreement with the United States. This represents a provisional success for campaigners against certain extradition agreements.
According to reports, the review will include the Extradition Act 2003 which implemented into law the UK-United States extradition treaty. It will also consider the European Arrest Warrant, which was used for 50% more arrests last year. The review fulfils the pledge made in the coalition’s program for government to ”review the operation of the Extradition Act – and the US/UK extradition treaty – to make sure it is even-handed”.
BULLSHIT – it has even fooled the author of the UK Human Rights Blog from whom the above paragraphs are extracted.
What the Home Office will be doing is seeing how much of this can be removed from the UK statute book, to be replaced by an all encompassing set of treaties drawn up by the EU, which will become UK law without debate or intervention by the UK parliament.
Statewatch clearly sets out the documentation that is already in place to allow such negotiations to begin.
There are currently six EU-US agreements covering justice and home affairs issues:
1. Europol (exchange of data);
3. Mutual assistance;
4. PNR (passenger name record);
5. SWIFT (all financial transactions, commercial and personal);
6. Container Security Initiative (CSI).
Getting agreement on many of them has proved controversial and time-consuming (now the European Parliament has a say) so now the EU and the USA want to conclude a long-term general agreement covering all future exchanges of personal data concerning any criminal offence however minor.
The EU’s negotiating mandate, drawn up by the European Commission and now to be agreed to by the Council of the European Union:
a) Explanatory Memorandum and proposed Recommendation (COM 252-10): Proposal for a Council Recommendation to authorise the opening of negotiations for an agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on protection of personal data when transferred and processed for the purpose of preventing, investigating, detecting or prosecuting criminal offences, including terrorism, in the framework of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters
b) Mandate: Negotiating Directives (pdf)
Background: see: Reports by the High Level Contact Group (HLCG) on information sharing and privacy and personal data protection (EU doc no: 15851/09, pdf)
“The European Union would apply these principles for “law enforcement purposes”, meaning use for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of any criminal offense.” while: “The United States would apply these principles for ‘law enforcement purposes’, meaning for the prevention, detection, suppression, investigation, or prosecution of any criminal offense or violation of law related to border enforcement, public security, and national security, as well as for non-criminal judicial or administrative proceedings related directly to such offenses or violations.” (emphasis added)
See also Council Presidency to Justice and Home Affairs Counsellors: EU-US High Level Contact Group on data protection and data sharing (HLCG) (EU doc no: 14574/09, pdf):
This records that: 1) the US Privacy Act only applies to US citizens and further that extensive exceptions are allowed for law enforcement agencies; 2) in the EU “every individual has a fundamental right to effective judicial remedy” but “In the US no comparable general rule exists”; and 3) “It is clear that the EU cannot accept a principle that does not provide for an unconditional right to judicial redress. That, on the other hand, is unacceptable to the US” so the EU Council Presidency has proposed: “that any possible gap in the US redress framework which is unacceptable to the EU, cannot be fixed in the redress principle, but must, if necessary, be addressed in a possible future agreement.”
The reasoning behind this is very simple. By removing these from the UK Statutes it also removes any rights we have under Common Law, and placing the EU produced laws under the realms of corpus juris, and a European Criminal Code, whereby the assumed guilt and detention of the accused before proof of innocence is legal. Who needs the 90 day detention laws when you have this?
The art of doublespeak is still alive and well in Westminster. Yet again we see a British Government making way for the EU empire by lying to the British people with their treacherous actions. The British people have been had again….
Still want to believe a British Government wouldn’t act against their own people? Tory and LibDem politicians need to hang their heads in shame.