Breaching International Law?

I've commented on the case of Assange before, here and here. And the case still rumbles on. Currently Assange is trying to claim asylum in Ecuador via their embassy in London, and in a rather unusual and controversial move, the UK Government is threaten to revoke the status of the Ecuadorean Embassy in order to arrest him - using a little known law passed in 1987 in response to the shooting of Yvonne Fletcher.

Carl Gardner, a former government lawyer, said the law was specifically designed to stop acts of terrorism of other breaches of international law within a foreign embassy, which Ecuador was not guilty of. 

The fallout to Britain's diplomatic reputation should such actions be taken would be enormous and hugely damaging:

Sir Tony Brenton, who served as the United Kingdom's ambassador to Russia between 2004 and 2008, said "arbitrarily" overturning the status of the building where Mr Assange has taken shelter to avoid extradition, would make life 'impossible' for British diplomats overseas.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme: "I think the Foreign Office have slightly overreached themselves here, for both practical and legal reasons.

"The Government itself has no interest in creating a situation where it is possible for governments everywhere to arbitrarily cut off diplomatic immunity. It would be very bad."

So why would they even contemplate creating such a situation? Well a clue can be found in the document presented to Ecuador by British diplomats in Quito (my emphasis):

We are aware, and surprised by media reports in the last 24 hours, that Ecuador is about to take a decision and proposes to grant asylum to Mr. Assange. The reports quote official sources. We note that the (Ecuadorean) President (Rafael Correa) has stated that no decision has yet been made.

We are concerned, if true, that this might undermine our efforts to agree a joint text setting out the positions of both countries, allowing Mr. Assange to leave the Embassy.

As we have previously set out, we must meet our legal obligations under the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision and the Extradition Act 2003, to arrest Mr. Assange and extradite him to Sweden. We remain committed to working with you amicably to resolve this matter. But we must be absolutely clear this means that should we receive a request for safe passage for Mr. Assange, after granting asylum, this would be refused, in line with our legal obligations.

Thus the priority is we must meet our EU obligations above and beyond our own country's interests even if it means international ridicule, condemnation and isolation. Happy days.

Left To Rot

I've touched on the scandal of the European Arrest Warrant before, and so it's reared it's ugly head again (my emphasis):

 A man facing extradition to Portugal to stand trial for a crime he was acquitted of nearly two decades ago said today his life has been 'turned upside-down'.

Photographer Graham Mitchell, 49, said he had been left 'terrified' by the prospect of being sent abroad to face charges he thought he had been cleared of.

Mr Mitchell was earlier this month arrested on a European arrest warrant to face charges of the attempted murder of a German tourist on the Algarve in 1994.

But Mr Mitchell and his friend, Warren Tozer, were in 1995 cleared of the attack on Andre Jorling, who was left paralysed from the waist down after falling from a 12ft sea wall.

British police acting on the arrest warrant issued by Portuguese authorities arrested Mr Mitchell at his home in Canterbury, Kent, on March 6.

British Police are effectively being ordered to arrest British citizens based on no evidence and on a double jeopardy case 18 years after the alleged crime was committed. Not only that they can’t even get the charges right.

The scandal of the EAW was instigated by Lib Dem MEP Sir Graham Watson MEP:

Yet again Sir Graham Watson MEP cannot resist telling the world that he is the man responsible for guiding the ill conceived and flawed European Arrest warrant through the European Parliament.

Indeed Sir Graham seems to be proud of his part in bringing about this legislation even though his enthusiasm is shared by very few others.

The European Arrest Warrant overrides centuries of British judicial tradition.

And has subsequently been supported by Nick Clegg:

Nick Clegg has argued that the European Arrest Warrant - a cross-border crime-fighting agreement heavily criticised by many Conservatives - "is indispensable" to the UK.

The deputy prime minister said co-operation was the "only means" of tackling drugs, smuggling and gangs.

It is also a situation supported by our judiciary, and, despite the fake protestations to the contrary, by our MSM by virtue of their support of EU membership.

