Tory backbenchers protest plans for loss of UK veto on criminal justice policies

A number of Tory MPs and MEPs have written to The Times to protest at the danger of Britain losing his EU veto on matters of criminal justice:

"On Friday John Reid will attend a meeting of his fellow EU home affairs and justice ministers. They will be asked to vote on proposals to remove the veto on issues currently under national control, including criminal law, criminal penalties and the judicial system.

Without a veto on these matters, Parliament and the British Government would cease to have control of the fight against crime within our own borders. Worse, the road would be open for the standardisation of the legal system, which would threaten habeas corpus, trial by jury and a host of protections guaranteed in British law but mostly absent on the Continent.

Unanimity is required in order to pass these proposals. For the good of democracy and freedom under the law, it is crucial that the Home Secretary exercises his vote against them."

The issue was discussed in more detail on yesterday's Platform in an article by The Freedom Association's Mark Wallace.  This is how Mark concluded his piece:

"If the Government are not going to stand up for freedom under the law and Parliamentary control of criminal justice, then surely it is a perfect target for the Opposition, who have thus far remained shamefully silent. If being “in Europe and not run by Europe” means anything it all, it ought to mean retaining national control of criminal justice at the very least. David Davis surely does not believe it is acceptable for Home Office powers to be given up, nor does Graham Brady, Shadow Europe Minister, believe in ever closer Union, and yet thus far they have been inexplicably silent.  In tactical terms this is a gaping open goal for the Conservative Party, and ideologically there is a fundamental principle at stake. What would our nation be if it did not control its own criminal law? What, for that matter, would the Opposition be if it does not oppose these plans?"

10.30am update: The Telegraph reports that David Davis has written a "furious" letter to John Reid about abandoning Britain's veto.

Download Davis_to_Reid letter in pdf form

Comments

[Andrew Woodman]

Good to see some Conservatives comment about this at last.

[Monday Clubber]

We need Cameron to take the lead on this major issue.

But will he? There's the big question.

[Simon Chapman]

Haven't we left it rather late in the day to start building up presssure on this? When was this proposal first tabled?

[verulamgal]

Monday Clubber, if he did pigs would be flying

[christina speight]

I have just written a piece elsewhere and three points I made were
1. A bit late in the day (Simon above)
2. Why isn't Cameron putting this up front - he'd get publicity in a way that D Davis cannot (Monday Clubber above)
3. Glad Tory MPs / MEPs are speaking out (Andrew above) plus Farage !!!

This is a monstrous attempt to destroy our liberties and should be a "casus belli" for the party. Will it be? I doubt it!

The Telegraph may have buried the story in an 8 inch single column BUT Simon Heffer goes to town on it.

[Richard]

Would any pro-Europeans please justify this?

[Lindsay Jenkins]

The proposed ending of our veto on matters of justice and police co-operation could open the way to the worst of all nightmares: a police state.

If the British people lose ultimate control of our police and that control passes to the European Union then we as a free country will be finished.

Europol has been in existence for over ten years and steadily growing in size and power. At present Europol officers remain behind their desks and have no executive powers. It may not always be so.

Be afraid!

[George Hinton]

This issue was flagged up ages ago, so perhaps these MP's and MEP's should have been shouting out their warnings much earlier.
The idea of Corpus Juris overturning our legal system and the imposition of the alien and autarchic Code Napoleon will see the end of Habeus Corpus and our present protections from the state.
This no doubt has great appeal for NuLab, or a left leaning Labour Party, who have never been happy with the democratic process, and would prefer to rule by fiat.
I am not happy that this will change the interface between the people and the government, making the people subservient to a load of pen-pushing bureacrats, who will be allowed to intrude into all aspects of our lives.
This needs to be fought tooth and nail, and indeed should be subject to referendum, its impact being so great.
NuLab, new shambles, and yet another sell out for the British people.

[Andrew Woodman]

They were probably waiting for the leadership to comment George. It looks like the Freedom Association is having to make the running though.

[Cllr Keith Standring]

Despite the growing awareness of the dangers in this development, including loss of Parliamentary Sovereignty, there is a deafening silence from the Conservative Front-bench.

