The ghosts of Hampden,Pym and Eliot should haunt Parliament today


Members of Parliament are heirs to a great tradition. Some of our predecessors took great personal risks to defend  and extend the liberties of Englishmen and women. They fought to prevent the executive government, the Crown, exercising too much arbitrary power at the expense of the people.

Today we need to remember that when  Parliament debates whether important matters of criminal justice, recently repatriated to UK control, should be surrendered to the EU. John Hampden, John Pym and John Eliot fought against a Crown which wanted to presume to itself the power to tax without reference to the grievances and rights of those paying the bills. They fought to uphold the right of Parliament to fashion the law and ensure its fair enforcement. John Eliot died prematurely from his stay in prison for refusing to accept Ship money. John Hampden died of his wounds  in an early battle of the civil war. Their cause was just and ultimately upheld.

Today the threat to our liberties and right of self government comes not from the Crown but from the EU. Some of us this day will argue against surrendering any criminal justice powers to the EU. We accept the need to co-operate with the police and criminal justice systems of our  neighbours to track criminals and bring them to court. This can be done by bilateral agreements which preserve the authority of the UK Parliament and the sovereignty of the UK electorate. Eliot, Pym and Hampden would expect no less.



  1. Mark B
    July 10, 2014

    Good luck today. And may commonsense and what little democracy we have, prevail.

    1. Lifelogic
      July 10, 2014

      Agreed, alas common sense is not that common in this or indeed most recent governments.

      1. Hope
        July 10, 2014

        Article 39 of the Magna Carta enacted into law in 1297 should remain the baseline of our civil liberties. Read the article in the DT. Succinct and very good. Unfortunately Cameron’s actions are different from his words. A bit like the question from N. Ireland yesterday about a conscience clause to protect Christians. Three weeks ago he was all about demonstrating his Christian beliefs, yesterday that appeared to have disappeared into the wind.

        1. Hope
          July 10, 2014

          Actually JR, the threat comes from Cameron and the Tory party not the EU. As the majority in the coalition it should remain firm and force the Lib Dems to vote with them, if not sack them. Nothing to lose with the General election coming and would put Labour and Lib Dems in the public spot light.

          Therefore it is Cameron who is the threat to our civil liberties dating back to 1297, it is also him who is rushing through more snooping rights to invade our private telephone calls, snooping in our bank accounts and taking with just process. So wake up the true Tories and show your metal.

          1. Lifelogic
            July 10, 2014

            Indeed Cameron 180 degree out once again.

        2. Lifelogic
          July 10, 2014

          Indeed Cameron types can only be judged by their actions – which are nearly all 180 degree out. He his happy to say anything that he think will win him support, but then he does the complete opposite.

          He even claimed to be “a low tax conservative” and a Euro-sceptic. But then ratted on his “cast iron” promise, ratted on inheritance threshold tax promise and then introduced 299 tax increases.

          He claimed the N H S was his priority “in three letters” but I see today that cancer diagnostic test waiting times are at a six year high and the NHS, in general, is appallingly organised and hugely rationed and hugely inefficient. But can still afford quack vanity treatment and alternative treatments that clearly do not even work.

          He is good at delivering vacuous sound bites like “in three letters” and “cast iron” though.

  2. Mike Stallard
    July 10, 2014

    We are a peaceful country because we believe in settling disputes in court under our traditional laws. The jury system is not perfect, but being judged by ordinary people with a proper process is fair. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. You do not have to defend yourself against the judge, who, as a professional is very often biased and desperate to keep her/his job.
    Traitors who vote to give these ancient freedoms away will cause violence. Violence in the streets, in the press, in the land. People will begin to settle out of court…

    1. Jerry
      July 10, 2014

      Mike Stallard: “We are a peaceful country because we believe in settling disputes in court
      Traitors who vote to give these ancient freedoms away will cause violence. “

      Err, anyone else see the inconstancy in Mike’s rational?!…

      If you think traitors are are work then use the courts, stop suggesting that some might wish to break the law themselves.

      1. Edward2
        July 10, 2014

        I agree with Mike.
        It is because Parliament is removing our ancient rights to use the courts to stop these things happening that there may well be dissent and even violent resistance when the majority wake up to this fact.
        I suggest you try to take action in court to restore powers to govern ourselves back from the EU and see how far you get Jerry.
        My guess is it will happen when the full effect of the European Arrest Warrant is felt.

      2. David Murfin
        July 10, 2014

        The highest court in the land is about to debate the issue.
        What should be done if it decides that it is no longer to be the highest court in the land in advance of a promised referendum? I don’t suppose Hampden was in favour of violence. I seem to remember the King sought to arrest him for expressing his views in parliament.