We're being left to rot.

Andrew Symeou Has Been Acquitted

Congratulations to Andrew Symeou, a victim of the European Arrest Warrant, who has now been acquitted. As Dan Hannan points out, why has the liberal elite remained largely quiet over this disgrace:

... many others saw the whole business as a Eurosceptic plot to discredit the European Arrest Warrant. Read, for example, some of the comments posted here by Guardian readers.

I hope those who were readier to condemn an innocent man than to examine their Euro-integrationist prejudices will ponder what it would be like to spend eleven months in one of the worst prisons in Europe, to let four irreplaceable years of your life slip by while your friends pass through university, to watch your parents exhaust their savings shuttling back and forth Greece, all without your case coming to trial. (The humanity and dignity of Andrew’s parents, Frank and Helen, was perhaps the most heartbreaking aspect of the whole saga).

Concerns about a travesty of justice only take effect in certain conditions it seems, interestingly though Hannan, despite his criticism, is happy to remain a member of a party who wants to make things worse, while I'm a member of one that doesn't.

Minority Report

Now no longer fiction but fact thanks to the EU. The EU Arrest Warrant can now be used for crimes you may commit in the future:

EU Rules

At no surprise to anyone, UKIP supporters or otherwise, who follow the evils of the European Arrest Warrant, Julian Assange has lost his extradition case:

The WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is to be extradited to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault. Assange will appeal, his legal team has confirmed. If they lose he will be sent to Sweden in 10 days.

Prima facie evidence in this country is no longer required for extradition:

So it became official. The highest court in the land [House of Lords] did not think it of general public interest if one of our citizens is consigned to a foreign prison system on trumped up charges.

And so it proves:

The defence had argued that the allegations against Assange were not offences in English law and therefore not grounds for extradition.

So:

Outside the court Assange's lawyer, Mark Stephens, said the ruling had not come as a surprise and reaffirmed the Assange team's concerns that adhering to the European arrest warrant (EAW) amounted to "tick box justice".

Therefore, democracy takes a back seat:

Stephens suggested Riddle had been "hamstrung" by the EAW. "We're pretty sure the secrecy and the way [the case] has been conducted so far have registered with this judge. He's just hamstrung," he told reporters.

As I blogged here, the Guardian are outraged but not enough to campaign against our membership of the EU - you reap what you sow.

Update: Assange is in the Telegraph (my emphasis):

The ruling against him came as a result of "a European arrest warrant system run amok", he claimed.

He said: "There was no consideration during this entire process as to the merit of the allegations made against me, no consideration or examination of even the complaints made in Sweden and of course we have always known we would appeal."

First They Came...

First they came for a grandmother,
and some didn't speak out because they read the Guardian / BBC.

Then they came for the students,
and some didn't speak out because they read the Guardian / BBC.

Then they came for the football fans,
and some didn't speak out because they read the Guardian / BBC.

Then they came for the business men,
and some didn't speak out because they read the Guardian / BBC.

Then they came for the holiday makers,
and some didn't speak out because they read the Guardian / BBC.

Then they came for the Guardian /BBC reader,
and it's whoops perhaps this European Arrest Warrant is not such a good thing after all (my emphasis):

One of the arguments Mr Assange's lawyers will raise concerns what is known as "double" or "dual criminality". This principle ensures that no one is extradited unless the allegations against them from the requesting state, amount to a criminal offence in English law.

His lawyers will argue that the first three allegations which cover unlawful coercion and sexual molestation do not constitute an offence under English law.

The equivalent offence would be sexual assault, which requires a lack of consent. It will be argued that the arrest warrant doesn't allege a lack of consent.

Double criminality, however, doesn't apply in the case of the fourth allegation, rape.

This is one of the list of offences under the European Arrest Warrant framework where the extraditing country has simply to tick a box.

Mr Assange's lawyers will seek to argue double criminality here by reference to European law, but it may prove a difficult argument to win.

