Has the Conservative party dropped its commitment to renegotiate ECJ jurisdiction over crime and policing?

Has Conservative policy towards ECJ 
power over crime and policing changed?

The chaos of yesterday's 'vote' or 'non vote' on the European Arrest Warrant has obscured a number of things. Not only have the 10 actual measures been waved through, without discussion and scrutiny, but the Home Secretary has avoided having to make a statement on future Conservative policy towards renegotiating the European Court of Justice's (ECJ) power over crime and policing.

Firstly, here are some of the measures 'adopted' last night without debate and without much publicity.

• Confiscation Orders 
• Mutual recognition of sentences 
• Trials in absentia 
• Mutual recognition of financial penalties

They are substantial in their own right and on 1 December all will be subject to the ECJ's jurisdiction.

Will a future Conservative Government renegotiate this area?

Removing the UK justice system from the remit of EU judges has been a Conservative policy for a number of years and one we agree with. When it became clear that the Conservatives could not block the Lisbon Treaty David Cameron stated:

“The third area where we will negotiate for a return of powers is criminal justice. We must be sure that the measures included in the Lisbon Treaty will not bring creeping control over our criminal justice system by EU judges. We will want to prevent EU judges gaining steadily greater control over our criminal justice system by negotiating an arrangement which would protect it" [4 November 2009]

This was followed up in the 2010 Conservative Manifesto:

“Conservative government will negotiate for three specific guarantees – on the Charter of fundamental rights, on criminal justice, and on social and employment legislation – with our European partners to return powers that we believe should reside with the UK, not the EU. We seek a mandate to negotiate the return of these powers from the EU to the UK.”

Clearly, the Coalition Agreement overtook these previous texts, but Theresa May and Chris Grayling have both stated during this Parliament that the ECJ's role would likely feature in any future EU renegotiation. On 16 July 2013, as we set out here, Theresa May was quite explicit:

"Undoubtedly the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice will need to be considered when, after the election, a future Conservative Government renegotiate Britain’s relationship with the European Union"

So it was a surprise that Theresa May writing in the Sunday Telegraph on 9 November did not restate this position. The question is whether we should read anything into this, but as the smoke clears it remains to be seen whether a majority Conservative Government would 'let matters rest'.

The UK government is desperate to strengthen the role of national Parliaments in Europe - but can't get its own house in order

The Government - particularly the Tory wing of it - talks a very good game on the urgent need to strengthen the role of national parliaments in EU decision-making.

The UK Government (rightly) wants to negotiate a "red card" for national parliaments for example, giving them a chance to pull the democratic brake on EU proposals that go too far or aren't proportionate. It has also talked about various other ways to strengthen the role of national parliaments and boosting scrutiny of EU laws in Westminster.

In his Bloomberg speech, David Cameron called for a "bigger and more significant role for national Parliaments" adding:

"It is national parliaments, which are, and will remain, the true source of real democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU. It is to the Bundestag that Angela Merkel has to answer. It is through the Greek Parliament that Antonis Samaras has to pass his government’s austerity measures. It is to the British Parliament that I must account on the EU...Those are the Parliaments which instil proper respect - even fear - into national leaders."

Well, the Government has just failed by its own standard - and badly.

As we pointed out this morning, despite the controversy surrounding the European Arrest Warrant, it was not explicitly included in the motion MPs will be voting on later tonight concerning the Government's opt-in to 35 EU crime and policing measures. The reason is that the EAW has already been transposed into UK law, unlike 11 of the full list of 35 measures the UK is opting back into which will require secondary legislation - these 11 are the only measures listed in the Government's motion.

This has provoked a storm of protest this afternoon including an extraordinary rebuke from the Speaker and MPs on all sides of the house:

Bercow in strongest attack yet on Govt over European arrest warrant vote: 'People are frankly contemptuous of what's not straight dealing'
— James Chapman (Mail) (@jameschappers) November 10, 2014

You know it's a bad day in the office when you've managed to unite both Bill Cash and Yvette Cooper against you...
— Sophy Ridge (@SophyRidgeSky) November 10, 2014

Now Keith Vaz denouncing shambolic attempt to get EU Arrest Warrant thru. & Ming Campbell calling for debate to be pulled
— Mark D'Arcy (@DArcyTiP) November 10, 2014

Can't believe Theresa "Competence" May has made such a mess of this EU Arrest Warrant debate. "Crooked wood," says Rees-Mogg.
— John Rentoul (@JohnRentoul) November 10, 2014

The Government had on several occasions committed itself to holding a vote on the EAW - although it was always likely to  be part of a package, and this is what most people were understandably expecting to take place today.