      3. Mark B
        July 10, 2014

        Err . . . ! No !

        When it those same alleged ‘traitors’ that are making the laws, appointments and dishing out the gongs, combined with a vested interest in protecting the ‘system’, then usually mild mannered people become a but tetchy.

        It you take things from people, their home, their wealth, their means of income, you essentially create an individual who has little or nothing to lose, other than their liberty or being. And even that becomes of little value when they cannot exercise their ‘freeborn’ rights.

        I understand what he means, even if you do not. Well said Mike.

      4. Lindsay McDougall
        July 10, 2014

        Jerry, it needs the repeal of unwanted Acts of Parliament to get the law that we want and restore our liberties. They are simple: Repeal of the commitment to ever closer Union, repeal of our commitment to freedom of movement within the EU, repeal of our Acts of Accession to the Federalist Treaties – Maastricht, Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon, and an accompanying reduction in the powers of the European courts.

        Once 500 Eurosceptic peers have been appointed to the House of Lords, we can implement those repeals after soon after May 2015. And if the monarchy objects, remind it of the fate of Charles I.

        There is no need for renegotiation. If there are ‘red lines’ they should be imposed unilaterally.

        1. Jerry
          July 10, 2014

          @Lindsay McDougall: “Once 500 Eurosceptic peers have been appointed to the House of Lords”

          …and that would be democratic how, in many peoples opinions that would no more democratic as the EU imposing their will upon us – with possibly quite the same results, should Mike Stallard be correct about the civil reaction!

          The Lords can’t actually block the will of the house, so if the governing party has a majority to ‘nobble’ the Lords they have enough to force their policy through, even more so if it’s a manifesto pledge – Hunting Act anyone….

  3. an wragg
    July 10, 2014

    It’s a pity your boss w3as asleep when history was being taught. For a man who say’s he’s going to repatriate powers he seems in a big hurry to keep entangling us in the EU web.
    How about a moratorium on adopting all new EU legislation until negotiations and the referendum are complete.
    The man is a shyster and will throw the election so no referendum will be held. Will we ever find who is actually driving this destruction of Britain because it defies all logic.

    1. Graham
      July 10, 2014

      I agree

      Good to know that there were men of principle in our past – their like will never be seen again

  4. Excalibur
    July 10, 2014

    I see from the clip of the ex Dutch soldier in Syria run ad nauseum by SKY, that British troops are training the ‘Free Syrian Army’ there. Who authorized this ? Was this debated in parliament ? How do our soldiers separate the Jihadists from less extreme elements ? How much is this costing the British taxpayer ?

    1. Leslie Singleton
      July 10, 2014

      Excalibur–Ad nauseam, please Sir

      1. Excalibur
        July 10, 2014

        You have wrecked my day, Leslie. I looked it up in the OED too, but still made the error !!

        1. acorn
          July 10, 2014

          You were right first time, it is used as an adverb. “My brother said Man U was much better than Arsenal ad nauseam.”

          1. acorn
            July 10, 2014

            Sorry my error. The same spelling mistake of the same phrase on two different sites. I posted on the wrong one. I may buy a lottery ticket this week, it’s a sign from the Gods 😉 .

    2. Mark B
      July 10, 2014

      This is nothing new, and comes as no surprise to me. In fact, the only surprise, is that it is not more widely know.

      We did this kind of thing in Oman, amongst other places.

      1. Excalibur
        July 10, 2014

        Not quite the same thing, Mark. The Omani military under its Sandhurst trained Sultan is a disciplined, well trained force. The ‘Free Syrian Army’ is a bunch of irregulars whose loyalties must be suspect, and who could well use the imparted expertise to our detriment.

  5. Timaction
    July 10, 2014

    My understanding is your leader has already decided to opt back into the European Arrest Warrant. A draconian power where British citizens can be taken by warrant to a foreign Country without any evidence presented , tested or checked in this Country. This removes the presumption of innocence, removes the rights of Habeas Corpus, secured in 1679, and allows backward and doubtful foreign criminal justice systems to determine a British persons guilt or otherwise. They could be incarcerated for years without trial. This is a disgrace and shows the weasel words your leader speaks. He is an avid Europhile who will stamp on the constitutional rights of the English (e.g. Gay marriage) to take further incremental stealthy steps to create an EU criminal justice system and in turn a political union. Like he’s doing with the eventual EU armed forces with agreements with France under the austerity banner whilst giving away ÂŁ12 billion in foreign aid and a further ÂŁ12 billion to pay for EU funds, which help foreign farmers and infrastructure.
    The legacy parties are not on our side and need to be removed form Westminster and replaced with patriots. Root and branch reform of the Home Office and FCO is overwhelmingly needed.
    I note that in a meeting with Junker he told UKIP last night that free movement of people is not up for renegotiation as he considers it a marginal issue. He doesn’t have to live here! More building on the greenbelt, overcrowding, lack of school places and longer appointments for the International Health Service await us unless we change our voting habits.

