European Police force

[hiker]

there is an organisation called Europol that exists in the Hague. It has cross border powers to chase criminals in EU juristictions. Its remit is limited at present.
Should we push for an enhanced FBI-style EU police force?

[Vol]

Would this Europol be EU border guards?
To answer your last question, I don't think we should push for one at the moment - we should wait until all the EU countries have decided on the referendum.

[FutureTaoiseach]

there is an organisation called Europol that exists in the Hague. It has cross border powers to chase criminals in EU juristictions. Its remit is limited at present.
Should we push for an enhanced FBI-style EU police force?

As I understand Europol has a database with info on criminals that can be accessed by all of the EU's police forces. However it cannot make arrests.

No we should not. The European Arrest Warrant and the possible future Evidence Warrant will do.

[hiker]

Happy Birthday to me.
Its 5 years since I started my first thread.
Cool.....

[Old Mr Grouser]

As I understand Europol has a database with info on criminals that can be accessed by all of the EU's police forces. ...

Even that could be very tricky.

Suppose that every police-force in Europe had the DNA details of every criminal in Europe. DNA can reveal some very sensitive information: for example, that the subject's father and mother were closely related.

[FutureTaoiseach]

Article 86 TFEU as amended by Lisbon provies for an office of European Public Prosecutor. It can be established either by unanimity, or - if that fails - by Enhanced Cooperation (9 or more countries). Article 86 says that - while at first the EPP can only try crimes against "the financial interests of the European Union" - his/her remit can be expanded by unanimity to other areas of cross-border crime. If that happens, we are effectively no longer an independent country. It seems we can't be forced into this, as the only methods of establishment are special-legislative procedure (i.e. unanimity) or E.C. - and the latter can only be tried after the failure of unanimity. But does anyone seriously trust the slaves in Leinster House not to tow the Brussels' line? I certainly don't. Especially as FG is demanding (Euro election manifestio 2009) the abolition of the entire right to optout from JHA.

Establishment;

• The [COLOR=#0645ad]Council of the European Union[/COLOR], by a special legislative procedure, may establish a European Public Prosecutor's Office on the basis of [COLOR=#0645ad]Eurojust[/COLOR].
• This must be done by unanimity in the Council and with the consent of the [COLOR=#0645ad]European Parliament[/COLOR]
• If the Council cannot reach unanimity, a group of at least nine [COLOR=#0645ad]member states[/COLOR] may refer a draft to the [COLOR=#0645ad]European Council[/COLOR].
• Those member states may also proceed to establish [COLOR=#0645ad]enhanced cooperation[/COLOR] between themselves after informing Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

Role;

• The office shall, in liaison with [COLOR=#0645ad]Europol[/COLOR], be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment those connected to offences against the EU's financial interests.
• It shall exercise this function in the relevant national courts.
• The regulations establishing the office shall determine rules governing how it performs its duties including the admissibility of evidence.
• The European Council may amend the treaty, after consulting the Commission and gaining the consent of Parliament, to extend its powers to include serious cross border crime.

[YoungLiberal]

Article 86 TFEU as amended by Lisbon provies for an office of European Public Prosecutor. It can be established either by unanimity, or - if that fails - by Enhanced Cooperation (9 or more countries). Article 86 says that - while at first the EPP can only try crimes against "the financial interests of the European Union" - his/her remit can be expanded by unanimity to other areas of cross-border crime. If that happens, we are effectively no longer an independent country. It seems we can't be forced into this, as the only methods of establishment are special-legislative procedure (i.e. unanimity) or E.C. - and the latter can only be tried after the failure of unanimity. But does anyone seriously trust the slaves in Leinster House not to tow the Brussels' line? I certainly don't. Especially as FG is demanding (Euro election manifestio 2009) the abolition of the entire right to optout from JHA.

*sigh*

Just to point to anybody unfortunate enough to be reading this, Enhanced cooperation is limited to those who voluntary choose to engage in it.

[FutureTaoiseach]

*sigh*

Just to point to anybody unfortunate enough to be reading this, Enhanced cooperation is limited to those who voluntary choose to engage in it.

Did I say otherwise? Out political-elite are allegeric to any concept of an independent Irish stance separate from the majority of EU states. If unanimity fails. Article 86 TFEU allows Enhanced Cooperation to be invoked instead, requiring the approval of at least 9 member states. Enhanced-Cooperation has never been used (the euro was based on Maastricht as were the Danish and British optout so strictly-speaking, that wasn't E.C. either). So if the govt vetoes the establishment of the EPP, there is at least a possibility of scuppering the plan. In that context, it is essential that all parties clarify their position on the EPP before the next GE. After all, they are elected by the people to exercise sovereignty - and if they are going to surrender it all to Brussels, then there is little point in voting for them.

[Horses]

Try saving the Euro first.

[hiker]

YYYEEEEAAAAAHHHH!!!!!!

5 year old thread alive and kicking.....