UK will be 'cut off' from 'full intelligence picture' after Brexit – Europol strategy man

The UK will “certainly be cut off from the full intelligence picture” after Brexit, Europol's acting head of strategy for cybercrime warned The Register. This comes after UK law enforcement agencies from the National Crime Agency to Police Scotland have been meeting with Europol in an attempt to mitigate this. Phillipp Amann, …

[alain williams]

Yet more Brexit nonsense

If it is seen as important by the politicians then it will be possible; there would need to be agreements about things like data protection and funding of services. Until negotiations have happened we just don't know if UK politicians still want to be part of it and their EU counterparts want us to work with them.

I suspect hidden agendas in pronouncements such as this that we have seen from many organisations.

[Voland's right hand]

Re: Yet more Brexit nonsense

Politicians represent interests.

The level of sharing between Europol and "Independent" UK is mostly a DPA matter.

_ALL_ Eu countries have some level of vested interest in "Independent" UK being deemed DPA-unsafe. The unsafer, the better (for them). Every notch of unsafeness is one more Datacenter and one more piece of business by a Eu company which is presently run in Slough or somewhere else in the UK being moved to Ireland, Scandinavia or Eastern Europe. It is the same as with other business. One less Nissan factory in Sunderland is one more Nissan factory in let's say Varna or Timishoara.

So, I do not quite see this opinion as a hidden agenda case. It is more of a realistic assessment.

After the initial dismay, Europe is now looking at the UK the way vultures are looking at a fresh roadkill. Quoting Ice age: "And it looks like there might be a fatality. I call the dark meat". That attitude does not quite facilitate any sharing any time soon.

[Mark 65]

Re: Yet more Brexit nonsense

But that's the issue too - these muppets think that France etc will reap the rewards whereas the most likely beneficiary is and always has been Ireland. Much like the finance industry. Move to Paris where they love their 35 hour week and a good protest march or move to Dublin where they also speak English and you could probably get by with just a shell office?

[Uberseehandel]

Re: Yet more Brexit nonsense

The problem with Ireland as a post-Brexit alternative to the UK is that there is a shortage of infrastructure and services and the indigenous workforce does not always have the training required to fulfil roles that an organisation might expect to fill using local staff.

Most large organisations know this already. For a corporation it is more convenient to be located in central Europe than on the (Celtic) fringe, closer to customers, closer to suppliers.

[nematoad]

Re: Yet more Brexit nonsense

"...there is a shortage of infrastructure and services and the indigenous workforce does not always have the training required..."

Bollocks.

As someone who has worked in IT in the Republic of Ireland I know that there are plenty of skilled people and resources to do the job.

Don't forget that Dell, Apple and so on have sites there and the pool of talent is constantly refreshed by the excellent education Ireland provides.

Ireland has close links with the US, just look at the number of Green cards allocated to Ireland. Also with the likes of Shannon and Dublin Airports travel is straightforward.

True the population is a tad small but with the advantage of the English language and the close US ties I see no obstacle to many more US companies moving across the Irish Sea.

Oh, a last thought. The 12.5% corporate tax rate helps as well. If you even pay that as Apple has so ably demonstrated.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Yet more Brexit nonsense

or maybe emmigration from the UK to get Jobs (not Steve) could fill any gap in personnel numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Yet more Brexit nonsense

Plus Ireland just has to draw talent from the UK if it's got a lack on it's own soil which frankly is a VERY easy task as I know many people who would jump at the chance, myself included to scoot over to Ireland and live in the EU than stay in the UK when we're outside in the cold banging on the door wondering why nobody is listening to us anymore.

[Yes Me]

Re: Yet more Brexit nonsense

What part of not being part of governance decisions don't you understand? This is an aspect that was often pointed out during the referendum campaign, but it was convenient for the Leave liars to ignore it: if you're not in the club, you don't make the rules. It applies to every single EU regulation that affects trade or business with the EU from the outside, and Europol is just one example among hundreds. And it's not negotiable - limited access to data is negotiable, but access to decision making is clearly not. Of course, when Ms May finally admits that all Brexit scenarios are lousy so she won't be invoking Article 50 any time soon, we may be fortunate enough to draw back from the brink.

[Voland's right hand]

Data protection directive

Well, sharing some data will be outright illegal after that, at least until the DPA arrangement between Eu and UK is sorted out.

Considering the legislative intent of Teresa May as it stands, the likelihood of that one sorted out is even less than access to common market while introducing immigration controls.

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: Data protection directive

You can always make stuff no longer illegal, by changing the rules. There'll have to be an amendment to the EU treaties in order for the UK to leave - plus there's plenty of time to amend or draught any laws required.

Whether Europol data is shared is entirely down to the political choices made in the upcoming negotiations. Actually so is the link between freedom of movement and the single market. It is a political choice that I think the rest of the EU are likely to refuse full single market access without full freedom of movement - though you can make that claim and still save face by making the costs in loss of access so small as to be meaningless. This is pure politics - not the laws of physics.

As a guide to the readiness for cooperation in this area though, the UK now holds the new post of EU Commissioner for The Security Union - which has been defined as anti-terrorism and criminal intelligence sharing. Admittedly it was the Commission who created that job, and the member states who will decide the Brexit negotiations, but I doubt Juncker's too out-of-step with what they want.

[Dan 55]

Okay, riddle me this

1. The more effective Interpol shares data outside EU countries, no problem. Is this too difficult for Europol?

2. From Whackypedia: The Director of Europol is able to enter into agreements for Europol with both countries and internal organizations. Europol cooperates on an operational basis with: Albania, Australia, Canada, Colombia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Republic of Macedonia, Monaco, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, the United States and Interpol.[15]

It has strategic agreements with: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Moldova, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the World Customs Organization.[15]

So where's the cutting off, apart from his nose to spite his face?