    1. stred
      July 10, 2014

      A friend of mine has had recent experience of the way justice moves in an ex Communist East European country, over a property previously confiscated by the regime. If we are to face extradition to such countries without review in a British court, the consequences are frightening.

      At the same time, it is a disgrace that we face the same extradition conditions to the US already. There have been far more British extradited to the US than in the other direction. There was a case where a businessman was extradited after being set up by US investigators posing as exporters of technical equipment to an EU country. He says he told them that a licence would be required to send it on to Iran, but this was omitted from the taped conversation used as evidence. His guilt was setted before a US jury without informing him or allowing a defence. He was extradited to the US and had to plea bargain or face a very long prison sentence. He is now back in the UK on remand, having lost a fortune and being imprisoned in their nighmarish jails.

      To think we are now proposing to extend this to the EU demonstrates the quality of our leaders. They care nothing for the ordinary people who they expect to vote for them.

      Reply I opposed Labour’s lop sided Extradition Agreement with the USA when they put it through. At least a future UK government could change that, whereas if we opt in to the EU arrangements they are then binding

  6. Jerry
    July 10, 2014

    Indeed John, but with a Coalition partner not only supportive of the EAW but one of its main instigators within the EU, what chance…

    I read though that salvation might come via Spain, apparently before we are allowed to opt-back in all the other 27 member states have to approve, and that Spain might be thinking this is a good point to make a stand on Gibraltar – might I suggest a statement is made in the House, making it very clear that Gibraltar will remain British until the British living in Gibraltar wish there to be change?

    1. Mark B
      July 10, 2014

      The Spanish, well at least the people, are not bothered by Gib. The Government on the other hand see it as a good stick to beat the Gringo’s. Perhaps if the UK Government spoke about the various Spanish possessions which, Spain is in dispute with, we might get some movement.

      1. Jerry
        July 10, 2014

        @Mark B: The Madrid government do indeed use Gib as a stick, but it’s one for internal use, if you understand anything about Spain you’ll have noted that I talked about the “Madrid government” and why.

  7. Andyvan
    July 10, 2014

    So parliament is the defender of our liberties is it? This is the same parliament that gave them away to the EU in the first place. This is the same parliament that considers it has the right to decide how free we are based on the highly dubious “democratic” process that allows a minority of people to vote in a government. The democratic fact is nobody voted to give any government the right to sign up to treaties that give away any economic or political sovereignty. Parliament gave away what was not theirs to give. It is the problem and now it’s members seek to pretend that they are our saviors. Please, get real.

    1. Jerry
      July 10, 2014

      @Andyvan: “The democratic fact is nobody voted to give any government the right to sign up to treaties that give away any economic or political sovereignty.”

      True, because we do not actually vote for a “Government”, we vote for a collection of MPs who then forms a government, usually via a party system.

      “Parliament gave away what was not theirs to give.”

      Wrong, parliament voted, that made the decision legally legitimate and valid.

      Do feel free to find out how democracy works…

      1. Edward2
        July 10, 2014

        Wrong Jerry
        Soveriegnty is embedded in the people. Developed and defined over centuries of struggles.
        Parliament has no right to give away this country’s power to govern itself to another nation without specifically asking for the consent of the Queen and the people.
        Which it would not get.
        Which is why we are not asked.

        1. Jerry
          July 10, 2014

          Edward2: “Wrong Jerry”

          Sorry, so when did the candidates names disappear from UK parliamentary ballot papers, to be replaced by nothing but the prospective governments name?…

          We do not elect a government, we elect MPs, then the largest group (usually a party grouping) is then asked -by the Queen- to form a government, and as we saw in 2010 that government might not end up containing only MPs from just one party. What is more, it is even possible that a group who is not the largest group will be invited to form a government, if they thinks they can obtain the support either formally or informally of other smaller groups (parties) of MPs, this is what Gordon Brown tried to do in 2010 and why some accused his rather hysterically of “squatting in No.10” and what Edward Heath also tried to do in Feb. 1974.

          1. Edward2
            July 10, 2014

            Sorry Jerry I do apologise.
            I had forgotten it is only you who is right and that you hold all the correct views.
            I will cease posting and just learn from reading your words of wisdom.
            I don’t know why Mr Redwood doesn’t do the same then we can all sit back and marvel at your writings.

          2. Jerry
            July 10, 2014

            @Edward2: No need to be sarcastic. Feel free to put me right, I’m sure Mr Redwood will indulge you, he might even be interested himself!

          3. Edward2
            July 10, 2014

            I wasn’t being sarcastic at all Jerry
            I think we should all just read what you say because you are so plainly always right all the time as you inform us all on here with your seventy post a day.

          4. Bazman
            July 11, 2014

            Don’t like any facts jerry do we? Except the ones you belive you own.

          5. Jerry
            July 11, 2014

            Edward2: You win…

      2. libertarian
        July 10, 2014


        patronising twaddle from a socialist defending our so called democracy which in fact is nothing of the sort. The Queen chooses our govt.

        Take your own advice

        1. Jerry
          July 10, 2014

          @libertarian: “patronising twaddle from a socialist”

          Once again, attempted personal abuse, no doubt to cover gross ignorance.

          The queen doesn’t have a vote, and has not made a personal decision on who should form the government in her life (in fact no English/British Monarch has in 400 and more years), she is guided by the results of the general election ballot or else by her Privy Council etc.

          But heck, if you are correct, do tell us why we bother to vote if “the Queen decides”… Duh!

          1. libertarian
            July 10, 2014


            Really duh ! If I’m grossly ignorant I hate to think what that makes you. You were rude and patronising which is bad enough but you were wrong in your statement to Andyvan and you were WRONG in your reply to me.

            Read how our so called “democracy” actually works here


            Just so you know we bother to vote to elect a parliament of representatives. We have NO VOTE on the government. The PM is chosen by the monarch. The PM then chooses the cabinet. Historically the monarch chooses the leader of the largest party in the house. There is no rule that this has to be . Until the middle of the 20th Century an MP being appointed to government had to resign their seat and fight a by-election .

            The monarch appointed a PM who was NOT the leader of the largest party as short a time as 70 years ago.

            Someone who is so ignorant of our system really shouldn’t be so patronising to others

          2. APL
            July 11, 2014

            libertarian: “patronising twaddle from a socialist”

            Jerry: “Once again, attempted personal abuse,”

            In passing. Someone criticising what you say isn’t usually considered personal abuse, Just criticism of what you say.

            I fancy, most of us could provide actual personal abuse in such an unambiguous manner that there would be no need to characterise it as an ‘attempt’.

          3. Jerry
            July 11, 2014

            libertarian: “The monarch appointed a PM who was NOT the leader of the largest party as short a time as 70 years ago.”

            Now let me see, I have said that the Queen can ask a non majority leader to form a government, so yes the above statement from you is quite possible, and lets not forget when 70 years ago was, oh yes, it was the early 1940s – not very hot on European/world history are you be the looks….

            Try reading what I actually said next time, duh!

          4. Jerry
            July 11, 2014

            @APL; Still nothing to add to the debate, still preferring to play the man rather than the ball…

    2. JimS
      July 10, 2014

      Why is ‘pooled’ sovereignty considered to be so desirable by the political class? No-one of my acquaintance is burning with the desire to rule other countries.
      This is just one of the many questions that appear to be ‘unacceptable’ to even ask. And there is the answer hidden in the question; the whole EU ‘project’ is a ratchet taking ever more powers to itself, freely given away by national politicians who know that no party ‘at home’ can overturn what has been done and no pan-EU ‘cat herded’ qualified voting reform majority can be assembled either.

      1. APL
        July 11, 2014

        jimS: “Why is ‘pooled’ sovereignty considered to be so desirable by the political class?”

        Not so much addressing ‘pooled sovereignty’ but the principles are the same.

        The more people that have a finger in the pie, the more problematical it is to pin down who’s to blame when a thing goes wrong, on the other hand, everyone gets prizes when things go right.

        Take the flooding in the Somerset levels. There is a plethora of arms length & NGO bodies involved, not one of which was directly responsible for the whole SNAFU, each one by itself sticking its own particular spanner in the works.

        Chris Smith, fired or resigned? Nope, bingo, Prizes all round!

    3. Vanessa
      July 10, 2014

      Parliament has always given or sold what is not theirs to do that. They sold our water to foreign companies, they sold our electricity to foreign companies, they have sold all manner of things to raise money for their vanity projects without ever realising they are not theirs to sell.

      Who needs politicians? Belgium had no government for one year without the country falling into anarchy or worse.

      1. Jerry
        July 10, 2014

        Vanessa: “Who needs politicians? Belgium had no government for one year without the country falling into anarchy or worse.”

        Of course they had a government, they just didn’t have an elected government!

        1. Bill
          July 10, 2014

          As I understand it, they were ruled for a time by inertia and civil servants. But I would not call that a ‘government’ – not really.

        2. APL
          July 11, 2014

          Bill: “they were ruled for a time by inertia and civil servants., ”

          Belgium, being in the European Union and despite their elected representatives being unable to reach a quorum for an extended period in their toy parliament. Were governed in the absence of their pretend government by their actual government in ………. Brussels.

