Criminal justice and the EU

Yesterday in the Commons the Home Secretary told us she wished to opt into part of the EU plans for criminal justice, as the Uk is entitled to do under Lisbon. She presented the European Investigatory Orders Directive as a necessary tidying up or simplification of current arrangements to deal with cross border cases with no extra power passing to the EU.

I proposed to her that she should negotiate into the draft Directive a simple clause giving the Uk the right to leave the arrangement again should it not prove to be as good as she plans. The truth is you cease to be sovereign in a particular area if your future actions require the consent of a majority of other member states to make changes. Other Conservative MPs pressed her on what powers the EU and police from other member states would gain over us. She promised to avoid accretions of power in these sensitive areas in the subsequent negotiations. Labour was quick to give her their full backing.

These matters are currently handled through legal agreements which could themselves be simplified and improved without involving more centralised EU powers.

This entry was posted in Blog. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

60 Comments

  1. Mick Anderson
    Posted July 28, 2010 at 7:52 am | Permalink

    If this opt-in has to be done, I hope she adds your suggestion in.

    Although "tidying up" might be a good thing, that's what we were told the hated Lisbon Treaty was. Equally, anything supported by the Labour party has to be treated with extreme suspicion.

    Many of us want less to do with the EU, not more.

    • Posted July 28, 2010 at 10:00 am | Permalink

      She won't take up JR's suggestion – she was tackled on the issue several times, but refused to insert the clause.

      Why?

      Can there be any doubt that the coalition has a europhile agenda?

      Isn't it time that we made manifesto pledges legally binding, particularly on constitutional/sovereignty matters?

    • Anne Palmer
      Posted August 9, 2010 at 12:11 am | Permalink

      There is absolutely no need to "OPT IN" at all.

      It is a betrayal of the people they are supposed to represent. Change your mind before it is too late. Not just for the people's sake, but for Parliaments sake and the sake of this Country. It will not die quietly you know.

  2. Norman
    Posted July 28, 2010 at 7:52 am | Permalink

    Why can't we simply choose not to opt in? Are things really so bad?

    I think we should definitely be in Europe, where my views and those of the government seem to diverge is that I don't think we should be run by Europe, and this directive is another step in that direction.

    So far, we have 'allowed' the transfer of more police powers to Europe and the setting up of a pan-European financial regulator which will undoubtedly draw revenue away from London in years to come. Mr Cameron has been making encouraging sounds about further geographical expansion of the EU (Any chance of a cast iron guarantee we'd get a vote before any further expansion?)

    I wouldn't be surprised if by the end of this government we need to send our budgets to the Commission (that can't get it's own accounts signed off) for pre-approval. Someone should keep a tally of all the powers we transfer to Brussels over the next 5 years.

    Actions speak louder than words.

    I can't decide if your last sentence is a condemnation of the coalition or of UKIP voters. Perhaps it's both.

    • Posted July 28, 2010 at 11:28 am | Permalink

      We've "been in Europe" ever since Europe was recognise. The UK is a European country. That, however, is nothing to do with handing over our sovereign powers to an unelected and unaccountable council of bureaucrats. How, pray, does that differ to the old USSR?

      • OurSally
        Posted July 28, 2010 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

        Well, membership of the USSR was not voluntary, it was the status quo after the war. Then if you tried to leave the USSR they came with tanks to change your mind. And as far as I know dissidents in the EU are not shipped off to Siberia…

        I suppose you could send dissidents to East Kilbride. Or Essex. Or Sangatte.

        • Derek Buxton
          Posted July 30, 2010 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

          "Not shipped off to Siberia", well not quite yet. See what you think when you are asked for your papers by a German cop on our soil. Or when you are detained by a combination of French,German and our "policemen" and shipped abroad where you are guilty, there is no presumption of innocence there.
          Seems that this means that we have lost our Sovereignty as a Nation. Remind me what did we fight the last war for?

      • Norman
        Posted July 28, 2010 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

        My comment 'in but not ran by' was a dig at Mr Cameron who said exactly that, he wants the UK 'to be in Europe but not ran by Europe'.

        His governments actions since taking office have shown that to be as empty a piece of rhetoric as his 'cast-iron guarantee'. I wonder if his line that we'll be given a referendum on further important matters will hold up?

