Reader TTS

Human rights and the rule of law are important points of conflict in the Brexit debate. But, perhaps counter-intuitively, the best way to protect and enhance our standards of human rights

and the rule of law is by distancing from the EU, not maintaining integration. The EU makes a show of defending human rights against oppressive governments and of spreading the rule of law.

But if you look below the surface you see an organisation so intent on expansion that it turns a blind eye to deliberate, systemic abuses. Through its mechanisms of integration, it puts

every person living within the EU at the mercy of the worst offenders. Take Poland, for example. After winning a majority in 2015, the Law and Justice Party (PiS) quickly set about

interfering in the judiciary and eroding the rights of groups including LGBT+ people and women. The EU Commission started its Article 7 process to bring Poland back into line in 2017,

warning that Poland’s EU rights could be suspended, but has taken no further action and made no progress. Even the European Parliament has warned that the situation in Poland has continued

to get worse despite EU “action”. It’s a similar picture in Hungary, where abuses of minority rights, crackdowns on freedom of expression and political interference in the judiciary have

become an infamous expression of the EU’s failure. In Romania, not even a judgment by the European Court of Human Righs was able to halt the violation of human rights in that country’s

prison system. There are serious systemic problems in Romania’s prisons, including horrendous overcrowding, unsanitary conditions and a lack of medical care. Romania was required to explain

how it would tackle these problems and came up with a billion euro spending commitment, complete plans to upgrade and expand prison facilities, which were later shown to be pure fantasy. In

the mean time, political interference in the judiciary remains common, the intelligence services have not been reformed since the communist period and are embedded in every level of

government, and the racist violation of minority rights persists. Despite this, the government is planning to cooperate on criminal justice in a way that will leave every person living here

in the UK at the mercy of these governments. Chief among these risks to British citizens are Boris Johnson’s unacceptable plans on extradition, which are the topic of my paper_, ‘__The

future of extradition from the UK: Protecting fundamental rights_, published by Due Process. The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) has faced opposition over the years from the left and right of

British politics, because its tick-box, fast-track system has almost no protections against these Eastern European regimes. The worst example of an EAW going through British courts right now

is the case of Alexander Adamescu, who is wanted by the Romanian authorities. Bucharest’s interest in Adamescu stems from a political feud between the Adamescu family and a former socialist

Prime Minister. The family maintains that horrendous prison conditions and a lack of medical care led to the death of Adamescu’s father. Despite the many concerning issues thrown up by the

case, not least the widely-held view that much of the evidence against Mr Adamescu is pure fabrication, Adamescu’s extradition is set to go ahead — unless the Home Secretary intervenes. This

deeply worrying situation is due to the principle of “mutual trust and recognition” at the heart of the European Arrest Warrant. This means that even when there is evidence of corruption

and human rights violations in these countries, British judges must accept the judgements of other jurisdictions, no mater how untrustworthy. The government’s plan, described by experts as

“EAW-lite”, will continue this position, tying us in to the machinations of the EU, making our judges and lawmakers complicit in the abuses taking place elsewhere, and putting people in the

UK at risk. My proposal is simple: that we should treat EU countries as we do the rest of the world. The non-EU extradition process includes a diplomatic check, allowing the Home Secretary

to examine evidence that cannot be heard in court and take into account changing political conditions. The judicial process for most non-EU countries also includes examining the evidence

against the accused to establish whether there is a real case to answer, and requiring judges to do so with an independent eye. It’s time for the government to acknowledge the risks involved

with integration with the EU, commit to protecting fundamental human rights and the rule of law, and take us fully out of the EAW system.