[rtfazeberdee]

Re: Okay, riddle me this

"So where's the cutting off, apart from his nose to spite his face?" - thats called Brexit

[Len]

Re: Okay, riddle me this

Read the article:

“If you're part of the EU you have full access to all of the information systems we have. If you are a non-EU member but we have an operational agreement then we can still share operational data,” Amann explained, “but you won't have access to certain systems and also you certainly wouldn't have access and you wouldn't be part of any governance group that would decide on the priorities.”

Yes, an operational agreement can be put in place, no, it won't give access to all the systems that the UK can currently access.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Len Re: Okay, riddle me this

".....Yes, an operational agreement can be put in place, no, it won't give access to all the systems that the UK can currently access." Not to worry, I'm sure the GCHQ and UK Police are the main populators of all the useful data in the Europol databases anyway. The limits on inter-country sharing of data inside the EU have been made horrifically obvious by the ease with which the Deash mounted the Paris attacks and Brussels bombings, all committed by known criminals with known connections to Islamic extremists. It seems whatever data is in the Europol databases the EU seem unable to make practical security use of it.

What isn't sourced from the UK the GCHQ will probably be accessing anyway, or getting via existing agreements with the NSA, FBI, DEA, DIA (and a host of non-EU police and intelligence forces).

This is just another pointless Eurosulk.

[Mark 65]

Re: Okay, riddle me this

Yes, an operational agreement can be put in place, no, it won't give access to all the systems that the UK can currently access.

GCHQ might disagree with that premise.

[Manni]

Re: Okay, riddle me this

"Yes, an operational agreement can be put in place"

These agreements are mostly controlled or heavily influenced by the US-Government, a phone call from May to Obama will see to it that British wishes will be heard and followed by the EU.

"it won't give access to all the systems that the UK can currently access."

Why should Britain care? Having plenty of spy-systems of their own, Echelon, just to quote one of them, they will get all the data they want this way or via another country having access to it. So far the government and Gloustershire never cared about legality, so what's new?

[Voland's right hand]

Re: Okay, riddle me this

There are very different operational arrangement levels.

The "operational arrangement" with Macedonia did not even involve stolen car VINs at some point (not sure if it does now) resulting in one of the police heads (if not the minister of the interior or the prosecutor general himself - do not remember off the top of my head) being picked up at the border crossing with Bulgaria while driving a stolen BMW which he apparently bought legally from a local car dealership in Skopie.

The present level of cooperation with Russia is probably even less than that.

If the UK wants _THAT_ level of operational arrangement, well, that should not be a problem.

[Commswonk]

Re: Okay, riddle me this

Dan 55 posted: From Whackypedia: The Director of Europol is able to enter into agreements for Europol with both countries and internal organizations. Europol cooperates on an operational basis with: Albania, Australia, Canada, Colombia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Republic of Macedonia, Monaco, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, the United States and Interpol

It might have been worth including the next section, which reads:

Despite being funded by the EU, Europol has been found to have gaps between the funds allocated and its operational results achieved.

Its weakness lies in its very formalized structure, which causes loss of flexibility and its poor management of their multiple centres that control its operating activities.

Due to its information collection and analysis core, it is unable to actually search for information, i.e. no system to find persons or things, no resources for wiretapping etc. and is consequently deprived of the most important function in terms of operational efficiency.

There lacks sufficient representation of customs and border protection at Europol as well as a clear division of tasks between Europol and other EU institutions such as CEPOL or Frontex.

Though Europol focuses a large amount on anti-terrorism, it’s reputation is rather poor in this area. It lacks potential in its anti-terrorism department to take effective action against terrorism, especially because it is not included in the Club de Berne (the largest anti-terrorism forum in the EU) and because there are many EU member states, (UK for one example) who are the source of Europol’s information, which do not completely trust Europol.

-----------------------------------------

Hardly a ringing endorsement...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Okay, riddle me this

He said that operational data could still be shared. But it will lose full access to the internal databases and - obviously - not be a part of the priority-setting mechanism. Sovereignty goes both ways.

[yowl00]

And they've been doing such a good job, what a loss for poor Blighty.

[Baldy50]

Yep not fit for purpose considering the attacks the EU countries have endured recently.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, lilly livered European politicians have set up a borderless EU without remembering that the nastier aspects of life also has to be dealt with. Some sage professional pointed out that you can't have separate police forces and intelligence operations unless you also have border controls between those policing and intelligence zones. With open borders, they're all at the level of the weakest police force and intelligence outfit in Europe, with nice autoroutes and high speed trains to carry bad guys anywhere unhindered.

It's also interesting to note how the Germans, whose politicians put on a good display of righteous indignation over the Snowden revelations, turn out to have been up to a lot of the same tricks themselves. It paints a picture of German politicians also being completely uninterested in and un-inquiring of policing and intelligence. That doesn't bode well for the future.

Government rule of thumb. Shit happens. A lot more shit will happen unless you do something about it. Avoid all things that lead to a greater potential for more shit happening. If European politicians can't see the pile of shit and see that shit has to be dealt with promptly and seriously, there's going to be a shit load more shit to deal with, again.

[Warm Braw]

You can't have separate police forces ... unless you also have border controls

I think there are 40 separate territorial police forces in England and Wales, of varying degrees of competence and resourcing. Where do you want he checkpoints?

[phuzz]

There's not any way to tell if they're doing a good job or not, because we don't have a backup EU without Europol sharing data to compare to.

They might have prevented loads of attacks, there's no easy way to make a comparison.

[0laf]

As I understood it was not the majority of information going from us to them? The UK also being an intermediary for US intelligence.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is certainly a good outcome for the likes of Europol and the EU governments: the US will now have to work with the EU directly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just not bother.

[CAPS LOCK]

Anyone who thinks the UK won't have accesss to some data or other needs to look at this:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/RAF+Menwith+Hill/@54.0084687,-1.6897814,501m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x487bfe3e04ce4faf:0x11b0a7dda5967190!8m2!3d54.0148835!4d-1.6910576!6m1!1e1

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Anyone who thinks the UK won't have accesss to some data or other needs to look at this:

Cough*BUDE*cough*TEMPORA*cough.

