The 2010 Conservative Manifesto on the EU and criminal justice

 

pp.113-14

 

“We will work to bring back key powers over legal rights, criminal justice and social and employment legislation in the UK”

“We will never allow Britain to slide into a federal Europe. Labour’s ratification of the Lisbon Treaty without the consent of the British people has been a betrayal of this country’s democratic traditions.”

“We will introduce a UK Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate sovereignty stays in this country, in our Parliament.”

“a Conservative government will not agree to the UK’s participation in the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office or permit its jurisdiction over the UK”

We will work to “return powers that we believe should reside in the UK” in criminal justice

 

I will vote and speak today in support of the manifesto I supported  for the 2010 election.

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

103 Comments

  1. DaveM
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 7:50 am | Permalink

    Am I being really naive and stupid here or something?

    If a violent or dangerous foreign criminal is wanted in another country (ie a friendly country) and he is in the UK, why can he not just be arrested and deported? If necessary we can invite foreign police to come and do the arresting.

    And if someone commits a crime in the UK and flees abroad to a foreign country, can he not just be sent back here for trial? Likewise we can send British police to do the arresting if necessary.

    Why do we have to have bits of paper and treaties and things to apply common sense?

    • lojolondon
      Posted November 10, 2014 at 11:29 am | Permalink

      Well, you need an extradition treaty with that country to enforce people being returned. The UK has had extradition treaties with every country they ever dealt with – except some iron curtain countries during that time. The EUrophiles are lying to you when they say that we need this treaty for safety. What they are doing is handing over power to the EU, which is part of their masterplan, in the same way they want to agree that Britain will share a French Nuclear powered aircraft carrier that doesn’t work.
      Good luck, John, we need people like you who keep their promises and have the interests of the British people at heart.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted November 10, 2014 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

        Alas so few of them though. Most are just career politician and lobby fodder.

    • Hope
      Posted November 10, 2014 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

      Jacob Rees-Mogg claims on lunchtime TV that no vote will take place contrary to what Cameron said in parliament. What is the actual position? Is this another U turn or PR spin like the £1.7 billion extra in tax the UK will pay the EU?

      • Hope
        Posted November 10, 2014 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

        Therefore JR I do not think you will get to vote. Where do you stand if this is correct?

        Reply There should be a vote on the whole package of measures including the EAW

        • Hope
          Posted November 10, 2014 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

          Yes a vote on a whole package of measures but not a separate vote for the EAW as Cameron claimed. Is this correct?

        • JoeSoap
          Posted November 10, 2014 at 10:11 pm | Permalink

          Cuckolded yet again by your leadership!
          Their friend is the EU!
          Believe your readership!

        • Hope
          Posted November 11, 2014 at 8:07 am | Permalink

          Tories are now toxic. Carswell and Reckless proved right about Cameron. Within a week we have seen that you cannot believe a word Cameron says. The speaker was correct, the public will think a commitment is a commitment. Our freedoms and liberties given away without the public having a say in the matter.

          Underhand procedures and words to make sure the UK becomes a region of the EU.

      • Bob
        Posted November 11, 2014 at 8:43 am | Permalink

        Mr Redwood,
        Did your party leaders break their promise to allow Parliament a vote on the European Arrest Warrant?

  2. formula57
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 7:52 am | Permalink

    Thank you for speaking out on this matter. The European Arrest Warrant might have been acceptable if all of our EU partners had legal systems that afforded protections in a like manner to that in the UK but whilst not all do, it is hard to see how being subject to such a warrant is appropriate for UK citizens.

    (Do be ready for the argument that the manifesto commitments cannot apply because the government is a coalition.)

    • Cliff. Wokingham.
      Posted November 10, 2014 at 10:46 am | Permalink

      It is not just whether the legal systems are the same, which they’re not; it is also about what is and is not an offence because, what may be a crime in one country may not be a crime in another.

      The fundamental problem, in my opinion, with European Arrest Warrants is that just like so many “other good ideas and pieces of legislation,” all too often they are used and abused by the authorities, RIPA being a classic example, but there are many.

  3. Ian wragg
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 8:05 am | Permalink

    Not a chance with CMD in charge. It sounds more like a ukip policy statement
    Today the traitors will hand over vast powers to Brussels. Where’s the referendum.

  4. Narrow Shoulders
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 8:05 am | Permalink

    With the support of much of the electorate Mr Redwood.

    What happens to politicians once they get into power? Anti EU rhetoric becomes acquiesce once in government.

    • Tad Davison
      Posted November 10, 2014 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

      NS,

      There’s too much of that for it to be down to sheer chance. Something makes these people turn their coats and go against everything they appear to stand for prior to getting into office. All credit to the ones who resist these underhanded forces and don’t take their thirty pieces of silver. How long can Mrs. May stay in her post now the knives are out?