Following an Open Europe campaign for MPs to have a vote on the original decision to take the block opt-out which they were ultimately granted, in a subsequent letter to the Chairmen of the European Scrutiny, Home Affairs and Justice Committees of the House dated 31 January 2014, Theresa May and Chris Grayling said that:

“The Government will hold a second vote on the final list of measures we will formally apply to rejoin.”

This was seemingly confirmed by David Cameron himself during PMQs a couple of weeks ago when Ed Miliband challenged him on dodging a vote on the EAW due to opposition within his own party, and he responded that:

"There's only one problem with his second question. Which is we are going to have a vote, we're going to have it before the Rochester by-election. His questions have just collapsed."

To which Miliband replied that:

"All I can say is I look forward to us walking through the lobby together to vote for the European Arrest Warrant, two parties working together in the national interest."

It is hard to see why - given it stood to win any vote by a healthy majority given Labour's support - the Government has decided to ensure that the EAW was not mentioned in today's motion - one reason could be that today's motion is not amendable. Had a more wide ranging motion been put forward, MPs might have used this as an opportunity to force a vote on an amendment.

However, the European Arrest Warrant (and many of the other 35 measures) encapsulates the very sensitive balance between civil liberties and democracy, on the one hand, and security, on the other, and it is exactly the type of issue that should be settled by a democratic vote in Parliament. Indeed, as we argued way back in 2010 when the European Union Act was making its way through Parliament:

"Policing, crime, immigration and asylum are issues are hugely politically sensitive and any decisions to sign up to new EU laws in these areas need to be thoroughly debated and democratically accountable. This should be Parliament's job.

As it currently stands, the Government's proposed Bill, although a significant step forward, fails to address the day-to-day transfer of crime, policing and immigration powers from the UK to the EU. So any decision to opt in to a proposal like the controversial European Arrest Warrant will not be covered by the lock.

Most importantly, European judges will have the final say over any law that the UK Government decides to opt in to. By definition, this is a transfer of powers. In other words, it's a zero-sum game: every new justice or policing law the Government signs up to gives more power to the EU institutions at the expense of MPs, Parliament and the British courts. This is a big decision, which currently rests solely on Government Ministers' discretion.

The EU's growing ambitions in justice and home affairs deserve Parliament's undivided attention. It is perfectly reasonable for MPs to demand the power to vote on these crucial decisions that the Government makes in the name of their constituents. In fact, it would be a dereliction of duty not to."

It is hard to comprehend how the Government has contrived to create this problem for itself. And it is a very sorry state affairs indeed if a Government is able to say to Parliament 'whatever this motion says, you are actually voting on X'. This episode will only further undermine public faith in politicians and parliament.

And it does not inspire confidence in the Tories' wider renegotiation agenda.

Are MPs actually being given a vote on the European Arrest Warrant?

Today it is widely reported that MPs will vote on the Government's plans to opt back into the European Arrest Warrant. In fact reading the Home Secretary in the Sunday Telegraph you would think that she believed that as well.

However a close reading of the actual motion leaves her contention in some doubt. Here it is:

Secretary Theresa May That the draft Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No. 36) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 3 November, be approved.

Well the Government's Explanatory memo  to the regulations mentions only 11 out of the 35 measures the Government proposes to opt into actually require legislation - the warrant not being one of them.

This will undoubtedly be brought up in the debate and why exactly it has been omitted is unclear (perhaps because motions on legislation are unamendable). However, many MPs will argue that it contradicts assurances given to them over a long period and sets a bad precedent.

On EU Crime and Policing the UK lost an opportunity to negotiate a new deal

Open Europe's Christopher Howarth wrote the following article for the Telegraph. For more information as to the UK's crime and policing opt out please also see Open Europe's An Unavoidable Choice

Why is the European Arrest Warrant so controversial?

MPs are being faced with two equally unpalatable choices

To those unaware of the tortuous nature of EU treaty negotiations, it may seem odd that MPs are being asked to vote to opt into the European Arrest Warrant – and not just because it may cause ructions within the Conservative Party ahead of the Rochester and Strood by election. Weren't we in it already?

Actually, the EAW is only one of a package of 35 EU police and crime laws that the Government wants to opt into by December 1. And here's why it matters so much, both to the Government, and to its opponents:

Where did it all start?
It all goes back to the Lisbon Treaty. Prior to that, all EU crime and policing laws were dealt with "inter-governmentally". However, the architects of the Treaty were keen to place these measures under the remit of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the enforcement powers of the European Commission.

Realising that signing up to the ECJ’s jurisdiction would complicate its desire to avoid a referendum on the Treaty, Britain's Labour government brokered a deal. The ECJ would get jurisdiction in 2014, but in return the UK would get a "block opt out" on around 130 crime and policing measures.

This opt-out could have provided the basis for Britain to negotiate a new deal, perhaps using a bilateral UK-EU treaty, thus solving some of the underlying concerns. But this opportunity was lost - possibly as a result of internal Coalition politics.

But why does the vote have to be now?
Last summer the Prime Minister finally exercised the opt-out – which takes effect on December 1. But, having done so, the UK has until then to decide whether to opt back in to some of these laws on the new terms.

Having decided not to renegotiate a new deal, the Government is presenting Parliament with a choice of two bad options: stay out of the 35 measures the Government argues are essential to fight crime, or go in on terms that hand over ultimate authority over these laws to the ECJ and the European Commission for the first time.

But why is the European Arrest Warrant so important?
Of these 35 laws, the EAW is the most controversial for several reasons. On the one hand, there are obvious concerns about handing over British citizens to another EU state without giving that person the right to ask if there is a case against them. On the other hand, the police argues it is vital to protect the public from crime.

If the UK opts in, it will forfeit to the ECJ the ultimate ability to say no to the extradition of its citizens – a step that even states within the US are able to take. Stay out, and we will fall back on previous arrangements that were slower, less reliable and therefore may allow some criminals to escape justice. And yes, the UK Government has made some welcome domestic reforms to how the EAW operates, but time will tell whether these will withstand future ECJ interpretation.

What does this all mean?
It means that, unfortunately, MPs have been presented with an unenviable choice. However they vote in the coming weeks, many Conservative MPs will certainly want to revisit this issue in any EU renegotiation.

EU and Tory madness – but what has changed?

In Britain, “Europe” as a political issue has pretty much gone mad over the last few weeks. There has been a lot of rhetoric, but where are we in terms of substance?

Free movement: When asked about reports in UK media that David Cameron is considering proposing quotas for EU migrants, Angela Merkel told the Sunday Times: “Germany will not tamper with the fundamental principles of free movement in the EU”. This has always been the German position (Wolfgang Schäuble today echoed those comments). She added, “I spoke to David Cameron and we agreed to assess the [the upcoming ECJ verdict on EU migrants’ access to benefits] together. These are controversial issues that are debated also in our country. I am of the opinion that they need to be resolved in a way that tackles abuse.”

Hot potato factor: Medium to high. As we’ve always said, changes to the EU’s “fairness” regime – who can access what benefits and when – is fully possible. Caps will be much trickier. Yes, the politics around EU free movement have become massively complicated, with Tory politicians seemingly talking up the need to cap numbers – even though we may sense a bit of back-peddling on the more aggressive rhetoric (Michael Fallon’s comments notwithstanding). Remember, we have not yet seen a concrete proposal from No 10 and in terms of the basic positions in Europe, Cameron’s chances of achieving reform in this area are very much unchanged. This remains a moving target though and much can happen.

European Arrest Warrant and the “block” opt-in: This is the decision by the Coalition government to take advantage of a quirk in the Lisbon Treaty which allows the UK top opt out of around 130 EU police and crime measures, and then choose to opt back in to all, some or none of these measures, which means accepting ECJ jurisdiction over these laws. The opt out will take effect on 1 December – but the Coalition wants the Commons to vote to opt back into a package of 33 laws, including the controversial European Arrest Warrant.

Hot potato factor: Medium. Up to 100 Tory MPs have said they want to rebel and vote against opting in to the EAW. This is a debate that has been going on for some time and the big question was always how many MPs would vote against opting back in to the EAW. Theresa May and Michael Gove are now trying to minimise the rebellion and Lib Dem and Labour MPs will vote with the Tory leadership so the measure will almost certainly pass.

The £1.7bn cash demand: Due to changes to the way the size of the economy is calculated (ESA 95 NOT ESA 10), the European Commission has asked the UK to cough up another £1.7bn by 1 December – freakily coinciding with the bloc opt-in deadline. Cameron has vowed not to pay the money by then.

Hot potato factor: Off the charts. This is simply shocking. From the DG Budget people within the Commission not being able to explain where the changes come from – in fact briefing media the wrong information (out of ignorance not spin) – to officials in Brussels, London and elsewhere not getting the political explosiveness of the issue to Cameron seemingly being taken completely by surprise. Depending on how this ends, it has the potential to go down in history as one of the most mismanaged episodes in the EU, ever. Cameron can hardly pay up by December 1, but it’s also not clear whether he can block it (the decision will be taken by a qualified majority vote – see upcoming blog post), meaning that without a face-saving gesture - which, given the stakes, is still fully possible - the stage is set for a proper political crisis.

