Breaking News -- European Union
|What could save the EU now? The answer might lie in the
shockwaves from Brexit
by Roger Booth
To the man from Mars, for a country like the UK to join the EU might seem a pretty unappealing prospect. But we are already in. Moreover, despite the EU’s failings, we are frequently told that “business” wants the UK to stay in. Why is this?
By no means all business leaders support staying in. But it is true that a preponderance of the leaders of big businesses, and their lobbying organisations such as the CBI, do favour it (just as they favoured joining the euro). We must presume that they see advantages for their businesses, yet that does not necessarily mean that their perceived self-interest indicates an overall advantage for the UK, or that the political and constitutional factors favour staying in.
On both these issues business leaders are completely unqualified to pass judgement, except in their capacity as ordinary citizens with a vote.
In fact, when interpreting what business leaders say, there are some key structural features of the economic case that need careful attention. Even if the net balance of advantages and disadvantages of Brexit were exactly zero for the country as a whole, there would be distinct gainers and losers; and it is quite understandable that the latter should make it plain that they would rather stay in.
The potential losers from Brexit would tend to be those companies with substantial exports to the EU, minimal imports from the rest of the world and comparatively little UK business. Businesses that fall into this category are predominantly large – and well represented in the CBI.
By contrast, the gains from Brexit would be felt disproportionately by consumers, in the form of lower prices, including for food, and perhaps also lower taxes. They, of course, have no representation in business groups. And the corporate gainers would tend to be those who suffer from excessive EU regulation but don’t export much to the EU. These businesses tend to be small and not heavily represented in the CBI. Moreover, there is a category of gain that will not appear directly in the calculations of any business leaders, namely the benefit of the end of the EU regulatory juggernaut in the public and non-profit sectors.
Britain’s most prolific cancer researcher, Prof Angus Dalgleish, told the journalist Dominic Lawson that the EU’s Clinical Trials Directive had increased the cost of experiments more than ten-fold.
The upshot is that although it is important for the voice of business leaders to be heard, we should beware of thinking that they have some special insight into the balance of economic advantages – still less into the all-important political and constitutional issues.
The Scottish question
Few constitutional issues are more important than the Scottish question. Many people believe that if the UK came out of the EU, this would trigger a second referendum on Scotland’s membership of the UK which, given recent polling and the likelihood that Scots will have voted to stay in the EU, would lead to Scotland’s departure. If this reasoning is sound, it would give many Eurosceptics pause for thought. They may not like one union, namely the EU, but they tend to approve strongly of the other one: the UK.
In fact, this Scottish argument is less threatening than it looks. The UK government is by no means bound to concede a second referendum whenever the Scottish Nationalist Party thinks it can win one. And there is a marked reluctance at Westminster to do so. The last one is supposed to have settled the matter “for a generation”.
Moreover, although the opinion polls do not presently dance to this beat, since the referendum in September 2014, economic circumstances have moved sharply against independence. The economic arguments were always tenuous at best, particularly given the tricky question of what currency an independent Scotland would use. But that was in the days of oil prices at $120 per barrel. Now the price is nearer $30 a barrel, an independent Scotland would immediately have to levy huge increases in taxes and/or impose swingeing cuts in public spending.
Furthermore, the situation of the EU has altered profoundly since September 2014. It is in crisis, whether or not the UK leaves. In these circumstances, if Scotland left the UK, where would it find a supportive home? Even if the EU were to survive, it would not be bound to invite Scotland to rejoin. Indeed, various EU leaders have made it clear that it would have to take its place in the queue of other countries wanting to join. And Spain in particular, with its secessionist issue over Catalonia, would be likely to resist any move to admit Scotland.
Security and foreign policy
The fate of Scotland impinges on the UK’s security. It is sometimes argued that this security would be imperilled if the UK were to leave the EU, particularly now, given the increasing bellicosity of Putin’s Russia and the rise of international terrorism.
This view is incongruous, however, because security is one sphere in which the EU has contributed next to nothing. It is the UK’s membership of Nato that gives it protection, and that would continue if it were to leave the EU. Indeed, with the exception of France, other members of the EU adopt a generally unenthusiastic stance with regard to defence issues.
Unilateralism and pacifism tend to be strong, and these countries regularly fail to meet the Nato commitment of spending at least 2pc of GDP on defence. If we had to rely on other European countries for our defence, then heaven help us.
