Protection of Critical Infrastructure
Many Thanks to George West from CIB for this article
May 2007.
Updated 20.3.2008.
I suppose it is not really wise to write an Article such as this when angry, but in waiting to become less so, I realise that I will remain angry so I might just as well “get on with it”. This particular incident came about when I read the debate in the House of Commons on the “Protection of Critical Infrastructure” (PCI), a debate that was held in the House of Commons on 2.5.2007. A debate on a subject that concerned many aspects of National Security in which there were voices of concern about many aspects of it and I got the impression that no matter what British Members of Parliament that WE had bothered to democratically vote for, an EU ‘take over’ of an important part of our national security, was going to happen anyway. Why did I ‘feel’ this? Because to me, there did not seem to be much of a fight put up against the proposals. (See the EU’s Protection of Critical Infrastructure)
I believe that the most important duty of any British Government is security and defence of their own Country. It most certainly is in time of war, and are we not at war with “Terrorism”, Iraq and Afghanistan? Many of us are aware that although this Government was keen enough in sending our Forces to war, they have let them down by not giving them the personal equipment suitable to the Country they have been sent to. They have also let our forces down by not ensuring that the fighting equipment they have been sent to war with are of the top quality (never mind the price) and of the latest up to date range and that the forces have been fully trained in using them. Sadly the “snatch vehicles” although useful at times in Northern Ireland were certainly not protective enough in Iraq.
“Protection of Critical Infrastructure” covers natural hazards and destruction of national infrastructure through deliberate attack. Something that here in the UK we have known at first hand over the years.
My file on this subject is quite substantial; I shall commence with the actual debate on PCI. The Government Minister that opened the debate was, “The Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety”, Mr. Tony McNulty MP. I give him his full title, because ironically this subject is all about the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain who is directly responsible for the Security and Safety of this Country and all the people in it, yet a Government that is apparently prepared to give some if not all and it looks like ALL to me, of the responsibility for our security and safety away to the European Union. It also looks as if it is being given away under Art 308 when Mr Heathcoat-Amory asked, “What possible connection can there be between national security measures and the Common market? Is not this another example of the Commission trying to expand its powers and of the Government yet again giving way and going along with them? As the Minister has already conceded, the Government have a veto”. In reply however, Mr McNulty makes clear, ”As will emerge from our deliberations, we are perfectly comfortable with the use of article 308. In the first instance, the matter is not one of national security, although it has national security dimensions, but the functioning and protection of critical elements of the infrastructure throughout the European Union to sustain markets must be a valid part of the pursuance of the integrity and cohesion of the common market which is why that article 308 route is appropriate”. So, that’s all right then?
Mr Heathcoat-Amery also made clear, “There are
security assets and facilities both in this country and in other countries that
we would prefer not to declare, for security reason. Is he aware that under the draft directive we
would have not only to declare those assets, but to draw up and operate a
security plan and appoint a security liaison officer, all of which would
presumably be public? Would it not be a
grave threat to our internal security if all of that were known as provided for
under a directive, and if the final arbiter of that were the European Court of
Justice”?
Mr Garnier also confirms these points when he said, “The
point my right hon Friend makes is entirely valid. There are assets and infrastructures that we
own nationally and there are assets and infrastructures that we jointly own or
in respect of which we are tenants in common through, for example, NATO and
certain aspects of the EU, and which should not become subject of open-air
discussion. It alarms me to think that our foreign policy and our counter terrorism
policy might be subjected to debate of decision of the ECJ, and I trust that
that also alarms the Minister.”
Michael Connarty then puts forward his theory why the European Scrutiny Committee wanted this serious matter debated on the floor of the House when he said, “Our main concern was that what is proposed is the adoption of a legally binding European Council Directive in what we consider a sensitive field. We felt that this was legally doubtful and questionable in principle. Our second concern was the extensive role that the Commission has allocated for itself.” “The third problem is that there is not just a possibility, but a probability of the extension of Community competence into the field of national security. There is no doubt that if that proposal goes ahead, it will affect bilateral agreements and infrastructures; in fact, it is Commission creep into the field of national security”. So, this will go ahead if we remain in the European Union, Lisbon Treaty ratified or not. To give all the information required out to a third party or an organisation that is likely to crumble anyway, (You all know the Union will not last) would be an act of folly, sheer stupidity. In war time, an act of a traitor.