Hardly a surprise - the EAW means that UK magistrates no longer consider prima facie evidence for extradition.

BBC World Service: European Investigation Order and Arrest Warrant

From Big Brother Watch:

Be afraid...

Not unexpectedly, the goal of setting up a European Public Prosecutor, allowed under the Lisbon Treaty, is gathering pace:

The Belgian presidency is stepping up plans to establish an EU-wide public prosecutor in charge of protecting the bloc's financial interests and unifying procedures for gathering criminal evidence, despite reluctance from some member states, notably the UK.

The UK has an opt-in via the Justice and Home Affairs Opt-In Protocol and also a veto:

Under the Lisbon Treaty, an EU public prosecutor's office "may be established from Eurojust," but only if all member states agree.

but (my emphasis):

The idea is not universally popular among the 27 member states. Mr De Clerck admitted that there was "still a lot of reluctance" on this issue in some national quarters, with the UK being "the most vocal." A major objection is that the prosecutor may override national investigators or even order them to start an inquiry.

Rightly so. Unfortunately the 'UK being vocal' is normally the first step in acceptance of EU wishes as per my golden rules:

...experience teaches us, that what really happens with a so-called eurosceptic Tory party is:

1. Britain claims proposals are unacceptable.
2. Britain attends negotiations isolated, and so a row ensues.
3. Behind the scenes lots of horse-trading happens.
4. Neville Chamberlain David Cameron will emerge waving a white piece of paper exclaiming that they have secured the best deal for Britain.
5. It later emerges that far more was given away than won.
6. Said opt-outs will erode over time, especially now EU law is supreme and thus they will leak like a sieve.
7. Britain will, as a result, be integrated further into the EU supranational state.
   

And this is precisely what will happen here. My Tory MP when I wrote to him would not categorically rule out opting-in. And the EPP is also a classic example of the so-called Lisbon Treaty 'red lines' leaking like a sieve.

Even if the UK veto's the establishment of a EPP, the Lisbon Treaty still allows for one under enhanced co-operation (Article 280), where if at least nine Member States wish to continue with establishing a EPP they are able to do so. Whilst Britain would largely be protected by its opt-in, this would not apply to legislation such as the controversial European Arrest Warrant and now the EIO. So UK citizens could still be forced to face prosecution in another EU member state - without asking the permission of the UK Government or the Director of Public Prosecutions and without prima facie evidence.

Given the abuses of the Arrest Warrant and that the EIO has yet to take its final form, protection of UK citizens from abuses by the state is on a rapidly accelerating downward trajectory.

Be very afraid...

Jason's Arrest Warrant Hell

Here's Jason McGoldrick's short but horrifying speech about his time in an Hungarian Prison at the UKIP's annual conference:

Only UKIP was prepared to help, and I say that less as a celebration of UKIP and more as damning criticism of the other parties. The British people are being left to rot.

UKIP Conference

As you may have guessed I returned back yesterday from my weekend jolly on the south coast. I had intended to post a few comments straight away, but got waylaid, so here's a short summary today. Speaking to relatives yesterday, it seems that coverage of the conference by the media was scant if any at all. Hardly surprising when the BBC's attitude amounts to this.

Onto the conference itself (many thanks to Witterings for the lift). This was the first full proper party conference I've ever attended. So a slightly new experience for me. (though most conferences, political or otherwise, can usually be summed up with one word - alcohol). First impressions; good location and well organised, although a slight black mark for the person who forgot to remove the EU flag from a pole on the roof above the entrance.

I listened to about 3/4 of the speeches. Highlights on day one, speech wise, was Petr Mach a politician from the Czech Republic and founder of the eurosceptic Free Citizens Party, Lord Stoddart a very early Labour critic of the common market before the UK joined, and Lord Monckton. Lord Monckton told me a wonderful and amusing story outside the hall, before he was due to go on stage, about how he conducted a citizen's arrest on a traffic warden for breach of the peace, when said warden tried to ticket his motorbike for a parking offence.