This is a new development, and in the short-term, far more unpredictable than the block opt-in or free movement debate.

Cameron will update the House of Commons today – it could be a long afternoon.

See you in Court: Should there be a referendum before the UK opts into the European Arrest Warrant?

Could another Rees-Mogg Judicial Review lead to a referendum?

Update 17:00:
The Spectator Coffee House blog is reporting the Conservative Chief Whip may be preparing MPs for a decision to stay out of the EAW. However the line from Number 10  is that they are still "in principle seeking to opt back in."
********
Before 1 December, MPs will vote on whether to accept the Coalition's decision to opt back in to around 35 EU Crime and Policing laws and, for the first time, accept the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice - or stay out completely. As we have written before, the choice is a straight one between "more or less EU control over UK crime and policing."

But this flagship Coalition EU policy may fly in the face of another - the European Union (Referendum) Act 2011 - which was supposed to give the British people the final say on the transfer of powers to the EU. So why are we not going to see a referendum? Well as this decision was already in the pipeline, it was excluded when the Government drafted its legislation. However, other areas such as participation in the European Public Prosecutor would definitely require a referendum.

This division will now be tested in the Courts courtesy of a judicial review by Jacob Rees-Mogg MP and UKIP treasurer Stuart Wheeler who believe that not only does the decision to opt-in to the European Arrest Warrant require a referendum, but the EAW also contravenes Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus. [It is worth remembering that Rees-Mogg's father and Stuart Wheeler have both previously brought legal actions against ceding of power to the EU]. As a legal opinion, commissioned by the Freedom Association, points out there are a number of serious problems including:

“With regard to the question of whether the UK’s opt-out from the jurisdiction of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) will be rendered ineffective owing to the ability of the EPPO to initiate the issue of an EAW and secure its execution in the UK, it is quite clear that it would."

It's unlikely that the Courts will side with the appeal, but in any case, it'll be interesting to follow what it has to say about it.

Fact-checking the Clegg v Farage EU debate

The first EU debate between Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage on LBC was for the most part restrained with a surprising amount of detail and substance. Most of the key fault lines in the UK-EU relationship were touched on.

However, given that the two men represent the polarising ends of the debate, there were also a number of claims that struggled in the accuracy department. Here is our quick 'fact-check' of the key debating points:

Claim - Clegg: I supported a referendum on Lisbon

Verdict: Technically true but highly misleading

On the referendum question, Clegg said that when it came to new EU Treaties transferring new powers to Brussels,

"I've never wavered in that position, that's why the last time the rules changed, something called the Lisbon Treaty, I said there should be a referendum."

It is true that the Liberal Democrats called for referendum on Lisbon but crucially it was an in/out referendum which was not on the agenda at the time - the issue wasn't even put to put to a vote. There was however a vote on whether to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty itself on which the party abstained, despite the fact that together Tory MPs, Lib Dem MPs and Labour rebels could have passed it. Clegg is being highly disingenuous by blurring the distinction between an in/out referendum and a treaty specific one. Farage's quip that there was no point waiting for a new Treaty as powers were being transferred to the EU every week via directives and ECJ rulings was quite effective in this context.

Claim - Farage: Under EU rules we have a completely open door to 485 million Europeans 

Verdict - Partially true but unclear on the numbers

It is true that the free movement of labour is a fundamental principle of the EU and the UK cannot limit the numbers of EU migrants coming over. However, Clegg was right to point out that the right to free movement is not completely unqualified - under the free movement directive migrants have to be able to support themselves financially or have 'reasonable' prospects of finding a job.

In terms of Farage's 485 million figure though we have to say we are a bit confused as to where exactly this comes from - the population of the EU28 is around 506 million, which minus the UK's approximately 63 million leaves 443 million.

Claim - Clegg: 3 million jobs would be at risk if UK left the EU

Verdict - Highly unlikely - would depend on a range of other factors

Clegg cited the well-worn '3 million jobs linked to the EU figure' despite established doubts over its veracity. Recently those tending to cite this number have replaced "depend on" with "linked to" but it's still dubious. As we've argued in the past, this claim is one of the most conspicuous examples of a rogue statistic without any credible counter-factual attached to it. The assumptions behind the 3 million jobs figure is that there would be no trade at all trade with Europe if the UK left the EU, which of course is nonsense -  a similarly heroic assumption to that which Better Off Outers make when calculating the cost of EU membership based on all regulatory cost magically disappearing on Day 2 post-Brexit.