DC should surely see the 'open goal' he has before him and exploit this to the full. Reneging on his only promise to withdraw from the EPP with alacrity, now seems as if it's to be followed by a failure to take opportunities to defend our nation's sovereignty, traditions and system of Criminal Justice. The phrase ' fit for purpose' arises in my mind.

[Chad]

Will Dave say anything at all on the subject?

Maybe someone can convince him of an environmental angle to losing the veto....

[Denis Cooper]

What hasn't been mentioned yet is Europol:

http://www.europol.eu.int

which like the FBI in the US has started out as an intelligence gathering agency but could end up shooting people on the streets; and the European Gendarmerie:

http://www.eurogendfor.org

Currently this armed force is intended to be deployed only outside the EU, but once Justice and Home Affairs is moved to Qualified Majority Voting anything is possible, including its use to keep order in this country.

Incidentally with the present 25 Member States there are a total of 321 Council votes of which the UK has 29. A qualified majority requires a) a majority of the states to approve (two thirds in some cases); and b) a minimum of 232 votes cast in favour (72.3% of the total). In addition, a state may ask for confirmation that the votes in favour represent at least 62% of the population of the EU; if this is found not to be the case, the decision is not adopted.

[Denis Cooper]

Ah, Lindsay Jenkins has mentioned Europol, while I was checking the QMV information. Since it has occasionally been compared to the FBI, it's worth glancing at the history of that organisation:

http://www.fbi.gov/fbihistory.htm

"On July 26, 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation celebrated 98 years of public service. On that day in the year 1908, Attorney General Charles Bonaparte ordered 9 newly hired detectives, 13 civil rights investigators, and 12 accountants to take on investigative assignments in areas such as antitrust, peonage, and land fraud. Today, that small group of 34 investigators has grown into a cadre of over 30,000 employees."

"Today, most Americans take for granted that our country needs a federal investigative service, but in 1908, the establishment of this kind of agency at a national level was highly controversial. The U.S. Constitution is based on "federalism:" a national government with jurisdiction over matters that crossed boundaries, like interstate commerce and foreign affairs, with all other powers reserved to the states."

"When the Bureau was established, there were few federal crimes. The Bureau of Investigation primarily investigated violations of laws involving national banking, bankruptcy, naturalization, antitrust, peonage, and land fraud."

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Will Dave say anything at all on the subject?

Maybe someone can convince him of an environmental angle to losing the veto...."

Why should he need to? David Davis is our home affairs spokesman and, as you can see from his letter to John Reid, is perfectly capable of putting forward the Conservative position on this issue.

[Andrew Woodman]

At last, the party have commented on it. Nothing on the Conservative website though.

[TomTom]

Denis Cooper do you understand that the FBI combines the functions of the Metropolitan Police, Special Branch and MI5...............it is the Counter-Intelligence Arm of the US Govt in much the same way that the CIA is the international Inteligence Arm.

So you are comparing EuroPol as if it was in charge of MI5 and Domestic Intelligence gathering..........and as you no doubt know the arm of MI5 which does the actual arrests and raids is Special Branch.

Unlike the FBI however, EuroPol operatives have sovereign immunity from British law and operate under European law - even within the United Kingdom rather akin to diplomatic immunity.

Adding to this the European Arrest Warrant........and you have a supr-national police force not accountable to courts in this country. It will be rather like the French Milice in 1940s France

[Happy Wanderer]

Tories as usual playing catchup when they see a bandwagon speeding ahead:
http://www.ukip.org/ukip_news/gen12.php?t=1&id=2595

and

http://www.ukip.org/ukip_news/gen12.php?t=1&id=2589

[michael mcgough]

I believe members of Europol AND their families have legal immunity ---FRIGHTENING.

[christina speight]

Cllr Standring - " there is a deafening silence from the Conservative Front-bench."

Well - D Davis spoke strongly and wrote strongly but this issue - critical for our liberties - needs the Leader to sound off strongly - That's the way the media work. Cameron can make a splash but as you see what Davis does gets little publicity.

Daniel V-A: Really what a wet response showing no understanding of publicity at all. This - unlike the banal BtL - matters - matters profoundly and the Leader should be in there fighting.