          Their civil service carried on implementing the directives from the EU civil service. Plus ça change, plus c’est la mĂȘme chose.

  8. forthurst
    July 10, 2014

    “Today the threat to our liberties and right of self government comes not from the Crown but from the EU.”

    The threat to our liberties come not from the EU but from the Houses of Parliament which no longer defends liberties hard won, sometimes through bloodshed, over the centuries; the reason for that is that the majority of parliamentarians, particularly those that form the government and official opposition are unpatriotic and third rate.

    1. Denis Cooper
      July 10, 2014

      This is what some people apparently still find hard to understand – that it all comes down to the character of those men and women who we, the people, elect to the House of Commons. True, the unelected legislators-for-life in the House of Lords could and no doubt would try to impede the reassertion of our national sovereignty and the restoration of our national democracy, but if we elected the right members to the Commons they could use the Parliament Acts to sort out the EU pensioners, supporters and fellow travellers who infest that other place.

      I’ve just been watching my own MP speaking in the chamber. She has been Home Secretary for just over four years, during which time she has visibly aged by many more years than that; and that is not surprising when it is considered that she is constantly trying to find ways around the adverse judgements made by unelected eurofederalist lawyers on two pan-European courts that she herself supports as a matter of principle, despite the practical difficulties that they create for her and the damage they may do to those who elected her.

      In this case, it is a judgement of the EU’s Court of Justice, delivered in April, that has made it necessary for her to now introduce fast-track legislation to ensure that those charged with protecting us from terrorist plots can do their job; she could of course ask Parliament to expressly disapply that judgement within the UK; but even if she could get a majority in both Houses to do that it probably hasn’t occurred to her that this would be the best course of action, because she is committed to our membership of the EU and therefore she will reflexively fall upon her knees before its supreme court in Luxembourg.

      In opposition back in 2006, when her party was pretending to be opposed to the EU, it was a somewhat different matter; you can see her name amongst the “ayes” in a division on an amendment for Parliament to authorise ministers to disapply EU laws by order, Division 239 on May 16th 2006 here:

      “New Clause 17


      ‘(1) An order made under Part 1 containing provision relating to Community treaties, Community instruments or Community obligations shall, notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972, be binding in any legal proceedings in the United Kingdom.

      (2) In section 1 and this section –

      “Community instruments” and “Community obligations” have the same meaning as in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the European Communities Act 1972 (c. 68);

      “Community treaties” has the same meaning as in section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.’. — [Mr. Cash.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.

      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

      The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 318.”

      We have three old eurofederalist parties whose leaders are eurofederalists and have given their primary allegiance to the proto-federal EU and willingly submit to the eurofederalist lawyers on its supreme court, despite their protestations to the contrary, despite the Oath of Allegiance that they swear; and they are utterly determined to nip in the bud and suppress any new party which gives its primary loyalty to this country and its people; unfortunately, far too many voters who are themselves loyal to this country and its people allow themselves to be misled into supporting those parties and electing their parliamentary candidates.

  9. Roger Farmer
    July 10, 2014

    A perfect example of leadership duplicity and the reason that few people trust anything the man has to say.

    The man has lost the plot when denying people the right to follow their religious beliefs, even when it comes to cake decoration. All this while the very real security of the nation is ignored.

    Tell us why, with your leader in control we should even consider his return to power in 2015.

    1. Jerry
      July 10, 2014

      @Roger Farmer: “Tell us why, with your leader in control we should even consider his return to power in 2015.”

      Perhaps because all the other leaders, with a realistic possibility of becoming the next PM’s, are europhile? Both apparently ruling out even the possibility of a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU.

      1. Roger Farmer
        July 10, 2014

        If and when this referendum arrives, the leader of the Conservative Party has repeatedly said that he will campaign to stay in. By any sane assessment that suggests he is Europhile. Come the day just watch him duck and dive.

        1. Jerry
          July 10, 2014

          Roger Farmer: “If and when this referendum arrives, the leader of the Conservative Party has repeatedly said that he will campaign to stay in.”


          The last time I check we were all free to vote which ever way we like.

      2. Hope
        July 10, 2014

        No Jerry. I do not share your pessimism. People are waking up very quickly. UKIP will rise further in popularity very quickly. The slide in Tory membership is startling.

        1. acorn
          July 10, 2014

          We can have our own referendum next May; simples. Vote UKIP if you want out of the EU.

          Vote for any candidate who is not an incumbent, if you want to stay in the EU under existing or renegotiated terms; it doesn’t matter which at this stage.