The most powerful speech for me in the whole conference was given by Gerard Batten on the Saturday regarding the failings of the European Arrest Warrant. His speech can be found here in full, it really is worth a read. As part of the speech, a short video was played regarding the case of Mark Turner and Jason McGoldrick who were victims of the warrant. Locked up for 117 days, without charge, on trumped up evidence; their accounts of conditions in the Hungarian former KGB jail were truly horrific. It took the hard work of UKIP MEP William Dartmouth to secure their release, unfortunately only on bail at the moment. Mark and Jason had turned up in person to thank UKIP and specifically William Dartmouth in person. Where were the other parties' MEPs and MPs in this case you may ask, why was it left to a UKIP MEP? Well I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.

Batten's speech in fact left me feeling so angry that I had to leave not long after he had finished to calm down. Here's an extract regarding Andrew Symeou which indicates why (my emphasis):

It was obvious to the Appeal Court Judges that there was no real evidence against him and what there was appeared to be fabricated by the Greek police. But they were powerless to consider it.

They did the only thing that they could which was refer the appeal to the House of Lords on the basis of asking if the apparent fabrication of evidence amounted to an abuse of process of the EAW. The House of Lords, in what must be one of the most despicable decisions in its long history, refused to even hear the case on the grounds it “did not have an arguable point of law of general public interest”. So it became official. The highest court in the land did not think it of general public interest if one of our citizens is consigned to a foreign prison system on trumped up charges.

The political establishment really hate us don't they?

The other major issue was, of course, the next leadership election. Nigel Farage used his speech to put his name forward, not entirely unsurprising in my view, as did others - David Campbell Bannerman launched a not very veiled attack on Farage. Let the leadership shenanigans begin.

I also went to an unofficial fringe meeting hosted by Nikki Sinclair. She was launching this referendum campaign which aims to gain a 100,000 signatures for a referendum on our membership with the EU, in accordance with these proposals from the coalition not yet debated:

Present proposals to the House of Commons to ensure that any petition that secures 100,000 signatures within a given year will be eligible for formal debate in Parliament, and that the petition with the most signatures be tabled as a Bill

Nikki's campaign is not to be confused with this one.

So all in all a successful conference, it's good to meet up again with familiar faces and meet new UKIP ones such as Mark Wadsworth, but slightly overshadowed by what will be another bout of UKIP's tendency for in-fighting.

After it was all over I had a quick beer in a recommended pub in Torquay while waiting to go home. It was a proper local's pub, very friendly. Obviously me being in a suit and tie led to some inquisitive questions from those sat at the bar. A discussion about politics quickly followed. The first complaint / concerns from the locals? Yep you've guessed it, immigration.

As an aside, if you should wish to visit and stay in Torquay then I thoroughly recommend this place. It was one of the best B&B's I've ever stayed in.

A Bit Late To The Party

When I read Iain Dale's latest post last night on the fact that he's just noticed the failings of the European Arrest Warrant, I honestly couldn't face writing another blog post about him, especially with such 'observational' gems such these:

I haven't had a strong view on the European Arrest Warrant up to now. Until today. I could see its value in bringing trans-border criminals to justice more speedily, even if my gut instinct was to feel that it was yet another chink in the armour of sovereign British justice.

and (my emphasis):

Theresa May has recently extended the powers of the EAW by signing up to the European Investigation Order. I hope she understood what she was doing.

and:

And if Theresa May is the woman I think she is, she will pick up the phone to her Greek counterpart tomorrow morning and ask him to put right this apparent massive injustice.

Go on Theresa. You know you want to.

Thankfully The Devil's Knife has responded in his typically robust manner and very well worth a read it is too.

Update: It appears there's a dispute over whether Dan Hannan and other Tories voted for or against the EAW in the EU Parliament. DK cites Trixy as saying yes they did, whilst Dan Hannan left a comment here claiming that he didn't. I've left a comment on DK saying:

DK: The vote was taken on Feb 6th 2002 as shown here ... and the voting record is here. 412 voted in favour and 122 against. Records show that Hannan voted against the Arrest Warrant. Hope that helps.