But Cameron never does anything worth doing. The candyfloss man.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Daniel V-A: Really what a wet response showing no understanding of publicity at all. This - unlike the banal BtL - matters - matters profoundly and the Leader should be in there fighting."

So you would prefer it if the shadow cabinet was run with New Labouresque micromanaged control-freakery?

I welcome the fact that David Cameron allows our strongest performers like David Davis to get on with their jobs without insulting their ability and intelligence by interfering with their briefs (in a non-Chris Bryant sense obviously!).

Given some of the criticisms you've previously levelled at David Cameron, I'm surprised that you seem to indicate a preference for him to adopt the Blair/Brown approach here.

Although given your obstinate insistence on using every single opportunity to attack the leader, perhaps it isn't such a surprise after all.

[Mark Fulford]

Back to the subject at hand... if I understand David Davis's letter correctly, first mention of this proposal was in a press release from Finland on 7 September.

It doesn't seem unreasonable that it took a total of 12 days for David Davis to a) notice the press release, b) realise that the government isn't dismissing it out of hand and c) play his hand. Perhaps David Davis is politically astute and gave the government two weeks of rope with which to hang itself.

[Mark Fulford]

obstinate

Daniel, didn't you mean obsessive?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Both are equally true, Mark.

[Richard Weatherill]

"the arm of MI5 which does the actual arrests and raids is Special Branch."

Just to be pedantic (what, me?), TomTom, Special Branch is part of the Police and not under the control of MI5.

I like Christina's "candyfloss man" epithet. Where is the guy when you need him? Perhaps the new logo is actually a stick of green candy floss (pistachio-flavoured, naturally).

[Denis Cooper]

TomTom, yes, I agree, but as I say that is not how the FBI started out and if Europol follows a similar path (over a very compressed timescale) then it may gradually take over those functions. I say "may" rather than "will" because I don't have a crystal ball and can only envisage what might become preferred options for the EU in the future, once it had got rid of the encumbrance of national vetoes.

What is certain is that without the veto Parliament would be unable to stop any of it being imposed on this country, even if every MP we elected was against it. Not unless they then voted to leave the EU altogether, which is still possible now but may also cease to be possible at some point in the future.

[Denis Cooper]

Mark @ 13:35 - I think the first indications in the mass media were in May, eg:

"Britain may give up EU veto on justice matters"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/06/neu06.xml

Some time later Open Europe produced this useful briefing note:

"Will giving up the UK’s veto over Home Affairs threaten the UK’s legal system?"

http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/jha_veto.pdf

[Mark Fulford]

Thanks Denis - interesting links. I don't think there's been any great failing by the Conservative Party on this issue. We've objected from the start (although some logs in the raft of proposals seem quite sensible) and, as the issue comes to a head, we step up the pressure. In the context of what else has been going on this summer, it's hard to see what we should have been doing different (other than Christina's suggestion that DC should have made it a personal five month crusade).

Open Europe and the government disagree on the protection provided by the double-lock. Can anyone shed more light on that?

[Stephen Tolkinghorne]

The Tory party have failed utterly to breathe a combative word on this matter. I've not heard anything that the Tories have said about it in the press. Could that be because they've said nothing and are simply part of the over-arching pro-European federalist juggernaut ? I think the answer is: Yes.

We're simply sleep-walking into a totalitarian state, with the Tories (along with Lab & Lib-Dems) administering the sleeping pills.

What a joke this party has become ! Sod the ice caps Davey, let's hear something about things which are an imminent threat to our very liberty and freedom. This is 1939 again, but without anyone like Churchill to raise the alarm.

[Lindsay Jenkins]

TomTom is right that about the potential for Europol: 'Add the European Arrest Warrant...and you have a supra-national police force not accountable to courts in this country. It will be rather like the French Milice in 1940s France.'

The last German head of Europol Jorgen Storbeck said that it should be in charge of all criminal investigations right down to local burglaries.

Last year a new man was put in to run Europol - another German - which given the way these perks are shared out among member states shows how desperate the German government is to run the European Police force - I wonder why!

We should also ber in mind that a multi-national traffic police aready exists and operates here - Tispol - foreshadowing what is to come.

