The Truth About IPP Sentences

Cameron heading for disaster over EU policing measures

The British government wants to opt out of  the European Arrest Warrant

The British government wants to opt out of the European Arrest Warrant and other measures

David Cameron’s intention to pull out of EU policing measures is likely to cause him great difficulty. However,  hopes that the prime minister has the guts to see it through if it means getting rid of the horrendously unjust European Arrest Warrant.

The ever weaker prime minister is having his more sensitive parts twisted by anti-Europe Conservative back-benchers in the hope that he will give in to their demands and hold an ‘in or out‘ referendum before the next general election in 2015. They also want him to ditch anything to do with the much criticised EAW and everything else which, in their opinion anyway, are British powers stolen by Brussels. can however see Mr Cameron coming to a very sticky end, probably having failed in everything he set out to do. He will continue to dither about what is best for Britain whilst at the same time trying to avoid the knives of his political opponents.

Opponents that are in the Conservative party that is; not those of other political persuasions.

Cameron’s problem over the EAW and other EU policing protocols has been brought about by the fact that in 2014, the powers come under the European Court of Justice (not to be confused with the European Court of Human Rights) which would theoretically give the court power over certain aspects of the policing of British citizens.

Needless to say, the police and all those individuals and organisations who make their living from manipulating law and order policy in the UK for their own benefit are not keen on this idea at all.

The Home Secretary, Theresa May (who cannot wait to stab Cameron in the back) has told MPs that the UK will opt out of all the measures and will then apparently opt back in to those measures that Britain thinks would be beneficial.

The problem is that do that, the UK will need the agreement of all the other EU states and if just one of the 26 says no, there is little the government can do about it as it is banished to the naughty step.

Viviane Reding, the vice-president of the European Commission and Justice Commissioner has made it very clear indeed that she has no intention whatsoever of changing the terms of the EAW. She also very firmly put Cameron on the spot by saying that no member state could “cherry pick” which parts of the EU arrangements it would follow and which it would reject.

The Dutch prime Minister, usually an ally of Cameron, has said much the same thing. is of the view that there is a huge contradiction in the government’s proposed action in withdrawing from the EU policing measures; especially as ministers know full well that the chances of being let back in are very slim indeed.

The contradiction is thus:

On the one hand, you have those who say the EAW is essential for the prosecution of paedophiles, terrorists and other criminals who go abroad to offend or to avoid prosecution.

For example, in the child protection camp, we have the ambitious Claire Perry, MP and the tragic and rather pathetic “Dr” Sara Payne, along with many other – mainly feminist – organisations and individuals who are all jumping on the ‘Keep the EAW’ bandwagon.

Payne, who by the way has no right to use the title ‘Dr’ as she neither worked for her purely honorary degree from the OU nor passed any examinations, is banging on again in the Sun newspaper as ‘Dr’ Sara Payne, demanding more measures against sex offenders, real or otherwise.

Apparently they have laws in California she would like to see here in the UK. No doubt she will eventually give us her views on the EAW; if anyone is prepared to listen. She has already suggested taking away passports from those on the sex offender register; something that is inherently unlawful.

Perry meanwhile has been appointed as Cameron’s advisor on ‘Childhood’. Her latest outburst – she is prone to use the F word rather a lot according to other MPs – is to suggest that teenagers should forgo any privacy they might have and allow parents to check their offspring’s emails and texts; the views of teenagers have not been sought. She has naturally come out in favour of the EAW.

Then there is ECPAT, the zealous, paranoid protection charity that scares politicians to death and threatens to embarrass them if they do not give in to its demands regarding Britons who ‘are bound to offend’ against children overseas, even though – as the courts recently pointed out – the charity can produce no hard evidence to support such a claim.

Inevitably, the wealthy – and rather dubious – NSPCC is also joining the throng along with their partners in the police and CEOP – the online protection agency soon to be absorbed by the new National Crime Agency.

What is noticeable is that all these individuals and organisations are assuming – wrongly – that if the EAW goes, it will be impossible to extradite offenders back to Britain. must point out that this is utter nonsense but – and this is what those listed above don’t like – real evidence would have to be produced rather than simply relying on hearsay, speculation or the so called ‘professional judgement’ of the police as at present.

The other side of the contradiction is that Conservative politicians, usually keen to be seen as ‘tough’ on crime, actually want to get rid of the EAW altogether. They rightly say it gets expensive (£30k a time) when the UK has to send Polish citizens back home in order to face prosecution for unpaid parking tickets.