Meanwhile, in intelligence and counter-terrorism the UK continues to punch well above its weight. It is a member of the so-called “Five Eyes” group of countries that share intelligence: the US, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. There are no prizes for noticing the key feature that all these countries have in common.
Equally, although to some countries the UK might seem of diminished importance if it left the EU, it would still remain a key global player. Ironically, if there is an immediate threat to its permanent membership of the UN Security Council, that comes from the EU, which is keen to replace its seat – along with France’s – with a seat for itself. As David Owen, a former Foreign Secretary, has put it: To pretend that this country is too weak politically, economically and militarily to vote to leave the EU is absurd and deserves to be laughed out of court.
The effect of Brexit on the EU
The exit of the UK, if it happens, could not occur at a worse time for the EU. It could prompt developments that would lead to the end of the Union. First, there would be the simple matter of the UK’s budget contributions, amounting to about £10bn net. In normal times, sharing out this burden among the other EU members might not be too difficult. But these are not normal times.
Which country would line up to take its share of the burden? Germany – again? France? The result would be an unseemly row between members.
Meanwhile, a clamour for a new deal, or a referendum on membership, in several other countries would be likely.
The leading candidates are the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and the Netherlands. And French Eurosceptics are licking their lips at the prospect of Brexit, looking with anticipation to the presidential election in 2017.
But the really major threat from Brexit would come in a few years’ time. If the UK were to prosper outside the union, then that would lead to serious pressure for EU reform – or for departure and dissolution. And we have repeatedly seen how difficult the EU finds it to reform itself. So a break-up of the EU would be a serious possibility.
Should this prospect give British Eurosceptics pause for thought? Quite the reverse. I have argued that whatever the EU achieved for Europe in earlier decades, it is now beyond its useful life.
Indeed, with its elitism, self-aggrandizement, waste and focus on regulation and harmonization, it has become the major factor holding Europe back.
Accordingly, if Brexit were to lead to the end of the EU, then Britain would have done the people of Europe a great service.
The EU’s number is up
When thinking about the EU’s future the comparison that frequently comes to my mind is with the Soviet Union, which lasted just under 70 years. Seventy years after the Treaty of Rome would take us to 2027. I am not at all sure that the EU is going to survive quite that long.
As we all know, the UK did not play a role in how the EU began; but I reckon it is set to play a major role in how it ends. This would be fitting. The people of the UK have made a marvellous contribution to the world, but one that is not evenly spread. Our contribution to popular music is outstanding, but our contribution to unpopular, i.e. classical, music is not in the same league.
Wonderful though our classical composers are, you could not say that their music bears comparison with the greatest from Germany (and Austria). In painting we cannot match the Italians, the Spanish or the French, or perhaps even the Dutch. Our literature is wonderful, but so is the literature of many European countries. Of course, our native cuisine is unique – but not quite in the way we might hope.
Our contribution to the world has been enormous in science and the advance of knowledge.
Yet I suspect that the area in which the UK has made the greatest overall contribution is not in either exalted sphere but rather at the other end of the spectrum, namely in the messy business of democratic government. Parliament and the common law are the foundations of freedom – and prosperity.
It is striking that the British genius – or is it the abiding tendency of Perfidious Albion – somehow enabled us to avoid the two greatest errors of the EU’s ascendancy: the euro and the Schengen passport-free zone. Still, these victories are only minor. The EU hurtles towards a truly ghastly end – economically, politically and socially. If British voters elect to stay in the union, although they will be able to avoid the worst of the coming crisis, they will be unable to avoid the fallout from the gathering disaster across the Channel.
If they elect to take the UK out of the EU, although there will be many painful wrenchings, they may trigger a series of consequences that will save, not just the UK, but Europe. And, in keeping with what the British are best at, they would then be in pole position to help construct a new Europe from the wreckage of the old.
Copies of the third edition of Roger Bootle’s The Trouble with Europe can be ordered from the Telegraph Book Club (books.telegraph.co.uk or 0844 871 1515) priced £9.99
The EU Is Now Criminalizing Refugees
by Lydia WilsonTwitter
The move to detention rather than welcome has led to a rapid downward spiral in conditions.