One thing the people ARE indeed sure of and have come to recognise very well is once the European Union “has a ‘foot in the door’ on any subject, very soon there is a wide gap where that door used to be, for if there was a dispute, the matter would then be ruled upon by the European Court of Justice. Our Government would be unable to go against that ruling and they could be forced into a position that they did not originally wish to adopt, and to which they did not originally think that they had. So much for having an independent sovereign Government and Parliament? This Country’s national security, its independent survival is too important to ‘play any kind of games with’. Many lives may well be at stake here. No one can look after our national security better than our own national security people. At times we have very little confidence in them never mind trusting foreigners from distant shores. It is like a re-run of the appeasement issue in 1939.
Having just written that, I remember upon seeing those concrete blobs dotted around our wonderful Parliament buildings and recognising the fact that none of those blobs would be a protection from an attack from above.
Further on Michael Connarty said, “We believe it is wrong for the Commission to be allowed to use infraction procedures in respect of any European country, and particularly this one, which has a highly developed national security policy. However, the Commission would go to the European Court of Justice if there were any dispute”. He then asked why could the objective of creating a common procedure for designating critical infrastructure not have been achieved by voluntary co-operation between member states? Why not indeed? Again, I get the impression that agreement will (have) to be made (because of the EU Treaties already signed) to this enormous transfer of sovereignty over our national security and defence. Not enough argument or anger is being displayed here and rather than come out of the EU by a deliberate repudiation of all the EU Treaties, they would remain IN the coming dictatorial Union. It is THEIR country too and none will escape. I have read the Treaty of Lisbon enough times to know that we would not ‘get out’ of the Union by simply repealing the instrument that took us in (The European Communities Act 1972)-we will have gone too far for that, plus all other Governments will have agreed to taking the only way out, by request, and to all leaders agreeing.
I
note here that ‘an agreement’ has already been made (in 2004) between
the Government of the United States of America and the
Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
(hereinafter referred to as the “Parties”):
HAVING a common interest in research and development relating
to critical infrastructure protection and other homeland/civil security
matters. I note that Article XVII in
that agreement that Neither Party shall: (a) sell, transfer title to, disclose,
or transfer possession of Project Foreground Information, or equipment
incorporating Foreground Information, to a Third Party without the prior
written consent of the other Party; or (b). permit any such sale, disclosure,
or transfer by others, including by the owner of the item, without the prior
written consent of the other Party. Such sales and transfers shall be
consistent with Article XIII (Intellectual Property Management). This is how it should be at all
times. The ability of one Country to
deal directly with another. No
one should speak for our Country.
Yet already we learn from Mr Gijs de Vries (who was appointed the first
EU Counter –terrorism Coordinator) that four major EU-US agreements have been
concluded: one on extradition (not debated in our Parliament –see Hansard-18th
June 2003 Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Extradition Bill) the
other three are “Mutual legal assistance, container security, and air passenger
security. Work against terrorism
financing is increasingly being co-ordinated across the Atlantic. The US has
increased cooperation with both Europol and Eurojust. A high level dialogue on transport and border
security has been created. Customs
officials work closely together”.
Mr. de Vris goes on to say, “All of this amounts to an ambitious
programme. Notwithstanding the highly
sensitive nature of the subject-no other issue is more central to national
sovereignty than the protection of national security-the role of the
European Union in combating terrorism has grown significantly. Some might say: surprisingly quickly. In
the near future the EUs coordinating responsibilities will be extended further
to the protection of critical national infrastructure and civil protection”.
He goes on to say, “Still,
two caveats are in order. The EU is not
a federal state; the main instruments in the fight against terrorism, including
police forces, judicial authorities and security agencies, will remain under
the control of national authorities”.
I will add for now, for we recognize that had the EU
Constitution have been ratified, we would have found ourselves in a federal EU
State. A new EU mini Treaty will put in place all the elements to bring forth
that federal state that other EU countries want and other Countries do not
want.
Many people have said that our forces are exceptionally well trained,
this may well be because they are volunteers, they want to join the
forces, and they become a ‘family’, they lookout for each other. Other nations still rely on conscription,
many youths in those forces, do not want to be there, they may not like being
there, it is an interruption in what they really want to do in life. That is the main difference.
It should also be remembered that when I can pick up
articles ‘on the web’ that explains fully how the EU wants autonomy, and that
it also explains what each country has in fighting equipment, how many billions
it spends and how much the EU wants 'its' member states to spend, then so too
can enemies of each and every-one of us.
Upon looking at the Select Committee on European Scrutiny, Tenth and Fifteenth Reports it becomes very obvious that there is great concern in what they see the EU requires of the Member States. There appears to be agreement that the Government is clear on two points, first, that responsibility and secondly, that protection of European Critical Infrastructure is the responsibility of the Member State within which the infrastructure is located.
At 8.34 (tenth Report) The key concern is the definition of “European Critical Infrastructure” (ECI) as being infrastructures which are critical to two or more Member States whereas the Government believes that the European Programme for Critical infrastructure Protection (EPCIP) should focus on infrastructures which are critical to at least three Member States”
At 8.36 there is again a warning that the Union is asking to be notified of ECI’s within its territory with the UK Government explaining that the UK “In relation to Article 3 (3) which requires Member States to notify the Commission of Critical infrastructures in another Member State as being of critical importance to the UK”, and that even if the Government were prepared to nominate an infrastructure in another Member State for designation as ECI, it would need to consider carefully the risks of sharing sensitive information relating to such infrastructure.
In the “Conclusion”: it is noted at 8.43 “We have
considerable misgivings over the adoption of an EC Directive in
this area, believe it to be of doubtful legality and questionable in
principle. We note the proposal
is made under Article 308 EC, but it does not appear to us that a measure which
is concerned essentially with the national security of Member States is a
matter falling within the EC Treaty at all, and still less under Article 308
EC”.
In the “Conclusions” of the Fifteenth Report at point 2.24 it states, “In our view, the House should be given an early opportunity to debate these proposals. They mark a significant extension of Community competence and of the role of the Commission into the sensitive area of national security, with little or no benefit being obtained from the adoption of a legally binding Directive as opposed to arrangements for voluntary cooperation between the Member States. The adoption of such an instrument as a measure of Community law could well lead to unpredictable results”.
2.25 “We consider that these issues are of such importance to the fundamental duty of any Government to ensure national security that they ought to be debated on the Floor of the House and we so recommend”. END.
If the European Union is all about helping friends when one
Country is in trouble, it seems very strange that this is something that this
Country has always done voluntarily. We send out teams of experts to earthquake
zones, complete with sniffer dogs and medical supplies. Volunteers go out and
give their time to help, and this is perhaps how it should be, even though we
do not always speak the same language or always understand each other. This has been done without legislation and
without being legally bound.
Are we supposed to just sit here and let the EU take over anything and everything it wants in this Country? Are we supposed to ‘just let it happen? Until the EU has competence over everything? Until all sovereignty in this Country has been passed to the EU? We as a country can never be so foolish as others in this Country were in the past, to trust those that cannot take us on trust rather than intrude on national security matters. This has to remain a Sovereign Country; the duty of its Government is to ensure that its national security remains both national and secure. I would suggest that not to do so would be a violation of the Oath of Allegiance.
This is one EU Directive that should be rejected forth with. Reading the Prime Minister of Great Britain’s National Security Strategy Paper today, and his ‘statement in Parliament, I believe this Government is getting ready to implement the EU Directive. I hope, how I hope I am wrong. We have had TERRORISTS try to blow up a sitting Government, yet never did that Government lose site with the reality of the situation. If a dirty bomb or whatever unimaginable thing happened, WHO is in charge of our National Security will not matter, but blame WILL come to a government that has opted out of its NATIONAL duties as a GOVERNMENT.
A note from the Cabinet Office (dated 1.3.2007) makes clear that “The programme has a total proposed budget of 3 million euros to be used toward the funding of projects concerned with identification and development of measures to protect critical infrastructure. The deadline for the submission of applications is 29 March 2007.” Further on in another paragraph comes the words, “ I hope you will give full consideration to this new funding source. Civil Protection in the United Kingdom is world class and it would be good to see an increase in the number of applications for EU awards being made from here”. (My emphasis) If we are ‘world class’ why throw it away? And for what? For thirty pieces of silver?
In a “Communication from the Commission to the Council and the EU Parliament June 2004 is an instruction re Europe’s Critical Infrastructures”, which consists of those physical and information technology facilities, networks, services and assets which, if disrupted or destroyed, would have a serious impact on health, safety, security or economic well-being of citizens or the effective functioning of governments in the member states. Critical infrastructures extend across many sectors of the economy, including banking and finance, transport and distribution, energy, utilities, health, food supply and communications, as well as key government services. The lists seems endless and I have not mention the very essential water, sewage, gas, electricity and nuclear infrastructures. There is of course ‘planes, ships, ports, maritime projects, inland waterways, roads, rail, the Channel Tunnel, in fact there is hardly anything left out that the EU wants competence over in this matter. On page 21 Com 787 Doc. is a list which includes, “information Technology, water (Drinking, quality and quantity) Food (provision of, safeguarding and security) Health (Medical, hospital care, Medicines, serums, vaccines, bio-laboratories) Financial, Transport, Chemical Industry, Space, (yes space!) and Research Facilities.
Information from a number of sources is needed to conduct
threat, incident and vulnerable analysis of Member States critical
infrastructure elements and their dependencies. Each sector and Member State will need to
identify infrastructure critical to them, within their respective jurisdiction
according to a EU harmonised formula and the organisations or persons in charge
of security. Each member state will then notify the Commission of the critical
infrastructures which satisfy the established criteria.
Information sharing regarding Critical Infrastructure
should take place in an environment of trust and security. The sharing of information requires a
relationship of trust such that companies and organisations know that their
sensitive data will be sufficiently protected.
To encourage information sharing, it should be clear for the industry
that the benefits of providing Critical Infrastructure related information
outweigh the costs for the industry and society in general.
When noting down all these agencies etc, where they are situated etc, the thought comes into my mind just what use such a list will be to the terrorists. I remember too, we have lost so many rights, liberties and freedoms already in the name of the ongoing war on terrorism. I also remember the slogans from the last war. Careless talk costs lives, and indeed it does as much now as it did then. The EU already knows exactly what weapons we have, the amount of guns, how many forces and where they are because all this is available in certain documents for all to read. If I can read up all this information, then so can others.
“Because of the private ownership of major elements of critical infrastructure any security and control measures will (almost by definition) require the involvement of both private and public interests. National authorities will often have sole competence in the area. There is however (here it comes) often a level of transnational interdependence involved, which makes it clear that the EU should also play a certain coordinating role”. Of Course it does. Silly me! It is absolutely amazing just how many freedoms we have given up without a fight just because of the threat of terrorist action. We didn’t lose (if we lived) that many freedoms while the bombs were dropping all around us in WWII. In fact, that was what we were fighting FOR, our liberty and freedoms and in the fighting bring both to those other Countries that had lost their freedoms already.
I would like to quote a little from one of Mr. De Vries speeches that I came across when reading through them. It was on the occasion of receiving the Ramon Trias Fargas Memorial in Barcelona November 16 2006. “Freedom, I said, is fundamental to the identity of Europe and to our identity of Europeans. But freedom is an unquiet, impermanent possession. It can never be taken for granted. Freedom, as Jefferson recalled, comes at a price-the price of vigilance. Freedom needs to be defended not only against its enemies, but also, occasionally, needs to be protected from its friend.” Not a speech in the meaning of the title of this article, but words that do apply to it as a reminder to us all that freedom must be cherished and fought for at times when we are in danger of it being taken from us or worse, when it is being given away by foolish people that look to a quick buck before looking at what it is they are selling. When people offer a free gift or money, it is usually when they desperately want something in return.
In the Financial Times 18,2,2007, de Vries said “The EU still needs greater powers so countries could work together”. “The EU’s 27 Member States each have a veto over decisions in justice matters, making progress slow”
.
I ask a simple question. Which, out of the original EU Countries before the last enlargement, has had the most dealings with “Terrorists”? Most certainly the UK is among the highest for it has suffered from the IRA terrorists over the years as well as the others. There was even an attempt by the IRA to blow up the Government of the day. Were these people put on trial for treason? Where are these people now I wonder?
We have dealt with each ‘critical’ situation ourselves, as it has arisen. No doubt we will continue to send out teams to help out others (when they have been allowed to go by the Country in need) quite simply, because that is in our nature to do these things. This to Countries where natural disasters have occurred, even outside the EU. This, without any Treaty, EU Directive or obligation. We do have to ask permission from a still sovereign country such as Pakistan (and rightly so) but who would speak for us if we accept this EU Directive?
When reading through these papers, I remain angry that I placed my cross on the ballot paper for those Political Parties that wish to remain in the EU thus giving them the legitimacy to say my vote ‘counted’, thus appearing to give my approval of what our MP’s are doing. I do not. What is proposed here and any MP’s agreement to it, is a complete betrayal of the people they are supposed to represent (for they represent them NOT), an ‘opt out’ of their duties, particularly an ‘opt out’ of the greatest duty of all, to their Queen (Crown) they swear allegiance to and to the this Country and all the people in it.