Claim - Farage: UK would hold the whip hand in negotiations over a new trade deal with the EU

Verdict - Very uncertain 

Farage argued that in the event of an exit, the UK would "hold the whip hand" in trade negotiations with the EU due to the EU's trade deficit with the UK. We've looked at this in detail - the key point is that while this is true in the area of goods, when it comes to services - a crucial and thriving area of the UK economy - this is not the case. So with that logic, EU countries would have incentive to strike a deal with the UK in goods but not services including financial services. Secondly, the process for leaving the EU - the so-called Article 50 - actually involves less control for the UK than is often assumed, including a Qualified Majority Vote on the final deal in which the UK will not take part.

Claim - Farage: 75% of UK laws come from the EU. Clegg: no it's 7%

Verdict - Both are wrong

The contentious topic of how exactly how many UK laws are derived from the EU also came up, with Farage gleefully citing Viviane Reding's absurd claim that 75% of UK laws are decided in Brussels (as we've argued many times, Reding must secretly be on the UKIP payroll). Clegg went with the House of Commons' Library's briefing which estimated this to be around 7%. Regular readers will know we've analysed this in painful detail and the truth is it is simply not possible to say exactly - what's clear is that it's neither 7% (this only counts primary legislation which isn't meaningful at all) nor 75%. (But basically too many).

Claim - Farage: We give the EU £55 million per day

Verdict - True if counting gross cost, untrue and misleading if counting net cost

Farage is correct that the UK's contribution to the EU works out as around £55 million per day. However, that it is a gross figure which does not include the UK rebate (cold, hard cash the UK gets back from Brussels every year) and nor the UK's receipts from the EU budget (even if this is only UK taxpayers' cash being re-routed via Brussels).

Claim - Clegg: Without the EAW we'd struggle to extradite criminals and terrorists

Verdict - The EAW makes the process faster but it is not indispensable

The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is used by EU states to speed up extradition procedures. It is true that the EAW has been used by the UK to recover suspected terrorists and other criminals from other EU states who have subsequently been found guilty and locked up. It is however untrue to claim that suspects such Hussain Osman and Jeremy Forrest could not have been recovered without it. Also before the EAW was agreed, there were agreement on extradition and the UK managed to successfully extradite plenty of criminals from EU countries through bilateral procedures. These were considerably slower but it is highly unlikely that with or without the EAW Italy would have wanted to hang on to Hussain Osman or France to Jeremy Forrest.

Hungarian government accuses EU Commissioner of being "extremely ignorant or lying"

EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding has been mentioned as the potential nominee of the European People's Party for the post of Commission President when Jose Manuel Barroso steps down next year (of course, gaining the approval of EU leaders is another matter).

One national capital that won't be queueing up to endorse her is Budapest, following Reding's escalating row with the Hungarian government over the country's changes to its judicial system, which it has been claimed allow for too much political interference.

A bitter sub-plot in this argument has been the fate of Francis Tobin - an Irish national found responsible for a fatal road accident in Hungary in 2000 - whose extradition the Irish Courts have refused to sanction despite the issuing of a European Arrest Warrant. Reding seemingly backed the Irish position, claiming she was "not surprised" by the decision.

The latest chapter in this row has been sparked by comments Reding made during a visit to Bulgaria yesterday. We haven't been able to find the original source, but it appears she suggested the Hungarian Supreme Court had been dissolved. The Hungarian government's reaction did not pull any punches:

"These actions and lies of Viviane Reding cause great harm to the public image and reputation of the European Commission. Viviane Reding is either extremely ignorant, or she is lying out of political interests."  

"We call on her to make the data on which she has based her attack public, or failing that, to make an immediate apology."

Ouch!

Will a future Conservative government renegotiate ECJ control over criminal justice?

Theresa May MP may have committed a future Conservative
government to renenegotiate ECJ power over crime and policing

Yesterday the House of Commons voted to opt out of c.130 EU crime and policing measures and then seek to opt back into ones the Government judges to be in the national interest (c.35 at present). These 35 will for the first time become subject to the juristiction of the European Court (ECJ). Given the past history of the ECJ's rulings and the difficulty of amending EU law once (mis)interpreted by EU judges this is no small thing.

Many Conservative MPs were rightly concerned and presured the Coalition to first give more time for the Committees to examine these measures and then amend the motion to remove the specific list so as not to prejudge the outcome.

We have argued before that the Conservative part of the Coalition faces a difficult decision and given this, it should hold open the probability that ECJ jurisdiction would form a part of a wider Conservative renegotiation of the UK's EU membership terms. So did the Home Secretary do that?

Theresa May set out her position on ECJ juristiction claiming "we have pursued a policy of seeking co-operation not control” (incidentally the title of an Open Europe paper written by Dom Raab MP on this issue). She then went on to explain that a Conservative Government would revisit ECJ juristiction.