The Mediterranean is blue and calm, the sun warm, though not hot, on this winter day on the beautiful Greek island of Lesbos. A bus rumbles past, followed by an ambulance, and it is only because they stop at the same place that the scene becomes a little more complicated than its first appearance as a holiday destination.
Medics get out and join a group already on shore, some sporting luminous vests, all staring anxiously out to sea. And then the object of their attention comes into view, quietly and calmly: a rubber dinghy packed full of people in bright orange life jackets. Some of those on shore detach themselves from the group and wade into the sea to pull the dinghy in, lifting out the children and passing them along a human chain. There is a shout and a larger child is half carried, half pushed to the front of the boat, supine, the medics waiting: It’s a case of hypothermia, not at all unusual, though it can be fatal.
Before the dinghy has been completely unloaded, another one drifts into view on the still-calm and beautiful sea, in exactly the same spot. The volunteers speed up in their work of wrapping the children in space-age foil blankets and dispensing snacks and drinks, knowing that the next load will arrive any minute. The medics are working with the case of hypothermia and a case of severe shock, eventually loading both into cars, with their relatives, to be taken to the local hospital. The others are discarding their life jackets, the at-risk groups such as new mothers and children are wrapped in blankets (for they are running low), and all are unwrapping sandwiches. Some look exhausted and defeated; others happy—delighted to have reached what they have been told is paradise.
I’m not sure which is harder to witness, the despair or the optimism. For I know that this is only the beginning, whether they are genuine asylum seekers from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Somalia, or economic migrants trying their luck on the same route, discarding their Moroccan, Ethiopian, or Pakistani passports and claiming to be Syrian. All are facing an uphill battle to prove their stories and claim refuge, a brutal journey to get to other countries in Europe. Many will be turned back, “repatriated” to their home country or, after the recent deal with the European Union, back to Turkey—minus the thousands of dollars they’ve spent getting to this point. The irony of fleeing this way is that the legal, commercial fare is €15 each way, in seaworthy ships, taking just an hour and a half. But this safe way is blocked to the refugees, since they have no visas allowing entry to EU nations.
The only winners in this scenario are the people smugglers, who make around $1,200 per person and who count on the work of the UN and 81 or so different NGOs and charities to make their business work. “You will be looked after by the UN when you get there,” the smugglers tell the smuggled, and they are right. The blankets, snacks, and buses are there, the medics on hand; the registration process by the Greek authorities is efficient; and food and shelter are now also largely sufficient. The entire process, from the welcome on shore to the paperwork in the camps and tickets for the onward journeys, is working, or at least it was when I observed the process in December (and, by all accounts, until a sharp change in approach in March). It took a few months from when the scale of the problem skyrocketed last summer beyond all expectation, taking the international community unawares, but now UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, runs coordination meetings and networks, mostly via WhatsApp, which allow a division of labor and an early-warning system for all. Ting: a boat has been spotted; ting, an approximate location sent using Google Maps; ting, an offer to be there from a group of volunteers close by; ting, a UN bus has been dispatched; ting, an appeal for a medic, with a description of symptoms.
Others quick to the scene are locals, scavenging for leftovers, from the motors to the rubber of the dinghy. Questions are not often asked of them. The locals have had to put up with a lot, and by and large have done so with heroic hospitality and patience—there are movements to petition to give them the Nobel Peace Prize. As many Greeks explain, much of the population were themselves refugees in the 1920s, as Greek Ottoman citizens kicked out of the new Turkish Republic. It’s not quite a living memory, but strong family and folk memories persist, with the children and grandchildren of that wave still alive and sympathetic to the plight of the others. This might be particularly strong given the stories of the reactions of the locals at that time—it would be an understatement, one Greek academic at the local university said to me, to say that those 1920s refugees were not welcome.
Other reasons to endure the ongoing problem is that it is good, many said slightly shamefacedly, for business: Winter is normally dead on this holiday island, but the international aid community bring with them the demand for hotel rooms, restaurant meals, coffees, haircuts, manicures, clothes, and alcohol. Of course it is sad, said my hotel receptionist, and we would like the problem not to exist, but it is not our fault that it does exist and there is no doubt about it, our hotel is taking as much as in the summer, and we are all employed all year round, for once.