[Drefsab_UK]

hmm true but last I heard the UK is part of the 5 eyes.

that actually consists of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Not Europe. So access to that will remain, and tbh the UK's inteligence network is world class, europe loose access to that from us as well as us loosing access to theirs.

So what happens when both sides have something the other want, they establish a treaty to trade. They will have to be renegotiated just like very other type of exchange between europe and the UK.

Sure some countries are going to make big noises about it they want people to come to them and see brexit as an opertunity. Nothing new nothing to see.

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably what this Euro-official was after. "Let me publicly pressure the Brits to continue sharing with us fully after they leave, or else we lose 40% of our intelligence feeds"

[Missing Semicolon]

Fog in Channel

... continent cut off.

[nematoad]

Bloody hell.

This just seems to get worse and worse. First it looks as if we will not be able to take advantage of the Single market. Then the banks are getting twitchy over the possible loss of "passporting" that allows them to move money from country to country. Then it's possible that we will have to rely on WTO rules for trade when we leave. Now we may be cut off from intelligence vital to our security. The list goes on and on.

So I ask, what the hell was the point of voting to leave? We aren't going to get the mythical £350 million to spend on the NHS. If we do get the right to restrict immigration our economy may suffer a big hit, although the points based system promised by Leave has been ruled out by the PM. As rtfazeberdee says above that's really cutting off your nose to spite your face and doing it in grand style.

As I have said many times, stupid, short-sighted, xenophobic and self-destructive.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Bloody hell.

Why so much alarmism? I'm an outsider so I don't have a personal stake, but can it really be as bad as you say? If it is, would that not also apply to any countries nearby that aren't already in the EU? How do they survive with such self-destructive tendencies?

BTW, when you say "xenophobic" don't you really mean "racist?" That's the preferred word in the US, anyway.

[nematoad]

Re: Bloody hell.

"BTW, when you say "xenophobic" don't you really mean "racist?""

No, I don't. Race or the colour of a person's skin has nothing to do with what is happening in the UK post the Brexit vote. The murder of a Polish man in Harlow is being suggested as a hate crime. The man was white and until he opened his mouth I doubt if you could have told that he "Wasn't one of us."

I used the word advisedly. Here is a definition of xenophobic from the Oxford dictionaries:

adjective

Having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries:

Pretty much like Donald Trump if you want it couched is US terms.

[Jess]

Re: apply to any countries nearby that aren't already in the EU?

That is an often quoted point on various issue, but it misses out the fact that that is the status quo.

It is like saying a messy divorce is no problem because you were single before and there are plenty of single people who are fine.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Bloody hell.

Xenophobism is not racism. There's really nothing racist about the English rejecting French, German and Dutch workers. It's xenophobia - the fear of anything foreign/different.

[Bernard M. Orwell]

Re: Bloody hell.

"BTW, when you say "xenophobic" don't you really mean "racist?" That's the preferred word in the US, anyway."

Nah, racism relies on skin colour alone and we needed something more comprehensively inclusive, being Britain and all, so we plump for xenophobia. Lets us include all those Caucasian Europeans!

We're progressive like that.

[Tom Paine]

Re: Bloody hell.

can it really be as bad as you say? If it is, would that not also apply to any countries nearby that aren't already in the EU? How do they survive with such self-destructive tendencies?

If you look at an atlas^h^h google maps view of Europe's political borders, you'll notice that the UK is rather larger than, say Macedonia or Andora. Bigger population, bigger economy, much larger international profile, much more of a target for terrorists, both nazi and jihadist.

[Steve Davies 3]

Re: Bloody hell.

As I have said many times, stupid, short-sighted, xenophobic and self-destructive.

Sadly the pro-Brexif Daily Fail, Express and the rest are ignoring that and painting an all is 'Rosy' picture to the rest of their supporters.

I'd like to know if the owners and editors of those publicatinos have bolt holes in Europe ready for them to bugger off too when the UK goes belly up. The rest of us will have to stick it out and get our daily ration of 'Chicken-Little' from the government soup kitchen.

The 25% unemployment that is seemingly the norm in southern Europe will pale into insignificance to our 40% that will surely come when any company able to deserts the sinking ship as fast s they can.

so pro-Breciteers downvote this all you like but sooner or later the shite will hit the fan and .... well, we'll all be covered in it.

[Jess]

Re: to our 40% that will surely come

I'm not expecting it to be quite *that* bad, but I reckon we'll be lucky if our economy is only literally decimated for the next decade. (Assuming common sense doesn't prevail and we leave the EEA.)

Back on topic, does this scenario assume Brexit = WTO? Because an EEA arrangement should preserve all this sort of stuff, shouldn't it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: to our 40% that will surely come

No, the UK will leave the WTO when it leaves the EU, unless the great powers force (EU/US/China) the WTO to ignore the rules. Considering that the WTO is absolutely crucial to world trade and especially important at a time when that trade is under scrutiny, I doubt that they are willing to do so.

Under the rules, the UK cannot trade with WTO members as it has no agreed quota (it trades under EU quota). So it has to leave the WTO until it negotiates an agreed quota schedule with every single WTO member. But while it is outside the WTO, no WTO member can make a trade deal with it that would give it better access than WTO members get. So while it at least gets to trade, it cannot actually make trade deals.

[Yes Me]

Re: to our 40% that will surely come

" the UK will leave the WTO when it leaves the EU"

Rubbish. There is no connection between the two memberships.

[Yes Me]

Re: to our 40% that will surely come

"an EEA arrangement should preserve all this sort of stuff"

Not if the stuff in question is part of an EU institution. Brexit means Brexit (which is why it would be an incredibly stupid thing to do).

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Bloody hell.

Most of the pro-Brexit media owners don't actually live in Britain, although many of them own large amounts of property and/or land here ( hence we can be sure that our government will replace the EU payments to land owners with a similar amount taken more directly from the UK taxpayers ).

[Tom Paine]

Re: Bloody hell.

