I broke the law and I won!

pete quentin, 5 November 2007

A largely unreported news item from Italy has perfectly highlighted the differing attitudes to EU legislation between the member states.
The horrific rape and murder of a woman, allegedly committed by a Romanian immigrant, has shocked the Italian public and brought underlying tensions about immigration out into the open. The Italian government has responded to the crime by approving a measure which would allow police chiefs to expel EU citizens who they believe pose a threat to public safety.

The measure was due to be debated in Parliament within 60 days, but the Italian Prime Minister, Romano Prodi, has said that the new law would be imposed immediately by decree. Mr. Prodi is quoted as saying “We are not acting out of rage but we are determined to keep a high level of security for our citizens.”
The problem for the Italian government is that the measure would seem to contradict the EU’s 2004 Free Movement Directive. This means the measure could be illegal under current EU legislation.
What is interesting for the UK is that the decision taken by the Italian Cabinet has come so recently after a British court ruled it was illegal for the British government to deport the murderer, an Italian national, of headmaster Philip Lawrence. Furthermore, the court said that its decision was based on the Free Movement Directive. The judicial ruling in the UK therefore suggests that the Italian measure would be illegal.
Perhaps to counter possible legal action from the European Court of Justice (ECJ), Mr Prodi has said he believes other member states are facing a Europe wide crime wave and it would be beneficial if there could be a Europe wide solution.
Most people would agree that governments should have the ability to deport genuinely dangerous criminals and terrorists to protect their citizens. The Philip Lawrence case clearly demonstrates that the Free Movement Directive needs to be modified to allow governments to act.
Unfortunately, there have been calls from members of the Italian post fascist National Alliance party for mass deportations of immigrants along with reports of the demolition of shanty towns inhabited by immigrants in Italy. The Far Right must not be allowed to use high profile cases to push forward authoritarian and discriminatory measures which trample on the basic rights of immigrants. Therefore, if the directive could be redesigned to allow the deportation of genuinely dangerous criminals it would certainly be in the interests of the UK and the rest of the EU, provided there are sufficient safeguards against possible abuses perpetrated by the state.
For me personally the most interesting aspect of the two cases, in Italy and the UK, is the differing attitudes to EU legislation by the member states. While the Italian government has ignored the EU directive the British seem to be straitjacketed by it.
For many EU sceptics it is common knowledge that the British implement EU law by the book whilst the other member states (mainly Italy and France) do not. While this is an over exaggeration (Denmark and Sweden to name just two countries have had few problems with the ECJ over non-compliance) statistics show that members’ non-compliance with EU laws is a state specific problem.
The countries who fall foul of the European Court of Justice the most are Italy, France, Germany, Greece and Belgium. The member states who fall foul the least are Denmark, Sweden, Holland, Finland and the UK. Interestingly, the countries that break EU laws the most are thought of as the most “communautaire” while those that abide by the rules the most are considered the most EU sceptic. Perhaps even more interesting is the fact Germany, the nation stereotyped as ordered and structured (unfairly in my opinion), will break the rules fairly frequently.
Another point worth mentioning is the lack of bite associated with fines given to member states failing to comply with EU legislation. For example the punishment for the first member state to be fined by the ECJ was € 20,000 a day, a drop in the ocean compared to most government budgets. Therefore it is hardly surprising that some governments choose to pay the fine rather than comply with EU law. It is like setting a late penalty at work of 10 pence an hour!
The figures therefore seem to suggest that the more pro integration countries are only in favour of integration when it suits their own national interest.
The lesson for the UK is that it sometimes pays to ignore barmy aspects of EU legislation as the penalties are relatively low, and that a possible side effect could be to improve public confidence in the government and judicial system.
By Cem Suleyman