The MPs also say that it is wrong that British citizens can be extradited under the EAW to other EU countries without any evidence – although the same hypocritical MPs still support the idea of dragging a UK citizen back to Britain on the same basis; ie. without any evidence.

Then of course, there is Cameron himself who is trying to achieve a second term in office by promising to ‘repatriate powers from the EU to the UK’; something that he knows is nigh impossible to do under Treaty Law.

The Liberal Democrats however want Britain to remain part of the EAW and other EU policing protocols, something that is rather odd given that Clegg stood for election on a platform of more freedom for the individual.

So, who is going to win? The child protection lobby? The anti-Euro MPs maybe? The prime minister or home secretary? suggests that in the end, none of them will win.

The EU will not change its policing protocol just because the British tell them to and, as with any club, Britain will have to accept the rules or not take part.

If the UK opts out, it probably won’t be able to opt back in on a ‘cherry picking’ basis as hoped for by Theresa May.

The rest of the EU club will ensure that Cameron doesn’t get his precious powers back and the Conservative right will want to kick him out.

The problem for them though, is that they can’t; not yet anyway.

The fact is that just as the EU ripped John Major’s government apart, so it will destroy this one. As the wheels fall off, Britain becomes more and more isolated – something the US and Germany don’t want and which will damage Britain’s influence…if it still has any.

The different factions will take up their positions and the blood-letting will begin; no doubt led by Theresa May, knife in hand.

The Labour party, supporters of the EAW and every other method of locking up more people, will not win either. Nobody trusts them after Blair and nobody should. On that basis, whatever they say is likely to be largely ignored.

In the end, believes that Britain will pull out of the EAW and the other measures – all 135 of them. We also believe that Britain will stay out; principally because it will not be allowed back in on the terms the government wants.

By the time of the election in 2015, the country will have so little money available and there will be so much sniping and back-biting within the Conservative party, not to mention endless disagreements with the Liberal Democrats, that all the parties will go into the election completely confused about Britain’s involvement in the EU and wondering why other member states want nothing to do with the British.

The Europeans will have won; the charities, the government and all the political parties will have lost.

The EAW and other measures will no longer affect Britain and that will bring a whole load of new problems to the government as Britain tries so hard to prove that the UK still rules the world by refusing to be part of Europe and by demanding that everyone does everything the ‘British’ way.

Such is the stuff of dreams…and of nightmares.

We shall see.

(Click here to discuss the EAW and many other issues in our Members Forum)

Tags: , , ,

2 Responses to Cameron heading for disaster over EU policing measures

  1. meridiana
    January 22, 2013 at 6:04 am

    I could write a great deal on this, especially having had friends who have been actively involved in European integration for many years. Britain has a similar attitude towards Europe as its ‘special relation’, the USA, has towards Britain. Essentially, it’s a paternalistic attitude that says “We know best – we’ll pick and choose what’s best for us (and you), and reject the rest, whilst retaining all the benefits of being members of the EU and/or the ‘Special Relationship’. It’s an arrogant attitude which insults the intelligence of all thinking, progressive-minded people – an attitude that should have died out with the Empire. The British establishment, still suffers from its imperial power vacuum, and compensates for this loss vicariously through the power of its anglophone friends, the US-controlled global elites. The US, however, sees things very differently. For them the UK is a valuable pawn and useful bridgehead to US influence in Europe.

    As for that obnoxious NGO, ECPAT, I could say a lot about their dubious ‘child protektionist’ activities in Eastern Europe, Russia and Ukraine – that the mass media would never dare to publish. Although couched in ‘concerned’ ethical-type language, like many US-controlled NGO’s, it’s a cog in that monstrous covert machine working for the expansionism of US values and interests in general. Crucially, this includes military and economic interests. It’s interpretation of terms such as ‘child trafficking’ and ‘child abuse’ in Moldova, Ukraine, etc. is thoroughly deceitful.

  2. jamie
    January 21, 2013 at 6:06 pm

    Why does this country think it is so important that it can force 26 other nations to agree with it?

    Britain is far more unjust than most EU countries and should be learning from them, not the other way around.

    The EAW is fine for juristictions that have a European, inquisitorial and evidence based legal system.

    It is only because this country as an adversarial and common law system that the EAW is abused by the British when it suits them.

    The EAW shold not be available to Britain as it is misused by those who have their own agenda.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

SPAM protection: Please fill in the missing number... Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.