          The average age of an MP at the moment is about 54. If you think it sensible, vote for the youngest candidate that appears to have a brain and, is not a member of one of the old-fashioned legacy political parties.

          Now, this is the big one. The non-incumbent candidate you vote for has to pledge that if elected, they will introduce and vote for a Bill, similar to the following. .

          Think about it; what have we got to lose. Anything will be better than what we have now.

        2. Jerry
          July 10, 2014

          @Hope: UKIP are on something like 15% of the vote in the latest opinion polls, your user-name is very apt, I think you need a lot of it in my opinion!

          Even if the tided has turned UKIP might not be the only anti EU party on the ballot in May 2015, it is quite possible that UKIP’s own vote might get split -there has been enough people being kicked or walking out of UKIP for a break-away party and we did see that in the May MEP elections. Then there are the anti EU left wing parties that might also take votes from an otherwise UKIP vote.

          As for party membership, that is totally irrelevant to how the general public vote, most people are not and never have been party members.

          Dream on…

  10. oldtimer
    July 10, 2014

    I await with interest which weasel words will be used this time as cover for the next surrender.

  11. Tim R
    July 10, 2014

    Good luck today John. Heard you on Today earlier – very articulate.

    However, the fact needs to be faced that it is your leader who is pushing to get rid of our sovereignty when he needn’t. This needs to be remembered when he talks about renegotiation. My fear is that he will win some useless compromise on some arcane rule and present it as a triumph. Face it John, the PM’s heart is not in it and actions speak louder than words. Today, he is showing where his loyalties lie.

  12. matthu
    July 10, 2014

    If the PM had leadership he would make an issue out of this. Let’s all see whether his inclinations lie with reclaiming powers – or giving powers up to the EU.

    By the way, I see that apart from the 114 missing files relating to alleged paedophilia, many other files relating to alleged government involvement in rendition from UK may have been irretrievably water-damaged.

    I do hope that the files relating to Dr Kelly are in a stout plastic bag.

  13. Brian Tomkinson
    July 10, 2014

    JR: ” Some of us this day will argue against surrendering any criminal justice powers to the EU.”
    Sadly, it will be but a minority in the Commons and even in your party which you keep telling us is “Eurosceptic” and has a “Eurosceptic” leader. Your party is failing the first test of its determination to renegotiate the return of powers from the EU. Why is your party’s leadership so determined to allow the EU to have supremacy over our Parliament whilst at the same time pretending to seriously want to repatriate powers? What you are offering is no more than a sham, a despicable re-run of Wilson’s trick in 1975. Yet you still expect us to vote for your party. Some of us old enough to remember that referendum will never cease in our determination to highlight your party’s duplicity on this issue.

  14. Aunty Estab
    July 10, 2014

    What a despicable person David Cameron is, he is prepared to give away the freedoms won by Hampden, Pym etc. at the risk of their lives, just so he can pose at EU junkets with the likes of Angela Merkel!

  15. Iain Moore
    July 10, 2014

    I wish you luck, but I fear that there are too few MPs in the Commons who are prepared to uphold our rights and freedoms.

    It would be interesting to have a list of the 35 areas of Law of Home Affairs that Cameron wants to opt into, for strangely the Government is loathed to publish, inform and boast about this policy area.

    1. Denis Cooper
      July 10, 2014

      There is a Command Paper here from last July:

      “Decision pursuant to Article 10 of Protocol 36 to The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”

      Negotiations are ongoing, as reported here this June:

      “Non paper – State of play of the discussions between the Commission and the United Kingdom on the application of Article 10 of Protocol 36 to the Treaties”

    2. APL
      July 11, 2014

      Ian Moore: “are too few MPs in the Commons”

      During the debate I saw on the BBC Parliament channel, the chamber couldn’t exactly be described as packed.

  16. Bert Young
    July 10, 2014

    It is a cause worth dying for – and I hope MPs will act accordingly . Restoring independence and giving credibility to our principle of ” majority rule ” , has -and ought to be , paramount in the minds and action of MPs today .” Gird up your loins and into the fray ” .

  17. Martin Ryder
    July 10, 2014

    Mr Redwood.

    Even if you are alone, you must, yet again, stand up for your compatriots’ rights.

    Though our system of justice may be flawed, as probably any human endeavour must be, it is far better than anything that the European Union provides. You might be alone in the Commons, though I hope other MPs will join you, but you are not alone in the country or in England’s history.

  18. David Hope
    July 10, 2014

    I thought the government was meant to protect the interests of its citizens, not hand them over to foreign powers. It’s pretty much treachery. I can vote in the UK elections which gives me a tiny say in our legal system and justice. I have no say in the legal system in Greece or Romania yet I am supposed to be subject to it!