And Micahel McGough is also right. Europol officers have immunity for everything except parking tickets and speeding charges. So if they wrongly break down your front door and ransack your house and you have no come back.

[tapestry]

This is a good moment for the Cornerstoners to join Better Off Out.

If Gordon Brown is backing PR (Mirror), then it would be hard to turn this back round, if Brown wins Labour leadership.

Do labour MP's realise that Gordon Brown is part of the plan to end Britain's existence?

They should also join Better Off Out at the same moment, making a cross party alliance of MP's who want to fight against this.

[Mark Fulford]

Let’s go back two years and imagine that instead of the EU expanding it had disbanded: 15 member states go their own way, each to do their own thing without the cooperation of the others.

The ten recent accession countries would still be unstable liabilities on our borders. We’d have no way of developing their stability, prosperity or trading potential. Likely as not they’d be forced back to Russia.

Economic growth would be slowed as businesses have to manage 15 sets of trade rules, product standards and inconsistencies. Smaller markets would often be uneconomical to develop.

Criminals would be able to frustrate capture and extradition simply by crossing borders into a new jurisdiction.

We’d have neighbours-from-Hell on a national level. Our neighbour countries could profit from antisocial businesses on our doorstep and our only power to react would be ultimatums and trade-wars.

This isn’t a comprehensive list, but I hope it helps you question whether this really is a better world and whether we could really predict the outcome?

Don’t get me wrong, the EU needs reform, but to dissolve it would be a disastrous step back in time.

[tired and emotional]

I love Mark's comment - it sounds like we never got anything done before the EU. Gosh imagine having unstable neighbours on our borders rather than having unstable neighbours determining how we run our country. How old fashioned. God imagine having even having borders, pah!

[TFA Tory]

Mark Fulford should recognise that Norway and Switzerland do not have the problems that he claims that the EU solves. They are richer than us too.

[tired and emotional]

Most of the solutions most Tories - and I believe most of the public - would like to see to the problems that beset Britain we would not be allowed to introduce under European laws. The EU is the problem - I for one no longer believe that it can be reformed. Britain must leave the EU or be broken up into regions of the superstate - this plan is already underway.

Better Off Out!

[Denis Cooper]

Mark, I don't think I've ever met anyone who's seriously argued that there should be no co-operation between the countries of Europe. The questions centre on the most suitable kind of organisation(s) to manage the co-operation, and the answer is that the EEC, the EC and now the EU are not the right kind of organisations unless all the participating countries, and above all their peoples, are absolutely sure that they want to be committed to a relentless process of "ever closer union" leading to the effective merger of their countries into a single country - whether it ends up being some kind of federation, or goes on to become a unitary state.

[Denis Cooper]

Mark @ 14:40 -

"Open Europe and the government disagree on the protection provided by the double-lock. Can anyone shed more light on that?"

Not quickly - it's too bloody complicated. Look at the consolidated version of the present treaties on the euro-lex website and you'll find that the text of the relevant Protocol has not been reproduced. For that you have to go back to Amsterdam, and the numbers of the treaty Articles have been changed since then ... one good reason why we must escape from this "government by international treaty" is that hardly any of the governed can understand it even if they try.

But this is so important that even a double-lock is not enough, especially as the Commission and ECJ seem to have already found ways to pick the opt-out lock.

[Mark Wadsworth]

TFA Tory - minor point here, Norway is a country of 4 million with the Xth biggest oil and gas reserves in the world (X being a numebr between 4 and 10, I can't remember it exactly) and Switzerland is not actually that rich, but they have Nazi gold to fall back on in hard times, plus they have managed to keep out of wars and so on, which helps.

In other words, Norway and Switzerland (and Iceland for that matter) are not rich because they not in the EU; they are not in the EU because they are rich. But they are in EFTA, which seems like a good club to join. As long as you keep out of the EEA somehow.

[christina speight]

Talkinghome - "The Tory party have failed utterly to breathe a combative word on this matter." Totally right.