      Tad

  5. Margaret Brandreth-J
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 8:08 am | Permalink

    Of course you will get the support of all the leading lawyers and others involved in the legal field , whilst they are still British.There are also big legal firms who are anti British and will rubbish and pull as many strings as possible.Why do we ‘small people’ understand this? Simply because we know that many of us over the last few decades have experienced being set up to put us down, to ensure others get in power . They often do this by licking the boots of others who are credited with being knowledgeable and powerful but in reality just operate by name and do not display good judgement. Good Luck.

  6. mick
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    Morning Mr Redwood, am i right in thinking that if parliament votes to give the EU 35 powers this is a transfer of power, which should trigger a Referendum

    Reply According to the government it is a transfer of power which does not trigger a referendum, because it was a power which Labour had already given away.

    • Bryan
      Posted November 10, 2014 at 10:38 am | Permalink

      Reply to Reply – Catch 22!

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted November 10, 2014 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

        Best I understand, the Swiss would have had a referendum (may already have had one for all I know) on this wretched warrant issue alone. I cannot imagine why MPs’ opinions on such a question would be better than the whole country’s. Who knows what legal systems are or are not in place in countries that a lot of us could not find on a map?

    • Cliff. Wokingham.
      Posted November 10, 2014 at 10:52 am | Permalink

      And because there’s a vowel in the month of the month the propsal was brought in……There will NEVER be enough transfer of powers to trigger the referendum lock; they will ALWAYS find a reason to justify denying us one.

      • Chris
        Posted November 10, 2014 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

        Reply to Cliff: it is the step by step process so favoured by the EU – nothing quite big enough on its own to require treaty change (altho’ I personally think EAW represents a very significant and worrying transfer of power to the EU) so that another step towards the main goal is achieved “without the citizens realising the significance”. They then wake up when the final goal is obtained or a point of no return and think “How did we get here? We didn’t vote for this”. Too late.

    • Ken Adams
      Posted November 10, 2014 at 11:19 am | Permalink

      The government could decide that such a move did require a referendum, it speaks volumes that they did not. How are we supposed to believe anything from this government when they act like this.

    • lojolondon
      Posted November 10, 2014 at 11:32 am | Permalink

      Another example of weasel words – like the ‘cast-iron’ promise, like the ‘we refuse to pay 1.8 Billion on the 1st of December, there is always a get-out clause when bold promises are made of Cameron supporting the UK against the might of the EUSSR.
      It looks like a lie, it sounds like a lie, it walks like a lie, but it is not (quite).

      • Lifelogic
        Posted November 10, 2014 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

        Well Cast Iron, balancing the budget, reducing the debt, I am “a low tax conservative” and the inheritance tax £1M threshold promise were clearly very direct lies indeed. Not even a promise for May 8th 2015 on IHT in the unlikely even they do get an overall majority.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted November 10, 2014 at 11:39 am | Permalink

      But according to Cameron a fortnight ago, see the Hansard link given below, his government has recovered that power by opting out:

      “As for the opt-out or opt-in on justice and human rights, it is very important to recognise that we have already achieved the biggest transfer of power from Brussels back to Britain by opting out of 100 different pieces of legislation.”

      So as the block opt out included opting out of the EU Arrest Warrant, opting back into it must be a transfer of power from the UK to the EU.

      • Tad Davison
        Posted November 10, 2014 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

        Denis,

        In the Commons, it was alluded to that some of the things the UK had opted out of were pretty minor and meaningless anyway, which does look a lot like a con upon the hapless public to me. It can hardly auger well for a successful renegotiation of our membership of the EU. I can imagine Cameron getting all-manner of paltry concessions and him then spinning it like some massive victory for the UK.

        We just can’t go on like this.

        Tad

    • Lifelogic
      Posted November 10, 2014 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

      Well if Labour have “already” given the power away there is no need to pass the bill tonight is there, so they should not do so.

  7. Lifelogic
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 8:35 am | Permalink

    So Cameron’s “no if no butts promise” to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands was now just a “comment” according to Teresa May on radio 4 just now. Perhaps IHT thresholds, reducing the debt, reducing the EU powers, the 2017 referendum and the grand “cast iron” promise were just “comments” too. How are we to know?

    She spoke for some considerable time, but said nothing remotely meaningful. Rather typical of the current LibLabCon leadership alas.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted November 10, 2014 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

      And I gather Mrs May was one of the main driving forces behind homosexual marriage so her judgement is up the pole (and on the EAW) before we start.

    • Tad Davison
      Posted November 10, 2014 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

      LL,

      And not content to con the public, these pro-EU Cameron types have even tried it on with their own back-benchers. We really have got to single these people out and show them up for what they are so they don’t get re-elected.

      Tad

  8. Bob
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    Thank you Mr Redwood.
    I hope that you will hold to account any of your colleagues who do not vote in accordance with the manifesto pledges.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted November 10, 2014 at 11:04 am | Permalink

      Nearly all of his colleagues one assumes.