But there are definite downsides, and murmurings of discontent, which the UN is taking very seriously indeed. “We would be in serious trouble if the locals were not happy,” said Boris Cheshirkov, the UNHCR’s official spokesman for Lesbos, explaining that those locals formed the foundation of the international humanitarian efforts, for at the beginning of the emergency it was the locals who were the first responders, caring for the early people arriving on the island. “But we need to be mindful of the fact that this is a tourist location. The local economy depends on tourism. And that’s why it’s essential that this is managed properly,” he said.
“We have not had our beaches for nearly a year now,” said one Lesbos native, “and our water bills have tripled—we citizens are paying for the refugees’ water—why?” The Greek authorities are footing the bill for the electricity, something the UN is trying to take over. And the refugees who are free to move often go to other places than the camps to sleep, tempted by NGOs that set up kitchens without checking in with the UN. So one public park has been a makeshift camp, with rubbish everywhere, as no one is responsible for cleaning up. The UN went in to clear it, sending residents to the camps, but one NGO kept cooking, tempting refugees into the area and depriving the locals of their public square, where they once took their children in the evenings.
Another facility lost to the locals is a camp for girl and boy scouts, a series of small cabins with two large rooms for activities. This was commandeered for refugees back in 2012, Lesbos having been a popular landing place for them for many years, and is still being run by a charity—that is, it is neither a national nor an international authority, though invaluable in providing shelter. It was there where I met Almas (“Diamond”), a true survivor, as durable as her name: At 83, she was the oldest refugee the island had welcomed.
Almas was hazy as to many of the details of the past few years. Originally from Afrin, near Aleppo in northern Syria, she lost contact with her sons due to the conflict and herself fled to Aleppo when the security around Afrin deteriorated early in the conflict, and then over the border to Turkey, “going with the crowds,” as she put it. Once there she was dependent on charity, and probably the same charitable networks paid for her passage to Greece. Whoever it was, they obviously did not stick with her, for she was found by the volunteers onshore—disoriented, alone, and without any possessions.
That was how Manas Ghanem, a Syrian UNHCR worker, found her. Manas was particularly sensitized to her plight; first, as a Syrian, she told me, “each one of [the Syrian refugees] could be a cousin; you think you see your neighbor, your friends, your friends’ cousin.” On top of this, Manas’s grandmother in Damascus had just died, and of course Manas could not attend the funeral or see her parents or the rest of her family, and was terribly homesick. And so seeing this lost-looking old woman, Manas felt a tug on her heart: “I couldn’t believe it, she looked so much like my grandmother, but extremely pale, and lost, and shocked. She understood what I was saying, but would only shake her head in reply.”
Almas soon recovered to tell her story, but it got stranger and stranger. She asked when she could take the bus to her daughter’s house. Manas was confused. “Where is your daughter?” she asked. “Here, in Germany,” came the reply. The smugglers had told her that the boat was going to Germany—that paradise, the end of the rainbow for refugees—and she would be able to go straight to her daughter there. “But why didn’t you contact your daughter for help before this?” asked Manas, bewildered, after breaking it to Almas that she was not in Germany and indeed could only go to her daughter once her case was processed. The answer was heart-breaking, since so many of her difficulties, including the dangerous sea crossing, could have been avoided. She had been too proud to ask for help, after accepting so much charity in Turkey, especially if it involved telling her daughter she was destitute.
“You did not tell her you were taking the crossing to Greece?” Manas probed. “I thought that if I arrived I’d tell her; if I don’t, then I don’t,” came the fatalistic reply, a fatalism common to many refugees I spoke to, who responded to questions concerning fear and worry with shrugs and phrases like “If I died, I died,” or “Only God knows; there’s no point worrying about what we cannot know,” leaving their situations and even their lives in the lap of God.
Almas reached inside her clothes and brought out a small purse. She took out a scrap of worn paper and handed it to Manas. On it was a German phone number. Wordlessly Manas tapped it into her phone. “Hello? I work for the UN in Lesbos and I have your mother here…” The daughter had not heard one word from her mother since she had left Aleppo over a year before and, understandably, went into shock. Manas explained a little more, before handing the phone over for a very emotional long-distance reunion.
This should have been a simple asylum case: Papers showed Almas to be Syrian; her daughter is financially secure in Germany, married with children; and, at 83, Almas is clearly a vulnerable person. But nothing is simple when so many thousands of refugees are still flooding into Europe every day. The Greek authorities have become proficient—and efficient—at registering all asylum seekers, but they have no mechanism for keeping track of them once they leave. The official advice is to stay in Lesbos while the asylum case is processed—it’s safe, the weather is good, they will be fed, and so far, there is space. But people are anxious to get to Germany or Sweden, so the ferry to Athens is packed every single day, taking people on their first leg north despite the harsh pictures dominating the media of what is facing them at further borders: tear gas, barbed wire, and armed police at the borders with Macedonia, and then Hungary, if you get that far. And then refugee camps in the paradise of Germany. Even if people have seen these images, they choose to believe the messages of hope from the smugglers and the rumors that Europe will welcome them, feed them, house them, and educate their children.
But Almas did listen to the advice and stayed put in her makeshift room, quickly becoming an institution on the island, where everyone—locals, refugees, volunteers—called her Grandma. She was introduced and photographed with the youngest refugee on the island, a little boy born in the Lesbos local hospital. And, sitting in the sun, receiving visits, fed by charity, she waited for her case to grind through the system of the EU’s relocation program.
This haven, though, as a non-UNHCR-run camp, is under threat from the most self-defeating of Western strategies: the War on Terror. Western governments are constantly trying to shut down all possible avenues of financing and logistical support to terrorist groups. Humanitarian NGOs and charities are prime suspects, and have been under increasingly punishing demands to provide evidence of where every single penny ends up—not one piece of bread can fall into the hands of a jihadi, or your funding will be instantly cut and you will be on a blacklist for future grants. This is forcing charities to shift operations from the most vulnerable of populations—their very raison d’être. And it is having an impact on the refugee crisis, in terms of fund-raising and operations (it is impossible to prove every penny’s destination), which the EU has made even worse on the grounds of “encouraging” refugees to come to Europe—even as it plans to criminalize those who travel to Greek islands to volunteer. There is little acknowledgment of what is driving these refugees across the sea to a hostile continent, and until there is, there is no way of combating the problem or caring for those who make the voyage.
There is an epic quality to this most Greek of islands; tales of war and refuge are the backbone of so many Greek poems and dramas. The “wine-dark sea” seems unchanged (despite the degree of pollution) since Homer gave it this (slightly confusing) epithet; the speed of the dinghies is not so different from that of rowboats, the sound of them scrunching onto the shore identical; the shout-outs of local lookouts, too, cross the centuries. And the experiences of death and violence the refugees bring with them are surely as traumatic, whether through spears or cluster bombs. Perhaps the numbers in each wave seemed overwhelming to each successive local population, but this is where the situation diverges from the Homeric tales of war: The modern world seems to have no place for refugees; there are no rules of hospitality that can extend to this many of them in a world run by a combination of dysfunctional supra-national bodies and increasingly fearful—if not outright racist—nationalistic election pledges. There is, of course, legitimate concern about dangerous elements coming in on the boats; and rumors of ISIS presence—even domination—of the smuggling rings are rife. But combating this threat needs to be part of the strategy, not a reason to shut the door to everyone, for the latter approach is simply unsustainable in the long run.
The recent deal struck between the EU and Turkey to try to stem the flow to Europe has led to egregious changes in the system, a system that had been working, albeit under greater and greater strain amid increasingly desperate appeals from the UN. But, as Human Rights Watch has recently reported, some camps have suddenly and horrifyingly been turned into detention centers. Journalists have been forbidden access to Moria camp on Lesbos, newly adorned with barbed wire to underscore the point: this is no holiday camp and no haven, but rather a prison, run with no accountability. (The barbed wire was removed for Angelina Jolie’s recent visit; the wall whitewashed for the pope.)
This move to detention rather than welcome has led to a rapid downward spiral in conditions. Those NGOs that have not already been bullied into withdrawal by international laws and regulations have pulled out in protest at this new development, unwilling to lend legitimacy to such a system through their support but leaving the detainees in greater and greater need, the toilets going uncleaned, the medical facilities reduced, the water for washing and drinking and cooking left dirty. This is causing widespread outcry, but there is a side effect that is welcomed by the EU: The numbers arriving on Lesbos have plummeted, from thousands per day to just 78 (averaged over April as of the 18th), with zero arriving on April 16. What this bodes for the future of the Syrians and Iraqis and Afghans trapped in Turkey is impossible to say. Will they return to their home countries, unable to claim asylum anywhere, trapped? If so, how will their resentment be channeled; who will they turn to for security and safety? The Islamic State is doing a good job at alienating the local inhabitants it controls, but right now the EU is matching them.
But there are success stories. A few weeks ago I got a photo from Manas, with the caption: “Mission accomplished.” Almas is sitting on a sofa, next to her daughter and cuddling her granddaughter—Almas. One story among the thousands of stories arriving on Lesbos has ended well, and the UNHCR can be proud of that. But the problems that are driving such huge numbers to leave their homes are not being resolved, and the new approach of detaining arrivals in despicable conditions under prison regulations before shipping them back to Turkey and an unknown future reflects a shameful disregard for human dignity and human rights, values the EU is supposed to stand for, not diminish. And what the future holds when thousands upon thousands have been humiliated in this way, and left destitute once again, cannot contain much hope for any of us.
Europe Is Now Proposing Rewriting Its Asylum Rules and Boosting Border Security
by Reuters and VICE News
The European Union's executive will lay out proposals on Wednesday to overhaul its asylum procedures and strengthen its external borders as it seeks to tackle both an uncontrolled influx of migrants and security threats.
A policy paper from the European Commission will outline two options regarding asylum rules, according to the Guardian. The first possibility would be scrapping the Dublin regulations, which require refugees to claim asylum in the first EU country they arrive in, in favor of a mandatory redistribution system throughout the bloc according to different states' wealth and capacity. The second option would be adding a "corrective fairness mechanism" to the rules which would allow refugees to be redistributed in different countries during times of crisis.
The mass influx of migrants and refugees over this year and last has exposed "significant structural weaknesses and shortcomings in the design and implementation of European asylum and migration policy," the paper will state, according to the Guardian.
The document will also highlight security threats to the EU, stating terror attacks in Paris and Brussels have "brought into sharper focus the need to join up and strengthen the EU's border management, migration, and security cooperation."
More than 160 people were killed in the November shooting and bombing attacks in Paris and suicide bombings in Brussels in March. The deadly strikes, claimed by Islamic State (IS), strengthened the hand of those campaigning for tighter security checks and data sharing against those who warn of the risks of abuse and undermining privacy through enhanced surveillance.
Related: A Million in 12 Months: Europe's Migration Crisis in Numbers
Rob Wainwright — chief of the EU's law enforcement agency, Europol —highlighted separately on Tuesday an "indirect link" between Europe's migration crisis, which saw more than 1 million people arriving over the last year, and the Islamist militant threat, saying some militants had used the chaotic migrant influx to sneak in.
EU border agency Frontex also said that two of the perpetrators of the November 13 attacks in Paris had entered through Greece and been registered by authorities there after presenting fraudulent Syrian documents.
"EU citizens are known to have crossed the external border to travel to (Middle East) conflict zones for terrorist purposes and pose a risk upon their return. There is evidence that terrorists have used routes of irregular migration to enter the EU," the commission said in its proposal.
But the EU has a dozen-or-so different sets of fragmented databases for border management and law enforcement that are plagued with gaps and often not inter-operable. Custom authorities' data are also held largely separate.
The commission on Wednesday will therefore set out technical proposals to beef them up and improve the way they communicate with one another, including a joint search interface.
Related: This Man Is Burying the Refugees Who Die Before They Make It to Lesbos
Although not a new idea in general, doing this requires complex measures that pose a host of technical and legal challenges in balancing the need for data and privacy protection with enhanced security.
The commission also revised a proposal, first made in 2013, for an "Entry-Exit" system for third-country nationals arriving in the EU to "reduce irregular migration by addressing the phenomenon of overstaying and contribute to the fight against terrorism and serious crime."
Under the outline, the new system would be implemented by 2020 to register the data of non-EU nationals arriving from outside the bloc, including four fingerprints and a face image.
Scores of Europeans have ventured out to join the ranks of IS and some have come back to the 28-nation EU, including those involved in the Paris attacks.
That has stirred discussion on the need to also tighten controls of EU citizens on external borders, but this angle was not included in the commission's document on Wednesday.
Also mentioned was the so-called PNR — an EU deal on sharing detailed air passenger data that has seen months of wrangling. The commission said it should be adopted "in the coming weeks" and is crucial in efforts to increase security.
Follow VICE News on Twitter: @vicenews
|(Disclaimer) What to Look For in World Events: Audio & Text Video|