Results

Introduction | Results | Demographics | Contacts | Disclaimer

 

Policing, security and defence

Questions and results

General issue

Results

Question reference

A Do you believe that your home state should cooperate with other states on cross-border security, defence and policing matters?

UK question: 3. Do you believe that the UK should cooperate with other states on cross-border security, defence and policing matters?

EU question: 2. Do you believe that your home state should cooperate with other states on cross-border security, defence and policing matters?


B Is it appropriate for the member states of the European Union to cooperate on matters of security, defence and cross-border crime?

UK question: 33.

EU question: 26.


C Would it be appropriate for the European Union to have a common defence policy and widespread cooperation in security and policing matters between the member states?

UK question: 43.

EU question: 36.


D New international arrangements led to the quick repatriation of a terrorist who fled to Italy and was eventually found guilty of involvement in the failed 21 July 2005 London bombings. This was in place of the more lengthy extradition process. Is it appropriate for states to enter into such "fast track" arrangements?

UK question: 12. New international arrangements led to the quick repatriation of a terrorist who fled to Italy and was eventually found guilty of involvement in the failed 21 July 2005 London bombings. This was in place of the more lengthy extradition process. Is it appropriate for the UK to enter into such arrangements?

EU question: 9. New international arrangements led to the quick repatriation of a terrorist who fled to Italy and was eventually found guilty of involvement in the failed 21 July 2005 London bombings. This was in place of the more lengthy extradition process. Is it appropriate for states to enter into such "fast track" arrangements?


E The European Arrest Warrant is a new legal device, regulated by the European Union - adopted by some member states - which allows for the quick detention and deportation of criminal suspects. Is this an appropriate measure for member states to adopt, and for the EU to regulate, in tackling crime?

UK question: 51. The European Arrest Warrant is a new legal device, regulated by the European Union - adopted by some member states, including the UK - which allows for the quick detention and deportation of criminal suspects. Is this an appropriate measure for the UK to adopt, and for the EU to regulate, in tackling crime?

EU question: 44. The European Arrest Warrant is a new legal device, regulated by the European Union - adopted by some member states - which allows for the quick detention and deportation of criminal suspects. Is this an appropriate measure for member states to adopt, and for the EU to regulate, in tackling crime?


F Should named EU member states aid the defence of other named EU member states that are under attack?

UK question: 22. If Spain were attacked by another country is it appropriate for the UK to help it repel such an attack?

EU question: 17. If Spain were attacked by another country is it appropriate for Belgium to help it repel such an attack?


G The UK has a treaty commitment to defend Poland against attack from non-treaty states. Which body is the origin of that treaty:

Abbreviations
EU: European Union
NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
UN: United Nations

UK question: 45.

EU question: 38.


Analysis

This area of the survey investigates what many see as a fundamental mark of sovereignty: policing and defence. What is immediately apparent from our respondents is that they see these areas as requiring cooperation between states, be that within the EU – which is directly addressed – or otherwise.

Questions A-C address this segment of analysis broadly, to generally outline the issue as to whether there is value to individual states in cooperating with other states. Over 90% agreed with the general premise in question A, with only a minor deviation in support between the UK and EU respondents. For question B almost the same question is asked, but this time the European Union is introduced as a central component of the question. Again over 90% of the respondents supported this notion, with a slight increase over the previous question for the EU respondents and a slight decrease for the UK respondents.

Increasing the role for the EU in question C, to a “common defence policy” saw some of this support drop away. But still, two-thirds of UK respondents and three-quarters of EU respondents viewed cooperation at an EU level in this area in a positive light. What this data may indicate is that the respondents support general cooperation between states, but are more guarded about control of their police or defence forces being shared – either with central EU control, or with other member states. This issue will be discussed further below.

Policing, security and defence, at an EU level, form the second and third (of three) pillars of the European Union. In this respect decisions on these matters are made on an intergovernmental basis within the Council of the European Union (Council of Ministers). That is, representatives from the national governments of each member state vote on the matter, and implementation of any measure usually requires unanimity.

These are all matters for the Treaty on European Union, by which Title V provides for “common foreign and security policy” and Title VI for “police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters”. In general Title V avoids military and defence matters1, concentrating on foreign policy and security. Where, the wider sense of security will include establishing stable borders and the provision, protection and planning of food and energy sources, for example, but not immigration and asylum2. However, art 17(1) talks of “the progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence”, any such measures to be in accordance with the obligations of the member states with regard to any other bodies (eg NATO, the Western European Union or the United Nations). Within this text there is no direct provision for raising or funding a “European Defence Force” and so no such entity exists or is proposed by the organs of the EU. This issue will be discussed more fully below. It is worth bearing in mind that the impetus for the creation of the EU was the devastation caused by two major wars in the first half of the 20th century. It probably would not be too extreme a view to speculate, in that light, that a future crisis may bring about a unified defence force for the region.

The provisions of Title VI call for greater cooperation between the member states in policing, either directly or indirectly (via the European Police Office – Europol), and in justice, again directly or indirectly (via the European Judicial Cooperation Unit – Eurojust). Within this element there is no call for a unified police force or judiciary, merely cooperation between the authorities of the member states. Two minor exceptions apply, those are that the treaty calls for “approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States”3 and there are provisions for “enhanced cooperation”4 – although what this may mean is not made explicit, and should only occur as a “last resort”5.