  9. Lifelogic
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 8:43 am | Permalink

    To Cameron PR types a manifesto is just a dishonest, advertisement designed to deceive and trick voters into buying his fraudulent product at elections. As there are only elections once every 5 years he assumed he could forget it the day after the election. Doubtless another totally dishonest manifesto is being prepared by him and his team at this very moment for 2015.

    Any fewer than 200 voting against will be a total disgrace. But it seems we might only get a few tens.

  10. Chris
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    I see that Jacob Rees-Mogg has apparently teamed up with Stuart Wheeler of UKIP to mount a legal challenge if we opt back in to the EAW as a result of this vote today. The challenge is apparently on the basis that it should have triggered the referendum lock. Article posted on Breitbart London yesterday. Interesting times.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted November 10, 2014 at 11:06 am | Permalink

      Well we know have the courts are likely to treat that one, but worth a try. Thanks are due to the excellent Stuart Wheeler.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted November 10, 2014 at 11:27 am | Permalink

      It’s not my money, and if Stuart Wheeler chooses to spend some of his money on a legal challenge then I wish him the best of luck with that.

      As for the substantive point, I doubt his case will succeed because when Hague drafted his much-vaunted “referendum lock” law he took care not to mention the EU Arrest Warrant, or anything else to do with the UK’s treaty right to opt out of certain measures and then apply to opt back into some of them.

      Given that Cameron claimed in the Commons, October 27th Column 28 here:

      http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm141027/debtext/141027-0001.htm

      that exercising the opt out represented a transfer of power from Brussels back to Britain it must follow logically that opting back in represents a transfer of power from Britain to Brussels, but the judges will look at what the law says rather than at what Cameron said in the Commons or what the Tory manifesto said or what any other Tory politician has said in the past.

      Having said that, even when such a court case does not succeed in its central purpose it can throw up unexpected, interesting and useful side results.

  11. Denis Cooper
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    JR, in recent comments I’ve questioned whether Theresa May’s domestic “reforms” to way UK courts deal with EU Arrest Warrants mean that the system would now pass what I called the “Symeou Test”.

    According to your colleague Nick de Bois, writing here:

    http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2014/11/nick-de-bois-mp-why-the-governments-changes-to-the-european-arrest-warrant-wouldnt-have-helped-my-innocent-constituent.html

    the answer is “no”, it would still not pass that test:

    “Nick de Bois MP: Why the Government’s changes to the European Arrest Warrant wouldn’t have helped my innocent constituent”

    And that is assuming that Theresa May’s “reforms”, which as I understand only involve unilateral changes to UK law and not agreed changes to EU law, will survive challenges that may well arise in the EU’s Court of Justice in the future. As that court will be the ultimate arbiter on the operation of the system by EU member states the additional protections that she claims to have introduced through domestic law could be declared contrary to the EU treaties and laws, and what would she or her successor as Home Secretary do then?

    All the precedents say that the answer would be:

    “Cave in and get UK law changed to fall into line with the ECJ judgements, because it would be illegal for a minister to fail to do that unless he or she took the opposite course of asking Parliament to expressly approve a breach of the EU treaties”.

    • Hope
      Posted November 10, 2014 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

      You would know better than me, but I just heard Rees- Mogg and Lucas say the alleged safeguards/amendments are not as they seem and that the EU/ECHR could ignore the amendments. The list of alleged changes appear to be a sham from what I understand from what both of them are saying.

  12. Ken Adams
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 9:01 am | Permalink

    I will vote and speak today in support of the manifesto I supported for the 2010 election.

    Good for you sir, such a shame you leadership wont.

  13. Richard1
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 9:02 am | Permalink

    The manifesto doesn’t mention the EAW? Mrs May was on the radio this am saying: 1) there are controls in place so UK judges can stop extraditions unless there are good grounds 2) the EAW will help the police catch criminals and bring foreign criminals to justice and 3) European criminals will be attracted to the uk ‘if we don’t have an extradition’ arrangement. 3) is a nonsense as we do have extradition arrangements but what do you say to 1) and 2)?

    Reply There are better ways of securing the UK’s interests without having to submit to EU jurisdiction. The problem with Mrs Mays well intentioned improvements/guarantees on the EAW are they can be overturned by the ECJ. The EAW was not mentioned expressly in the Manifesto.

    • Chris S
      Posted November 11, 2014 at 9:39 am | Permalink

      ” The problem with Mrs Mays well intentioned improvements/guarantees on the EAW are they can be overturned by the ECJ”.

      This is the issue that is at the very heart of the problem. The ECJ is continually extending its remit into areas that were never intended, acting in exactly the same way as the Commission and the European Parliament does in their push towards a European Superstate.

      We must get back to a position where our own courts have the final say on every aspect of legislation.

      At present our “Supreme Court” is nothing of the sort.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted November 13, 2014 at 6:59 am | Permalink

        Exactly.

  14. oldtimer
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 9:32 am | Permalink

    Sounds the right approach to me.

  15. Atlas
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 9:44 am | Permalink

    100 % support for your actions.

