James Clappison MP: It would be wrong, having opted out of some EU home affairs and justice measures, to then opt back into them

James Clappison is a membe of the European Scrutiny Committee and MP for Hertsmere

Theresa May deserves to be congratulated for the doing the very best she can within the confines of the Coalition on the decision on mass opt-out from pre-Lisbon Justice and Home Affairs measures.  However, the Conservative Party urgently needs to look ahead to what it can promise for the future.  As matters stand, there are still arguments to make for those of us who believe that police, criminal justice and other such issues should be decided at a UK level rather than a European level and that, in particular, they should not be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

Why is this so?  Because – under Coalition pressure? - the decision to opt-out of these old measures is apparently accompanied by a commitment to look at opting back into them on an individual basis. Any such opt-in would give the ECJ jurisdiction for the first time in the area concerned.  Since the formation of the coalition government, new justice and home affairs proposals have been looked at on just such an individual basis under the terms of the Coalition Agreement and there has been a steady drip feed of EU measures into UK law.

James Clappison MP: Our European partners have set out a radical vision for the future of the EU

James Clappison is MP for Hertsmere.

The final report of the “Future of Europe Group”, did not receive the degree of media attention it merited in the British media yet it amounts to a serious declaration by the foreign ministers of eleven EU member states, including France and Germany and is of huge significance for the question of the UK’s future membership of the European Union.  The report is in line with the thinking behind the Treaty of Lisbon and preceding treaties which proposes truly radical developments in constitutional reform, the nature of EU institutions and the division of power between EU institutions and nation states.  Not the least of these is the field of treaty amendment. As matters stand, EU treaty amendment whether by the ordinary revision procedure of the simplified revision procedure requires agreement of all member states. The report, however, signals a move to qualified majority voting to make treaty amendments – a fundamental change.  The report tells us that such amendments “Would be binding for those member states which that have ratified them”, but this begs the question of how the amendment would affect non-ratifying states within the amended legal and institutional framework?

The implication of the approach flows throughout the report.  Take the example of CFSP (Common Foreign and Security Policy).  Previous treaty changes have progressively brought CFSP within the ambit of the EU legal framework but preserved the requirement for unanimity.   Now the report proposes to “Introduce more majority decisions in the CFSP sphere or at least prevent one single member state from being able to obstruct initiatives…” (Who could they have been thinking of here?).  Given that existing EU law requires individual member states to conform to EU decisions once they have been agreed, the introduction of QMV as foreseen by this report would effectively abolish the UK’s ability to lead an independent foreign policy. To spell it out, we could find ourselves prevented from taking action in support of our interests even though there was a majority in favour of doing so in the UK Parliament or, conversely, we could find ourselves constrained to take action where there was a majority in our Parliament against it.

James Clappison MP: Five steps towards proper control of immigration

This essay from James Clappison MP appears in the new book published this week by ConservativeHome, entitled The Future of Conservatism. We published a recommendation for a flat tax yesterday, from Edward Leigh. Find out more about the book.

There are few greater challenges for the present government than restoring confidence in Britain’s immigration system. To do it, we need to regain control of our borders and give more encouragement for migrants to feel part of British society.

While large sections of the political class and broadcasting establishment regard the subject as untouchable, the depth of public concern about immigration is clear. Gordon Brown’s encounter with “bigoted woman” Gillian Duffy during the last general election campaign neatly encapsulated the clash of mindsets and cultures.

So how did we get here?

In the 1980s net immigration was on average under 50,000 a year. In the mid 1990s it increased to around 60,000. There were problems with the asylum system, but immigration scarcely registered among the public’s main concerns.

Then,  in 1997, New Labour won power. Their manifesto promised voters “firm control over immigration” but within five years Labour more than doubled the number of work permits issued to non-EU workers. Net immigration rose from 50,000 in 1997 to 245,000 in 2004.

In May 2004, the Eastern European ‘A8’ countries, including Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, joined the EU. Labour predicted only 15,000 A8 nationals would arrive in Britain each year seeking work. Just two years later, 600,000 migrants from A8 countries had come to these shores.

Labour claimed immigration helped the economy. An authoritative report by the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs  disagreed. There is much we can learn from economic migrants who travel long distances in search of employment and work hard once they have found it. However, it is at least highly debatable that high levels of migration bring significant economic benefits.

