Madness of Brussels rule that’s weakened our borders
AwAY from the noisy debate on the EU referendum, a terrorism trial has quietly begun at the Old Bailey. The case links two Birmingham-based individuals with Mohamed Abrini, a key suspect in the Brussels and Paris terrorist attacks.
Undoubtedly, the trial will shed light on the single biggest security question in this referendum: is it safe to stay in an EU that strips Britain of proper border controls? Little can be said about the case yet, beyond the fact that the charges include giving £3,000 for terrorist purposes to Abrini. Belgian prosecutors revealed in April that Abrini, 31, had confessed to being the ‘man in the hat’ pictured alongside two suicide bombers who blew themselves up at Brussels airport on March 22.
Despite previous convictions for robbery and violence, he visited the UK three times in 2015. As more information emerges on this alleged network, it exposes the lunacy of the EU’s rules on free movement.
If the Home Office wants to deny entry to an individual coming from outside the EU, on grounds that their presence is not conducive to the public good, it has wide discretion. Scientologists were banned until 1980 for propagating a cult, while American rappers and radio presenters have been denied entry for offensive language.
Yet, Brussels dictates that the UK can’t bar EU nationals entering, unless they present a serious, credible and present danger to national security. what does that mean in practice? Criminal convictions are not grounds alone for barring entry, even to murderers. So, Abrini couldn’t have been prevented from visiting Britain on that basis.
Intelligence reports that raise concerns, like an unexplained trip to Syria, don’t justify even a temporary ban. Nor would an alert on the EU’s own Schengen Information System. Even if UK authorities can justify barring someone as dangerous, the European Court of Justice demands we tell them why – even if that endangers national security.
Because of these perverse EU rules, we have turned back just 11,000 coming from the EU since 2006. Free from Brussels’ shackles, we barred 201,000 coming from outside the EU – even though many more arrive from Europe. The consequence of weak border controls with the EU is to expand the pool of those with criminal or terrorist links that the police and intelligence services have to monitor, imposing huge strains on their resources, and magnifying the risk that dangerous people are slipping through the border.
And the threat level from Europe is rising. Europol, which coordinates European police forces, estimates that there are now up to 5,000 people who visited Islamic State-run training camps, and are now back circulating in the EU.
A shocking report by Frontex, the EU’s external border agency, showed systemic weaknesses enabling the registration of fraudulent applications to enter the EU – and a surge in fraudulent attempts to enter Britain.
Little wonder, then, that former Interpol chief Ronald Noble dubbed EU rules the equivalent to ‘hanging a sign welcoming terrorists’. In fairness, the Prime Minister clearly recognises this risk and during his renegotiations with Brussels he explicitly spelt out the need for ‘stronger powers to deport criminals ... as well as preventing entry in the first place’.
YET the EU regards free movement as sacrosanct, and stubbornly refused to budge. This leaves Britain exposed to unacceptable levels of risk. It is the strongest security reason for withdrawing from the EU, to re-establish proper border controls. Today, working with the Fresh Start group of Conservative MPs, I am publishing proposals for strengthening UK security, following a vote to leave the EU.
From data- sharing to law enforcement collaboration at Europol, there’s no operational co-operation we need that we can’t maintain with the EU, from the outside.
Yet, if we leave, we can act swiftly to take back control of our borders to enable preventative checks and stronger powers of deportation.