        I remember, on this site pre-election, putting the question that if Turkey was proposed as a member would this warrant a vote under the Conservatives proposals? Mr Redwood can't speak for Mr Cameron (and their views may be exactly the opposite for all I know) but I received the answer from Mr Redwood that he would view this as warranting a vote.

        Let's hope Mr Cameron feels the same.

        • Sebastian Weetabix
          Posted July 29, 2010 at 6:05 am | Permalink

          "In Europe but not run by Europe" – what meaningless balls. It is table d'hote, not a la carte. The choice is simple – in or out. I suspect the settled view of the majority of the British public is "out".

          • SJB
            Posted July 31, 2010 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

            The European Elections held last year suggest otherwise.

  3. Adrian
    Posted July 28, 2010 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    I believe, John, that you made some very insightful and intelligent contributions in the House yesterday which – as a patriot – I am glad that your intellect was present to put forward.

    However, for many of us, having seen the monster that the European Union has become, negotiating full-stops and commas in done deals is no longer something that we are prepared to accept.

    No, many of us have come to the conclusion that we want our full sovereignty back and we wish to withdraw from the European project entirely.

    At the very least, the Conservatives should withdraw to the position adopted by Mrs. Thatcher in her famous Bruges speech – the positions that she took in that speech have since turned out to be far wiser a path than that which most of the current crop of politcians seem intent on following.

    However, as a patriot, I do not see how any treaty signed with the European Union is compatible with our national constitution or treason laws. As such, I will never pay any attention to any dictat from Europe that it is in my power to ignore. As far as I and many others are concerned, the European Union is illegitimate.

    The entire thing lacks a legitimate basis – either democratically, or in terms of our national constitution. It is amazing that no politicans has ever been prosecuted for having put a signature on any European document.

    And you are intelligent enough to know what I'm talking about, John.

    I want someone clever enough to look at the national constitution to now do so, a patriotic judge or six to declare the entire European Union exercise null and void, then for us all to pack up and come home to tea and scones – letting the continentals get on with self-destructing their own nation states if they so wish.

    But no member of the public has ever given a politician the democratic mandate to dismantle the British nation on their behalf. The more this carries on, the angrier and angrier some of us will become.

    • Posted July 28, 2010 at 10:05 am | Permalink

      Christopher Story has pointed out that since it is illegal to do business with an organisation whose accounts have not been signed off, our association with the EU is technically illegal.

      Why do we not simply withhold payment to the EU until its books are 100% signed off by auditors?

      • Anne Palmer
        Posted August 9, 2010 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

        I wonder WHY we are continuing to pay contributions to the EU anyway. I certainly go along with Christopher Story. When everything else is being cut down, even the Defence of this Country which should always be the most important matter any government may have care and TRUST of and then the proposal to cut out the children’s FREE milk at school. (now withdrawn) Exactly what kind of Government have we got that pays our taxes to an organisation that is careless to the extent that it cannot have its accounts signed off, yet suggesting to stop the free milk to small defenceless children? How low can thins government get eh?

        What on earth are we paying the EU for when we vote and actually pay all our MP’s for actually governing us? We too have a right to with-hold our payment until our own Government actually govern us and build up our National Security and Defence to the maximum because it is the Government’s first duty to do so. This Country was never, ever supposed to allow our Defence ever again get into the position as it was in 1939.

    • Derek Buxton
      Posted July 30, 2010 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

      Hear, hear, I couldn't agree more. It is after all our Country, not the property of some three hundred MP to sell to an outside organisation.

  4. Posted July 28, 2010 at 8:34 am | Permalink

    We need to have the best for this country, all parties should be working for the best option not worrying about who votes for what

  5. Stuart Fairney
    Posted July 28, 2010 at 8:34 am | Permalink

    This is why I am leaving the UK, we are sleep walking into arrangements where we are no longer sovereign and those who are, don't bother with tiresome nonsense like being elected. Does anyone know of a better model fot a dictatorship?

  6. Alan Jutson
    Posted July 28, 2010 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    Thank you for trying a commonsense approach.

    Further entanglement with the EU is not really desirable or needed.

