Remember this?
Mats Persson 10:40am
“We will want to prevent EU judges gaining steadily greater control over our
criminal justice system by negotiating an arrangement which would protect it. That will mean limiting the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law…”
That was David Cameron a year ago when he presented the Tories’ EU policy ahead of the General Election. As we all know, much has changed since then. The pledge to ‘repatriate’ powers has been dropped, a victim of the Coalition deal.
But despite this, MPs now have a huge opportunity to make good on pledges to regain control over EU justice laws, and even to repatriate powers should they want to – without having to change a single comma in the EU Treaties.
How?
Well, like this: the ‘referendum lock’, contained in the Government’s EU Bill, will be debated next week in Parliament. The referendum lock has come under some criticism, but actually introduces a much-needed democratic check on the EU’s growing powers (including on the self-amending aspects of the Lisbon Treaty).
However, there are still some loopholes, most importantly on policing, crime, justice and immigration – where the EU has gained substantial new powers under Lisbon.
Two simple changes to the EU Bill would sort this out, radically bolstering Parliament’s powers over the EU’s growing justice portfolio in the process.
First, under the Lisbon Treaty, the Government has the right to opt in to EU police, crime and immigration laws on a case-by-case basis – but almost entirely at the discretion of Ministers. There is no shortage of proposals for the Coalition to consider under this arrangement, for example giving EU authorities the power to initiate criminal investigations in the UK.
Importantly, the UK’s ‘opt in’ for justice and home affairs means the UK still has a choice over EU integration in these areas. Requiring the Government to get the approval of Parliament, or the people in the most significant cases, before it can sign up to new EU crime, policing and immigration laws would at last introduce genuine democratic debate to this issue. There are good EU laws, and bad EU laws – the point is that we need to debate them properly in Parliament and in public, so that the bad ones can be weeded out. This just isn’t happening at the moment.
Secondly, under an obscure provision in the Lisbon Treaty, by 2014, the Government must decide whether or not existing EU crime and policing laws – such as the uber-controversial European Arrest Warrant – should continue to apply in the UK. If the answer is Yes, EU judges will be granted full jurisdiction over them for the first time. But if it’s a No, the laws would cease to have effect in the UK altogether (though the Government could opt back into them on a case-by-case basis).
At the moment, this decision isn’t covered by the EU Bill at all, but is one purely for ministers. And we’re talking about a huge choice - some 100 or more EU laws and measures are potentially up for grabs here. Such a decision simply must be a matter for people in a referendum – or at the very least Parliament, through binding votes in both houses.
A possible, but less ideal, solution would be to address these issues outside the Bill, which still would be an improvement. But the huge merit of attaching these provisions to the Bill is that in two simple brushstrokes, a large slug of EU laws would be brought back into the UK’s democratic orbit. It would effectively be the first time powers move from Brussels.
Then a robust and open debate, or politics as normal, can begin over the level of UK-EU cooperation on crime, justice and immigration – and let the strongest argument win. Tory, Lib Dem and Labour MP alike, who could object?
(Open Europe has highlighted the amendments that would achieve this and that we think MPs should support here. )
Mats Persson is Director of Open Europe
Previous
strapworld
January 20th, 2011 10:51am Report this commentLet us all face facts. Whilst we have this weak man in charge, there is no chance at all of ever having a referendum on any question relating to the EU.
IF the EU decide that the time has come for total political and monetry union, Cameron will say that it is only a minor tweek of the Lisbon Treaty and as he agrees with it there is no need for a referendum.
Cameron and Clegg are, as I have said before, EU sleepers put in place to do the bidding of the EU!
Whatever they amend -and ammendments which make anything tighter against the EU will be fought tooth and nail by Cameron. He will use the same bully boy tactics, obscene language we are told and threats to individuals progress in the conservative party. Cameron is a threat to our democracy.
Rhoda Klapp
January 20th, 2011 10:53am Report this commentJust two comments. First, who is going to protect us from our own judiciary bending the law?
Second, the day this shower bring back ANY POWER AT ALL from the EU or indeed that other european court, I will eat my hat. Just not gonna happen, is it?
John
January 20th, 2011 10:59am Report this commentIt's only an "obscure provision" of Lisbon if you can't be bothered to read the thing and rely on "Open" Europe for their, ahem, impartial analysis.
Only we could take such pride in simultaneously moaning about an international treaty and yet knowing nothing about it.
You are not so chippy about EU judges when they reverse French beef bans, are you..?
anne allan
January 20th, 2011 11:04am Report this commentYeah right. We've as much chance of this, or any other British government standing up to Europe.