What is beyond doubt is high levels of migration contribute to population growth. More than two thirds of Britain’s population growth is attributable to immigration. We now face the prospect of the UK’s population reaching 70 million within 20 years. It is very hard to believe this would have anything other than a dramatic effect on quality of life, the environment, transport infrastructure and public services.

So what should we do about it?

The Conservative Party was right to make immigration a priority following the formation of the Coalition. Now it must stick to its aim of reducing net migration to the tens of thousands rather than the hundreds of thousands we saw under Labour. The cap of 21,700 on migrants who can come to Britain from outside the European Economic Area is a good start.

James Clappison MP: In response to comments on withdrawal of benefits as a deterrent to rioters

James Clappison is MP for Hertsmere.

I am very grateful for all of the contributors to the blog, on the point of whether or not benefits should be withdrawn from people convicted of offences during the riots; like myself, many of the contributors felt the same anger which led the public to bombard the E-petition and I understand this is a proposal which has 70% public support. And I strongly disagree with people who suggest that receipt of benefits is a human right: they have and always have been conditional and were rightly conceived by Beveridge as being there for people in need of them at a certain time in their lives. I still believe that withdrawal of benefits would be a deterrent, but the question is; is that deterrent effect important enough to outweigh the other problems which arise with such a step? There is always the problem of sanctions in benefit systems with other people/family members who are affected by benefit withdrawal; there is also the questions of how offenders would support themselves immediately on release from prison and I strongly believe that it is important to have a smooth transition from prison to everyday life.

James Clappison MP: The withdrawal of benefits may help deter future rioters

James Clappison is MP for Hertsmere.

It bears repeating that this month’s riots were the worst breakdown of public order in the United Kingdom - and we are still one country: take note, BBC – for thirty years.

Those of us not caught up in them can scarcely imagine the terror of law-abiding citizens who found their persons, businesses and homes at the mercy of criminals. I have been surprised by the number of commentators who have tried to find some justification for the actions of the rioters. This was a criminal riot by the criminally minded. Many people – many more people - living in exactly the same circumstances chose not to riot and many of them suffered from the actions of the rioters; as the acting Met Commissioner Tim Godwin put it to the Home Affairs Select Committee - thousands rioted, but millions did not.

The immediate priority must be to take whatever steps we can to minimise the risk of further riots taking place in the days or weeks to come. We can infer that the rioters have no regard to what happens to others as a result of their actions, but I believe they do care about what may happen to them; they need to know that any type of participation in a riot will leave them facing detection and a prison sentence.

James Clappison MP: Hamas are the real Gazan problem

James Clappison is MP for Hertsmere and vice-chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel.

The Israeli raid on the flotilla bound for Gaza that left nine people dead was a calamity. The loss of life is deeply tragic and all sides need to consider if there is more they could have done to prevent that. On Israel’s part the whole operation was poorly thought through and badly planned. An inquiry into the events is important. We should support the government’s call for a full independent, transparent and impartial process of investigation. Answers must be sought and lessons learnt. 

However, while the story rumbles on, the accusatory headlines continue, and international outrage abounds, it is imperative that we don’t lose sight of the bigger picture. The fundamental fact is that whatever the rights and wrongs of the Israeli operation, there are larger, more important issues at play in the Middle East. Last week's events should not be forgotten but neither should they result in the government, Parliament, the media and the public forgetting the wider issues.

It is all too easy to forget what Hamas, which controls Gaza, really stand for. At the heart of Hamas’s radical ideology is its totalitarian, theological Charter, which advocates homicide and genocide. It calls not just for the creation of an Islamic state and the destruction of Zionism but for the destruction of the Jewish people. Article 13 of the Charter states that:

“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavours.”

Many in the West have been persuaded that Hamas are victims of Israeli oppression. To those that argue that Hamas should be brought into the fold of the international community, I say, don’t be so naive. Hamas continue to send rockets over the border into Israel. They plan suicide attacks. They smuggle arms. They ignore Security Council resolutions. They collude with rogue states. And they continue to reject the Quartet Principles set out by the international community; reject violence; recognise Israel; and abide by previous peace agreements.