Blogs

Phillip Lee MP:Lessen EU control over British justice system

By Dr Phillip Lee MP
February 08, 2012

This week in the Telegraph, I signed a letter in favour of repatriating powers on crime and policing back from Europe.

The letter was signed by 102 Conservative colleagues in Parliament and called on the Government to lessen EU control over the British justice system.

The letter spoke out against the harmonisation of national crimes and the need for a more practical co-operation in fighting terrorism, drugs, human trafficking and other cross-border crimes.

I strongly believe that the UK Supreme Court should have the last word on UK crime and policing and not the European Court of Justice (EJC).

EU judges should not have the final say over the mechanisms for extraditing British citizens to other member states.

Currently under the European Investigation Order, British police forces are subjected to mandatory demands by European police.

As a result I have deep concerns about the operation of the European Arrest Warrant for the residents of Bracknell constituency.

A recent study by Open Europe sets out how the UK can repatriate 130 EU crime and policing laws in 2014.

The think tank noted that if Britain does not exercise its “opt out” under the EU’s crime and policing plan by 2014 it would mean that we would give the EU more power over or justice system.

As a result, Open Europe recommended to remain outside the EU crime and policing laws which would allow the UK to “opt back in to selected EU laws of particular importance” or “to negotiate a new arrangement whereby the UK could cooperate with other EU member states on crime and policing, but would do so outside the EU legal framework and therefore without the jurisdiction of the ECJ”.

The government has made progress on protecting our sovereignty from the EU by introducing an Act which automatically gives people a referendum on any further powered moving between Westminster and Brussels.

Nevertheless we need to keep our independence from Europe and maintain our national standards of justice and democratic control over crime and policing.

Hence my signing of the letter to the Telegraph to a block opt-out would allow the UK to regain control over these laws in 2014.

We must have an open debate to inject greater democratic accountability into this crucial decision.

However, opting-out sooner rather than later would give the Government a greater chance of securing the best possible deal for the UK for the future.

| View Comments (17)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.

Most recent user comments 15 of 17

1 | 2 | Next Page Show 15 | 25 | 50 per page

Having got my court names confused I think a few corrections are due. The European Court of Human Rights has 47 countries signed up to it. The European Court of Justice (The Court of Justice of the EU) has a member from each of the 27 countries) The problems arise when problems of immigration and deportation arise. While these are subject to EU law and so resolved by the latter, the most public disputes are usually (and most recently) about rulings from the Court of Human Rights. The call for a UK Bill of Rights obviously affects our relationship to the latter court. The problem is that calls like Dr Lee's to bring back the responsibility for justice to the UK are seen by the general public as a call to bring back human rights issues under UK control. This is probably the most urgent issue but as seen above does not involve the EU except where the rights are also embedded in EU law. We need to stop the defence of "it breaks my human rights" even in relatively trivial cases being taken through all the levels of UK courts and then being referred to the European Court of Human Rights. Appeals to that court should be limited to major issues.

PoneRana, Wokingham
12/02/2012 at 12:31

As a new MP I suspect is may be as was said in a politics article in the New Statesman the other day. “Then there is the creative destruction wreaked by the expenses scandal. At the last election, the scandal contributed to a huge turnover of MPs. Those who arrived in 2010 are acutely sensitive to the charge that they are just as bad as the last lot. In general, therefore, they are more independent-minded than their predecessors. Forty-seven per cent of the Tory MPs elected in 2010 have already rebelled. Nor did the members who survived the expenses scandal remain unchanged. When the public think the letters MP after your name are a mark of dishonour, there is no longer any point in staying in Parliament for the prestige; even for veteran parliamentarians, status now means you have to achieve something.”

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/7621083/politics-parliaments-power-surge.thtml

Olds Oak, Finchampstead
10/02/2012 at 17:21

Frankly I think the answer lies somewhere in-between. Especially as it has been predominantly Conservative governments that signed us in to Europe.