The wet creep Cameron backed by his luvvies here Daniel and Mark - should get his priorities right. Isn't the loss of all our age-old liberties worth more than his fatuous BtL farce? In important matters the leader speaks wikth the voice of the party and is REPORTED -A shadow minister - however well he speaks and writes - is
relegated to a minute bit of single column on page 2 (Telegraph). You Cameroon luvvies know that perfectly well so your smokescreen defence is a sham.

The Leader is not doing his job - as usual.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Mark Fulford as others have pointed out is so, so wrong. And before he says the EU is fine except it needs reforming is ignorant about the way the EU works. NOTHING that has been agreed and incorporated can be UNDONE except with unanamity. That's why all British PMs have come to power promising reform and failing. France who created the rules has a veto. Geddit?

[Mark Fulford]

Mark Fulford should recognise that Norway and Switzerland do not have the problems that he claims that the EU solves.

Despite being in the apparently utopian position of being able to set whatever rules they like, neither country have established any commercial or industrial might.

As the other Mark points out, Norway's wealth is based on natural reserves (not unlimited). I suppose Switzerland has maintained its name in banking, but at the expense of the odd scruple. Apart from that they've got cheese and watches.

Both countries benefit from the stability and single trading block that the EU provides. However, if every EU member decided that they’d be better of out, feeding from the edge, pretty soon we’d be back to my starting point.

The wet creep Cameron backed by his luvvies here Daniel and Mark

Christina, it would be so easy to respond in kind.

[Wallenstein]

So. We have an unreconstucted Eurofanatic in Mark Fulford. No surprise really. He's a Cameron groupie.

Still, perhaps we should applaud his honesty. I'm guessing that clique of Cameron luvvies contains a small clutch of Federasts just waiting to be flushed out.

Let's make it happen!

[Jack Stone]

Before people get hot under the collar about this I think we should wait to hear if John Reid as decided to vote to give up the veto.
It seems to me that no one as said they will actually back the proposal.
I can understand the leadership reluctance to discuss these matters because every time the subject of Europe comes up people now use the opportunity to push for a referendum on withdrawal from the EU and that is one policy that thankfully the leadership have got the sense not to touch with a barge poll!

[Mark Fulford]

I'm guessing that clique of Cameron luvvies contains a small clutch of Federasts just waiting to be flushed out.

Ho hum.

[tapestry]

The ten recent accession countries would still be unstable liabilities on our borders. We’d have no way of developing their stability, prosperity or trading potential. Likely as not they’d be forced back to Russia.(Mark Fulford)

Actually the accession countries were enjoying rapid economic growth outside the EU, and many wondered why they were bothering to join. They had a free trading area amongst themselves which worked well. The only reason they had little choice but to join the EU was the Common Agricutural Policy which barred them from exporting agricultural produce except through 70% tarrif barriers. If there hadn't been the CAP, they wouldn't be joining the EU. So much for the idea that we were rescuing them in some way. On the contrary it was only because the EU operates such aggressive trading policies that they could be levered into joining.

[tapestry]

Mark Fulford is a clever operator, persuading Conservatives that Cameron is against them, while promoting the EU on every occasion that he can.

[tapestry]

Prof Minford has demonstrated that Britain would be economically far better off out of the EU. That's using pre-Constitution figures - about £40 billion a year. Post the Constitution, we would be losing up to £200 billion a year as we would forced to endure the EU's regulation of service industries, which will cripple our primary financial world leadership.

[Hoots]

What's Fulford's game, Tapestry?

[tapestry]

Hoots appears again mysteriously in same thread as Fulford. game or what?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"The wet creep Cameron backed by his luvvies here Daniel and Mark - should get his priorities right."

David Cameron clearly has more faith and confidence in the competence of David Davis and his ability to do his job than you do.

If David Cameron had to step in and take control every single time something like this crops up, it would make the shadow cabinet largely redundant.

[christina speight]

Jack Stone - " I think we should wait to hear if John Reid as decided to vote to give up the veto."
News from Brussels tonight- - - "Germany is set to point out at the Finland meeting that agreeing on this voting change and having it ratified would take two to three years - about as much as time as it believes is needed for resuscitating the constitution.

Ireland is expected to question the usefulness of eliminating the justice veto - an idea which it disliked anyway when signing up to the constitution.

