BREXIT: Lack of EU Arrest Warrant Would Post Risk to UK

--UK Remaining in European Arrest Warrant Not Compatible With Rejecting ECJ,

Lord's Committee Says

--EFTA-style Court a Possibility But EU27 May Not Like "Bespoke" Deal

--"Cliff Edge" on Extradition Would Be Unacceptable, Lord's Report Warns

By Tara Oakes

     BRUSSELS (MNI) - A UK move to leave the European Arrest Warrant procedure

before a replacement is found would "pose an unacceptable risk to the safety of

the people of the UK", a House of Lords committee warned Thursday.

     The Lord's European Union Committee argued in a report that the process of

recalibrating the EAW post-Brexit could lead to a "cliff-edge" for extradition

arrangements that could endanger Britain.

     The EAW is a legal procedure by which individuals can be extradited between

member states within the EU without having the litigate through national courts.

     UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd is quoted in the report as saying that "it is

a priority for [the Government] to ensure that we remain part of the

arrangement".

     But the choice to be part of the EAW, renewed by the UK in December 2014,

necessarily requires accepting the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice

- an emerging red line in Brexit negotiations.

     Britain's position paper for talks on citizens' rights, published in late

June, stated that: "The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will not

have jurisdiction in the UK".

     Technically, as soon as the UK officially leaves the EU - currently

scheduled for March 2019 - the country will also automatically drop out of the

ECJ. The departure will be welcomed by hardline Brexiteers.

     But at that point, the Committee found that "it does not seem at all clear"

how the UK could remain part of the EAW.

     "It was not clear to the Committee how this objective will be compatible

with the Government's plans to remove the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice,

let alone other aspects of the UK's withdrawal from the European Union," the

group's chairman, Lord Boswell of Aynho, is quoted as saying.

     --TRANSITIONS--

     Despite a softening of stance from the government in recent weeks to

recognise a possible transitional role of the ECJ, the Lord's report points to

the difficulties of even finding a mid-term solution, never mind remaining a

full-time member of the EAW.

     Witnesses questioned by the Committee had a number of suggestions for how

to square the circle and allow the UK EAW membership without accepting ECJ

jurisdiction.

     Sir Alan Dashwood QC told the committee that said that a court representing

European Free Trade Association countries Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway

could be a solution for resolving disputes without the ECJ. 

     Dashwood sad an EFTA court "follows the jurisprudence of the Court of

Justice but takes its own decisions, and these are not directly effective within

the EFTA countries". It could, therefore, be a useful sticking plaster to allow

the UK to reap the benefits of EAW membership without caving on the ECJ.

     But the report warned that any special arrangement for the UK would depend

on sympathy from remaining member states, which could be thin on the ground.

     "We question...whether in the context of the EAW the EU-27 will be willing

to establish bespoke adjudication arrangements such as a parallel court in order

to accommodate the UK's objectives," the report warns.

     --NO DEAL SCENARIO

     In the absence of EAW membership, the report calls for a separate

extradition agreement to be negotiated with the EU on the model of Norway and

Iceland.

     "This arrangement contains provisions for a political dispute resolution

mechanism, which would be compatible with the Government's desire for a similar

mechanism as it seeks to replace the Court of Justice," the Committee said in

its key findings. But this is unlikely to be an easy option, the report adds,

saying it "has taken years to negotiate and still has not come into effect".

     If the UK plunged into a "cliff-edge" scenario without having negotiated

any extradition deals before March 2019, it would revert back to 1957's Council

of Europe Convention on Extradition.

     "The Committee heard evidence that this would be counterproductive and

inefficient, and not an adequate substitute," a statement from the Committee

said.

     "[A] transitional arrangement that simply extends the status quo in

relation to the EAW will be difficult to secure," the report concludes.

     Upcoming Brexit talks are scheduled to begin on August 28, when it will be

seen how far either side will be willing to budge on the issue of ECJ

jurisdiction.

--MNI Brussels Bureau; +44 203-865-3851; email: tara.oakes@marketnews.com

--MNI Paris Bureau; tel: +33 1-42-71-55-41; email: jack.duffy@marketnews.com

[TOPICS: M$B$$$,M$E$$$,MC$$$$]