Which is kind of the point really - despite the Tories historically being the ones taking us further and further into Europe, Phillip Lee land pals love banging out this euro-hysteria to fool the public with.

Yet the issue of Europe as a whole is far more complex than sceptic soundbites.

He does a good impression of being the awkward kid on the periphery of a gang and desperately wants to impress the big boys.

Winstanley, Bracknell
10/02/2012 at 13:40

"The Lisbon Treaty (2007) again extended the ECJ's remit to include, among other areas, Justice and Home Affairs, as well as renaming the courts the 'Court of Justice of the European Union'."

http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/FSINST/IN5.htm

Please also pay attention for the "FOR" and "AGAINST" arguments in the link.

The fact that it is NOT YET the final arbiter of justice in the UK is good. We want to keep it that way, and remove some of the insidious jurisdiction creep.

Olds Oak, Finchampstead
10/02/2012 at 11:06

You make some fair and reasoned points - and I find little to disagree with. Just looked in the Telegraph (5 minutes I'll never get back - I've come out in hives!) and you've left me confused - what's this 'Court of Justice of the European Union' you speak of? Your directions show no such mention.

Phillip, PoneRana, me, and yourself were all talking about the ECJ - as does the Telegraph letter - and how the ECJ is not the EU etc. etc., and that the ECJ is NOT the last word on day-to-day justice in the UK.

I'm sorry but you've thoroughly muddied the waters now. Maybe a sneaky debating style - tie them up in knots and they won't realise I have as little a clue about europe as anyone else.

Winstanley, Bracknell
09/02/2012 at 20:09

Winstanley - The Concerns are in the Telegraph Article. Have You read it?

There is a clue in the "New" name - 'Court of Justice of the European Union'

The EU Commission's ambitions for a pan-European code of Euro Crimes highlight how Europe should be about co-operation rather than control. We need practical co-operation to fight terrorism, drugs, human trafficking and other cross border crimes – not harmonisation of national criminal laws.

We do not wish to subordinate UK authorities to a pan-European Public Prosecutor. We do not want to see British police forces subjected to mandatory demands by European police under the European Investigation Order. We have deep concerns about the operation of the European Arrest Warrant for our citizens. We want the UK Supreme Court to have the last word on UK crime and policing, not the European Court of Justice.

The recent study by Open Europe offers a pragmatic alternative. Britain should exercise its "opt out" from 130 measures under the EU's crime and policing plan by 2014. The UK would retain the right to opt back in to any specific policies deemed vital on a case-by-case basis. Yet, as British co-operation with Norway after its recent terrorist attacks and our longstanding intelligence relationship with the US shows, we do not have to cede democratic control with close partners in order to co-operate effectively with them.

We should maintain our national standards of justice and democratic control over crime and policing – but let other nations integrate more closely if they wish.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/9062615/Repatriate-powers-on-crime-and-policing-say-Conservative-MPs.html

Olds Oak, Finchampstead
09/02/2012 at 17:23

Apologies Old Oaks I overlooked your link to civitas.

However you are yourself spreading misinformation and failing to expand on your argument. National supreme courts are not the same thing as national law.

Wikipedia states "The ECJ is the highest court of the European Union in matters of Community law, but not national law. It is not possible to appeal the decisions of national courts to the ECJ, but rather national courts refer questions of EU law to the ECJ. However, it is ultimately for the national court to apply the resulting interpretation to the facts of any given case. Although, only courts of final appeal [supreme courts] are bound to refer a question of EU law when one is addressed."

The full opening paragraph from civitas states "The Court of Justice of the European Union enforces EU law. In areas covered by EU law, it is the highest court in the EU, outranking national supreme courts. Its judgements can affect both member states and individuals, and it is the referee between member states, institutions and individuals in disputes relating to EU law."

That's EU law - not national law.

More from civitas "The Court's jurisdiction in EU law falls mainly in: failure of a member state or EU body to fulfil its treaty obligations, or the judicial review of laws passed by EU bodies and preliminary rulings on cases handed up by national courts."