Although it does appear that the Tories did vote against a "habeas corpus" safeguard amendment as reported by the Telegraph.

European Arrest Warrant

Witterings From Witney has a spot-on post regarding this report in the Telegraph today:

The number of people in Britain seized under the controversial "no-evidence-needed" European Arrest Warrant rose by more than 50 per cent last year, figures obtained by The Sunday Telegraph show.

David Blunkett, the former home secretary who introduced the European warrants, admitted he had been "insufficiently sensitive" about how they could be "overused". David Davis, his former Tory shadow, last night called for a "review and reform" of the extradition system.

As Witherings rightly points out:

1. David Blunkett did not 'introduce' the European warrants, the EU did and all Blunkett did was 'administer' their introduction.

2. How David Davis believes that calling for a 'review and reform' can be implemented (which is implied can be done by Westminster) I would love to know.

3. The statement from the Home Office spokesman is likewise misleading as the Government cannot 'review' the UK's extradition arrangements anymore than I can.

The Telegraph concludes with:

A Home Office spokesman said: “The Government is committed to reviewing the UK’s extradition arrangements.”

That's a 'nothing will change anytime soon' comment then

One wonders how long it will be before the 'spacesuit wearing' Theresa May makes a similar "insufficiently sensitive" confession about the European Investigation Order.

My Hols

As from today I'm off on holiday for a week, and my internet access will be limited or non-existent, so blogging will be taking a sabbatical as well.

And talking of holidays leads me neatly onto this article in the Mail today regarding consequences of the European Arrest Warrant:

A student and four of his friends are facing years in a Greek prison after a holiday turned into a nightmare.

They were flown to Athens yesterday. Lawyers for the five claim the case against them is 'ridiculously weak', but they were powerless to prevent the extradition as the Greek authorities used the controversial European Arrest Warrant to force them to stand trial.

The long arm of EU power is now starting to affect people directly and in ways that it can no longer hide from. As Richard North states on a post regarding immigration the cracks in the dam are appearing. It will only get worse.

You can only govern peope by either consent or fear; the EU has neither. And when it starts to interfere negatively and obviously in people's lives, without democratic recourse, then the project is in trouble. Big trouble. It's always only ever been a question of time.

I leave you with a quote from one of the suspect's mothers.

[Mr Holland's] mother Vanessa said: 'How many more young innocent British lads like George will be banged up across Europe before the Government shows some mettle and gets to grips with the failings of the European Arrest Warrant?

'Parents, be very afraid – this summer it could be your sons wrongly accused yet you'll be powerless to stop their extradition and immediate detention.

'When did this country become so feeble in failing to stand up for the rights of its own?

Quite.

EIO? Nothing To Fear?

Thanks to the Tory Government choosing to opt in to the European Investigation Order, we can now be subjected to investigations by other countries for crimes which aren't even illegal in this country. A classic example is denying the Holocaust, something which is illegal in Germany, but not here in the UK. The EU Observer says (my emphasis):

In particular, Statewatch, the UK-based civil liberties monitor, says there is no longer a basis for refusal on the grounds of territoriality and what is called "dual criminality" - that the act for which information is sought must constitute a crime punishable in both states.

This would now mean that a person who committed an act which is legal in the member state where the act was carried out could, according to critics, be subject to body, house and business searches, financial investigations, and some forms of covert surveillance, if the act is regarded as a crime under the law of another member state.

For example, Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany and 12 other EU countries but not in the UK, Sweden or Spain - each of which back the new proposals. The EIO could thus in theory used by Germany to someone who denied the Holocaust in a country where to do so is legal.

Use of EU powers like this to prosecute people for actions not illegal in other EU states already has a precedence. In 2008 UK Police arrested an Australian, under the European Arrest Warrant in order to deport him to Germany for denying the Holocaust:

A leading holocaust denier who runs a website insisting the Nazis did not murder millions of Jews will face an extradition hearing tomorrow after being arrested as he flew into Britain.

