I am not sure that I agree with this report.

Really Alex? I would rather have hoped you definetly were against any report that calls for all of those things. I thought the CNE was vaguely libertarian...I guess I was well wrong.

The gutter press would complain that ‘foreigners in jackboots are now arresting our citizens at dead of night. Didn’t we fight the Second World War to prevent this?’

YES! YES! YES, WE DID! ARRGH!

Instead of being afraid of such criticism, [eh?] Europe’s national leaders should look forward [can't be good] and provide leadership [worse] in solving our new [?] problems, such as [fascism? nope.] organised crime.

of course, the condescending tone is the most infuriating thing, as is the brushing aside of a legitimate concern about possible similarities to the last bunch of autocratic, unelected socialists who wanted the unify the continent.

"Silly Britisher chums! Ve are the EU polizei, haben sie nothing to fear! Papers, please?"

"Sehr interessant! Come viss us!"

Ugh.

Andrew,

Three thoughts about the report:

Firstly, it fails to deliver evidence to back up its claims - the report uses phrases like "evidence exists" without explaining what evidence this is or giving a footnote.

Secondly, the assumption that the EU is the solution is not one that I think everyone would share.

Thirdly, the report will be used by those who oppose free trade in pharmaceuticals in Europe to create an EU regulatary system that can counteract the current EU belief that free trade must be supported. The report describes free trade as "parasitic" and people who legitimately buy from one country and sell in another are called "parallel profiteers". The report says that "one of the most serious impediments to an allied transatlantic war against prescription drug counterfeiters is parallel trade."

What is certain, though, is that one death from medicines counterfeiting in Europe is one death too many,

One death from unneccessary government regulation is one too many. Can we have a precautionary prinicple for government regulation?

If we get an American style FBI will we get a J Edger Hoover keeping secret files on everybody? -- the FBI has always spent more effort on political crime than anything else.

I think we should have a war against disorganised crime.
AKA the EU.

So... the EU Elite want a new police force to fight counterfeit drugs? That's it? They want to start a police group with more powers than any European "law enforcement" group since the SS in order to tackle a single issue that doesn't even affect the average Joe?

I believe in protecting patents and all, but this seems a bit like using an RPG to take care of a mosquito. And just like in the cartoons, the tiny insect will be left untouched while everything around him will be reduced to rubble.

What a flimsy excuse for expanding state powers. They could at least have the decency to use an excuse the general population might actually buy, like terrorism, or bird flu. Nope, apparently cheap Viagra is the most pressing issue facing the Continent these days. Not that it matters. If the recent actions of the EU bureaucrats are any indication this matter won't be left to the serfs to decide anyway.

It used to be said that Hell was a place where the policemen were German, the politicians French, and the cooks British. Now you are getting something even worse: a place where the police are Belgian!

As to comparisons between the FBI and proposed Euro-cops, we Yanks have a pretty clear division between Federal and state crimes. The Feebs cannot arrest you for strictly local crimes, and local cops jealously protect their prerogatives. The FBI is sometimes called in on a local case as consultants, and they maintain national criminal databases, but their arrest powers are limited to very specific complaints, like robbery of a federally chartered bank or kidnapping. Even in the famous cases of serial killers they only advise the local authorities, who actually arrest and try the culprit. Will the Euro Squad have such sensible limits?

CNE Report:

Europe needs to create its own cross-border law enforcement agency with operational powers. The USA has its FBI. Europe has nothing. The gutter press would complain that ‘foreigners in jackboots are now arresting our citizens at dead of night. Didn’t we fight the Second World War to prevent this?

So, thugs in jackboots supposedly aren't an essential part of that wonderful American approach to law enforcement that they would like to see followed in Europe?

The first thing that the precautionary principle should be applied to is ... the precautionary principle.

Then it will be rejected out of hand..

I would like to see a cross-border EU police force - I'd LOVE to see a trans-world police force with a mandate to do something about the numerous vest-pocket dictators that seem to consider it their right to beggar their citizens and bomb their neighbours for fun and profit - but I'm pretty sure from the sad hash of PC tripe the EU seems to call "legislation", that it can't be done at present - and that if it is, it will be both noxiously overbearing, and ineffective in the role for which it was inaugurated. Is that cynical, or what?

What galls me the most. is that horribly blinkered and arrogant tag-line "if only one life is saved..." How far are you prepared to take that logic, Ma'am? So many farcical possibilities immediately present themselves, that I'll leave it at that.

How many left-wing Toronto socialites (or EU pharmaceuticals, apparently) does it take to change a lightbulb? One - she holds the lightbulb, and the world revolves around her. Spare me!

That is what I expected you thought Alex, thanks for the clarification. Any increase in EU power is a bad thing full stop.

I often wonder about the strange European fascination with centralized power. Is there any problem that they don't think would best be solved by creating giant centralized institutions insulated from the influence of the people?

I think part of the problem is that many people simply haven't figured out that times and technology have changed and that we don't need the same organizational structures that we did in the past. Before networked computers, gathering, processing and sharing information required deeply hierarchal organizations. Now, however, peer-to-peer sharing is easy.

Instead of an old fashioned hierarchal organization, Europe could solve the problem of international crime by simply creating a standardized database system that every EU country could link into. They could share information back and forth without having an over arching authority. Combine that with a method of international warrants and extradition (like those used between US states) and you would have effective enforcement system that with built in firewalls against the widespread abuse of power. Most US states currently have such information sharing agreements with other states without involving the Federal government.

It time for people to wake and realize that this is not 1950.

Instead of an old fashioned hierarchal organization, Europe could solve the problem of international crime by simply creating a standardized database system that every EU country could link into.

And what is a cop in one country supposed to do with that information? Will Danish police be required to arrest people wanted in France for conduct that's perfectly legal in Denmark?

Combine that with a method of international warrants and extradition (like those used between US states) and you would have effective enforcement system that with built in firewalls against the widespread abuse of power. Most US states currently have such information sharing agreements with other states without involving the Federal government.

One possible complication is that, in the US, the rules of criminal procedure (and indeed the substantive crimes) don't vary a whole lot from one state to another. That's why Nevada can generally extradite people wanted on warrants issued in California: whatever the rules are in the individual states, they have to meet some basic standard of not being offensive to the Federal constitution. I don't know what universal standard the entire EU could meet, but I can just imagine that it would be pretty minimal. At least we have the advantage of all fifty states having two centuries of our Constitution, and several more of English Common Law. An EU system would be like trying to integrate Canada (done on a limited basis) and Mexico (BWAHAHAHA!) into our system.

For example, take our use-of-force laws as governing peace officers. There are minor variations, but for the most part I could take my Colorado training and make use-of-force decisions in Hawaii or Massachusetts and be on firm legal ground. On the other hand, I can only imagine German police making shoot-don't shoot decisions in the UK. To say nothing of the complexities of when a warrantless search is appropriate, or the standards for issuing a warrant, or which officials are even allowed to issue them. Here they need to be judges (or magistrates in limited cases), but ISTR that there are a few places where police supervisors can order searches that would require a judge here.

The information-sharing agreements, if you mean the traffic offenders' compacts, do have some Federal involvement, and the interstate criminal information database is maintained by the FBI.

Even if participation is voluntary, I don't see it remaining that way for long.

"I'd LOVE to see a trans-world police force with a mandate to do something about the numerous vest-pocket dictators that seem to consider it their right to beggar their citizens and bomb their neighbours for fun and profit"

Oh no, you're not going to trap us again. Leave that stuff to the United Nations.

[signed]

America

If Europe has it so together, why aren't Europeans clamoring for American troops out of Germany and the UK? (Why troops out of Iraq first?)

Is the EU ready to defend herself individually or severally?

Nationalism, and not trusting other Europeans? Duh! Wot, trust the frogs and the wops and the krauts?

Instead of an old fashioned hierarchal organization, Europe could solve the problem of international crime by simply creating a standardized database system that every EU country could link into.

Where are the jobs in that?

Oh no, you're not going to trap us again. Leave that stuff to the United Nations.

[signed]

America

How DARE you question our historical mandate to fight to the last American??? {Warning - tongue-in-cheek sardonicism ;))

Jim,

Your tongue in cheek (I hope you're right about that) remark reminds me of what I call "Kennedy/Kerry economics"

Paraphrased -

"You there. Voter. I care about your plight. I really do. I want to help you. In fact, I care so much about your plight that I am going to spare no expense. I will help you with every last penny that ... er ... that guy over there has."

And BTW, Jim,

- just PLEASE don't debate gun control! Please? Thank you very much! Jim+

Then you may want to avoid this thread. It is (still) talking about gun control. :)

I am reminded of a fabulous article in Oxford Today on this very topic. My reading is that Alex is correct that the EU is not the answer - if such a sclerotic organisation ever could be - but only because it ISN'T BIG ENOUGH...

As a co-author of one of the chapters in this book, I am embarassed that it sits side-by-side with Mike Tremblay's pro-precautionary nonsense. Had I been asked to review his chapter, I would have recommended major revisions -- and the total excision of references to the 'precautionary principle'.