Letter: Secret EU deals on immigrants
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: The transfer of immigration and asylum matters ("Dutch to unveil plan for multi-speed EU", 24 March) to Community competence has important significance for the future protection of human rights in the European Union. Treatment of these issues, presently dealt with in secret, intergovernmental "third pillar" meetings, has been consistently criticised for lack of democratic and judicial accountability.
While the move to "communitise" will potentially provide a better constitutional basis for decisions in this area, the degree of protection is in the details. Although it is proposed that the European Court of Justice will be competent to adjudicate, there appears to be no proposal to fully involve the European Parliament. As the new title is to include regulation of the free movement of persons, which currently requires parliament's agreement under the co-decision procedures, this would represent a dilution of democratic control.
If there is a serious wish to address the democratic deficit during this Inter-Governmental Conference, empowering the only directly elected institution to play a greater role seems essential. This would be backed by the proposed protocol to provide a legally binding minimum period for national parliaments to ensure effective scrutiny of the same proposals at member-state level.
PETER NOORLANDER
Justice
London EC4
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments