International

The coming week will be taken up by three conferences, all of them concerning the criminal law. On Tuesday I’m speaking at a conference on the implications of the Lisbon Treaty for criminal law. We in the SP are always on our guard when it comes to European interference in this aspect of law, and in a surreptitious fashion we are seeing more and more European regulation in this area. I will be arguing for a clear vision, in which the Netherlands remains in complete control of at least 90% of the criminal law. On Wednesday I’m participating in a conference on drugs policy and I will yet again explain that a repressive approach has demonstrably no effect, while the Dutch policy of tolerance has had a great deal more success. Finally, on Thursday, during a conference on the fight against corruption, I intend to take a strong line against the lack of action on the part of the European Commission.

On Wednesday I’m participating in a conference on drugs policy and I will yet again explain that a repressive approach has demonstrably no effect, while the Dutch policy of tolerance has had a great deal more success. Finally, on Thursday, during a conference on the fight against corruption, I intend to take a strong line against the lack of action on the part of the European Commission.

On Tuesday the International Criminal Law Network will hold its annual meeting in The Hague. Amongst the speakers will be representatives from the European institutions, as well as a large number of academics and other experts. During the conference I will shed some light on the report on the criminal law which I am currently writing for the European Parliament. If you consult the Treaty of Lisbon on this matter, it turns out that you can absolutely always find an argument for European legislation, while the member states have left the door wide open to thorough-going harmonisation. It is strange indeed, but it can be confirmed that there is a legal basis for a greater level of harmonisation in the EU than exists in the US, despite the fact that America is a federal state and Europe isn’t. I want therefore also to make my report a framework which sets clear limits to European legislation: cross-border criminality must of course be tackled on a European level, but where crime does not traverse the frontier, Brussels should not interfere.

On Wednesday I’m addressing a conference in Brussels of a number of social organisations committed to the liberalisation of soft drugs. In the Netherlands the existing drugs policy is coming under fire, but even the present government wants to make the current policy of tolerance more restrictive, rather than doing away with it altogether. The European Commission last year had an investigation conducted which confirmed with hard figures what we in the Netherlands have long known: if you want to reduce drugs-related criminality and drug addiction, a ban does not help your cause. What does help is an approach which allows the use of soft drugs, coupled with effective care for drug addicts. At the conference I will once again explain this.

On Thursday during an anti-corruption conference I will launch a ten-point plan. As things stand the Commission continues to be lax when it comes to combatting corruption within the European Union. Despite all the recent reports which show that corruption in the EU is on the rise, the Commission is doing little or nothing about the problem. Yes, they want to counter organised crime. But it has been demonstrated that such crime is rife as a result of corrupt officials: you can smuggle drugs into a country by bribing a customs officer, make a success of blackmail if the police turn a blind eye, and so on and so forth. It’s high time the Commission was put under pressure about this.