I'd like to know if the owners and editors of those publicatinos have bolt holes in Europe

Viscount Rothermere, owner of the Daily Mail Group, is a French resident for (zero) tax purposes. I thought everyone knew that?

[[e-mail]]

Re: Bloody hell.

Intel-gathering is one area in which the UK definitely ranks well above our (soon to be ex-) European partners, for various reasons which really should not need repeating. To imply that WE will lose out if Europol decides not to share anything with us is like saying a record company will lose out if you never buy another one of your favourite artist's products.

How many criminals have been extradited to the UK from mainland Europe? How many terrorist attacks in the UK were prevented because the French or German intelligence services passed on intel they had collected but GCHQ had not? I would ask how many attacks on mainland Europe have been prevented because we shared data with them but they are - quite rightly - somewhat reluctant to let us know the answer to that.

And as for stopping bankers shifting funds from one hole to another, is that really a bad thing? If they can only try to plug gaps inside the UK then their "little" misdemeanours will come to light a lot quicker than if they can borrow increasingly large sums from other people...

If you seriously believe that Europol would fail to pass on actionable intelligence over a hissyfit because we told the Eurocrats to go play with themselves then you need to ask yourself what would happen when such knowledge became public - knowing that someone could have prevented murder but didn't because they were too interested in scoring political points is a good way to end up with a large number of unhappy citizens. What would you say if you found out that some foreign politician sat on information that could have saved one of YOUR loved ones? "Oh well, it's all down to the people who voted to leave the EU"? Or would you want to know just What. The. F***. made some idiot in a suit think he shouldn't pass on vital information because someone else in a suit didn't like to be told 'no'?

[Boris the Cockroach]

Re: Bloody hell.

You can be damned sure that if the EU blocks UK banks from passporting in to the EU, the reverse will done and no EU banks will get in here losiung them a shed load of business, then , just like BMW/Fiat/any other big business that sells lots into the UK, the phone will be picked up and a called made to the people in charge and "fuck up our business into the UK and we'll make sure you'll be kicked out at the next election" will be said

The whole point of voting out for me was'nt about xenophobia, racism, stupidity or any other reason.

I voted out because we have enough unelected twats running(ruining) our country without adding a whole bunch more based in Brussels(or Strasburg if its a monday).

The day I (along with every other EU citizen) can elect the EU president, and an EU senate (to replace the unelected commisison) my vote switches to 'in'

Oh well... best get my flame proof overalls on for this

[John Crisp]

Re: Bloody hell.

This is directed at Leavers in general as much as the commenter.

"I voted out because we have enough unelected twats running(ruining) our country without adding a whole bunch more based in Brussels(or Strasburg if its a monday)."

How many times do people need to be corrected on how the EU fundamentally works? Yes I'm lucky(ish!) as I studied it whilst studying law.

A shame that a lot of people have not been better educated on the EU, but that would probably have been labelled as EU propaganda by Murdoch & Co.

Vaguely... you can find much more online...

Council of Ministers - your legally elected national representative. In reality nothing much gets done without their say so and is one of the biggest hinderances to a more democratic Europe.

EU Parliament - democratically elected members, have become, and would continue to be increasingly powerful if people bothered to take an interest, get off their arses and vote, which most don't. Britain treats them as a joke (well Farage plays a good jester I guess) and waste an opportunity to increase democracy (if there ever really is such a thing)

Commission - members nominated by your legally elected government. They weren't just picked off the street.

None of the 3 bodies can make/pass laws by itself (in general terms - there are some oddities that should be resolved). They are there to balance power (the courts play a role in that too. Yes judges are unelected in the EU. The same as the UK. There's a good reason for that. Search 'separation of powers')

"The day I (along with every other EU citizen) can elect the EU president, and an EU senate (to replace the unelected commisison) my vote switches to 'in'"

Well you fucked any chance you had by voting out. Or did I miss the fairy story about another vote to go back in along with 350 million for the NHS ? Seems not. Too late. Missed the boat now

For 'unelected' see above. If you had appraised yourself of the facts before you voted you may have realised the best chance of this happening (and I would like to see something along these lines myself) was by staying in, taking an interest and making your vote count in European elections.

Instead you voted on something you really didn't understand, based on a bunch of complete lies, and shot your own nose off.

Full marks. Give yourself a pat on the back. Sorry... did you say you had a nosebleed ? Have a Kleenex. Didn't Boris tell you it might sting a bit ?

My own fundamental reason for staying? I don't want Europe to ever suffer the horrors of the Somme or Verdun or Normandy again. Not me, my kids, nor generations to come. Good people died so we could all live in peace. That's what the EU was meant to try and achieve first and foremost. Talk about your problems. Don't fight over them.

I have lots of other reasons, but lets get our priorities right.

[Craig100]

Re: Bloody hell.

The democracy you speak of is too far removed from the populace to be relevant. Government needs to be local to mean anything. No point at all in something the local populace wants done being out voted at EU level by people that don't see your issue as important because they live in a different system and culture thousands of miles away. My vote for out was based on sovereignty, democracy and wanting to move forward. The EU seems to hold much stuff back. If we'd had a referendum in 1992, or whenever it switched from a Common Market to a nascent Federal Europe, I think we'd have voted out then. As for keeping the peace. NATO does that, and besides, it's not the same world as it was 70 years ago. Communications, 24hr news, travel, better informed world view........

[Boris the Cockroach]

Re: Bloody hell.

This is directed at Leavers in general as much as the commenter.

<Severe editing of a text wall>

I'll give you 2 examples of your 'appointed by your elected government" commission

Neil Kinnock (remember him) rejected at the polls in 1987, and 1992 by the voters in favour of the fracking tories, resigns from his job as labour leader (and there was much rejoicing)

Next thing we know hes our EU commisioner.... hold on... we never voted for him, in fact we rejected him holding power at the polls twice... and now hes got his mits on some power... yeah very democratic

The other example was a few years later when a French commisioner was found to have hired most of her home village on the EU payroll including her dentist.