As part of that renegotiation, it would be odd indeed, and colleagues would question it, if the Conservative party, as part of its commitment, said, “We will renegotiate, but not these bits.” We will renegotiate the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union.

The issues involving justice and home affairs to which I referred earlier are being considered in the Government’s “balance of competences” review. Undoubtedly the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice will need to be considered when, after the election, a future Conservative Government renegotiate Britain’s relationship with the European Union; but the choice that is before us now is binary. We are a coalition Government with no mandate to seek a renegotiation of our relationship with Europe..

...Before I took a number of interventions, I mentioned the European Court of Justice. I also want to refer to the European Court of Human Rights, which contradicts laws passed by our Parliament, overrules judgments made by our courts, and interprets the articles of the original convention on human rights in an expansionist way. That is totally unacceptable. I therefore believe that we also have to consider very carefully this country’s relationship with Strasbourg as well as our relationship with Brussels.

Justice Minister Chris Grayling MP added later in the debate that:

I am clear about the fact that the Lisbon treaty paves the way for the creation of a European justice system. That system is now taking shape. A raft of new measures is emerging from Brussels, and the recent addition of a new justice scorecard creates a platform that will enable more to follow soon. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and many others were right to say that the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice was a key element... We have decided we do not want to follow a path that leads to a European justice system... 

To my Conservative colleagues, I say simply this: everyone knows my position on matters European—I believe that Britain’s position in the European Union needs, at the very least, to change pretty radically

So we seem to be reaching a clear commitment to renegotiate the ECJ's juristiction over EU crime and policing measures. We have long argued that this is right, necesary and achievable but, like the referendum commitment, will it survive any future coalition talks?

When it comes to giving the EU’s court power over crime and policing Conservatives should not “let matters rest there”

Open Europe's Christopher Howarth has written the following article for Conservative Home:

On Monday MPs will be asked to vote on the Coalition’s policy to opt out of 127 EU crime and policing measures and then opt back into 35 of them, including virtually all the significant ones. By opting back in the UK will cede ultimate authority to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) over all these measures for the first time. Of the c.100 measures the UK will now drop all (except for a measure on DNA data sharing), are of limited or no significance - as the Government (and the Liberal Democrats) readily acknowledge. We are not opting out of any important EU powers; we are ceding yet more authority to the ECJ. This is the last chapter in the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

Giving the ECJ power over this most sensitive of areas is hugely significant and fraught with risk. For the first time the UK could be taken to court by the European Commission if it refuses to follow other states’ requests on a wide range of crime and policing activities; sharing data and intelligence, implementing freezing orders, carrying out arrest warrants, and much, much more. Cooperation with other EU (and non EU) police forces is of course a good thing but does not require creating a new legal order and given the history of ECJ political activism, and the fact that these agreements were not written with the Court in mind, it is surely wise to protect the UK’s judicial system by keeping the ECJ out of it. Ceding control to the ECJ could ultimately be costly both financially and more importantly in terms of control over our own law. As the title of Dominic Raab MP’s report on these measures for Open Europe put it, we should aim for “cooperation not control”.

So why has the Coalition decided to opt in? To be fair to Theresa May she has had little room for manoeuvre. She has inherited a terrible hand as a result of David Miliband’s appalling negotiation of the Lisbon Treaty. The political genius that was David Miliband realised that ceding control to the ECJ was politically problematic but rather than negotiate a deal which excluded it (as Denmark did) he decided to settle for a time limited exemption. Yes we have a right to opt out but if we use our right we would be out of the existing legislation on cooperation altogether, as we have said: ‘an unavoidable choice’. The choice Miliband gave his successors was between full ECJ control over everything or being thrown out of existing cooperation – a master class in UK diplomacy.

To make matters worse Theresa May has had to contend with the Liberal Democrats. For the Liberal Democrats the decision should have been a difficult one. Traditionally in favour of civil rights - the Liberal Democrats campaigned against the UK / USA extradition treaty - you might therefore have expected that they would also have qualms about an EU extradition system under the jurisdiction of an unaccountable EU court. Added to that; freezing orders, evidence gathering and data sharing all at the bequest of a foreign state with not recourse to UK law? However, the Liberal Democrats belief in civil liberties conflicts with their passionate love of the EU integration. It was with no surprise that Danny Alexander, former director of communications for Britain in Europe, and Lib Dem negotiator when faced with a choice between two core Lib Dem beliefs plumped for EU integration over civil liberties.