Respondents to questions A-C would consequently appear to agree with the actual provisions within EU legislation in this general area.

Looking at a more specific area, the respondents have a less enthusiastic view over coordinated arrest, detention and extradition, which is provided for within Title VI6, and operated via Europol – the European Arrest Warrant. Question D is non-specific over the legal provisions involved, with around 70% of respondents from both surveys indicating that they support the measure concerned. This may have dropped from the more forthright views shown in questions A and B, either due to the introduction of terrorism (which may have negative connotations for the judicial system in many people’s minds), or due to the negative views they may have to the lack of judicial oversight involved in “fast track” extraditions, which have received much publicity in the UK (for example the case of Gary McKinnon).

At the heart of this matter lays a fundamental issue of cooperation in crime and justice cross-border, and that is whether there is trust in the “foreign” system, and equivalence in its rules on law and incarceration. What the respondents to question D may be indicating is that there is some doubt in their minds over these issues. However, in question E the same issue is placed within an EU framework, with the result that there is a substantial rise in the backing of the UK respondents for this measure, and a small increase from the EU respondents. This finding is counter to the premise that this survey sought to prove: that there is a prejudice against EU institutions, for equal matters of law. What is shown in questions D and E appears to be that the respondents actually prefer the involvement of the EU as opposed to an undesignated provision between states. Therefore the conclusion may not be that the EU is a positive aspect in this area, but that it is a less negative aspect than other forms of international cooperation.

The basis for the inclusion of crime and justice cooperation within the competence of the institutions of the EU, rather than purely national measures, is that the free movement of citizens and a lack of border controls between states in the Schengen area called for EU-level coordination.7 Thus sensitive areas of national policy became part of Community law and policy. Although the United Kingdom and Ireland had opted-out of Schengen as a whole they have both since opted-in to the measures facilitating cooperation on policing and justice in relation to criminal matters.

The final area of this section of the survey is not directly related to the EU, questions F and G essentially seek to understand the respondents beliefs on common defence between the member states. Participating states in these scenarios were chosen arbitrarily – but evidently concern three Western European (EU-15) and one Eastern European member state. Of those surveyed 69% of UK respondents and 80% of EU respondents believed that the UK and Belgium (respectively) should assist Spain if it were attacked by a third country. Three rationales for this high level of support exist: (i) that the treaty obligations involved are understood, (ii) that it is understood that a threat to the security of a relatively close neighbour is a threat to one’s own security, (iii) that there is a spirit of solidarity between these nations.

Explanation (i) may have some basis for the EU respondents, but not for the UK respondents – where the attribution of treaty obligations appears misunderstood (discussed below). Explanation (ii) and (iii) are possible, and have equal validity between the sets of respondents. The central reason that explanation (i) can be rejected for the UK respondents is illustrated in question G – where only 37% of respondents correctly identified the obligation of the UK to defend Poland as originating in NATO (clearly the UK has a similar obligation to defend the other NATO member states, that includes Spain and Belgium). As detailed above there is no mutual defence policy within the EU, only a call for cooperation, likewise no such obligation exists in UN treaties. The Warsaw Pact was the name given to the alliance of Eastern European states, behind the “Iron Curtain”, prior to the political changes in the early 1990s.

Regardless of the explanations for such, and the alliances involved, the respondents appear to support commitments by their governments to mutual defence policies. It is submitted that this support would still exist whether such alliances were organised through EU institutions, rather than through NATO. Since the rationale for joint action, neighbourhood or solidarity, would continue to be apparent.

As noted above, there exists within the EU an ambition to achieve closer cooperation in the area of security and defence, and it would seem inevitable that this will come about. Two examples illustrate this point. The first is the interrelated nature and proximity of the EU member states – hostilities in one member state cannot help but effect the economies and security of the other member states. This issue is reinforced by the existing recognition by the member states that cooperation is a requirement – whether that is justified by Schengen or not. The second reason is that the economies of defence may dictate closer cooperation in the future, with shared resources and facilities. Although such practices have not yet come to pass, it is significant that the EU’s two nuclear powers have been linked to a number of initiatives to cooperate on defence: in the construction of aircraft carriers, and most recently patrols by nuclear submarines. A further example of this is provided by the joint efforts of Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK in the development of the Eurofighter.

However, “enhanced cooperation” in Europe will not only be decided upon the matter of sovereignty, but also upon differing foreign policy. Tensions have emerged within the EU member states over divergent views in international crises from Sierra Leone and Yugoslavia through to Iraq and Afghanistan. Until such matters can be resolved with a common foreign policy it seems a more deeply integrated defence policy is difficult to achieve.

 

1 Arts 23(2) and 27 specifically reject the idea that these provision include a military or defence element.

2 Immigration and asylum policies are addressed within Title IV of the EC Treaty.

3 Preamble to Title VI, art 34(2)(b) and (c).

4 Arts 40, 40a, 40b and Title VII.

5 Art 43a

6 Art 31(b) facilitating extradition between Member States.

7 Paul Craig and Gráinne de Búrca, EU Law: text and materials, fourth edition, Oxford University Press, 2008, 232.

 

Introduction | Results | Demographics | Contacts | Disclaimer