    On the subject of rights, this new internet legislation is utterly wrong to be rushed through – these are rules that should never have been granted so lightly in the past. It basically means that tens of thousands of people at GCHQ and ISPs (and their friends, anyone who bribes them etc) can go and see who you have emailed, called, which political sites you have visited or even what porn you looked at! As ever, any legislation which is supported by all parties is disastrous. And as Snowden and others have shown, we can’t trust the oversight of all this.

    On both these issues there isn’t a change I am voting Tory with May and Cameron and their kind in power – and the same goes for Labour and Lib Dem. If only Davis had got Home Secretary.

  19. ian
    July 10, 2014

    It all ways helps when you can point the finger at sum i else for your own failings and carry on as if nothing has happen. Politician love it so so much, it made for them, The eu is ideal vehicle for all governments in euroland they love it so so much.

  20. David Hope
    July 10, 2014

    I should add to my other comment mention of the abomination that is the new money seizing powers for HMRC.

    Why is it that the leaders in your party and the other main parties can’t into their heads that their job is to represent Us. Not HMRC, Not GCHQ, not the police. I am sick to death of hearing that “X is essential because the police say they need it”. So what- the job of the government is not to give the police everything they want, of course they’ll say that anything that makes their job easier is essential – it doesn’t mean it is!

    They also quote the terrorism bogeyman continually, including on the EAW. Yes terrorism is a problem, but maybe it’d be less so if we let so many terrorists into the UK, and further I am far more at threat of being mugged or burgled day to day, but that doesn’t allow loads of new powers for government. The government of the 80s including the PM survived assassination attempts, very close ones, yet they did they trample over our right in the way this and Blair’s government has done.

    Finally, I am sick of them saying something is for terrorism yet it getting used for something else – and all the sheep in the commons going along with it. If it is for terrorism, why is that never written into the law! It never ever is, agency after agency says, well that could be useful for this and that, so lets just keep it open – it is so dishonest. IF the EAW is so essential for terrorism then write into law that it can only be applied to terrorism!

  21. Elliot Kane
    July 10, 2014

    Good luck, John. You stand for Britain this day. I hope you are victorious.

  22. Anne Palmer
    July 10, 2014

    Once more the people have been betrayed although not by all in that once highly thought of House of Commons where once, a truly GREAT Conservative Leader took us through that last war. I thank you very much John Redwood for your words written above. I mentioned that war for people my age do indeed remember it-and can never forget it either for all the brave people that fought in it for OUR FREEDOM TO GOVERN OURSELVES! WE WERE INDEED bombed out, living as we did, not far from the heavily bombed Manchester.

    However, I ask you John, is this what ‘they’ were talking about today?

    Although I got the impression that it was said, that none of this came from the EU! I will check with Hansard tomorrow.

    US NSA surveillance programme, surveillance bodies in various Member States and impact on EU citizens’ fundamental rights

  23. libertarian
    July 10, 2014

    Oh Dear

    And how many of our illustrious parliamentarians turned up to debate this?

    SIXTEEN thats right just 16 MP’s attended the debate

    So much for parliament. No wonder the general public are sick and tired of the politicians, the tired old parties and their even tireder tribal party supporters who glibly trot out support of whatever the party leader says

  24. Bryan
    July 10, 2014

    I see there was a huge turn out to discuss EU affairs and opt out in the Commons this afternoon.

    Democracy in action.

  25. John E
    July 10, 2014

    You say the threat to our liberty does not come from the Crown but from the EU.
    Meanwhile the BBC reports as below. Funny how the Government always finds an emergency need to take away our liberties and privacy. I wonder what Hampden, Pym, and Eliot would say today.

    “Emergency powers to ensure police and security services can continue to access phone and internet records are being rushed through Parliament.

    Prime Minister David Cameron has secured the backing of all three main parties for the highly unusual move.

    He said urgent action was needed to protect the public from “criminals and terrorists” after the European Court of Justice struck down existing powers.”

    1. Denis Cooper
      July 10, 2014

      I expect Hampden, Pym, and Eliot would say that intercepting enemy messages was a vital element in gathering intelligence to win the civil war.

      1. John E
        July 10, 2014

        They attracted their share of attention from the spies of the day. From Hampden’s Wikipedia article:
        “In the Short Parliament that started on 13 April 1640, Hampden stood forth amongst the leaders. He guided the House in the debate on 4 May in its opposition to the grant of twelve subsidies in return for the surrender of ship money. Parliament was dissolved the next day, and on 6 May an unsuccessful search was made among the papers of Hampden and of other chiefs of the party to discover incriminating correspondence with the Scots.”

