Economics is not about goods and services;
it is about the actions of living men.

This week Open Europe published a new report that shows how the Government could repatriate 130 EU laws on crime and policing, including the controversial European Arrest Warrant.

The Government must decide before June 2014 whether a whole raft of EU police and justice laws, adopted before the Lisbon Treaty took force, will continue to apply in the UK beyond December 2014. Under Lisbon, if the Government opts out of any one of the existing laws, it has to opt out of the entire lot.

If it decides to keep these laws as they currently stand, ultimate and full jurisdiction over them will for the first time be irreversibly transferred from the UK courts to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. For example, it would give EU judges the final say over the mechanisms for extraditing British citizens to other member states, on the basis of a case brought against the UK by the European Commission.

The EU document relating to these powers was debated on the Floor of the House on 25^th January, during which the Justice Minister, Crispin Blunt, said that:

It is clear that the Government and the European Scrutiny Committee are of the same view: we consider that European legislation in the field of criminal law should be contemplated only as the last resort and only where action at the European level is absolutely necessary.

However, words of caution were given by my colleague, Dominic Raab:

The document before us has all the hallmarks of a massive and substantial power grab from Brussels in the area of EU criminal law. We might have ad hoc opt-outs, but the direction of travel has very serious implications for this country. The clear ambition in the document is for a pan-European code on what the Commission calls “Euro-crimes”, backed by EU penalties and jurisdiction… This is a fork in the road: it is time to decide whether Britain will retain our unique justice system and common-law tradition. This is one of the most serious constitutional challenges the House will face in this Parliament.

Commenting on Open Europe’s report, their Research Director, Stephen Booth, said:

As much as the Government would like to put this crucial decision off until 2014, this is neither politically nor practically tenable. The body of law to which the 2014 block opt-out applies is reduced every time the UK opts in to a new EU law which either amends, repeals or replaces a law on the list. To date, the Government has chosen to opt in on every occasion it has had to make such a decision and has not required Parliament’s approval. No matter where one stands in the debate, this clearly marks a failure of democratic scrutiny.

Finally, the wording of the Europe Commission’s official communication on this issue is of particular concern:

In cases where the enforcement choices in the Member States do not yield the desired result and levels of enforcement remain uneven, the Union itself may set common rules on how to ensure implementation, if necessary, the requirement for criminal sanctions for breaches of EU law.

Regarding sanctions, “minimum rules” can be requirements of certain sanction types (e.g. fines, imprisonment, disqualification), levels or the EU-wide definition of what are to be considered aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

In their haste to use ever greater state power to solve the problems caused by excess state power, the European nations intend, it appears, to use an EU institution, the ECJ, to arbitrate disputes under a non-EU treaty.

This may seem arcane, but EU matters always are. It’s one of the reasons democrats and lovers of liberty keep losing. The world long since ought to have learned that politicians must obey the law, in crisis as in routine. And yet it suits our masters to bend their own rules.

I look forward to the PM’s statement today.

In the Daily Mail, Quentin Letts reports that I called for the UK to quit the EU altogether at PMQs yesterday. Some colleagues also thought I said “leave” not “lead”.  Hansard reports my intended words:

Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time for this country to lead Europe into the hope and potential of a new post-bureaucratic age?

The Prime Minister: I think that there are opportunities for Britain in Europe, and we should start from the premise that it is in Britain’s interest to be in the single market. We are a trading nation, so we need those markets open, and to be able to determine the rules of those markets. As Europe changes, of course there will be opportunities, but the first priority at the end of this week must be to ensure that the eurozone crisis, which is having such a bad effect on our economy, is resolved. At the same time, however, we should be very clear about the British national interest: safeguarding the single markets and the financial services, and looking out for the interests of UK plc.

I was quoting the Prime Minister. He made the following remarks in Prague in 2007 in relation to the EU, according to the BBC:

And he added: “It is the last gasp of an outdated ideology, a philosophy that has no place in our new world of freedom, a world which demands that we fight this bureaucratic over-reach and lead Europe into the hope and potential of a new, post-bureaucratic age.”

I agree that the philosophy of the EU has no place in our new world of freedom. What Europe needs – free trade, peace and fundamental liberties – could be arbitrated under a much more limited institution such as the Council of Europe.

From a magnificent article by Philipp Bagus – Why Is There a Euro Crisis?

Today’s banks are not free-market institutions. They live in a symbiosis with governments that they are financing. The banks’ survival depends on privileges and government interventions. Such an intervention explains the unusual stock gains. On Wednesday night, an EU summit had limited the losses that European banks will take for financing the irresponsible Greek government to 50 percent. Moreover, the summit showed that the European political elite is willing to keep the game going and continue to bail out the government of Greece and other peripheral countries. Everyone who receives money from the Greek government benefits from the bailout: Greek public employees, pensioners, unemployed, subsidized sectors, Greek banks — but also French and German banks.

Europeans politicians want the euro to survive. For it to do so, they think that they have to rescue irresponsible governments with public money. Banks are the main creditors of such governments. Thus, bank stocks soared.

The spending mess goes in a circle. Banks have financed irresponsible governments such as that of Greece. Now the Greek government partially defaults. As a consequence, European governments rescue banks by bailing them out directly or by giving loans to the Greek government. Banks can then continue to finance governments (the loans to the Greek government and others). But who, in the end, is really paying for this whole mess? That is the end of our story. Let us begin with the origin that coincides with beneficiaries of the last EU summit: the banking system.

The vast majority of commentary — particularly this week’s extremely disappointing Economist magazine — crassly neglects the tight nexus between banks and the state which has funded politician’s unrealistic promises for a generation through currency debasement. It’s good to see Philipp Bagus — a German economist working in Spain — making a case which is sadly lacking elsewhere.

“There’s no, on my part, no bad blood, no rancour, no bitterness. These are valued Conservative colleagues, I understand why people feel strongly and we will go forward together and tackle the difficult decisions the country faces.”

via BBC News – EU referendum: Cameron says no bad blood towards rebels.

The debate is available here. I voted for the motion, in line with my pledges. I now look forward to continuing my support for the Government.