So what can be done? There are two possible approaches. One is to accept ECJ jurisdiction but to attempt to reform some of the underlying measures. Of the 35 measures that will now be ceded to the ECJ, many are problematic but the measure most in need of reform is the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). I won’t bore you with stories of injustices inflicted on UK citizens by the EAW, UK citizens languishing in Greek jails, those tried without their knowledge etc. I will refer simply refer you to the thoughts of an MP who campaigned against it when it was first proposed and foresaw some of the problems if an EAW is presented:

“the Home Secretary would have to say, I am sorry. You may spend time rotting in a Greek or Spanish jail. Weeks may pass before you are even charged with an offence that is not a crime in this country. But there is nothing I can do about it.’

[David Cameron MP Hansard 9 December 2002]

And then again:

“our legal system is here to protect our citizens, and that that protection should be given up only if we can really trust the legal systems of other states.’

‘There certainly should be expeditious extradition arrangements between European countries but we should not get rid of fundamental protections. The House should include a backstop power for the Home Secretary in the Bill and then we should see what the European Court makes of it. We should not lie down meekly because Ministers signed things away in Europe without thinking them through and say that we have to go along with them with no further debate.’

[David Cameron MP Hansard 25 March 2003]

David Cameron was right. We should build protections into our legal system with regards to the EAW. The Coalition has now brought forward amendments that would attempt to do that in some limited cases. The problem is they have no superior force once the ECJ gets jurisdiction. We will be at the mercy of the EU court. The problem is no longer EAW reform it is the new EU legal order.

Conservative MPs are well aware of the threat. 102 MPs signed a letter requesting the Government activate the block op-out. They realise that co-operation with our EU partners is possible without getting the EU court involved. We cooperate with a range of states around the world and have done for decades. Crime and policing is not an area that requires EU harmonisation under the ECJ and is not an area the UK should seek to remain in after a renegotiation. To the Liberal Democrats the EU integration is an ‘article of faith’ and an end in itself. They have now got what they want.

So what should the Conservative part of the coalition do? Well for now the Conservatives have been snookered by David Miliband’s stunning diplomatic incompetence and a Liberal Democrat party that has forgotten its attachment to a liberal belief in civil liberties or democratic control over our justice system. But there is no reason the Conservative party should accept this as a fait accompli. The Conservative party is committed to EU reform, renegotiation and a referendum. Surely removing the ECJ from crime and policing must be a part of this renegotiation? As the Prime Minister said of these measures at the time of the Lisbon Treaty:

“The third area where we will negotiate for a return of powers is criminal justice. We must be sure that the measures included in the Lisbon Treaty will not bring creeping control over our criminal justice system by EU judges.”

And if it was right then so let’s say so again now. We should not in William Hague’s words, “let matters rest there."

So when it comes to Monday, let’s understand the importance of what is being done, not rush things, give the appropriate amount of time to “line by line scrutiny” of the measures that are being ceded to the ECJ and most importantly when the time comes for a wider renegotiation the Conservative part of the Coalition should make it clear we will not let the EU court continue to have control over our justice system.

The coalition has missed a chance to debate the fundamental issue at the heart of cross-border crime and police co-operation

Our Research Director Stephen Booth has written a piece for the Guardian's Comment is Free section, where he argues:

The Home Secretary, Theresa May, has announced that the UK will opt out of 133 EU criminal justice measures, using a "block opt-out" negotiated by a previous Labour government. It will then seek to sign up again to some of them, including a "reformed" European arrest warrant (EAW).

As ever, the devil will be in the detail and we should reserve judgment on the government's reform proposals until we've had time to digest them. Nevertheless, there is much here to raise an eyebrow or two. For one, the coalition seems to have arrived at the number of measures it wants to sign up to (35) through a process of "split the difference" between Liberal Democrats who would rather the UK didn't exercise the opt-out at all and Conservatives who would be inclined to opt out of the lot, or only opt back into a handful. An arbitrary process such as this is hardly the model of principled policy-making.

No one seriously argues that the UK would be better off cutting itself off completely from international co-operation on crime and policing. However, there is a legitimate debate to be had about the institutional form it should take and how citizens' rights can best be safeguarded, especially given the current backdrop of transatlantic spying allegations. Governments and the powers that be will always be tempted to abuse their authority. The best antidote to this is democratic scrutiny and accountability.

The EU opt-out is not simply a decision about keeping 133 EU law and order measures. It is also about whether the European court of justice should have full jurisdiction over them for the first time – once the UK opts back in to these 35 measures, EU judges rather than UK judges will have the last word on how they are interpreted. This would have been an important debate, because amending EU law in the wake of an EU judgment that results in something our elected representatives did not intend is extremely difficult, as it can only be achieved through complex EU negotiations. Thus, the democratic link to citizens is broken. In the context of the UK's wider relationship with the EU, an opt-out could have provided the opportunity to debate this fundamental issue.