London meanwhile has chosen not to stage high-profile opposition to the passerelle, with some sources saying it wants to avoid to be seen as "soft" on terrorism. " (EUO 20/9/6)

So Cameron hasn't got the guts to take up any position and (elsewhere) is reported to be sending a FCO junior and NOT Reid.

[christina speight]

Daniel V:-A: _ How many times have iU got to tell you tghr obvious. If the Leader speaks Political Editors go and listen. Id a shadow minister makes waves there is total indifference from the Main Steam Media. Scandalous but true!

[christina speight]

Sorry about all the literals in the last one but D:V:-A: tried my patience!

=== How many times have I got to tell you the obvious. If the Leader speaks, Political Editors go and listen. If a shadow minister makes waves there is total indifference from the Main Steam Media. Scandalous but true!

[Denis Cooper]

Oh yes, and ( http://euobserver.com/9/22457/?rk=1 ): "Berlin in particular fears that the passerelle will "undermine" efforts to revive the constitution as a whole – one of the prime objectives of the German EU presidency starting next January."

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Christina - effective opposition is about more than media attention-seeking, it's about building a formidable team and letting it play to its strengths.

I can see that you're concerned that there isn't enough awareness of this matter, but there is a lot going on in the world at the moment and the media probably have other stories they want to focus on (coup in Thaliand, mass protest against lying leader in Hungary, Liberal Democrat conference, corruption in football etc) before yet another story about creeping Eurofederalisation.

Next time you criticise David Cameron for being a 'PR spiv' or for being too close to the media, I'll remind you of what you've said here.

Now please give it a rest, for all our sakes.

[Martin Cole]

As detailed on my blog 'Ironies Too' this matter has been of real and growing concern since last June when there was a long thread on the Telegraph sponsored blog of David Rennie
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/davidrennie/june06/euroscepticism.htm#comments

Daniel Vince-Arthur suggesting there has been a lot going on recently should go back through the mass of trash published in the so-called quality press during the past summer.

Strangely enough it dates from about the time 'Dave' claimed being a Cameron as justification for his ruling out any reform of the Barnett formula. A symptom of inbred anti-Englishness if ever I heard one!

His silence on the threat of moving JHA from third to first pillar similarly shows his true colours on the EU.

[David Belchamber]

Tapestry @ 19.17:
"Prof Minford has demonstrated that Britain would be economically far better off out of the EU. That's using pre-Constitution figures - about £40 billion a year".
I looked at the Better Off Out website for the first time the other day and it makes a pretty compelling case for the UK's withdrawal from the EU and entry into the EFTA.
If it were possible to have a sober and factual debate on the proposition that the Conservatives should adopt that stance, I would welcome it - but very much doubt that it would remain sober and balanced beyond a couple of posts. What a pity, it could have been very interesting.

[tapestry]

especially with trolls being paid to sabotage any proper discussion, to portray Cameron as pro-EU, and try to engineer a split.

Cameron has decided not to expend political capital on shouting eurosceptic chants, but take note that Murdoch is not supporting him. That is code for Cameron not being eurocompliant.

the cameron game is to win power, that's all you should judge him on.

[Patsy Sergeant]

I find this whole thread utterly depressing.

Are the English public so politically naive and apathetic (I believe the turn-out at GE's continues to go down) that they would rather spend endlessly on their plastic cards and stuff their faces, then try and tax their brains about where their ELECTED politicians are leading them????

It seems the answer is YES!!!

[Mark Fulford]

Mark Fulford is a clever operator, persuading Conservatives that Cameron is against them, while promoting the EU on every occasion that he can.

A sphincter said what?

[Mark Fulford]

Prof Minford has demonstrated that Britain would be economically far better off out of the EU.

Never before have the political hopes of so many rested upon so few.

Before quoting Minford, you'd be well advised to critically read his work and trace-back his data (including his use of Dixons Group market research). Having done so, his argument is not quite so compelling.

[christina speight]

Daniel V:A: "Next time you criticise David Cameron for being a 'PR spiv' or for being too close to the media"

WHEN have I ever said such a thing??? Answer please.

In any case the two are not analogous. Cameron dances to the liberal media tune. What I expected him to do today was make a strong policy statement amd make the media listen.