Well lets get rid of her for being somewhat corrupt.... oh we cant... the EU parliment can only remove the entire commission not individuals, only member governments can remove individuals (note.. not the voters) and the parliment came under pressure from the governments and ended up not firing the lot.

The commission is patronage pure and simple, you get matey with the guys in charge of your country.. well they'll give you a cushy EU job as a reward.. especially if you've just done a stirling job sucking up to the chinese in Hong Kong...

Remember Tony Benn's old saying "who gave you that power? and how do I get rid of you?"

It appears that we, the people of Europe, dont have the power to get rid of them

[Commswonk]

A new term for you...

How about "EUROFUD"? I can live with and will happily consider reasoned arguments about why Brexit might be a terrible mistake, but anything that looks a bit like blackmail falls well outside that fairly broad description.

It's all a bit like nice place you've got here, mate; it would be a shame if anyone came and smashed it up...

All the foot - stamping from various bodies sounds like a two year old's temper tantrum.

Dan 55 summed it up nicely with his So where's the cutting off, apart from his nose to spite his face? Intelligence sharing (whether you happen to like it or not) does not require the comfort blanket of the EU around it. Anyway, we've still got "Five Eyes" membership.

I wonder if the fabled little boy who suddenly announced The Emporer has no clothes had to contend with this sort of thing.

The downvote button is just below, BTW. Remainers seem unable to tolerate any non - acceptance of their orthodoxy... I don't doubt the EUROFUD will continue, unfortunately.

[itzman]

Re: A new term for you...

All government is a self legalising protection racket.

The EU more than most.

I am far happier that the rest of the EU and Uropol dont have access to GHCQ data ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: A new term for you...

You will consider reasoned arguments?

Ok, of what kind? You know that in the end the economy will be slightly worse off, about 50 to 100 billion 2016 pounds per year, just based on additional trade friction. You probably know that there will be an additional cost before we get to that "in the end" phase. I assume none of that sways you.

Integration into a regional block has a lot of benefits, but most of those have been mentioned so I assume they don't sway you either.

What if I told you that there is a realistic chance that the UK will actually be able to set its own tariffs however it likes? Would that help?

[Commswonk]

Re: A new term for you...

You know that in the end the economy will be slightly worse off, about 50 to 100 billion 2016 pounds per year is not a reasoned argument; it is an assertion that I would suggest falls into the EUROFUD category. I may be in a minority of one but I do not know anything of the kind.

"In the end"; exactly when does that mean? "the economy" is far too general a concept to have much resonance with the electorate.

It may not have been intentional but your post sounded a bit hectoring, which is very possibly what drove voters to put their crosses against "leave" in the first place.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Commswonk Re: A new term for you...

"How about "EUROFUD"?....." Sorry, Brussels would never allow that! Or, rather, the French never would, they would insist it be called "EUROPID" as the French for "fear, uncertainty, doubt" would be "peur, incertitude, doute", and we know just how much the French hate having any Eurostandard in English. I'm betting one reason the Europol database seems to be so useless is because the French insist every entry has to be translated into French.

So, vive la difference, vive l'EUROPID!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not buying it

First of all, Europol is not an EU setup. Next, both EU and Europol are not going to deprive each other of intelligence to fight crime for simple economic reasons. Last, I'm actually rather pissed off seeing an (non-)intelligence staffer trying to play politics.

I'll expect them clawing back at some point. If not, the head honcho will be in the UK quite often so there will be plenty of time to pester him in the press..

[Commswonk]

Re: I'm not buying it

First of all, Europol is not an EU setup.

Are you certain about that? Again from Wikipedia:

The European Police Office (commonly abbreviated Europol) is the law enforcement agency of the European Union (EU) that handles criminal intelligence and combating serious international organised crime by means of cooperation between the relevant authorities of the member states, including those tasked with customs, immigration services, border and financial police etc.

And then later on:

Germany, with its federal organisation of police forces, had long been in favour of a supranational police organisation at EC level. It tabled a surprise proposal to establish a European Police Office to the European Council meeting in Luxembourg in June 1991. By that December, the Intergovernmental Conference was coming to an end and the member states had pledged themselves to establishing Europol through Article K.1(9) of the Maastricht Treaty.

I know that trusting Wiipedia implicitly can be a bit daft but I suspect that if any of the above was wrong someone would have put it right by now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I'm not buying it

First of all, Europol is not an EU setup.

Are you certain about that?

You're right, I missed the word "exclusive" from that sentence

The Europol site itself states the same as Wikipedia (what an amazing coincidence - it's almost literally the same /snark), but it also states

working closely with law enforcement agencies in the 28 EU Member States and in other non-EU partner states and organisations

My confusion comes from the fact that my discussions with Europol are rarely contained to EU-only nations (doing some development that crosses borders).

I can see where this warning comes from, although I disagree with the heavy political slant that message has been given: the UK has never quite been comfortable with the EU's approach to Data Protection (by sheer coincidence there was one Theresa May being pretty much in the middle of that). A Brexit will most certainly cause a divergence from EU regulation, which creates problems for Europol to share data in a way that remains compliant with the rules in place at the source.

It's already hard enough just inside the EU - there may be central directives, but quite a few nations have interpreted that in their own way so Europol is forever jumping through hoops to gather and coordinate data on criminal activity. Data Protection isn't quite as normalised throughout the EU as Brussels wants you to think it is.

What Theresa May will do once they've disconnected from that is anyone's guess, but based on her Home Office activities I think it's a fair bet to assume it won't be good news for data protection and Human Rights.

[MrTuK]

@nematoad - Sorry m8, I don't mean to pick you out but your comments are what really annoys me, we had a vote for Brexit, it happend, thats the end of it, now get over it, people like you keep on painting doom and gloom as if you want the UK to go down the plug-hole just to prove a point that you were right and we were wrong ! What will happen if suddenly UK becomes super wealthy would you then say, "sh*t I was wrong so sorry guys !", nahh you will say, "Just you wait, next year the UK will go down the plug-hole just you wait and see, this is just a temporary blip ! - sheesh !

I just wonder if you do the same thing after whatever particular party you voted for doesn't get into Parliament - Do you still moan and groan how stupid the country is for voting X or Y into power or maybe you don't vote at all just so that you can moan about something rather than just getting on with it like 99% of UK citizens ?

I know what it is, I finally worked it out, you are a masochistic person and want the UK to go down the plug-hole - So sorry I just didn't realize what you were !

Try being a person that looks at life like it is a half full glass of beer, rather than its half empty or in your case that you didn't actually get to goto the pub because you are too busy moaning about the Brexit and that more than 50% of the voting people get it wrong - in your opinion !

[Jess]

Re: we had a vote for Brexit

We had a 14:13 majority on a question of whether we should leave the EU, where there was an awful lot of distortions of the truth.

This is not a safe enough margin to be a mandate for the UK to leave the EU.

(I will accept that the margin in England and Wales could be considered safe, but not across the whole UK).

Furthermore the question asked was simply should the UK leave the EU.

It was not should the UK leave the EEA, should the UK throw out all foreigner, should the UK scrap human rights or even should the UK behave like a bunch of Xenophobes.

Anything beyond reversing the move from EFTA to EEC (and hence remaining in the EEA) is an outrageous extrapolation of the already tenuous mandate.

To be fair, although I am pro remain, I think we have totally blown all our credibility in the EU and reversing the decision would be unlikely to leave us in the same position of disproportionate influence we were in, so I feel the Norway model is the only sane option. (Although Scotland should be given the chance to remain in the EU, whether by some federal UK fudge or independence I don't care.)

[Commswonk]

Re: we had a vote for Brexit

We had a 14:13 majority on a question of whether we should leave the EU, where there was an awful lot of distortions of the truth.

This is not a safe enough margin to be a mandate for the UK to leave the EU.

I do understand that logic, but the threshold for a "majority" cannot be set after the event. However, even if something other than a simple majority had been set, say (for the sake of argument) 55:45 to vote for "leave" for the result to count then a different set of problems could arise. Firstly, any ratio other than a simple 50:50 would more or less by definition be arbitrary, and in its way no more valid than 50:50. Secondly, had the result been 54.9:45.1, thus maintaining the status quo as EU members, we would have had a situation where we remained as members although there had been a very clear (simple) majority against it. Thirdly had the result been 55.1:44.9 then the remainers would have argued that the (arbitrary) threshold should have been 56:44.

I'm not sure which of the above three would be the worst; I suspect the second, with a (substantial?) majority of those who voted being forced to remain within the EU against their clearly expressed opinion.

It would all have been so much easier for everyone (the EU in particular) if our "partners" had been more receptive to the concerns of the UK electorate, but of course for that to have happened our own politicians would have had to been aware opf those concerns themselves. I hope they have learned from the experience; to rework a well known saying You can ignore all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.

[Fr. Ted Crilly]

Re: we had a vote for Brexit

Well, here's Hoping Inner London Gets to vote on remaining too, you can move the Capital to Oxford after if you want... :-)

[mwnci]

Re: we had a vote for Brexit

Are you shocked that Politicians lie? Have you ever heard the song "Trust me I'm the Sunscreen" by Baz Luhrmann. Might be a good shout...

If you think the EU is good, take a trip to Athens, see the Job creation machine at work...Then pop into Spain, Portugal, then Italy. Then pop into Hungary and say "Hello". i have lived in Athens for a while, it is heart-breaking so don't tell me the EU is some amazing club of 28 members that gets things done for the good of all? Anyone who is truly liberal, would not place 28 countries above the other 197, like it's some exclusive club and screw everyone else "You don't belong".

I think BREXIT has been commandeered as an issue to coalesce grievances around, things like "Housing problems and older demographics for buying the 1st home, children being poorer than parents generation, corporate avarice, cynicism, the rise of regressive liberalism".

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no question that we'll be keeping full access to Europol intelligence, whether Europol will be aware of it or not is a different matter entirely.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no question that we'll be keeping full access to Europol intelligence, whether Europol will be aware of it or not is a different matter entirely.

I don't know. I've met Rob Wainwright a few times, and he strikes me as a straight player. I think Theresa May will have a problem trying to come to some sort of underhand agreement with Europol with him at the helm.

[Anonymous Coward]

No loss

We've never shared much with our enemy,. the French

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry

Brexit will all work out OK as we negotiate from our our position of weakness.

Underdogs always win, don't they?

LOL

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: Don't worry

In this particular area, you couldn't be more wrong. Whatever people's feelings/thoughts on the relative balance of economic and political power, the UK are in a very strong (the strongest?) negotiating position here.

UK POolice and intelligence services apparently put in a disproportionate amount of Europol's data. I believe we may also be their heaviest user. We also have pretty good joint intelligence relationships with the other big European intelligence players. As well as stronger intel relationships with the US (and the rest of 5 eyes) than any other EU nation.

There is no barrier to continuing whatever sharing relationship the two sides want. The strong signal from the EU is that they want/need our continued cooperation - this signal is that we couldn't keep the financial services brief at the Commission (that would have been ludicrous), so were given the Commission for intelligence coordination. That strongly suggests that the political will exists.

[TDog]

At the risk of being silly

Isn't this bilateral? We are repeatedly informed on how successful our professional intelligence organisations are at finding threats and we are lead to believe that we have helped prevent events in other countries in Europe.

I have no doubt that the desire on multitudinous other sides for info may exceed the desire for NOFORN data classifications. These are interesting but fundamentally stupid people expressing views which at best will do no harm and at worst get many people killed. I wonder how long it will take them to blame Brexit rather than intransigence.

[Anonymous Coward]

Brexit

Where the bullet meets the foot.

[I Am Spartacus]

Oh my - what will we do?

How will we cope with out the combined Intelligence from Europol that did so much to stop the terror attacks in Paris, Paris again, Brussels, Nice.

We're doomed, doomed I say.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Oh my - what will we do?