  16. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 9:44 am | Permalink

    Good for you if this means that you are prepared to ignore the advice of the Telegraph: ” European Arrest Warrant: Tory MPs should put unity before emotion
    The diminution of British sovereignty is the core principle that threatens to provoke around 100 Tory Eurosceptics to rebel”. Shamefully, you will be one of a small minority in your parliamentary party to so do. The number is now said to be nearer 50 than 100 thanks to the work of your party whips.
    Is it any wonder that we don’t believe a word your leader and his cabinet colleagues say, when, unlike you, they blithely ignore the commitments they make at an election? I bet at some time Cameron used his favourite expression “no ifs, no buts” when conning people into believing him on this pledge which he never intended keeping, as he has done so many times on so many issues. The man is beneath contempt.

    • lojolondon
      Posted November 10, 2014 at 11:36 am | Permalink

      The reason that the Telegraph has appeared so disloyal to Britain and so strangely left-wing of late, is that they are demonstrating support for the Conservative front-bench, who’s policies differ from Labour and the LibDems in only the smallest details.

      • Mondeo Man
        Posted November 11, 2014 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

        One would have thought that Telegraph readers would be aware of such a radical political swing.

  17. Bert Young
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 9:49 am | Permalink

    Our independence from the EU is paramount in my eyes . There is merit in the EAW but our right to decide our laws rides above this value . We were able in the past to co-exist in all matters of relationships including the arrest and indictment of criminals so I don’t see why we cannot do this again with other countries . Our society has features that requires our laws to be honed according to its make up and uniqueness ; these matters can only be decided by our decisions not by those who are remote from it and , rightfully , have no part in it . Theresa May has stuck her chin out before in defence of our rights and I cannot understand why she is not taking this line now .

    • Alan Wheatley
      Posted November 10, 2014 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

      Re: “Theresa May has stuck her chin out before in defence of our rights and I cannot understand why she is not taking this line now”.

      I guess the answer is that while she is confident on not having to face (or being able to deflect) a UK right-hook, she knows she has no defence against an EU left-hook.

  18. Man of Kent
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    End of ‘habeus corpus ‘ – in time for 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta next May at election time .

    We are supposed to be ringing bells that day – for what ?

    • formula57
      Posted November 10, 2014 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

      The ringing bells will be to say “goodbye”.

  19. Roy Grainger
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 10:17 am | Permalink

    The government stated a week or so ago they were not going to pay the extra bill demanded by the EU. Now they have paid it. Given that I don’t think it is relevant what was said in a manifesto 4 years ago, the chances of them adhering to it are zero.

  20. Denis Cooper
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    There’s a recent report from the European Scrutiny Committee here:

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmeuleg/762/762.pdf

    It says, inter alia, about the Impact Assessment for the EU Arrest Warrant:

    “The Government does not, however, include in its assessment of non-monetised costs the detriment caused to British citizens who have been surrendered to another Member State under the EAW and, in some cases, detained for lengthy periods of time in poor prison conditions, without being tried or convicted.”

  21. Tom William
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    Totally agree with above comments.

    As a relative newcomer WMD I know, but why CMD for Cameron?

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted November 10, 2014 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

      Tom–Call Me Dave

    • matthu
      Posted November 10, 2014 at 8:07 pm | Permalink

      “Call me Dave”

    • BobE
      Posted November 10, 2014 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

      CMD “Call Me Dave” From pre leadership debates

    • Mondeo Man
      Posted November 11, 2014 at 7:20 am | Permalink

      Call Me Dave

      (You can call me Alice if you like)

    • Tad Davison
      Posted November 11, 2014 at 9:42 am | Permalink

      I thought it meant con-man David

      Tad

  22. Javelin
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    There was some interesting polling on Political Betting – by Lord Ashcroft. It shows that Consevative voters were mot likely to have felt the benefit of the economy whilst the UKIP voters were the least likely.

    What I am seeing in these figures is the break down of the old left-right divisions, which were primarily union-private sector and now there seems to be a new trend away from the old left-right divisions towards a four way split.

    A trend of globalisation (and immigration) leading to lower wages for the majority of UK residents, but higher wages off the back of cheaper labour for a few others. A trend of a smaller core state sector providing a decent and reliable income for others. I can also see a remaining few moral activists on issues like the environment.

    This means that political voters will now be splitting into four key groups …

    (1) Private sector done well (Conservatives)
    (2) Private sector NOT doing well (UKIP)
    (3) State sector (Labour)
    (4) Moralists (e.g. greens).

    I think this is substantive, real and trending. Given the current levels of immigration and lack of national protection I don’t see the Private Sector NOT doing well decreasing as the global economy picks up. In fact I see it increasing as PENSION, Job Automation, Global Internet provision, Global Human rights and peace develop.

    I think with the end of the cold war the left right ideology is being replaced with the global economy. I’m getting the feeling there is now a new consensus emerging in the economy. I think this is bad news for traditional old-school conservatives who believed in aspiration to the upper middle classes as a driver. I don’t see it happening.