So national courts can hand up cases for rulings - in much the same way that a magistrates court refers cases to crown court.

PoneRana is quite correct to point out that the ECJ and EU are not the same thing - two separate institutions, created independently, but whose functions resemble a symbiotic relationship.

In the vast majority of cases the ECJ has no bearing whatsoever on UK criminal or civil cases. Therefore it is difficult to see quite what Phillip Lee's concerns are for the people of Bracknell. He didn't expand on that.

What Phillip Lee has done is raise the spectre of a favourite rightwing/eurosceptic bogeyman to reinforce inaccurate assumptions about the role of the ECJ and EU. It's a smokescreen.

But it's interesting to note that much of what we take for granted as our 'rights' today are actually enforced by the ECJ and EU. For instance - if you buy goods from a retailer and they're faulty, not fit for sale, damaged, or whatever it's EU law that has implemented consumer protection directives that give UK citizens their rights to tackle that retailer.

None of this is to say I wholeheartedly disagree with Phillip - but it's plain that he mindlessly regurgitates whatever guff Tory High Command tell him to in order to keep the electorate in the dark or in fear.

Winstanley, Bracknell
09/02/2012 at 16:20

Winstanley.

I don't think you will find those words in Wiki - Maybe on Dan Hannan's blog...

Try looking up the link I did give, and tell me if PoneRana, has any idea of what they are taking about?

Olds Oak, Finchampstead
09/02/2012 at 16:04

Old Oaks has been at wikipedia again - I believe it's polite to quote your sources when copying them word for word.

Winstanley, Bracknell
09/02/2012 at 15:40

Misinformation as ever.

The court was established in 1952, by the Treaty of Paris (1951).

The Maastricht Treaty was ratified in 1993, and created the European Union which included the ECJ. (First mistake).

The Court gained power in 1997 with the signing of the Amsterdam Treaty. (Second bigger mistake)

The Treaty of Lisbon further increased the centralisation of the EU and and weakened democracy by moving power away from the national electorates. (A huge mistake).

In areas covered by EU law, it is now the highest court in the EU, outranking national supreme courts.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/FSINST/IN5.htm

Olds Oak, Finchampstead
09/02/2012 at 15:02

PoneRana - that's because Phillip Lee may well be a medical professional, but a rank amateur as an MP.

Winstanley, Bracknell
09/02/2012 at 10:44

It is extremely worrying that according to your article Dr Lee thinks that the European Court of Justice is part of the EU. It isn't. It was set up after WW2 and covers countries inside and outside the EU. I think Russia for example is a signatury.

If the Bracknell MP thinks it is part of the EU then one has to seriously doubt his ability to comment on matters of European justice.

PoneRana, Wokingham
09/02/2012 at 00:08

I have concerns not just for Bracknell, but for the whole UK. Unlike in normal extradition cases, there is no requirement for prima facie evidence. People have been arrested and thrown into inadequate jails. Like Andrew Symeou, or Tracey Molamphy. The crooked European Arrest Warrants are destroying lives of innocent people, because there is no check that the evidence against a person even stacks up, so innocent people are arrested and charged, and languish in foreign prisons, as their lives are destroyed by a complicit United Kingdom. [ http://ufohunterorguk.com/2011/11/02/european-arrest-warrant-destroying-innocent-peoples-lives-01nov11/ ]

There are also cases like that of Richard Turner taken up by Richard Drax MP [ http://richarddrax.com/newsshow.aspx?id=0&ref=119 ]

[ http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100053519/the-european-arrest-warrant-and-the-modern-anti-dreyfusards/ ] [ http://89lkn_x.0.u.is/news/article-2058212/British-woman-thrown-cell-European-Arrest-Warrant-crime-boyfriend-allegedly-committed-15-years-ago.html ]

Crimson Dawn, Bracknell
08/02/2012 at 18:44

Anything that goes in the direction of repatriation of any powers back from the EU or opting out of losing any further sovereignty is a step in the right direction in my view.