It’s not just the economy, stupid.
It’s everything, stupid.

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.

Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con): I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require certain financial institutions to prepare parallel accounts on the basis of the lower of historic cost and mark to market for their exposure to derivatives; and for connected purposes.

I rise not as an expert in derivatives or derivative accounting, but as someone who has wrestled with the problems of the banking system in the company of experts, both academic and practical. I am persuaded that a parallel, more conservative accounting regime for derivatives would mitigate some of the worst risks in the financial system.

Even though banks are governed by overarching EU and Basel rules, it is for British regulators to approve the day-to-day activities of British banks. This is a profoundly important role. My Bill is a moderate proposal which seeks to improve accounting transparency to enable that role, because, as Mervyn King has said,

“banks are global in life but national in death”.

Read the rest of my speech via House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 Mar 2011. The Bill was successfully introduced.

There’s too much state intervention in banking already, so I hesitated to propose another imposed measure. However, it seems to me that until we expose the exploitative merry-go-round fostered in banking by the State, we will not achieve meaningful change.

In the preparation of this speech and supporting material, I am deeply grateful for the tireless support and encouragement of Prof. Kevin Dowd, Visiting Professor, Cass Business School, Prof. Margaret Woods, Reader in Accounting at Aston Business School and Gordon Kerr of Cobden Partners, who admits to having previously played a small but significant role in crashing the British banking system.

To learn more, please see www.cobdencentre.org.

I first mentioned Understanding the Law by Geoffrey Rivlin after observing the proceedings of Wycombe Magistrates’ Court. At last, I have finished it.

The book is a tour de force covering the law and its importance, the courts, the constitution, Parliament, the police, the judiciary, human rights, discrimination, the legal profession, the work of the courts and various historical, practical and ancillary subjects. At 370 pages, it is a considerable read but a triumph of brevity and wit in view of its scope. I enjoyed it.

However, I find myself for the first time, though inevitably not the last, in some disagreement with a judge. On page 334, by prefacing his remarks with “There seems to be no limit to man’s greed”, Rivlin appears to criticise the application of property rights to natural resources: he seems to separate property rights and responsible stewardship. I believe this is a mistake: sensible people take care of what they own, so property rights promote stewardship. Perhaps this is merely a weary aside but neither “property” nor “private property” appear in the index.

Happily, the fundamental importance of the right to own and enjoy property is explained in the first few pages of the book, but I lament the absence of either a chapter or an index entry on the subject. The essential weakness of property rights in contemporary society is set out in some detail by Shaffer in Boundaries of Order, so I was disappointed if not surprised to find this weakness present in Rivlin’s book by omission. As Mises explained, if classical liberalism were to be condensed to a single word, it would be “property”: we should not be astonished to find in these statist days a lack of emphasis on this fundamental concept.

Nevertheless, Understanding the Law is an excellent introduction to the English legal system and its practice today. I recommend it but perhaps consider reading Shaffer too.

Via The Conservative Party | News | Speeches | David Cameron: Reducing the burden and impact of health and safety, David Cameron further sets out his vision to turn Britain around:

Three weeks ago at the Young Lecture I said that the ultimate ambition of a future Conservative Government was to create the big society…

…a thick, intricate web of mutual obligation in which we fulfil our responsibilities to ourselves and each other.

I argued that achieving this vision requires government to empower individuals, families and communities to take control of their lives and exercise responsibility.

In almost every area, the Conservative Party aims to remove the obstacles that prevent people from making their own decisions.

…

…there is a growing sense that too many areas of our life are governed by petty rules, regulations and tick box bureaucracy that flies in the face of common sense, undermines discretion and prevents us from getting on with our lives.

David went on to explain how we would deal with “the great knot of rules, regulations, expectations and fears that I would call the over-the-top health and safety culture” which “is a straitjacket on personal initiative and responsibility”.

As someone who has managed aerospace engineering and who exercises his freedom responsibly by jumping out of aeroplanes, this is very much to my liking: personal responsibility and initiative are essential to climbing out of the hole we are in.

Further reading

• Read the speech here.
• Bureaucracy, a review of Mises’ eponymous book (PDF)

Very nearly beyond parody:

According to research by the TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA), there are currently 16,980 EU acts in force and between 1998 and 2007 there was a net gain of 9,415 EU laws. In 2007, 3,010 EU laws became UK law, while only 993 EU regulations were repealed – a net gain of 2,017 extra laws.

The pace at which new EU laws were promulgated also increased at a record speed, with a net gain of over 2,000 new laws in both 2006 and 2007, compared to an annual average net gain of only 942 new laws between 1998 and 2007. Almost half of the extra 9,415 EU laws created in the 10 years to the end of 2007 were introduced in 2006 and 2007. Ben Farrugia, a policy analyst at the TPA, says: “Despite EU rhetoric about reducing regulation, it is growing at a record rate.”

via EU: is Britain still a sovereign state? – Telegraph.

Am I a criminal? I haven’t a clue.

Moreover:

In many ways the numbers are irrelevant since one very bad law imposed by Brussels would outweigh a dozen footling changes emanating from Westminster. What is really at issue here is the question of sovereignty: when a law follows the EU route it is rarely scrutinised properly and cannot be changed. The connection between those who vote and those who pass our laws, the very foundation of democracy, is broken.