One of May's first acts was to sign the EAW. Now I can be whisked off to some blighted EU hellhole for displaying my tax disc the wrong way.
Pete-s
January 20th, 2011 11:05am Report this commentIt is kept very quiet that the Lisbon Treaty joined us with the ECHR. That is for areas were the EU has competence. My only conclusion is that if we want to get away from the ECHR then we have no option but to leave the EU.
whatawaste
January 20th, 2011 11:17am Report this commentWhat is the point in the UK making public spending cuts if Charlatan Cameron is going to gladly hand over the savings to his beloved EU? The hypocrite believes in the Big Society for England but when in Europe there is a full endorsement of statism. You could not make it up!
Matthew
January 20th, 2011 11:22am Report this commentStrapworld, you're right.
He is a weak man, a Blair-lite. Says whatever he thinks is going to make him popular while his actions are determined by others far smarter than he.
The problem he faces is, unlike Blair, people have worked him out pretty quickly. Hence no outright victory against a despised incumbent PM.
He's in big trouble if:
1. Labour replace Miliband with a charismatic, media friendly leader (electorate have short memories). Or,
2. The Tory right rebel and identify a popular, true Conservative to lead the party.
I'm baffled as to why he joined the Conservatives, he's clearly more of the Lab/Lib mindset.
Cjamesk
January 20th, 2011 11:22am Report this comment" victim of the Coalition deal"
How much longer will we hear this excuse? It's wearing thin already.
Were very much in the EU monster, against the will of many and yet they still refuse to listen or allow debate.
Owen Morgan
January 20th, 2011 11:36am Report this commentRhoda Klapp, you may be right, but I see no harm in trying. Furthermore, even our endlessly pliant judges could hardly re-instate the European Arrest Warrant by judicial fiat alone.
Vulture
January 20th, 2011 11:43am Report this commentThe easiet and simplest way to deal with the EU problem and regain our freedom is to leave it.
Mats is a collabo : end of the day and bottom line - he wants us to stay inside the whale which will never become Open Europe.
Salopian
January 20th, 2011 12:03pm Report this commentLet's get real here. We are where we are and at least for the present. Therefore for the present we need to work the system to our advantage. Persson's suggestions make sense.
The question is whether the Coalition will buy into them. There is noting in them which should frighten the LibDem horses (other than some of the old nags). Ed The Unredy would have difficulty in mustering a three line whip to oppose them.
tomdickandharry
January 20th, 2011 12:39pm Report this commenterm... there is no such thing as 'EU judges'. The European Court of Human Rights is NOT part of the EU. It's riduculous the level of ignorance surrounding the EU/Council of Europe! It's also quite suprising that the Director of Open Europe continues to propagate this myth. The ECHR (and its Judges), is a part of the Council of Europe, of which the UK is a founding member. The EU is a separate political entity.
I quote from a letter sent by the European Commission to news editors in the UK...
Newsdesks and subeditors are asked to note that decisions of the European Court of Human Rights should not be referred to as EU decisions, and the judgements should not be attributed to “EU judges”, or any similar language. The European Court of Human Rights is part of the Council of Europe, a completely separate organisation to the European Union.
Tony_E
January 20th, 2011 1:26pm Report this commentI think there is confusion of institutions in this, and between civil and criminal law.
Firstly, this is not an EU matter. The ruling was made by the European Court of Humand Rights - not an EU institution. It started that the blanket ban had not been debated by parliament for 150 years or so and that it lacked democratic legitimacy.
If parliament decides to pass a new law which totally bans voting for imprisoned offenders, then this argument is entirely removed.
It will then be for judges in this country to decide compensation claims in the light of the new law and the other grounds cited in the previous ECHR jugement. Also the ECHR might also look at it again and rule that this is not compatible. This will then cause a massive constitutional issue.
The EU law case usually quoted on parliamentary sovereignty is that of Factortame, over provisions of the 1988 merchant shipping act and the CFP. A totally different kind of case.
Rhoda Klapp
January 20th, 2011 1:42pm Report this commentThe term EU judges appears in a quote from Cameron, it is not by the poster. Does the Prime Minister really not understand the distinction? Was he dissembling then? Is he dissembling now?
Danny
January 20th, 2011 1:43pm Report this commentTony_E: EU Judges = the European Court of Justice (which is very much an EU insitution and part of the EU).
