Which MPs will stand up and be counted on the EU referendum lock?

The Government's EU Bill returns to Parliament next week, with MPs considering amendments to the 'referendum lock'.

At the moment there is no democratic control over which EU crime, justice and immigration laws apply to the UK – neither MPs nor the electorate have a say over these decisions, only the Government. With a new briefing published today, we have stepped up our campaign to see the Bill amended to give Parliament, and in some cases voters, a say over whether Ministers sign up to these laws.

The crux of the matter is that next week MPs have the chance to give themselves increased power over the Government, allowing them to debate and approve these hugely important EU laws that will have an impact on their voters.

And there is another hugely significant issue here.

Before 2014, the Government has to decide whether existing EU crime and policing laws (those introduced before the Lisbon Treaty came into force late 2009) continue to apply to the UK. If they continue to apply they fall under the full jurisdiction of EU judges at the ECJ.

This is a massive 'more or less EU' decision that should not be left entirely up to the Government, which it would be under the current Bill. This should be decided by the people or, failing that, Parliament.

Do MPs really want to explain to their constituents that they passed up on the opportunity to have a vote on EU crime or police laws such as the European Arrest Warrant agreed in 2002, which has seen numerous Britons extradited to other European countries on spurious charges?

These are laws that have a direct, and sometimes costly, impact on people's lives - this is no time for MPs to duck the question.

What would a Lib Dem government do about Ian Bailey?

The Lib Dems' recent rise is rightly leading to closer scrutiny of the party's policies. Their support for the UK entering the euro, was correctly described as "folly" by the Sunday Times. If it wasn't right to join the euro when the UK was experiencing higher growth in comparison to the eurozone, and if you're willing to admit that the current eurozone interest rates would have hurt the UK's recovery (as Clegg has recently), then when would it ever be right to join? The Lib Dems' answer, "In the long-term", is simply not good enough from a party that wants to govern the country.

But another area that has received far less scrutiny and attention is the Lib Dems' commitment to further EU cooperation on crime, justice and policing. This is extremely important because, under Lisbon, this is the area of EU policymaking that is likely to grow fastest. And for a practical example of why this is all important, we need look no further than a story reported in yesterday's Independent, and today in the Irish Times.

Ian Bailey, a British former journalist suspected in connection, but not charged, with the murder of a French film-maker in Ireland 14 years ago, has been detained by the Irish authorities under a European Arrest Warrant issued by a French judge. French lawyers argue that they have jurisdiction over the case, citing the French constitution which states that murder cases involving French citizens in any part of the world can be brought in front of French courts.

But, as Carol Coulter, the Irish Times' legal editor, points out, the Irish Director of Public Prosecutions decided not to prosecute Bailey for the murder. Therefore, in practice, the French extradition request amounts to a breach of the double jeopordy principle, enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as well as the Irish Constitution.

We've pointed out some of the EAW's failings before, but this case could potentially prove to be a huge step in a very dangerous direction. If Bailey loses his fight against extradition, the Irish authorities will have deported someone, whom they believe did not have a case to answer under Irish law, to face charges in another country. Leaving aside whether Bailey is ever found guilty or not in the future, this simply cannot be right.

The Irish courts still have to decide whether to action the extradition request but it will be interesting to see how much pressure is put on them by the French government. And given that the French request effectively amounts to a vote of no confidence in the Irish legal and judicial system, what prospect does this man have for a fair trial in France? And doesn't the UK, given that Bailey is a British citizen, have a duty to point this out?

Law of unintended consequences

There's a detailed double page spread in the Evening Standard tonight about the case of Deborah Dark, a grandmother wanted in France under the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). The case relates to 21 kg of cannabis that was found in her car at the French border back in 1988 (21 years ago). Some of the details of her case are pretty shocking.

This is a classic case of the 'dangerous unintended consequences' of EU legislation.

The EAW was designed to facilitate extradition between member states for serious crimes, but is now routinely used for offences which were never discussed when it first came off the books.

The EAW was bulldozed through in September 2001 in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. The justification for it was that new rules were needed to tackle cross-border organised crime such as terrorism, in the uncertain new world.

The press release from Antonio Vitorino, then EU Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs, said at the time, "The European Commission is calling for greater harmonisation and closer cooperation in combating terrorism and crime." Vitorino is quoted saying "Terrorist acts are committed by international gangs with bases in several countries, exploiting loopholes in the law created by the geographical limits on investigators and often enjoying substantial financial and legal treatment between states".

In a debate in the House of Commons in December 2002 on the Extradition Bill ,which implemented the EU Framework Decision on the EAW, the Home Office Minister John Denham said:

"In future, cases within the EU should take about three months, as opposed to nine to twelve months at the moment. The current timetable for bringing serious criminals to justice does a great disservice to the victims of crime... The European Arrest Warrant means that serious criminals accused of fiscal offences will no longer be able to hide within the EU."

There are a couple of instances where the EAW has been used to expedite the extradition of terror suspects across the EU and ensure they stand trial. But there is increasing evidence to suggest the legislation is taking on something of a life of its own.

According to an article in European Voice today, a report issued in May has revealed that while some member states examine each arrest warrant request to check if the crime is serious enough to transfer a suspect to another member state, other EU countries consider such a check superfluous.

The extradition of people like Deborah Dark was not what was intended when Ministers were thinking of ways to tackle serious and organised crime. But that's little consolation - the EAW hangs over her head, even though she has already been aquitted by two different courts.

And so she becomes another sad example of what happens when knee-jerk EU legislation goes wrong.

The Evening Standard article ends on a pessimistic note, with the recognition that because this is EU law, it will be a complete nightmare to overturn.

Enjoy your holidays, but keep EU law 2009/299/JHA in mind

Andrew Symeou, the UK citizen accused of causing the death of Jonathan Hiles while on holiday in Greece is to be extradited to the country today after losing a legal fight against extradition.

This is possible under the controversial European Arrest Warrant.

The shocking details of this story - including allegations of misconduct by the Greek police in obtaining evidence - can be found here and here. In this case, the UK could still have refused to extradite Symeo, but the Law Lords refused to hear the case. Had the UK blocked extradition, a trial in absentia would have been conducted in Greece, where, if convicted, a new request to extradite him would have been issued.

In the past, the UK would have been able to refuse this request, but not anymore. As of 26 February 2009, and the implementation of an EU Framework Decision on the “application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial”, member states must recognise judgements rendered in the absence of the convicted, and these apply under the terms of the European Arrest Warrant.

Some member states have still not implemented it. But, as the UK is one of the sponsors of the proposal, they haven't asked to postpone it to 2014.

Last year, we looked at the idea of trials in absentia in briefing paper, where we found that the proposal would make it much more difficult to resist extraditions to countries which have been criticised by international human rights group for their justice systems.

The rules mean you could potentially be extradited to a country where you've never even set foot, especially in the age of internet.

For instance, in 2005, Austrian artist Gerhard Haderer was convicted to a six month sentence, again in Greece, after depicting Christ as a binge-drinking friend of Jimi Hendrix, surfing naked while high on cannabis (see picture). The artist didn't even know that his book, The Life of Jesus, had been published in Greece until he received a summons to appear in court in Athens.

The judgement was rendered in absentia and in similar cases in the future Austria will lose the ability to refuse extradition of its citizens to fellow EU member states.

We're not trying to put you off your holiday in Greece. We're just trying to highlight the dangers of our own politicians sacrificing hard-fought civil rights to an EU security state.