    I think this is very important for the Conservatives and Labour to look closely at this trend because what is means is the votes they have relied on from the aspirational middle and lower classes in the private sector will be heading toward UKIP. The state sector will be shrinking as our economy competes in a global economy.

    I can see Europe going down the path of price deflation, and wage deflation driven by structural problems mirroring the global economy. Europe is inward looking and will drag the UK down.

    I can also see the Conservatives needing to get out of Europe to more carefully manage the economy in the face of the global threat of economic jobs and wealth being distributed faster than the free market synergies can provide benefits.

    • A different Simon
      Posted November 11, 2014 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

      “It shows that Consevative voters were mot likely to have felt the benefit of the economy whilst the UKIP voters were the least likely.”

      Those in group 3 always seem to think they are doing badly but in reality they have fared better than those in group 2 .

      The party which could rebrand itself most effectively is Labour .

      The equality and progressive consensus stuff is incomprehensible to their traditional core vote who were and I suspect still are conservative with a small ‘c’ ( in Gordon’s terminology bigots ) .

      If Labour ditched that and maybe returned to their Eurosceptic roots they could clean up .

  23. waramess
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    This is the party that had a three line whip against Lisbon. A three line sham more likely. Certainly they would not have taken this position if they had been able to veto the treaty because, the Conservatives are a Europhile party.

    This is not to say that all it’s MP’s are such but, those who call the agenda and elect the leader are careful to ensure the status quo.

    This equally applies to their socialist leanings and is apparent for all who wish to see, by their actions; not just now but over the past fifty years. Robust but empty promises to keep their backbenchers happy but never ever followed up with deeds

    Margaret Thatcher was the exception and was the first and last leader in the past half century to give the right wing of the party some elbow room.

    So now the great Eurosceptics have made an undertaking they had no intention to keep in the first place and want to avoid having to keep it. No surprise really and, of course entirely shameless about it.

    The British people seem to have seen through all this far more quickly than Westminster and are now voting for a party that most reflects their own views.

    Very strange that more Conservative MP’s have not followed Carswell and Reckless but, perhaps they are too busy following the money.

    UKIP is where the right wing of the party belong; it is the party where they will have a great influence on future policy and, the sooner they move the sooner their influence will be felt.

    Reply The Conservative party was united in opposition to Lisbon before its ratification. If you look on my photo site here you will see the card we sent to the Czech Republic asking them to hold out from ratifying Lisbon so we could get into office and hold a referendum here before it had become general EU law. We tried everything an opposition can try to stop Lisbon.

    • lojolondon
      Posted November 11, 2014 at 8:11 am | Permalink

      John, you may have tried, but I hope the last 18 hours have shown you that your leadership did not!

  24. Tad Davison
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    John,

    If you keep to the manifesto, the whips can’t touch you! But get a load of today’s Daily Politics Show on BBC 2! Jacob Rees-Mogg reliably informs us that today’s vote in Parliament won’t even be about the EAW at all! Such chicanery! Who would have thought it from that totally honest and trustworthy Mr Cameron. Is he fearful that a back-bench revolt could see even more of his MPs go to UKIP?

    He’s certainly losing whatever tenuous grip he had to begin with.

    Tad Davison

    Cambridge

    Reply There should be a vote on the whole package of opt ins which includes the EAW

    • Tad Davison
      Posted November 10, 2014 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

      Reply to reply:

      Well since I wrote that, we’ve witnessed one of the worst pieces of ‘chicanery’ and a ‘disgrace’ (Bill Cash’s words, not mine) that I think I have yet seen in the House of Commotions.

      No wonder people are so fed up with politics and I’ll bet my bottom dollar the press and the television news media are going to absolutely cane the government over this!

      The Tories have descended into turmoil. They are an absolute joke!

      Tad

      • Tad Davison
        Posted November 10, 2014 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

        ……………and that itself was written before Sir Richard Sheppard’s excellent intervention slamming the Tory leadership’s ‘executive arrogance’.

        Tad

    • Mike Wilson
      Posted November 10, 2014 at 11:25 pm | Permalink

      But there hasn’t been. What will you do?

  25. matthu
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    “We will never allow Britain to slide into a federal Europe. Labour’s ratification of the Lisbon Treaty without the consent of the British people has been a betrayal of this country’s democratic traditions.”

    Mr Cameron told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that too much power would pass from London to Brussels under the treaty, and promised he would “not let matters rest” if elected.

    “We will make sure that the British people remember who it was that broke their promise – Labour, and who it is that will stop this happening again – the Conservatives,” he said.

    “…Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: if I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations.”

    No “if”s, no “but”s.

    But Ministers will now pass all these promises off as comments.

    And now we also know that Cameron is quite prepared to use smoke and mirrors to falsely portray the success of the governments negotiations with Europe.