Sarcasm aside, you conveniently omitted to mention our own notable successes that stopped the attacks in London and New York.

Maybe someone was waiting for a coded warning, like those guys from the US funded IRA terrorist organisation used to give.

[lukewarmdog]

Yawn, someone else talking on behalf of Europe, scaremongering no better than Farage. Can't pick which pile of bollocks you want to believe when it comes to Brexit, it's all bollocks.

Plus.. I'd put money on the fact that data mostly goes from the UK to help the EU and the EU would lose out way more in this situation.

But.. on a positive note.. maybe all the illegal data slurping and monitoring will come to a stop. No? Then this mans posturing doesn't really mean much, right?

[Tom 7]

Thats ok - we will be so insignificant the terrorists wont be interested in us

unless most of NI wants to stay in the EU and we refuse...

[Eatondave]

Given that a significant percentage of the intelligence about cyber crime comes from the UK and US, cutting, nose, spite and face spring to mind

[Trollslayer]

In which case

We will cut them off.

Oh, which country CURRENTLY in the EU has the greatest military power?

[Drefsab_UK]

Re: In which case

you mean france?

Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union

They have the most active personel, most naval forces, (greece has the most tanks) but france has more than us, they have the most armoured fighting vehicles, they have more artillery than us (again greece has the most), most attack helicopters, greece again has the largest total airforce though and france has light slightly less than us (thought they have almsot double the Aerial refueling and transport).

Im proud of our forces dont get me wrong and we were/are a sizable force but I don't like this opinion that we some how were significantly larger force than the rest of the EU, that just makes us sound like the yanks.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Drefsab_UK Re: In which case

"....They have the most active personel...." Yes, but they're French - their best troops are foreign, they even have a special Legion just because their best troops are Foreign.

"....most naval forces....." With how much combat experience in the last fifty years? A few tiny involvements in UN actions? Great for picking up migrants out of the Med but probably not much else.

"......(greece has the most tanks) but france has more than us....." But they're French tanks, with French crews, which means they only work in reverse and come with the French armoured corp's special battleflag - a white fleur de Lis, flanked by two white lions rampant, on a white background. As history shows, all you have to say is "Est-ce un char allemande?" to get those French tankers waving that special battleflag with vim and vigour!

"....(thought they have almsot double the Aerial refueling and transport)...." Very important for "those strategic retreats" the French are so famous for.

[mwnci]

Re: Drefsab_UK In which case

A very important thing to recognize about France is that their Police Gendarmerie are part of the Military... Not so the UK, if so boost the British forces by 125,000 Police Officers.

Numbers mean nothing in War, the competency, morale, political will to use them and take casualties, the weapons, investment in technology and training, leadership are all key factors...No point having a 1000 tanks if no one can use them properly, or they break down every 2 miles, you've got no fuel.

Quoting purely numbers as measure of "Military Power" is a nonsense.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Drefsab_UK In which case

@Matt Bryant

I'd love to see you deliver your little rant to the French SpecOps operators on the ground in Mali, Libya, Iraq and other places.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: AC Re: Drefsab_UK In which case

"....I'd love to see you deliver your little rant to the French SpecOps operators on the ground in Mali, Libya, Iraq...." Mali? Yeah, you remember that Blackadder Goes Forth episode where they're talking about the "great colonial campaigns" fighting pygmies with sharpened fruit? France's special forces have a copious record of failure in their post-War II colonial adventures, losing not only abroad in places like Algiers and Viet Nam, but also in France itself in fighting the OAS. Meanwhile the British SAS was building up a reputation as a tier 1 special forces unit in successful counter-insurgency operations in places like Oman, Malaya, Indonesia and closer to home in Northern Ireland. Thanks, but there is nothing the French can teach the British about special forces.

"....Libya....." After the RN and RAF cleared out the core of the Libyan forces and the SAS did the tough work you mean?

"....Iraq...." The Gulf War is actually a perfect example of the lack of value put on the French forces. When planning the great armoured sweep into Kuwait, the French armoured forces were placed far out on the flank in empty desert as the Yanks were seriously worried the AMX-30s wouldn't be able to cope with Iraqi T-72s (which the British Challenger and American Abrams tanks had no problems dealing with). Indeed, the ten tanks claimed by the French were actually all hit first by A-10s sent to help the French out! Post-war the French couldn't get home fast enough, and the Yanks requested special forces help from the British SAS and SBS, not the French.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: AC Drefsab_UK In which case

You don't seem to make the difference between Special Forces and conventional forces unless Special Forces routinely use tanks so your spiel about armoured forces in the Gulf War is totally IRRELEVANT. Concerning Algeria the French Army did not make the political decision to grant independence. The political leadership did.

Fighting the OAS was the job of the police and security forces (who subcontracted the dirty work to underworld elements). So another irrelevant remark from you.

On a side note I knew a French guy who did his National Service in Algeria serving in Military Intelligence (yeah, yeah, I know, spare us the lame jokes). He told me MI owned the Algerians through a XX (Double Cross) type operation similar to what the British did during WW2.

If French SpecOps are so bad why did Saudi Arabia specifically ask for French, not American or British mind you, operators to handle a hostage situation in Mecca in 1979?

I never wrote the French could teach the British about SFs. In fact to this day French SF freely admit what they owe to the British. I wast just pointing out that French SF are not as shabby as you try to make out.

Just like American or British intelligence or SF operations you learn about the failures and rarely about the successes.

I suspect you are so fundamentally biased against France and the French, that if the French were the only ones in the world to walk on water you would come up with "See, they are so lousy they don't even know how to swim".

[Matt Bryant]

Re: AC Re: AC Drefsab_UK In which case

"You don't seem to make the difference between Special Forces and conventional forces unless Special Forces routinely use tanks so your spiel about armoured forces in the Gulf War is totally IRRELEVANT...." Which is why I pointed out the complete failure of the French "special forces" during their colonial wars and compared them to the successes of the British special forces. Please try reading the whole post before tryping (sic) a frothing response.