  7. waramess
    Posted July 28, 2010 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    Interesting that backbenchers are being heeded just about as much as the electorate. Not a lot of difference between this lot and the last lot so far. Lets hope it gets better

  8. Posted July 28, 2010 at 9:06 am | Permalink

    I'm afraid the attitude of the Tory leadership on the EU is just turning people towards other parties. What with Cameron's desire to see Turkey in the EU, and hence possibly millions more immigrants, together with passing things like justice to the EU, there is no way that I am likely to support them again.
    Roll on AV; just as the Lib Dems hope it will help them into power, I hope it will do the same for UKIP.

  9. APL
    Posted July 28, 2010 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    JR: "I proposed to her that she should negotiate into the draft Directive a "

    The *DIRECTIVE* can be negotiated? I'd say it's a bit late for that. Here is what is going on.

    Those folk who held their nose but voted Tory at the last election are looking at the ever more apparent pro European Union stance of the coalition government and its supposedly EuroSceptic leader and realizing they have been hoodwinked.

    The rumbles in the Tory party have become apparent even to the quisling cabinet members, ' The natives are revolting, what shall we do?', ' I know, let's roll out a nominally Eurosceptic but harmless old buffer to write a few calming words on his blog, that should pour oil on troubled waters."

    Viola! One hundred and fifty words or so from Redwood.

    Reply: No-one asked me to write these words, and no-one proposed I cross examine the Home Secretary on sovereignty as I did yesterday in the House. Why can't you all understand we have a federalist majority still in the Commons thanks to Lib dems, Labour and Nationalists which makes it impossible to stop any move towards more EU control, or to stop a Minister's judgement that a measure is not harmful.

    • Brian Tomkinson
      Posted July 28, 2010 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

      John,
      The problem is that the Minister in this case is a Conservative and we were told that there would be no more passing of powers to the EU. You may find some way of excusing this but it is no more than we have come to expect of politicians from any party they give the EU everything but have never asked the people to whom they are accountable if they agree to them giving away the powers which have been temporarily assigned to them by the electorate. I have an uncomfortable feeling that those now in office are just as likely to follow the federalist route and it is because they want to do if they didn't they would act differently.

      Reply: I did not excuse it but made clear my disagreement with it. With Labour and Lib dems supporting the government they have the majority.

  10. DennisA
    Posted July 28, 2010 at 9:45 am | Permalink

    Some of the greatest inroads by the EU have been under Conservative Governments, (Heath, Major). Cameron and Haigh say one thing and mean another, we are being stitched up yet again.

  11. Andrew Duffin
    Posted July 28, 2010 at 10:06 am | Permalink

    Mr. Redwood, you are choosing your words very carefully and speaking most circumspectly.

    I however, am under no such constraint and can agree with most of the commenters here: this opt-in is yet another step too far, to add to all the multitudinous steps too far – much, much too far – which all our recent governments have imposed on us by stealth, force, and downright deceit.

    We want less EU integration, not more; fewer power for the colleagues and their satraps, not more; freedom, not thraldom to the bureacracy, and ultimately, we want OUT.

    It is knowing that we want these things, of course, that makes the politicians bend over backwards to ensure that our opinion is never asked. One day this democratic deficit will turn around and bit you all – God willing.

    @Norman: "I think we should definitely be in Europe…[but] I don't think we should be run by Europe". You are being naive. That option is not on offer, and never has been.

    • Norman
      Posted July 28, 2010 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

      See my answer above, this was a dig at Mr Cameron who said that. I think any right minded person realises how utterly naive it is to say that.

      See http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/170890 for the quote (about half way down)

  12. HK1
    Posted July 28, 2010 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    When the "referendum lock" legislation put to Parliament, can JR's very sensible suggestion (that the draft Directive contain a simple clause giving the UK the right to leave the arrangement) be adopted as a requirement for every single interaction with the EU?

    In other words, it becomes a requirement of UK law that, every time the EU proposes some new "opt-in" mechanism, the UK will only opt in if it has the right to opt out at a later point. If that cannot be negotiated, then it requires an Act of Parliament at the least to approve the opting in (or preferably a referendum).

    I find it astonishing that the UK executive could agree something which affects the liberty of UK citizens without putting it to Parliament.

    And I had hoped (perhaps against my better judgment) for much better from the Conservatives. If this continues, the Conservatives will truly no longer be the pragmatic home for EU-sceptics (as opposed to UKIP, which are a more principled home, but less pragmatic, because they don't have a single MP).