Really your obtuseness beggars belief.

[tapestry]

Yeah Dixons are completely unreliable, and Minford is known to be inaccurate. I forgot. Unusually this time, the scientist (Fulford) provides only rhetporic and no data to support his case. Does he not have any?

I have read Minford and corresponded with him. His information stacks up with reality.

For example why do people shop in New York and are staggered by how cheap the prices are? Could it possibly be that the EU threatens overseas suppliers to maintain high prices or face anti-dumping actions? Dixons know nothing about that, of course.

Minford's statistics are well researched and explained.

[Mark Fulford]

Tapestry, in May I had a long debate with William (he also calls me a scientist and has spoken to Minford, I wonder if you know him?) about EU trade threats, duty, etc. Rather than going through the whole thing again, just read here.

[Denis Cooper]

Nobody can know exactly how much the EU is costing us, but it's now clear that it's an economic burden not a boon. The government has repeatedly refused to commission an independent cost-benefit analysis, claiming that the benefits are self-evident, and to my knowledge there were no serious attempts by outside organisations or individuals until six or seven years ago. Then there were a couple of studies which found that the economic effects of EU membership were at best neutral, and at worst there was a net cost of £15bn - £25bn a year.

http://www.brugesgroup.com/mediacentre/comment.live?article=181

Since then the trend has been that successive studies have come up with ever higher net costs, partly because of the increasing volume of regulation. There's a strong rumour that the Treasury did its own study on the quiet earlier this year, and came up with a net cost in the range £50bn a year to £250bn a year.

A recent Bruges Group report put it at the bottom of that range, £50bn a year, which works out as £873 a year for every man, woman and child in the country.

http://www.brugesgroup.com/mediacentre/releases.live?article=13647

[malcolm]

Mark ,Tapestry and William are the same man! (Henry Curteis).I read all his posts with interest as heis often quite insightful.On the EU and associated subjects he loses me completely.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"WHEN have I ever said such a thing??? Answer please."

Christina, I have no appetite to trawl through all the mindless drivel you have clogged this blog up with to find evidence of such a thing - frankly I'd rather be forced to watch Margaret Beckett perform a striptease accompanied by the audio version of the collected works of Noam Chomsky.

In any case, I referred to the future not the past, but I can see why that might cause you trouble.

"In any case the two are not analogous. Cameron dances to the liberal media tune. What I expected him to do today was make a strong policy statement amd make the media listen."

Yes Christina, you've made it clear what you expected him to do as you've been repeatedly banging the drum on your two obsessions - criticising David Cameron come what may and squawking about the Europeans.

I've made it clear that I feel that David Davis is more than capable of leading the charge on this particular issue, so perhaps we should just agree to disagree so that you can ease the strain on your clearly overworked mind and get back to swigging the Strongbow.

"Really your obtuseness beggars belief."

What beggars belief is your pigheaded determination to slate David Cameron at every opportunity and reduce every conversation to a slanging match (congratulations, you succeeded here) - you're clearly incapable of holding a constructive discussion or debate about anything so it's pointless me trying to engage with you further and attempt to address your entrenched prejudices. Life's too short so I'll leave it there.

[Chad]

Daniel: Wisdom of the crowds is achieve by balancing all comments, not expecting each poster to offer a balanced view.

Stop having a go at posters with different views to yours, as we are all part of the fabric of this site which makes its overall composition valuable.

Just make your point on this issue and move on. Your posts are so heavily focussed on attacking other posters rather than the issues, that you have become as disruptive and distracting as deliberate trolls.

Have some discipline man!

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

And lo, the pot said unto the kettle - "Thou art black".

Chad, I've no doubt there is some truth in what you say (this comment probably proves that), but sometimes when other people frequently get personal, I feel the need to respond in kind.

I've also no doubt that you will reply to this comment (although I'd be thrilled if you prove me wrong on that front), particularly as I'm going to point out that the criticisms you aim at me apply equally as well, if not more so, to yourself.

You're right that I've played a part in this thread straying away from the issue at hand so I'll apologise to the Editor, close my comments here and say no more on this thread.

[Chad]

>>Back to this very important thread<<

Is Cameron going to say anything on this issues?