  26. ian wragg
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

    John, I see from todays Open Europe bulletin that the CBI has received £800,000 in funding from the EU.
    Why are these people allowed to lobby on behalf of Brussels without declaring their conflict of interest.
    After all they were for the ERM and the Euro and have been spectacularly wrong on about everything they have commented on.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted November 11, 2014 at 7:31 am | Permalink

      Just wait until there is a referendum to see all the propaganda flowing from the usual suspects.

  27. Kenneth R Moore
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    I’m as concerned by the 2015 manifesto as I am the broken promises in the last one.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29414574

    Have you a view on this Dr Redwood – how long before ‘Extremism disruption orders’ are used to silence government critics or those who hold views of the non politically correct approved type ?.

    How long before ‘Extremism disruption orders’ are extended to those who might say unhelpful things about senior politicians or those that hold non politically correct views?.

    In May’s words those that show a lack of “respect for the rule of law” and “respect for minorities”, could be served with an extremism disruption order.

    The new measures will be targeted at people and groups who “stay just within the law but spread poisonous hatred”,Mrs May said.
    Spreading ‘poisonous hatred’ is the sort of crime that could earn you a lifetime of hard Labour in Communist Russia. Instead of the secret police we are going to have Mrs May snooping on internet users rooting out anyone committing thought crimes.

    Once served with an EDO, you will be banned from publishing on the Internet, speaking in a public forum, or appearing on TV. To say something online, including just tweeting or posting on Facebook, you will need the permission of the police. There will be a “requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web, social media or print.”

    • Mondeo Man
      Posted November 11, 2014 at 10:49 pm | Permalink

      …in May’s words those that show a lack of “respect for the rule of law” and “respect for minorities”, could be served with an extremism disruption order…

      Was there any mention of enforcing respect for majorities as well ???

      Is this directed at the bogeyman that is pent up, right wing, white English extremism ?

      Fat chance of praise for the bottomlessly tolerant English people in the face of (word left out ed) provocation from government and minorities.

      How about from you, Dr Redwood ?

      Are you not proud of us?

      Reply I do praise all who are tolerant in our democracy and who use democratic means to advance their causes.

  28. ChrisS
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

    After the blatant lies told over about the EU budget surcharge, for the second time in a week we have an example of the Conservative side of the coalition being at best “tricky” and at worst breaking their word over a vote on the Arrest Warrant.

    I know the Speaker is no friend of David Cameron but he expressed a view today that was perfectly correct. He said :

    “There is not today to be a vote on the specific matter of membership of the European Arrest Warrant,” he told MPs.

    He said he himself had expected a vote on the warrant, saying it was a “sorry saga” and that “the House should not be put in that position”.

    “A commitment is a commitment to be honoured,” he said, “rather than trying to slip things through some sort of artifice”.

    He said the public expected “straightforward dealing and they are frankly contemptuous, and I use the word advisedly, of what is not straightforward dealing.”

    As I said in response to the statements over the surcharge, this kind of thing does immense damage to the reputation of politicians.

    Why can David Cameron and Co. not see this ?????

  29. Roy Grainger
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

    As you are not going to be allowed by Mrs May to vote on the European Arrest Warrant your declaration above is somewhat academic.

  30. Margaret Brandreth-J
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

    This debate’s derivation almost seems conspiratorial in order to whip up emotions and agreement of measures. John Bercow is handling it well.

  31. Mark B
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

    Good evening.

    Sorry, but it not worth the paper or pixels, it is printed on.

    Think referendum (Labour) promise on the Lisbon Treaty.

  32. Chris S
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

    So, the Government won the vote a hollow victory in the house this evening but as a result of their double dealing, broken promises and downright lies they will have lost thousands more in the country to UKIP.

    If they can stoop to such low and devious tactics over the European Budget Surcharge and the Arrest Warrant and, in the very same week, the Home Secretary can, at a stroke, in a radio interview, devalue to a mere comment, the cast iron commitment by the Prime Minister to reduce immigration to the “Tens of Thousands,” where does that leave their reputations for personal integrity ?

    In tatters, that’s where.

    And I’m a Conservative supporter !

    Its small wonder that UKIP supporters are convinced that a Cameron government will wriggle out of the referendum commitment.

    After the events of the past few days, I’m beginning to believe it myself……………..

    • Mondeo Man
      Posted November 11, 2014 at 10:52 pm | Permalink

      Chris – I doubt that many people understood what was going on or what was at stake.

      • Mondeo Man
        Posted November 11, 2014 at 10:53 pm | Permalink

        And yes. I’m utterly convinced that there will be no referendum. And if there is it won’t be fairly conducted.

  33. matthu
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 10:17 pm | Permalink

    “The government has behaved like a sack oif greased weasels …”

    David Cameron should resign forthwith: his word has now become so devalued it has ceased to be worth anything at all.

    Who now believes his promise to conduct a fair negotiation and put the result to the British people in the form of a referendum? Even the Speaker of the house has lost all respect for the dishonourable PM’s word.

