Police and criminal justice opt-ins expose Tory lies over no more powers to the EU

Jacob Rees-Mogg has one of those tiresome ‘catch up’ pieces in the Telegraph, where he has a light bulb moment about something that Eurosceptic blogs covered months ago and explained was a government Eurosham.

This time it is the turn of the faux opt-out from the police and criminal justice power grab by the EU to come in for Europlastic criticism by one of the backbenchers who helps to prop up what passes for national government in Westminster.

Clearly Rees-Mogg has been and still is labouring under the delusion that the UK is a sovereign nation.  But, playing catch up, he now has moved as far along the track as seeing the potential of the UK to surrender sovereignty as a result of the opt-ins  to the police and criminal justice measures – and ponders what prospect there is for Cameron’s faux renegotation if Tory ministers cede ground on this power grab.

But he does offer some value in his piece (no comments enabled, presumably in the expectation he would be drowned in a torrent of digitial ink) when he posits on the opt-out, opt-in shenanigans that have been taking place in the corridors of Whitehall and reminds us that we cannot trust a word said by Cameron and his fellow quislings when it comes to matters EU:

The Government promised to inform Parliament of its intention in February but delayed until July. At that point there was much urgency which has hindered the efforts of the House of Commons to hold the Government to account. The claims made for the block opt-out and opt back in are exaggerated. Theresa May, the Home Secretary, says that the block opt-out is “first and foremost…about bringing powers home” and Chris Grayling, the Lord Chancellor, views it as “part of a process of bringing powers back to this country” yet many of the 94 measures that will be permanently opted out of are defunct or trivial while the 35 to be re-entered bring the full authority of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Commission and the European Parliament to bear.

This is a tangible transfer of power against an intangible return. As the report says: “Adherence to any legally binding EU police and criminal justice measure brings with it the risk of legal principles and practices of other jurisdictions influencing or interfering with our own, as the Court of Justice will have the ultimate say on how it is interpreted and applied.”

The only surprise and disappointment here is that Rees-Mogg is suprised and disappointed.  One would have thought he had spent enough time in Parliament to realise many in his party and almost all of his party’s senior leaders are utterly committed to the destruction of our nation state and full assimilation into an anti-democratic bureaucracy, regardless of what the British people may want.

But national sovereignty, seemingly unbeknown to Rees-Mogg, has long since been snatched away from us.  In recent weeks the evidence of that has been all too clear, as EU rules on taxation have prevented the UK from taxing profits made in this country and off-shored to jurisdictions in the form of transfer payments.

The politicians wail and moan and try to rouse a rabble of ill-informed ‘citizens’ to protest at the behaviour of the companies concerned.  But they pointedly refuse to explain why this is happening and why this country cannot stop it from happening as long as we are members of the EU.  It is one of the truths that must not be spoken because the politicians want more of this, not less.

7 Responses to “Police and criminal justice opt-ins expose Tory lies over no more powers to the EU”

  1. 1 Clarence 13/11/2013 at 4:06 pm

    One of the coalition’s first acts, back in 2010, was to opt in to the EU’s European Investigation Order, a companion piece to the notorious European Arrest Warrant.

    The EIO gives judicial authorities (acting on requests from local police forces) in any EU country the power to order UK police forces to collect and surrender evidence (including but not limited to blood samples, fingerprints and DNA, bank account details and phone records), interrogate suspects or launch surveillance operations. Only a judge’s order is needed. The requests have a 90-day deadline, which means that UK police will often have to prioritise foreign police work over their own.

    it was the “eurosceptic” Theresa May who, as secretary of state, signed the UK up to the more or less voluntary European Investigation Order.

    There was, of course, no pressure from the Lib Dems for this move.

    Fewer and fewer people are fooled by the Tories’ europlastic feints. That’s good news.

  2. 2 Autonomous Mind 13/11/2013 at 4:11 pm

    Let’s hold off on the ‘good news’ narrative, Clarence.

    My next blog post will explain why…

  3. 3 Furor Teutonicus 13/11/2013 at 4:38 pm

    Is this any relation to Merlyn Rees, ex U.K home secretary and known police hater?

    The one that after his speech at the Police Federatiopn conferance got a silent hand clap?

  4. 4 Furor Teutonicus 13/11/2013 at 4:44 pm

    At the time, the British police were one phone call away from a national strike!

  5. 5 graham wood 13/11/2013 at 5:01 pm

    There is yet another sinister move being prepared by Mrs May (probably driven by the EU – anybody know?))
    The Government intends to replace ASBOs with sweeping new injunctions dealing with “nuisance” or “annoyance” (IPNAs), applying even inside buildings.

    This is an outrageous “catch all” which will not only inhibit free speech and expression, but will be a charter for cranks, half wits and political activists who on any pretext can claim their “annoyance” at others legitimately expressed views. So the many “annoyances” we all experience from any source daily, could be subject to trivial or vexatious complaints under law on almost any pretext.

    Its rightly pointed out how this may backfire – we are annoyed daily by politicians for example. The mind boggles at the ramifications of all this.

  6. 6 Furor Teutonicus 13/11/2013 at 5:12 pm

    XX The Government intends to replace ASBOs with sweeping new injunctions dealing with “nuisance” or “annoyance” (IPNAs), applying even inside buildings.XX

    Depends on the wording, but so what?

    There was always “BoP” (Breach of the peace) or behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace.

    The fact that successive “Governments” have weakened the penalty so much, that it means nothing, is NO excuse to need another law.

    If they used the law that was already there, and increased the penaltys to what they were when the law was FIRST passed, then everything would be hunky dory…. except, of course, the defence solicitors/bassisters bank accounts, which appears to be the main reason to make “new” laws today.

    That is what you get when you fill Parliament with “law students”, instead or people who have done REAL work.

  7. 7 graham wood 13/11/2013 at 7:56 pm

    FT I think you mix apples and oranges! BOP is actually an offence under the law, and is usually associated with violence against a person or persons but being “annoying” is not a criminal offence!
    To make it so is an outrageous intrusion on a person’s liberty in every sense, and is so highly subjective as to render the concept meaningless. It is the sheer vagueness of the proposal which can be so easily exploited.
    The irony is that after over a year of campaigning, objectors finally managed to compel the guv,mint to remove the word “insulting” from section 5 of the Public Order Act recently. A clause which the police used for all sorts of arbitrary arrests.
    What is the difference – ‘annoyance’ and “insulting’? Who decides what may be an annoyance? But I agree – no need for yet another unnecessary law.

Comments are currently closed.

Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive

%d bloggers like this: