EU interior ministers have signed into law an agreement to allow police forces from the 27 EU member nations to share dna, fingerprint data and license plate information to combat cross-border crime. The agreement allows EU states to conduct joint cross-border operations and enables police from each member nation to access dna information gathered in all other EU states.

The agreement has been decried by British members of the European Parliament as an abridgement of civil rights. Perhaps more significantly, however, the method in which the arrangement was reached demonstrates just how underhanded Eurocrats can be in getting their way—all at the expense of national sovereignty.

Many European politicians are unhappy with the agreement, especially those from Britain, which received the worst part of the deal. Britain holds one of the largest databases in the world, with records on more than 70 million people, including 4.2 million UK citizens. The database is 50 times bigger than its French equivalent; the average EU state has only half a percent of its population’s dna on file.

The conservative British Tory Party criticized Prime Minister Tony Blair for agreeing to the measure. “Mr. Blair has started the constitution sell-out today,” Tory European Parliament spokesman Philip Bradbourn said. “Now everyone’s personal details can be sent to police throughout Europe because Britain did not wield the veto.” The treaty goes against the civil liberties that Europeans expect, he added.

The agreement expands on a treaty signed in May 2005 by Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Luxembourg, Austria and the Netherlands. Elements from that “Prüm Treaty” now form part of the European Union’s legislative framework and will be implemented in all member states—whether they were involved in forming the original treaty or not.

Not only did the agreement bypass the democratic process by being based on a treaty signed by only seven nations, but it was passed in the EU’s Council of Ministers with little debate. European Parliament members criticized the lack of deliberation in the process, saying the measure was discussed at “dizzying speed.”

“The entire process is a complete scandal,” British liberal Sarah Ludford said in an interview with EUobserver. UK conservative member of the European Parliament Syed Kamall called the agreement a “dangerous pet project of the German presidency.”

“In forcing it through, the Germans have ignored the views of the European Parliament and the concerns of the EU data protection chief,” Kamall said. “[W]e are sleepwalking into a Big Brother Europe while our government stands idly by.”

What most of all highlights the craftiness of those pushing the agreement, however, is that its roots lie in the proposed EU constitution. The Prüm Treaty, upon which the new law is based, was outlined in the very constitution that was shot down in referendums by both the French and Dutch publics. That means the people said no, but EU politicians, using undemocratic means, have forced into law some of the same controversial proposals in that constitution.

To be sure, this is no isolated occurrence. Last year, 2,100 laws were passed in Brussels, which EU member states were required to adopt without any approval from national elected institutions. A British professor of law, Len Sealy, explained: “A random selection shows the huge range of subjects they cover: cross-border insolvency, importing of bed linen, import values of certain fruit and vegetables, the buying-in of butter, evaluation of statistics on labor costs, access of poultry to open-air runs, all became law here without our legislators having to lift a finger.”

Of the 23,167 legal acts adopted within Germany between 1998 and 2004, for example, 80 percent came down from the EU bureaucracy. That means only one fifth of Germany’s legislation in that time period came from Germany’s own parliament. “By far the largest part of the current laws in Germany are agreed by the Council of Ministers and not the German parliament,” former German President Roman Herzog wrote in Welt Am Sonntag on January 14. Of course, Germany is a powerful player in Brussels; the implications for smaller, less-influential countries are more grave.

The European public is mostly unaware that the majority of laws passed by their national parliaments are actually European directives. EU law increasingly reigns supreme. Although the EU may label itself democratic, evidence indicates that in fact an oligarchy has hijacked European national governments.

So far the EU’s loudest detractors, including those protesting the Prüm Treaty, have been from Britain. There is a reason why, and it goes beyond Britain’s long tradition of democratic values. Request our free book The United States and Britain in Prophecy to find out why the United Kingdom goes against the European grain and why we believe the UK will soon leave, or be forced out, of the EU.