No one is talking about the ECHR, you're the one confusing two different things I'm afraid.
denis cooper
January 20th, 2011 2:37pm Report this commentFunny how a couple of people have leapt in saying "It's the ECHR, nothing to do with the EU" apparently without having read what the article is about.
denis cooper
January 20th, 2011 2:39pm Report this commentI doubt that any of the proposed amendments will find their way into the Bill.
Open Europe does the public a great service by producing its excellent analyses, but civil servants provide ministers with comparable analyses and if the Bill would leave a certain power in the hands of ministers then that's because Cameron and Hague want that power to remain in the hands of ministers.
There may be the odd case where the civil servants have failed to spot something, or the drafting of the Bill is defective, but in general the Bill as tabled will do what Cameron and Hague precisely want it to do, and they will not be open to persuasion that it should do something else.
And nor is there any way that a small band of rebel Tory MPs can force them to change their minds, as the mass of Tory and Liberal Democrat MPs will not bother to attend the debates but will simply vote as directed by their whips, and if necessary the Labour leadership will make sure that the government wins the votes so that the process of covert euro-federalisation can continue unabated.
Jim_Watford
January 20th, 2011 2:43pm Report this commentWe will never get any power back from the E.U while this gutless wonder remains in office.
strapworld
January 20th, 2011 3:20pm Report this commentSalopian.. As my friend Martin would point out. You, sadly, are proving how correct this quotation is!
"Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it.
To take action in the face of a corrupt Government risks harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self image of standing for principles.
Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker, but only to give the moral cowards an excuse to think nothing at all." Michael Rivero
Tim Williamson
January 20th, 2011 3:49pm Report this commentLike many Conservative supporters, I have never before myself questioning the basis of my instinctive support for the Tory party. Over the past year I have experienced disquiet and an uncomfortable feeling that the current leadership is taking the party away from its natural base. Yes, I'm a Tory but I find myself looking at this government and wondering just where is it taking us. On Europe and the topic of immigration, we hear reassuring platitude after platitude, soothing reassurances that the message is getting through etc etc -- but a disturbing liberal drift is emerging. I'm still a conservative by instinct. I'm not sure the party is. If I'm reflecting a more general mood in the party, I have got to ask whether we've got the right leadership for this party or whether I'm supporting the right one. Certainly, it leads me to another question -- just what is the point of voting?
KG
January 20th, 2011 4:36pm Report this commenttomdickandharry, what are you on about? There ARE such a thing as EU judges. They sit in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg and they're responsible for interpreting and enforcing EU laws.
It's the ECJ that will have the right to rule over the laws that are being discussed in this post (just as it has ruled in the past on working time for doctors for example).
I don't know why you bring in the ECHR, which most informed people understand is a seperate thing, and accuse people of ignorance?
Cynic
January 20th, 2011 5:11pm Report this commentWhat astounds me (although why it should with Cameron in charge, I can't think) is that we have "opted in" to things we could have remained without!
Patrick Cullinane
January 21st, 2011 12:07am Report this commentThe supremacy of EU law over national legislation is a settled principle which is recognised in all Member States of the European Union independently of any explicit reference to this principle in the constitutions of the Member States. This principle results also from the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Please see, for example, Flaminio Costa v. E.N.E.L., case 6-64:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61964J0006:EN:NOT
This principle has been constantly reaffirmed since then by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The refusal to apply this principle would be against Articles 258 and 259 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. That means that the Commission or another Member State can take action against a Member State that does not respect its obligations under the Treaties.
Why is the UK Member State allowed to CRIMINALLY violate EU Community law with regards, “independent and impartial tribunals previously established by law”?
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
Chapter VI - JUSTICE
________________________________________
Article 47
Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article.
Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. Everyone shall have the possibility of being advised, defended and represented. Legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice.
http://infoportal.fra.europa.eu/InfoPortal/infobaseShowContent.do?btnCat_253&btnCountryBread_169
The Guardian: By Phillip Inman Saturday 18 December 2010
Minister demands action over bankrupted taxpayer
Nick Hurd's constituent Patrick Cullinane has been fighting a 16-year battle. Can something be done at last?
HMRC objected to releasing Cullinane's tax files and the court agreed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/dec/18/minister-demands-action-bankrupted-taxpayer?INTCMP=SRCH
where are OUR guaranteed rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?
Therefore, the EU Commission must take Infringement proceedings gainst the UK Member State immediately.
tomdickandharry
January 21st, 2011 2:19pm Report this commentKG - I stand corrected. Of course you're right, ECJ is part of the EU and if I'm honest, I only skim read the article and as a result mis-read the argument behind it. I don't agree with the sentiment, but it's not factually incorrect like I suggested in my post. I'll try and be less hasty next time.
Back to top