    I have suggested previously and on other blogs that, if the Conservatives do not deliver on the EU, UKIP could well become the largest UK party in the next EU elections. Based on this early showing, UKIP are on the way to that.

  13. Iain
    Posted July 28, 2010 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    We vote for a Government that was supposed to call a halt to EU intergration, and what do we get, no change, more intergration.

    What is the point of us voting? What is the point of you turning up to sit in the Commons? There is no point, nothing changes, we get sold. We have a joke of a democracy.

    • Posted July 28, 2010 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

      I suspect that the Dark 'Lord' <spit> is quietly guffawing, having frequently referred to "post-democratic government", which is what the EU is all about.

  14. Cliff.
    Posted July 28, 2010 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    Given that politicians want to govern, I cannot for the life of me understand why so many want to give our nation away to foreign powers; It makes no sense at all.
    Perhaps another arrangement along these lines should also take place as we (the public) are dragged kicking and screaming further into the EUSSR; As powers are given over, so our politicians should have their pay reduced as they no longer have so much responsibility because so much of it has been transfered to the EUSSR. Perhaps the renumeration datum should be the level pre 1972 and every reduction of powers and reponsibility since then should reduce current salaries.
    Just who is the EU? The commissioners dictate policy, the MEPs rubber stamp it; who is behind it? How did they suddenly set up a new state and get so many politicians to blindly follow it? It is all very well saying that a leader is Eurosceptic but, actions speak louder than words and when you look at recent actions and the make up of our front bench, it is easy to see where we are going.
    I am English first, British second but European, NEVER!!!

    • Posted July 28, 2010 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

      My inner cynic tells me that politicos are keen to give away our sovereignty because the EU, the employer of failed politicians (e.g., the Kinnocks) rewards them with plush jobs and fat bank accounts.

      The question should be "how do we counter that?"

    • Anne Palmer
      Posted July 28, 2010 at 11:34 pm | Permalink

      The Act of Supremacy 1559; the 1848 Treason Felony; and Treason at Common Law. In terms of various recent Acts by Parliament to ratify incorporation of the UK into the European Union, the Act of Supremacy is quite unequivocal: “ … no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm …”.

      It is not just the people's RIGHT to fight bad law (statute), but it is our DUTY under Law to do so. Any Treaty entered in to must sit easy with our Common Law Constitution. Every MP's and Member of our Government swears allegiance to the Monarch (The Crown) Too many have died in wars fighting for this Country's FREEDOM to allow any further Sovereignty to be given away to foreigners.

      • Posted July 29, 2010 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

        Quite right. I wrote to HM The Queen about this and how, as part of the Coronation Oath, she could come to terms with it? She passed in on to, of all people, Kenneth Clark!

      • SJB
        Posted July 29, 2010 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

        1. The text you quote, viz. "… no foreign prince, person …", appears to have been repealed: see http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeT

        2. The constitution of the UK is derived from many sources, the main pillar being the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty – which is statute law not common law.

        3. The European Communities Act 1972 – which provides for the incorporation of EC law into the domestic law of the UK – would not have become law but for the present Monarch's assent.

        • Anne Palmer
          Posted August 9, 2010 at 12:03 am | Permalink

          It can't be repealed it was part of the Coronation Oath and made by the Queen at that time.

          What Parliamentary Sovereignty are you talking about, the part the EU over-rides and the EU laws even our Government have to obey?

          The government use the Royal Prerogative on behalf of the Crown to ratify Treaty's. No Treaty can be applied here in the UK without using the Royal Prerogative. It is then that same Royal Prerogative that loyal and true British Members of Government have passed to the European Union (Art 47 Lisbon) for them to sign EU Treaties on our behalf, without even being debated in our Parliament as has already happened.

          As for the EIO, if foreign Police are welcomed to these shores by Government perhaps Government would do well to ask what the people think of this, but read COM (2009) 624 before they do,
          "Because of this limited scope of application, a European Evidence Warrant cannot be issued for the purpose of for example interviewing suspects or witnesses or obtaining information in real time, such as interception of communications of monitoring of bank accounts, as these types of evidence – although directly available – do not already exist. Nor can a European Evidence Warrant be issued for the purpose of for example conducting analysis objects document or data or obtaining bodily material, such as DNA samples or fingerprints, as these types of evidence – although already existing – are not directly available without further investigation of examination."