However, this opportunity has largely been wasted: the temptation to revert to type in any EU debate – be it pro or anti – is often easier than arguing about substance. There are few issues that galvanise Liberal Democrats like civil liberties. Lib Dem backbench home affairs spokesman Julian Huppert has argued that May's claim that "criminals, terrorists and paedophiles" would want MPs to vote against the UK data communications bill (or "snooper's charter") was misleading and the sign of "someone without a rational argument to make". However, in defending the EAW and other EU measures, Lib Dem politicians including Nick Clegg have used the spectre of "paedophiles, murderers and terrorists" to try to shut down the debate. In addition, the party's enthusiasm for keeping the EAW stands in stark contrast to its tough stance on the UK-US extradition treaty, particularly in the case of Gary McKinnon. This is despite the fact that, once the UK opts back in, the EAW is part of a permanent, supranational EU legal system and the UK-US treaty is a bilateral arrangement which, in theory, can be rejected by either party.

The Conservative side of the coalition has not covered itself in glory either. While it is clear that Conservatives are the driving force for taking the opt-out, there has not been a robust principled defence of this move by Conservative ministers, particularly on the role of the EU's court, and therefore, why the party's often cited robust stance on law and order at home could be compatible with exercising the block opt-out.

Poll after poll shows that the British public would like a looser relationship with the EU, including on crime and policing issues. My view is that the UK should return to a system of bilateral, practical crime and policing co-operation with EU partners, which does not involve ceding control to the EU institutions. Others may take a different view, but let's debate the issue.

Theresa May to announce EU crime and justice opt-out this week

In January 2012, we published An unavoidable choice: More or less EU control over UK policing and criminal law. A year and half later, and it looks like decision time has arrived.

According to the Sunday Telegraph, Theresa May will announce this week that the Government plans to take its 'block opt-out' from around 130 EU crime and justice laws - negotiated as part of the Lisbon Treaty by the previous government - and then apply to opt back in to those considered of vital national interest.

The opt-out boils down to this: In the first instance, the block opt-out is a choice between accepting all the laws and rejecting all of them. Accepting them also means accepting the full powers of the European Court of Justice over them for the first time. The decision to opt-out or accept the ECJ's jurisdiction has to be made by June 2014 and will take effect in December 2014.

However, once the block opt-out is taken, the rules allow the UK to apply to opt back in to individual EU laws. Opting back in also means accepting full ECJ jurisdiction over the law concerned and the UK cannot opt back out again in future.

In our 2012 report, we concluded that:

Open Europe recommends that the Government should invoke the 2014 block opt-out, which would allow it to consider the following options post-2014:

- Remain outside the EU crime and policing laws it has opted out of.  

- Opt back in to selected EU laws of particular importance, which would need the approval of the EU institutions and mean accepting the ECJ’s powers over the laws it opts back into.  

- Or, seek to negotiate a new arrangement (a variant of Denmark’s position) whereby the UK could cooperate with other EU member states on crime and policing but outside the EU legal framework and therefore without the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

It looks overwhelmingly likely that the Government will take the second option. Given the constraints of the existing EU treaties (option 3 would require EU treaty change) and the Coalition (the Lib Dems have been fighting the opt-out tooth and nail), this is the pragmatic decision to make.

Significantly, and symbolically, it would be the first time that powers flowed back from the EU to the member states - which is a good thing. However, it is also true to say that by opting back in to some measures the UK will be accepting the power of the ECJ over thee laws. The key issue will be the European Arrest Warrant - the likelihood is the UK will seek to opt back in to a 'reformed' Arrest Warrant, but the question is whether there is genuine reform - some things can be done domestically but more fundamental reform requires negotiation with other governments and the European Parliament.

In our view, in the long-term, one of the priorities for David Cameron’s reform and renegotiation strategy should be to return to a system of bilateral, practical crime and policing cooperation with EU partners, which does not involve ceding control to the EU institutions (option 3).

A ComRes poll for Open Europe in May found that just over 30% of respondents selected “Allowing the UK to have control over police and criminal justice laws” as one of their top four priorities in any UK-EU renegotiation, the fourth most popular option. A subsequent poll for Sky News found that 45% of respondents specified policing and criminal justice powers as an area of EU policy that they wanted returned to the UK, the second most popular option after immigration.

No one is opposed to practical co-operation between Europe’s law enforcement authorities. But the UK does not have to cede the same level of national control in order to cooperate with other important non-EU security partners around the world. Therefore, imposing EU-federalist solutions on an increasingly sceptical public simply increases the chances of the electorate throwing the baby out with the bathwater – rejecting the EU entirely.