    Quite simply, he should go.

  34. Mike Wilson
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 11:10 pm | Permalink

    Parliament treated with utter contempt again. How you can look yourself in the mirror whilst being a member of the Conservative party baffles me.

    • Chris
      Posted November 11, 2014 at 9:12 am | Permalink

      It was a disgrace yesterday, and yes, I do hold Cameron, May and those who supported that behaviour in utter contempt. That few Conservative MPs are willing to take effective steps to stand up for our sovereignty and democracy says it all. Interesting that the BBC did not apparently report the significant demonstration by Farage and UKIP members outside the H of C yesterday. UKIP took effective action whereas so far the discontented Conservative MPs have only uttered words in anger. The whole charade yesterday should have been condemned by all, not just a few, and significant action taken to show that there is no confidence in a government that apparently is contemptuous of the democratic process. Power does indeed breed arrogance, but it is the power of the masters in Brussels that is really at work here, I believe.

  35. Mike Wilson
    Posted November 10, 2014 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

    There are a few, very few, decent MPs in the Conservative party. Jacob Rees Mogg is one. I’ve always assumed Mr. Redwood was another. I do not expect honourable members to take this.

  36. Mike Stallard
    Posted November 11, 2014 at 7:31 am | Permalink

    What a shame you did not get a chance to discuss the surrender of habeas corpus in this democratic country of ours.
    What a pity you didn’t get to talk about your commitment to our noble history.
    But – hey – at least you know where the power lies now, do you not? And it is not in the Conservative Party Manifesto of either 2010 or 2014.

  37. lojolondon
    Posted November 11, 2014 at 8:05 am | Permalink

    Dear John,
    The last week was certainly one of the lowest points for British democracy in the last 1000 years.

    In the same week as the 100th year remembrance day, our government supinely and dishonestly agreed to borrow 1.8 Billion pounds to pay a “fine” to a foreign power (ignore the rebate, negotiated by Margaret Thatcher in 1984. In the same week, 1000 years of British justice was dishonestly ditched as our government meekly agreed to allow a foreign power access to arrest and detain our citizens entirely at THEIR pleasure, a measure that, as you said yesterday, was resisted while in opposition, and committed against in the Conservative manifesto.

    All this glossed over by our famous 6 Billion a year media service that we pay for, the Biased BBC, being key beneficiaries of and supporters of the EU.

    I wonder what would be the response if you could read the paragraphs above to one of the British boys who died in the trenches 100 years ago? Would they realise that they had wasted their lives, their sacrifices were all in vain, and Germany has won after all.

    This has been a terrible, terrible week for Britain. Under circumstances such as these, with the LibLabCon front benches united against the people of Britain, I hope you will understand why, love them or hate them, our only hope is to vote for UKIP.

  38. mick
    Posted November 11, 2014 at 8:22 am | Permalink

    There you have it people, after watching the pantomime in the commons yesterday do you honestly believe that you will get a straight forward referendum in 2017, i wouldn’t trust them to run my bath

    • Tad Davison
      Posted November 11, 2014 at 9:47 am | Permalink

      Absolutely Mick! I couldn’t agree more! But there are those both within the Tory party and without, that will go on trusting them and supporting them anyway. We must now seriously question them, the reasons for their misplaced loyalty, and their motives.

      Tad

      • Chris
        Posted November 11, 2014 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

        Precisely, Tad. The answer does not seem very encouraging.

  39. Dan
    Posted November 11, 2014 at 10:23 am | Permalink

    Duplicitous and treacherous.
    Put that on all Conservative election paperwork.

    I admired the performance of Mogg and Shepherd in the Commons yesterday.
    To retain that admiration, they should be leaving the untrustworthy party this morning.

    • Boudicca
      Posted November 11, 2014 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

      Agreed.

      If they can’t bring themselves to join UKIP they should just resign the Conservative Whip and sit as REAL Conservative Independents.

  40. DaveM
    Posted November 11, 2014 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    I don’t get it John. Labour is falling to bits, LibDems are a joke. Public support for the EU is at an all time low verging on rebellion. Ideal time for Con to sieze the initiative with the issues that matter, step forward, and look bombproof in time for next year’s election.

    Why are you and your colleagues allowing your party leadership to tear you to pieces at the minute over matters which are clearly at odds with public opinion?

  41. margaret brandreth-j
    Posted November 11, 2014 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    I agreed totally with Yvette Cooper yesterday . The EAW needs to be treated as a separate issue and not within a package . T May said that they all inter relate and that is why it is such an important stand alone issue.
    This is a draft motion and one hopes , although I havn’t seen the writing that it is refined to be specific.

    • lojolondon
      Posted November 11, 2014 at 10:36 pm | Permalink

      Easy on the “I agree with Cooper” – Liebour were completely prepared to sign the whole lot into law first time round, it was only the Conservatives that prevented that.