  26. A Lowe
    July 10, 2014

    I do take issue with your point that today the threat to our liberties does not come from the Crown, the Executive. In the area of tax law HMRC are being given by this Govt, apparently without argument, whole swathes of powers to act effectively as both judge and jury with little recourse for the taxpayer. To my mind this is a real abuse of Govt power and exactly the sort of issue against which Pym, Hampden and Elliott fought. We do now have an Executive which wants to presume to itself the power to tax without reference to the grievances and rights of those paying the bills. Effectively it is seeking to circumvent the court system. Will you be challenging those powers?

    Reply BY the Crown on this occasion I meant in its narrowest sense – the Queen. Yes, some fo the powers this government has are excessive.

  27. Martin
    July 10, 2014

    Why should other countries be interested in “bilateral agreements” if they are happy with the EU arrangements?

    Perhaps you could set an example and dump lots of the draconian stuff the UK has dreamed up itself?

    Refuse to handover a password to the police and its six months jail. Refuse to tell the police who was driving your car and its off to jail. (Huhne etc)

    Then there is the TV licence tax enforcement agency – amazing stuff for a ÂŁ140 a year tax – did even Stalin do that?

    Don’t moan about the EU if parliament can’t set an example at home.

  28. Jerry
    July 10, 2014

    Not even pressed to a division, what happened, did you all loose your voices after the speeches?!

    Reply. No we had secured confirmation there will be a vote on the proposals at a later date. Today was just a “Take note” motion of the government’s current position,. which is subject to the negotiation with the rest of the EU.

    1. Denis Cooper
      July 10, 2014

      Just one vote on the whole package including the EU Arrest Warrant, with no separate vote on the EU Arrest Warrant, even though that way of proceeding by separate votes had cross-party backbench support.

  29. Hefner
    July 10, 2014

    I am looking forward to JR explaining how and why he is voting so w.r.t. the special powers required by the Government.
    I would never have thought that George Orwell’s country would fall so low. Welcome to “1984”.

    1. Jerry
      July 10, 2014

      @Hefner: Are you attempting to imply that this is the first DRIP in a tide of Big Brother surveillance?…

      What ever the rights or wrongs of this emergency Data Retention and Investigation Powers Bill, who ever thought up the name need promotion – not, duh!

      To late for a name change?…

    2. APL
      July 11, 2014

      Hefner: “I am looking forward to JR explaining how and why he is voting so w.r.t. the special powers required by the Government.”

      I would be interested to know how many prosecutions have been brought under the Regulation of Investigatory powers act 2000 ( as amended from time to time )?

      Surely, to know if a piece of legislation is being used correctly, or is even actually necessary, we should get an idea of how frequently something similar is being used?

      By contrast, in the US, Congress has established that one domestic surveillance measure has resulted in no successful prosecutions, but has been abused by members of the ‘security apparatus’ to spy on their friends, families and romantic interests.

  30. Denis Cooper
    July 10, 2014

    I saw you being told off by a eurofanatic Labour MP, JR:

    “Michael Connarty: My right hon. Friend has not dealt with the terrible accusation, which the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) has just made, that the EU is a foreign power. We are one of the 30 countries that control the EU. It is part of what we are. Idle talk of it as a “foreign power” shows where the right hon. Gentleman is. He should be in the United Kingdom Independence party, not the Tory party.

    Mr Hanson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that nuance in the intervention by the right hon. Member for Wokingham. I regard myself as a European and British citizen and part of –

    Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): I don’t.

    Mr Hanson: I appreciate that others take a different view, but that is my view.”

    And that will be a view that Mr Connarty and Mr Hanson share with a small minority of the population, including a small minority of those who voted for them.

  31. Gary
    July 10, 2014

    and while the sorcerer told us to look over there, to the EU, our own govt is feverishly passing laws to keep the jackboot on our windpipe.

    I cannot think of one EU vexation that is not also found here under our own govt.

    But never mind, keep looking east.

  32. Bill
    July 10, 2014

    If we act on principle, we can act to leave the EU whatever the consequences.

    If we act pragmatically, we will shop around to see what the best options are.

    There is a sense in which it is the duty of the government to safeguard the interests of its citizens and to ensure they enjoy material prosperity. Thus there is some weight on the side of pragmatism. The trouble is that pragmatism on its own eventually fudges and fiddles and ends without reputation, without respect and by selling freedom for the sake of financial advantage.

    In the end, then, we should act on principle.

  33. Mark W
    July 11, 2014

    You’ve kind of answered the question with a parallel to the civil war. From the battle of edgehill onwards there’s was no other way. I fail to see any political solution to the EU problem as it’s a stitch up of the bulk of the main three parties that hold most safe seats at selection of candidates not at the election. I think most of us could provide a list of the winning candidate in 400 odd seats before the election. To quit the EU we will need our Edgehill.

Comments are closed.