MPs vote on Monday on the European arrest warrant. It should be the final act of a complex dance in which, under the Lisbon treaty, the UK opted out of more than a hundred measures within the justice and home affairs pillar of the European Union and then picked 35 to opt back in to. Of these, the arrest warrant is the most important. The whole body of British expert opinion on law and order regards it as indispensable to British security. However, to some Eurosceptics, even this eminently practical instrument is tainted by its connection with Brussels and – they say – the risk of exposing British citizens to trial in countries with less robust justice systems. They also object that it hands the European court of justice (ECJ), rather than the British courts, the final say on an extradition application.
In the increasingly febrile atmosphere ahead of what could prove to be another Ukip byelection triumph in next week’s Rochester vote, there were rumours that David Cameron would give way to the anti-EU ultras. But Theresa May, the home secretary, and Chris Grayling, the justice secretary, were both adamant that the warrant was too important: under its terms, 137 suspects, some on rape and murder charges, were extradited to the UK last year. Even so, it seemed likely that Mr Cameron would delay the necessary vote, which had to take place by 1 December, until after the byelection. Instead, the decision was taken to get it over with quickly. This has provoked the three parliamentary committees that have scrutinised the opt-out decisions, which all recommended the possibility of separate votes on particular measures which the government now wishes to opt back in to.
The arrest warrant, which came into effect in 2004, was not perfect, but it was immediately useful, leading to the swift extradition of one of London’s would-be bombers in July 2005, Hussain Osman, from Italy, where he had fled. The government has since amended it. It is no longer possible to be extradited to face trial for something that’s not a UK offence – the so-called dual-criminality provision – and, after some courts became clogged with costly applications to extradite people on minor charges such as non-payment of parking fines, it will only apply to graver offences. It also now only allows extradition, in the light of the prolonged pre-charge detention of Andrew Symeou in Greece, once the extraditing country has decided to pursue charges. However, all these changes were made unilaterally by the UK and are subject to challenge in the ECJ. MPs rightly argued for a separate vote on the warrant, and the opportunity to table amendments. That would have strengthened the government’s hand in any future renegotiation. But the motion that has been tabled covers all 35 measures, and is unamendable. That is wrong.
It would be cheering to see Mr Cameron’s decision to back the arrest warrant as a new willingness to confront his Eurosceptics with the practical advantages of EU cooperation. But it is not. It is another example of his tendency to put party management ahead of proper consideration of serious policy.