          The EIO is an attack on national Sovereignty, it makes our police look as if they are incompetent-which they are not. It intrudes on our Constitution, both Magna Carta and Bill of Rights. There was an OPT OUT for a very good reason. I suggest the Conservatives find out what that reason was. The vast majority of people are not just going to let this deep intrusion happen.

          Every one in this Country is innocent until proven Guilty. The Government has a duty of care to the people that elect them and contribute to their wages and expenses. They will be found wanting if they OPT IN to this.

  15. Mr Ecks
    Posted July 28, 2010 at 10:50 am | Permalink

    In addition to treason to this country over the EU is it also acceptable that the Tory party also betray the population by sucking up to the dispicable marxist "Green" lobby?. I refer to that (man-ed) Huhne's plans to boost energy bills in this country by a third in pursuit of his anti-human, anti-science, anti-life eco-freek campaign. Can he be doing this without the support of your (unflattering -ed) leader?. Do this Govt have a death wish already?

    • Vanessa
      Posted July 28, 2010 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

      Mr Ecks, I agree with you wholeheartedly, these representatives of ours have taken leave of any brain cells they may have had regarding global warming. If we are all to pay such huge sums surely the first thing to do is to scrutinise the science before this and future generations all go bankrupt paying for energy. Am reading a biography of Isaac Newton and then he posted his core data and results to ALL the scientific community so they could repeat his experiments and, hopefully, get the same result. Now they destroy their core data and say "no" to requests because they say they will try and disprove their (fabricated) results!

  16. Steve S
    Posted July 28, 2010 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    And so it goes on – the drip, drip, drip of sovereignty until one day you wake up in an undemocratic superstate. There really is no apparent way out is there ?

    • Stuart Fairney
      Posted July 29, 2010 at 6:10 am | Permalink

      Indeed, and it seems the Westminster supporters of this don't see the desperate danger. If you deny democracy, the one day people wake up and either resort to forceful methods (very bad) or elect lunatics (also very bad).

  17. Derek Buxton
    Posted July 28, 2010 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    "She is to opt in", no she isn't, it is a requirement like all the others, and like buses there are more behind. Yes, we understand that there are a lot of federalists in the HoC but wasn't that supposed to change at the last election. But too many of us did not trust the Cameron stance on just this problem and we have been proved correct. Most voted to get rid of Brown, the ones voting for your party believed the weasel words from the leader, more I suspect in hope than expectation, they now know they were wrong, Cameron will back the EU as he backs robbing the poor with obscene energy bills to stop, ha, ha, AGW.

    • Stuart Fairney
      Posted July 29, 2010 at 6:12 am | Permalink

      This is a very good point. How many poor elderly will die this winter of energy poverty due to the green boondongles? More than 'AGW' will ever kill I'd wager.

  18. forthurst
    Posted July 28, 2010 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    There are in Europe countries whose legal codes purport to determine the 'proper' interpretation of historical events without, of course, any codification of the substance of the alleged happenings nor, still less, any substantial evidence in support of those allegations. Is it any more likely that an attempt might be made to arrest an individual under this 'harmonisation' initiative in this country on the basis of statements or publications uttered here which might be read in those benighted coutries?

    Without free speech, truth and democracy are deprecated and constrained by design.

  19. Posted July 28, 2010 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    Rather than negotiate yet more powers to the EU we should be claiming back some of the more disastrous effects of the European Arrest Warrent under which a foreign power can prosecute a UK citizen for a "crime" which is NOT a crime in the UK! It can also find a UK citizen guilty of any crime without a proper trial, defence or even in absentia. It can even find you guilty if you haven't even set foot out of the country!

  20. Vanessa
    Posted July 28, 2010 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

    "A tidying up exercise", something we have heard before for the Lisbon Treaty. This disgusting decision was done without any debate (God, what's that these days?) in the House. What is the Cabinet for now, just a tick-box committee? How is this NOT a transfer of more powers? Do they just mingle round trying to think up new ways of fleecing us, the taxpayer, for more of our money to swell their expenses and pensions? Guy Fawkes where are you when we need you?!