".....Fighting the OAS was the job of the police and security forces (who subcontracted the dirty work to underworld elements). So another irrelevant remark from you......' Really? Or does it just point out both the incompetence of the French commanders and politicians, and the unpreparedness of the French "special forces"? When the British and Northern Irish police and regular armed forces needed the SAS in Northern Ireland, the SAS was ready, willing and able, because the SAS was a smarter led, better trained and more prepared force.

".....On a side note I knew a French guy who did his National Service in Algeria serving in Military Intelligence ..... He told me MI owned the Algerians through a XX (Double Cross) type operation similar to what the British did during WW2....." So, they copied what the Brits had already done, but still lost? Not a very convincing argument for even parity!

"......If French SpecOps are so bad why did Saudi Arabia specifically ask for French, not American or British mind you, operators to handle a hostage situation in Mecca in 1979?...." Are you referring to the completely farcical French attempts to retake the Grand Mosque? Even the French GIGN tried to downplay their part in the drawn out and costly endeavor, insisting it was the Pakistanis commandos that actually screwed up! Of course, the reason the Saudis didn't ask the British for help might be because the SAS had spent many years defeating Saudi-backed rebels in Oman.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Drefsab_UK In which case

@M Bryant

"Very important for "those strategic retreats" the French are so famous for."

Almost as famous as all the American military victories since WW2...

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Drefsab_UK In which case

"....all the American military victories since WW2..." At least the Yanks have some, unlike the French! Two Gulf Wars and the invasion of Afghanistan, both military victories even if the politicians screwed it up afterwards (and that means Obama's administration, not Bush's). Korea - US-led military victory in driving back the joint Chinese and Nork invasion. Add Panama and Grenada to the list. Even in Viet Nam (caused by the failed French colonial action) the US military won the battles, it was the US politicians that turned military victory into political defeat. Oh, and I see you put in "since WW2" so you didn't have to face the embarrassing admission that Nazi-occupied France itself was liberated by the Yanks and Brits. In fact, outside of US-led UN operations like the Gulf War, the French haven't had any military victories since the Great War (when the Yanks and Brits also saved their bacon).

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Drefsab_UK In which case

@M Bryant

It's ironic that you appear to be proud that the most powerful military in the history of the planet has managed to crush a handful of third world uprisings.

Where would the US be without WMDs I wonder...?

When N Korea decides it has had enough and retaliates by launching a bomb to destroy every satellite in space, you might not be quite so confident the US will be as successful in taking down local bullies, let alone nations capable of actually fighting back.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: AC Re: Drefsab_UK In which case

".....most powerful military in the history of the planet has managed to crush a handful of third world uprisings....." Please take a break from the Yank-hating and go read some history. For example, the Korean War was an UN action where the US was the largest contributor, and the opposition included the Chinese, the most populous country on the planet, with some of the most advanced weaponry (some, such as the MiG-15, actually being more advanced than the equivalent US weaponry) the Soviets could give them.

".....When N Korea decides it has had enough and retaliates by launching a bomb to destroy every satellite in space...." LOL, you really need to watch some actual factual programming and less Sci-Fi! Firstly, even pretending a Nork nuke-tipped missile could make it into space above the US without being shot down (the US is already installing anti-ballistic-missile batteries in South Korea and has ships in the pacific with the ability to intercept ICBMs), a high-atmospheric or orbital blast from a Nork nuke would not take out even a third of the current satellites in geo-stationary orbit over the US, but would bring a very severe response. The idea that the US is not prepared for a retaliatory strike of every nuke silo, bunker, and command site in North Korea is amusingly naïve. Secondly, you'll have to wait to see if the Norks can even make a nuke small enough to fit on one of their missiles, which currently seems beyond them. Thirdly, the most likely scenario IMHO is that, should Baby Kim get too uppity, the Chinese will mount a coup using their own people in North Korea, or simply invade and install a new puppet regime. Baby Kim is only of value to the Chinese as long as he keeps an expensive chunk of US forces tied down in South Korea and provides a buffer to China itself. The two last things China wants is a war on their doorstep (the disruption to regional trade and traffic would mean the Chinese economy would implode), or the South and the US invading and installing a regime that might be less willing to toe China's line.

[mwnci]

Really?

My experience was that we often didn't trust sharing alot of information with certain european partners because their Security Apparatus was often not at the operational maturity level we'd expect of a 21st Century Security Service in the post 9/11 world. There were also concerns of the political use of intelligence by certain jurisdictions to secure funding on the pre-text of "Hey we just stopped a Terrorist attack" when in reality it was a single guy informant / low level dude and a certain country jumped on the opportunity to "look tough on terrorism" and missed the chance to get a whole cell, or buggers another countries operation.

Intelligence is often wrong, sharing information that's often wrong isn't as beneficial as you would think, and it most certainly isn't "open sharing" as intelligence is often cherry picked, massaged and is never full disclosure.

The EUROPOL already co-operates with other non-EU countries, but be under no illusions the UK's Intelligence Apparatus as a whole, is the Jewel in the Crown of the UK Defence. Every country courts it, and wants its co-operation and help - EUROPOL will suffer if it ostracises the UK, and having seen whats happened in France and Belgium recently they need all the help they can get.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Really?

Re: "EUROPOL will suffer if it ostracises the UK".

It may be a political decision rather than Europol.

Regardless, it appears that many Britons would like nothing more than to see Europe fail, even if it spites their own face.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: AC Re: Really?

".....it appears that many Britons would like nothing more than to see Europe fail.....' It is already failing! Every time the French and Italians are allowed to flout the same financial rules used to punish countries like Greece it is another nail in the EU's coffin. That is why the lEUsers are so upset about Brexit as it is making it harder for them to paper over the cracks. As to the British wanting "Europe" (the EU is not Europe, it is a subset of Europe, thanks) to fail, so do the majority of Greeks, plus large numbers of Germans, French, Dutch, Spanish, Portugese, etc., etc. Nationalist parties all over the EU are winning more voters because so many EUers think the EU is already failing.