  42. matthu
    Posted November 11, 2014 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    John,

    Douglas carswell MP is quoted as saying: “Since the House of Commons no longer has the power to decide if we sign up to the European Arrest Warrant, whips decided to avoid having such a vote at all.”

    Could you please clarify what is meant here?

    Why is it that we have apparently managed to opt out of the EAW but at the same time the House of Commons no longer has the power to decide if we opt back in again or not?

    Thanks.

    Reply The Commons does have that power if it wishes. The problem is once again a large majority of the Commons led by Lib Dems and Labour wish to opt in.

  43. Atlas
    Posted November 11, 2014 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    I watched part of the debate on BBC Parliament TV.

    I think Mr Speaker’s remark ( ‘contemptible’ was it exactly?) was exactly on the mark.

  44. Mike Wilson
    Posted November 11, 2014 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

    Reply to Reply: “The Commons does have that power if it wishes. The problem is once again a large majority of the Commons led by Lib Dems and Labour wish to opt in.”

    Come, come, let us not hide our light under a bushel.

    The problem is once again a large majority of the Commons led by TORIES, Lib Dems and Labour wish to opt in,

    How did you vote?

    Reply Against

    • Chris
      Posted November 11, 2014 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

      Mike, there is a list of those voting against the government in two Conservative Home website articles today. A short list, and quite staggering in view of what is at stake. Mr Redwood has often mentioned on here on the large number of Cons MPs who are eurosceptic. Reality is somewhat different, and what better opportunity did these individuals have to prove this? The events of yesterday, I believe, laid bare the utter dishonesty of our government and revealed where allegiance lies i.e.Brussels. The power of Brussels and the extent of our loss of sovereignty couldn’t have been made clearer. To much of the electorate this is unacceptable, yet the majority of the MPs in the Conservative Party stand meekly by, at best most voting against the government. I believe, however, that the electorate will take action. UKIP has provided the opportunity.

    • Kenneth R Moore
      Posted November 11, 2014 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

      I am hoping Mr Redwood made a speech along the same line as those of Mr Reece Mogg and Mr Cash critical of the conduct of the government.

      I don’t see he has anything to lose – only gain popularity outside of Westminster.
      We look to statesman like him at times like these to put country before party and do the right thing. Mr Cameron’s and Mrs May’s discomfort should serve as a warning to them not to treat parliament with contempt.

      Too many less experienced colleagues are afraid and intimidated by the whips.
      Good to hear he voted against the government.

      Reply I have posted my speech yesterday in the procedural debate. Labour’s motion curtailed debate on the main issue so I did not get a chance to speak on that.

  45. Denis Cooper
    Posted November 11, 2014 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

    JR, if a Tory government held a referendum about EU membership would the question put to the electorate actually be about EU membership, or would the question be about something different with the Tory government then interpreting the result of the vote as being “indicative” of the electorate’s view about EU membership?

    Just asking.

    And is it a good or a bad thing that few voters will have had the time and inclination to watch yesterday’s utterly disgraceful proceedings in the House of Commons?

  46. ChrisS
    Posted November 11, 2014 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    Well done for voting against yesterday. We merry band of regular posters here would have expected nothing less. As others have said, the speeches in the House were very interesting.

    The Member for North East Somerset was particularly impressive, as usual.
    Unfortunately I haven’t seen your own.

    As for Mr Speaker, whatever one thinks of his general conduct, I thought he was exactly right yesterday in his open criticism of the Government’s action and he correctly judged the effect it will have in the Country.

    In a week where Miliband had his back firmly against the wall, it’s a travesty that these events were able to distract attention from his difficulties.

  47. Boudicca
    Posted November 11, 2014 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    Yesterday’s disgraceful spectacle in the Commons demonstrates that Mr Redwood is in the wrong party.

    Cameron’s actions in blocking a debate and vote on the European Arrest Warrant – having promised his own MPs that one one would be held – proves once again that his word is most certainly not his bond and he can’t be trusted an inch.

  48. mike fowle
    Posted November 11, 2014 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    Although I am an admirer of yours, the last couple of days have sickened me. Following the usual Cameron poltroonery over the EAW, we now have him urging people in Rochester not to vote for the party they believe in but conservative to stop UKIP. His behaviour is beneath contempt (and ironically on the day we remember those who died for freedom). And don’t forget his crawling to the Scots and bribing them with our money.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted November 12, 2014 at 12:57 am | Permalink

      Cameron rather desperate public appeal for the formation of an Unpatriotic Front to defeat UKIP could indeed rebound on him.

  49. ChrisS
    Posted November 11, 2014 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

    The following quote from another MP succinctly sums up the situation in a far better way than I ever could :

    “The Government is not in trouble because it nearly lost a vote. Nor because its ministers mouth insults across the chamber when they fear defeat. Nor even because David Cameron can no longer be taken at his word. Nor merely because of the whips office’s serial deception.

    They are in serious trouble because are unable to see that any of this is wrong”.

    Douglas Carswell

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • 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