  21. Posted July 28, 2010 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

    The USA, UK junior partner, India and China, UK junior partner, The EU, UK equal partner. David Cameron knows what he's doing. Thank goodness the Coalition frees him from the right-wing of the party.

    • Adrian
      Posted July 28, 2010 at 11:51 pm | Permalink

      Right wing. What does that mean then? Would you like to give us a lecture in early nineteenth century French history, or is it just a label you're chucking about to stop discussion from those whose opinions you don't want to listen to..?

      We're all bored of that ruse now. And, if I were you, I really would pack that in. The easiest way to make someone vote for a party like the BNP is to hurl a label like 'right wing' at them.

      If you've got an argument as for why you think unelected people in Brussels should rule over us, then let's hear it.

      But don't try to squash opinions you don't like by hysterically howling 'right wing' at people. We've all woken up to that one now.

      • Kevin Peat
        Posted July 29, 2010 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

        Relieved to hear you say it, Adrian.

  22. Andy
    Posted July 28, 2010 at 10:32 pm | Permalink

    It is deeply worrying that the Home Secretary has sign or 'opted -in' to the European Investigatory Orders. She ought to have refused. History shows that the EU grabs more and more power to itself.

  23. Posted July 28, 2010 at 11:34 pm | Permalink

    JR, please don't let this issue die. Should we concede on this issue, we can be sure that the coalition will be emboldened to go further.

    They need to feel our wrath!

  24. Anne Palmer
    Posted July 28, 2010 at 11:44 pm | Permalink

    There is every requirement for a referendum on this CHANGE to our Constitution if this Government accepts this new EU legislation. One main part being the "territoriality".

    For UK Contributions to the EU see here, although I am not sure whether this was submitted under Labour or the LIBDEBCONS. Perhaps this could be made clear so that blame may be laid at the right door. http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_

  25. Anne Palmer
    Posted July 28, 2010 at 11:45 pm | Permalink

    This below from Statewatch, which makes very clear the implications. Although I have gone through EU COM DOCs and other EU legislation re this matter, as well as the Debates in Parliament held yesterday.

    "These changes would mean that a person who committed an act which is legal in the Member State where the act was carried out could be subject to body, house and business searches, financial investigations, some forms of covert surveillance, or any other investigative measures within the scope of the Directive as regards any ‘crime’ whatsoever which exists under the law of ANY OTHER Member State, if that other Member State extends jurisdiction for that crime beyond its own territory. End of quote.

    The Conservative Promise must be kept.

  26. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted July 29, 2010 at 5:49 am | Permalink

    The clue lies in the word 'Directive'. This is clearly a matter on which the European Commission (perhaps on behalf of most Member States, although there is no guarantee of that) expects to prevail. You also have to recognise that once you accept EU authority in any matter (the Social Chapter, immigration etc), it is more or less impossible to reverse your decision.

    EU membership has a one way rachet built into into it – always in the direction of more integration and centralised undemocratic power. The only way out is a complete renegotion of our treaties.

    The Conservative manifesto said that recovering UK powers in matters of criminal justice was a key policy. Therefore, Mr Redwood, this is as good a matter as on which to stand your ground as a Eurosceptic and 'make trouble' – a lot of trouble.

  27. Posted July 29, 2010 at 6:41 am | Permalink

    It is about the control we feel, people are disengaged because they feel they have now say, power or control. If this is communicated across as yet something else we have no contro; over it will only add to this feeling.

  28. Chris Rose
    Posted July 29, 2010 at 7:27 am | Permalink

    The police should be under the direct control of our elected representatives. That means that the EU must only have power that is subject to parliamentary approval.

  29. Mark
    Posted July 29, 2010 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    It is the misuse of these powers that will ultimately be seen as their most undesirable trait. Given that the previous Labour government sanctioned renditions, and interrogations by third party intelligence services that provoked accusations of torture, using the police of other EU countries would be second nature to them in attacking their opponents. How much more effective to have Damian Green arrested not by Bob Quick, but by the police force of a remote country. Then there will be the corrupt foreign forces that use "investigations" as a means of extortion.

  30. Kevin Peat
    Posted July 29, 2010 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

    The 'resistance' is all a bit lame, is it not, Mr Redwood ?