I will always remain faithful and true to my Oath of Allegiance to the Crown and this Country, it will never be to the EU. I thank Mr de Vries for reminding all of us of the freedoms we once had to fight for, yet it rather looks as if we are going to have to fight for our freedom once more and this we will indeed do.
References.
EU COM (2005) 576 Green Paper.
COM (2004) 702
COM (2006) 786
Select Committee Fifth Report (2004)
Select Committee Tenth Report (2007)
Select Committee Fifteenth Report (9 March 2007)
House of Commons debate 2.5.2007.
Various speeches by Mr Gijs de Vries.
Fact Sheet WG 11.10 International Federation for Information Processing.
EU Position Paper re COM (2005) 576
EU active on Critical Infrastructure
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the EU Parliament
European Programme for Critical Infrastructure dated 12.12.2006. Memo/06/477
European Commission presents IP/06/1752
Commission Welcomes Council’s Conclusions 20.4.2007 (European Commission)
Cabinet Office Paper1.3.2007. Re EU Programme for CIP
UPDATE.
Various Government and EU papers on, “Prevention, Preparedness and Consequence
Management of Terrorism and other Security-related Risks”, Official
Journal L 58. Dated 24th Feb
2007. (Click on numbers at the end of paragraphs) Read carefully, on
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/2004_2007/epcip/funding_epcip_en.htm
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/06/477&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/1752&format=HTML&age
Houses of
Parliament
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmeuleg/41-xv/4105.htm The last paragraph:=Conclusion
2.23 For the reasons we have explained in the body of our report, we continue to consider that the proposal for a Directive is legally doubtful and questionable in principle.
2.24 In our view, the House should be given an early opportunity to debate these proposals. They mark a significant extension of Community competence and of the role of the Commission into the sensitive area of national security, with little or no benefit being obtained from the adoption of a legally binding Directive as opposed to arrangements for voluntary cooperation between the Member States. The adoption of such an instrument as a measure of Community law could well lead to unpredictable results.
Further to the short debate, after the PM’s Statement 19.3.2008, was this little “correction” by Mr Brown
“I have to correct the right hon. Gentleman on one or two issues. The ballistic missile defence system is for the Czech Republic and Poland, not the United Kingdom. The European Union does not have an official role in foreign and security policy; it is an intergovernmental organisation, in part for dealing with defence and security policy. He should understand that that is how the European countries interact for the preservation of security, and that that is why NATO is so important—and also why the Bucharest summit in the next few days is so important.”
Now that kind of surprises me! It makes my wonder what the EU’s High Representative’s job is about?
A must read is the debate held 2nd May 2007 Column 1758
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070502/debtext/70502-0004.htm
2.25 We consider that these issues are of such importance to the fundamental duty of any government to ensure national security that they ought to be debated on the Floor of the House and we so recommend.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOIndex.do?year=2007&serie=L&textfield2=58&Submit=Search
Annual Work Programme on
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/cips/doc/awp_cips_en.pdf
Call for proposals and talking big, big money handouts, on
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/cips/doc/call_2007_en.pdf
Freedom, Security and Justice (A name change indeed!) on
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/cips/funding_cips_en.htm
Taken
from Address by Mr Gijs de
Vries,
http://www.eu-del.org.il/hebrew/050912%20de%20vries.pdf This is no longer to be found on the web-site. However, I have a full copy of the Address given by Mr Gijs de Vries and can Photostat for proof. (Feb 2008) File damaged beyond repair!!
Euroactive on
http://www.euractiv.com/en/security/critical-infrastructure/article-140597
*************************************************
At this point in time, I would like to nudge your Memory that in the EU
Reform Treaty Art 4 (2)(Now Treaty of Lisbon Article 3a (2)) it says, In
particular, national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member
State.
Having read so much on this subject and having read this reply to Lord Pearson’s question, for the very first time in my life, I am ashamed of and for our Politicians.
The EU of Course has had a document (more than one
actually) since 2003, A Secure Europe in a better world. 15 pages on
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf
Calls for Protection of Critical Infrastructure
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/2004_2007/epcip/funding_epcip_en.htm
EPCIP
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/2004_2007/epcip/funding_epcip_en.htm#