Firstly, are we talking about EU member states or Europe? It cannot be both. Both are different entities.
Europe is a Continental and Island grouping of over 50 nations. Whilst the EU is a Political Union of 28 member states.
I notice you make this conflation in the website name and subheading as well. Not at all disingenuous of course.
UKIP haven't criticised the idea of sharing intel with other EU or European nations, this is done regardless via NATO and Interpol so not entirely sure what point this article is trying to make?
It should occur to some that the Paris Terrorist attacks have been used in the EU Parliament to centralise intelligence data. Thus taking it out of the hands of experience securical services and putting it into the hands of Private Organisation security contractors and what is frankly inexperienced data handling organisations. It should stay where it is, MI5, Interpol and NATO.
I find it disgusting how the EU have used the Paris attacks as an excuse for a power-grap, which is emphasised in the response from this French MEP in the EU Parliament just yesterday (25/11/2015):
The accusation that EU member states aren't sharing intel is frankly bonkers. What the EU doesn't like is that counter terrorism is handled by Independent (to the EU) organisations such as MI5, NATO and Interpol. This is the power-grab they are attempting.
"Many would regard this as a sensible approach."
But this isn't what is being proposed and the fact you don't recognise this is utterly crazy. We have Securical services and they work with their colleagues in Europe and elsewhere. Not everything has to be done at a EU level.
"If you can freely travel from one country to another it is expected that security services are constantly in contact with each other to track your whereabouts if you are perceived as a threat."
Vehicles aren't checked travelling through Schengen, nor are people. People are free to move country to country. So what intelligence is their to go on?
Here where in lies the problem.
"Yet UKIP have again regarded a sensible idea as a ‘power grab’ simply because it involves forms of co-operation with other European countries."
It's not with "European Countries" though, as I have already illustrated.
The fact is the EU are trying to take those recognised intel services and incorporate them into an EU Police State.
“Schengen’s open border idea allows free movement for terrorists and has resulted in mass murder in Paris,” said Diane James MEP.
“For our national security, there must be a return to national border controls and checking of the origin and credentials of those who are crossing borders.
“There is a clear necessity that Islamist terrorists, their ideas, their money and their weapons no longer be given a free pass around Europe because of Schengen. It is a European political dream which is turning into a security nightmare.”
She is absolutely spot-on.
“It is unacceptable for us to share our intelligence with countries like Romania,” added Mr Farage.
“It is the EU’s doctrine of open borders which has caused the problem. This is another crisis being used for an EU power grab.”
Again. Spot on.
"Ms James is precisely correct in that Europe must check the credentials of those entering European borders, but those rules need not apply to those traveling within the continent itself if we share intelligence about potential threats with our neighbours."
This is where the article falls to pieces.
The majority of those who conducted the terror attacks on 7/7 and in Paris were home-grown. The transportation of weapons is what resulted in the attacks taking place. This transportation of weapons was made possible with the Freedom of Movement rules put in place by the EU.
Romania share intel with the UK.
The UK share intel with Romania.
The point Farage is making, is that it shouldn't be done at an EU level. It should be done as is currently done via recognised security services within countries and data be shared between those organisations.
"The problem with UKIP is that it will support nothing that is constructive if it involves European co-operation."
It supports "European cooperation". This isn't "European cooperation" though, it is an attempt to withdraw intel gathering from recognised EU member states and centralise it within the EU.
This article accuses "narrow minded nationalism" yet makes absolutely no justification for such an accusation.
UKIP see the merit in learning from other nations in the world. The accusation is unjustified and inflammatory.