    Though I respect you very much I feel that your party cheats the public and is fundamentally dishonest. There is no real choice when it comes to the public being able to choose Euro-sceptics for office because candidature is sewn up by the Conservative party.

    Voter inactivity is deliberately labelled as apathy. In fact it's a healthy public reaction to the paucity of candidates worth voting for.

    Britain is finished. The 'best' PM on offer turns out to be doing things 180 degrees to what he knows the voters want. Turkey. Barely three months and I can't stand the sight of him. By the middle of next year he is going to be utterly hated by the very people who put him in office. This is going to be WORSE than Blair. Whichever way the British majority vote they get politicians doing things 180 degrees to what they want.

    Why do you bother in the Tory party ? You're better than this, surely ?

  31. Andrew Johnson
    Posted July 29, 2010 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

    Mr. Cameron has now hoisted his colours for all to see. Conservative ? Not really. Liberal? I don't think so. Pragmatist? – Most definitely. Reminds me of a Groucho Marx quote, "Those are my principles…..If you don't like them…. I have others!" Meanwhile Britain's sovereignty continues to go to hell on a hand cart (or Euro Star train). Personally, I would rather be standing at the soup kitchen as a free born Englishman, than live enslaved under the rule of unelected, unaccountable, faceless Eurocrats. If the Conservatives don't stand up for our rights John, who will? I want my country back.

  32. Alan Wheatley
    Posted July 30, 2010 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

    Two citizens from a mainland EU country were found guilty in an English court of stealing a car from a friend of mine in the home counties. They failed to turn up at a subsequent hearing for sentencing, and were both given custodial sentences. Despite the efforts of some these two remain at large (they are not in "hiding"). If EU forces fail so dismally in something as blatant as this, one can not help but think EU justice is extremely selective.

    I think UK governments are failing to look after the interests of their citizens.

  33. Posted August 2, 2010 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    What on earth is our Parliament thinking of by supinely waving through this dictatorial and anti democratic piece of euro-legislation? Whatever happened to the Conservatives' election promises to oppose any more incursions by the EU state?

  34. Anne Palmer
    Posted August 9, 2010 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    All the EU has to do to make it their one state-WHICH THEY WILL DO IN THE END-is to follow the Americans. " Following the Civil War, the United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, held that states did not have the right to secede and that any act of secession was legally void. Drawing on the Preamble to the Constitution, which states that the Constitution was intended to "form a more perfect union" (Try ‘ever closer Union’-my comment) and speaks of the people of the United States of America in effect as a single body politic, as well as the language of the Articles of Confederation, the Supreme Court maintained that states did not have a right to secede".

    D'you think it won’t happen? Want a bet? We are not European, we never will be European, we are an Island Race with our own laws and constitution WITH OUR OWN GOVERNMENT THAT HAS TO OBEY OUR OWN CONSTITUTION, and it is up to the people to make sure they do.

    • SJB
      Posted August 9, 2010 at 11:22 pm | Permalink

      The UK constitution is not written in stone, Anne. The government of the day is often the dominant force in changing the constitution. There is an argument that such amendments should require more than a simple majority in Parliament; but for people to suggest, for example, that the European Communities Act 1972 – part of the constitutional law of the UK for nearly 40 years – was an act of treason is incorrect.

  35. Anne Palmer
    Posted August 15, 2010 at 12:46 am | Permalink

    Most of the UK Constitutional documents have lasted for hundreds of years. Every year a most High Law Lord of the UK goes to Australia and lectures on Magna Carta. I am aware that there are allegedly only four Clause supposed to be left, but I have over a hundred quotes from Hansard, where Magna Carta clauses that allegedly no longer exist that have been used to prove a point to win an argument (I stopped collecting at that number) They could hardly win an argument if the clauses had been repealed. Or, I will put it another way. If I am wrong, all those cases that have been "WON" by quoting redundant clause, there would have to be a lot of un-ravelling to quite a bit of important legislation.

    The Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 is still fully complete (See the then Speaker Betty Boothroyd's comment).

    I haven't suggested the EC Act 1972 was or is an act of Treason. But look deeply at, "The union shall have competence over our Laws" just for starters. I have already pointed out, Art 47 Lisbon, "The Union shall have "Legal Personality"

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, He graduated from Magdalen College Oxford, has a DPhil and is a fellow of All Souls College. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page