Your report (EU terror report warns of big security gaps, 14 March) revealed gaps in the ability of European authorities to monitor the movements of terrorist suspects. On Wednesday I shall be joining colleagues to mark the first anniversary of the attacks on Brussels’ airport and metro system. The security taskforce union report from which you quote identifies areas of concern. It is evidence of how the European commission, working together with member states, is seeking to learn lessons from past attacks in order to fill the gaps that terrorists exploit to do us harm. In fact, all of the challenges described in the taskforce report have been or are being addressed.
The non-systematic check of EU citizens, for instance, has been fixed by making changes to the Schengen borders code. Soon we will see the introduction of using biometric data for searches at borders. This will clamp down on document and identity fraud. Police can and will respond to intelligence with more checks in border areas. Data is our frontline defence and we are working to ensure the interoperability of all EU databases so that police officers and border guards on the frontline have access to the information they need in real time.
On Wednesday our thoughts will be with those especially directly affected on that terrible day a year ago in Brussels, as well as all those who have suffered since as a consequence of the cowardly and mindless attacks perpetrated in Nice, Paris, Berlin and elsewhere. I am confident that by closing the security gaps we are squeezing the space in which those who wish us harm operate. Security and intelligence cooperation is a common good from which we all benefit.
Julian King
EU commissioner for the security union
• Larry Elliott refers to comments by former head of the WTO Pascal Lamy, and in doing so says that the EU regulations set the technical standards for goods sold across the single market (Financial, 20 March). It is correct that the EU makes use of European technical standards in regulations and directives, but the standards are written by the European standards organisations CEN and Cenelec. These are autonomous bodies, not EU institutions, but are officially recognised by the EU and Efta as being responsible for developing and defining voluntary standards at European level. They are associations of the national standards bodies of their member countries, with membership not limited to EU countries. CEN for example has 34 members, being the member countries of the EU and EFTA plus Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey; there are another 12 countries with affiliate status, including some from eastern Europe and the Middle East. The UK member is the British Standards Institution, through which, in my experience, UK individuals make a very significant contribution to the European standards writing process in technical committees and working groups.
The reality now is that a very large proportion of technical standards issued by BSI are European standards, with the appellation BS EN. These standards are implemented in EU regulations and directives, but also in UK regulations and contract specifications, including those issued on behalf of national and local government and contracts between commercial partners. It is inconceivable that this use of European standards can end with Brexit, it would be neither possible nor desirable for BSI to suddenly start producing different UK standards. If the UK is going to continue to export to and import from the EU and other countries that use these standards, it is essential to continue to use European technical standards within the UK. There is absolutely no reason why BSI should not continue to be a member of CEN and Cenelec and continue to take part in the production and management of the standards.
It is unfortunate that the UK will no longer have a say in the way in which the standards are implemented by EU regulation, but that is an inevitable consequence of Brexit.
Douglas Simpson
Todmorden, West Yorkshire
• It’s clear to everyone working on Brexit that it’s a huge legislative undertaking, and perhaps not enough was made of the enormity of this upcoming headache for lawmakers and its knock-on effects during pre-referendum campaigning (Editorial, 21 March). When the government announced the great repeal bill it all looked simple – repeal everything then save everything, particularly as the UK did not vote against the vast majority of EU legislation as it was passed into law. But, as the report from the Institute for Government shows, the reality is very different. It’s not yet clear if parliament will have time to carry on with business-as-usual law-making at anywhere near current levels, and we are likely to see an inevitable slowdown of progress on issues that would otherwise have been deemed important to the UK. The looming legislative burden also highlights the vital importance of a phased-in period of implementation which the prime minister championed in her Exit from and New Partnership with the EU paper in February.
It’s important that businesses focus on what they can control during this period of uncertainty – their own business – and get their house in order to make the best of the current and future situation. Our own research found that businesses are dangerously underprepared for Brexit, with 80% saying they have not taken any further steps to prepare, opting instead for a “wait and see” approach. This is despite 96% of them saying Brexit is an agenda item at their senior/board level. Companies should be focusing on reviewing and planning for a variety of post-Brexit outcomes around their people and recruitment, analysing their trading networks, and reviewing all cross-border contracts and counterparty arrangements. As part of their planning, businesses should be lobbying hard to ensure that the government puts the negotiation of effective transitional arrangements at the top of its negotiating agenda. With the massive legislative job facing the government, the time they buy through an effective transitional period will benefit them as much, if not more, than the businesses having to brace themselves for change.
Ros Kellaway
Partner and head of the EU competition and regulatory group, Eversheds Sutherland
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