Or does wooing LibDems now mean an open Tory europhile approach to the EU?

[Gareth]

Chad, what makes you think you get under our skin with rhetoric like this?

You're a member of another political party. Of course you disagree with us, that's why you're not in our party I assume. You should be delighted Cameron isn't foaming at the mouth about this. It allows Mr Farage to foam to his heart's content. Shouldn't you be out delivering leaflets letting the voters know about our spinelessness?

[Given Up]

On this issue as on any serious issue Cameron is AWOl. Doubtless the Focus group soundings are being put into pie charts for a very slick slide show, after which a a brainstorming session will take place.......and then having established that objecting might be confrontational...absolutely nothing will be said or done. The boychild is beyond useless.

[Denis Cooper]

Personally I'm reasonably content for David Davis to lead on this at present. Apart from anything else, if Cameron had made a passing reference to it in a speech hardly anybody would have known what he was talking about. But David Davis (and Dominic Grieve and others) should have started weeks ago, educating the media and the general public so that if Cameron did speak they would already be better informed about the issue. And even if it doesn't go through this time, so Cameron can save his energy, the EU will try again.

[christina speight]

Gareth - Egg on your face time! - "You should be delighted Cameron isn't foaming at the mouth about this. It allows Mr Farage to foam to his heart's content."

Farage dsigned that letter from 12 tory MPs / MEPs as well as a DUP MEP. So he's "foaming at the mouth' in good company. Pity you don't!

Camreron blew it because leaders have the ear of the media and Shadow blokes don't. Simple!

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Is it worth discussion as this latest obcenity from the EUropean soviet will become law and British Justice will be replaced by EU law, which has so little to do with Justice. The ridiculous so called EU Constitution - rejected by the peoples of EVERY country with an informed vote yet it suits the self serving politicians and their salary vote.
Are they implementing the odious constitution well no but they are implementing every aspect of it diktat by diktat.
Clearly it doesn't suit the Trilateralists, The CfFR, the Globalists, the corrupt lobbyists, the Carlysle Group or any of Vapid CommieRon's handlers to tell the electorate the truth.
Remaining in the EUropean soviet guarantees slice by slice we will HAVE TO accept Their Constitution, just as we WILL LOSE the Veto and we WILL be ruled directly by QMV of aliens.
Over 80% of Law imposed through Parliament is non optional, undebated EU Law rubber stamped to replace Justice - Less than 20% of Parliamentary activity has ANYTHING to do with Britain's well being - just look at MoD contracts, Military equipping, Air Traffic Laws, Military compliances etc.
If you want to know how this Police State came about, albeit benign at the moment, read The Treaty of Elysee - study the sequential betrayal of Britain by Eden, MacMillan, Wilson, Heath (considered a DVD asset), Callaghan, Thatcher (until she lost office), Major (believed to have received £1M and £1M a year from Carlysle Group for Maastricht!).
Face facts Government accounting is in EUro thus we are in The EUro Zone, Policing MUST comply with EUroPol, borders are open, we have almost all Military equipment supplied by worst source as long as it is EUropean soviet co0ntrolled.
Wake up and smell the coffee BEFORE the dawn raid - YOU live in an EU controlled Police State but the Tories will not disguss it either because they are ashamed of creating it or because they are too smug and stupid to realise it.
This present loss of veto is inevitable - maybe not Friday but inevitable none the less unless we excercise our right to self determination, liberated from the Evil Union as a self reliant, self determined, democratic State independent and sovereign, with its own industries, exports, borders and self respect.
NEVER forget Vapid CommieRon was only made leader of the Tories because he lied about the EU and his intentions regarding the EPP. Now he in power he has set the once mighty Conservatives on a path following the Whiggs into history, gaining populism and losing activists at an unprecedented rate.
Surely someone is left in the Tories with the political nose to realise an activist brings 1,000 votes at elections a percentage point in the polls if inaccurate ephemeral and disloyal!
Good luck but in the EU it couldn't matter less as our British politicians have NEVER altered a single substantive phrase of EU diktat. YOU live in an EU Police State and all the worthy waffle in the world won't change that!
PLEASE wake up soon,
Greg L-W.