Dr Fredrick Toben was seized at Heathrow at the request of the German authorities for publishing 'anti-Semitic and/or revisionist' material between 2000 and 2004.

Dr Toben - who claims to be facing a 'witch-trial' - has committed no crime in Britain, where Holocaust denial is not an offence.

But, under the terms of a European Arrest Warrant designed to fast-track extraditions, the Australian citizen can be held in the UK pending possible deportation to Germany - where he faces five years in prison.

The EAW already has well documented abuses attached to it, the EIO will add to this, especially with its lack of safeguards, as Tory MP Dominic Raab points out:

...that there are no proper limits on the nature of the crimes involved – so they could be trivial, or not even offences under UK law...the Order even provides legal authority for European police to carry out investigations on British soil.

It's also not beyond the possibility that other member states could pass legislation that bars criticism of the EU which then could be applied to other member states via these instruments. Don't believe me? Here's yesterday's EUObserver regarding a proposed Italian 'gag law':

Bloggers, podcasters and even anyone who posts updates on social networks such as Facebook all face being slapped with fines of up to €25,000 for publishing incorrect facts, if a bill that journalists' organisations are calling "authoritarian" currently before the Italian parliament is passed.

A provision within the government's Media and Wiretapping Bill will extend Italy's "obbligo di rettifica", or rectification obligation - a law dating back to 1948 that requires newspapers to publish corrections - to the internet and indeed anyone "responsible for information websites".

According to the draft law, bloggers and other online publishers - which lawyers believe includes users of Facebook and Myspace - will be obliged to post corrections within 48 hours of any complaint regarding their content.

If authors do not comply, they face fines of up to €25,000.

Should the Italian Government pass this legislation, then it doesn't take a great deal of imagination to see where this could logically end up using EU instruments.

And the Tories have opted in to only the draft version of the EIO, the final version can end up being much much worse, with no exit being possible. I hope anyone who voted Tory feels pleased with themselves.

A Further Loss Of Sovereignty

Open Europe reports:

Home Secretary Theresa May has just announced to the House of Commons that the UK has decided to opt in to negotiations on the European Investigation Order (EIO). It will give foreign police forces the right to compel UK police to seek and share evidence on suspects. This clearly poses fundamental questions about safeguards for civil liberties and the new pressures it will place on police resources.

Let us first give May some credit for giving a statement in person and allowing questions to be put to her rather than issuing a mere written statement (She has done good work on parliamentary scrutiny of EU issues in the past). However, it should also be said that MPs have not previously had the chance to scrutinise the proposal either in the European Scrutiny Committee or in the House.

The truth is that, although May did her best to push the 'nothing to see here line', the Government cannot guarantee how the final directive will look until after negotiations with other member states and MEPs in the European Parliament, which under the Lisbon Treaty now have powers to co-decide in justice and home affairs.

May said that signing up to the directive did not present a loss of sovereignty. But John Redwood made the valid and important point that if the UK doesn't have the ability (which it doesn't) to opt out of the European Investigation Order if it ends up as something "different to what was advertised" after negotiations then this must imply a loss of sovereignty.

The Home Secretary admitted today that there are aspects of the current proposal the Government does not like. This will now be decided by qualified majority voting, meaning the UK is powerless to veto the EIO either if these unwanted elements are retained or if new and unforeseen amendments are added along the way.

This is not to mention the fact that, as a result of Lisbon, the European Court of Justice will have the power to make rulings on how the EIO is interpreted in the UK.

Well what a surprise. It just confirms what I blogged here yesterday:

And once the UK has decided to opt-in there is no right to opt-out even if the outcome of the negotiations is not acceptable.

We're running out of political solutions.

Red Lines

The Daily Mail reports that the Tory-led coalition Government are set to allow foreign police forces jurisdiction on British soil;

Ministers are ready to hand sweeping Big Brother powers to EU states so they can spy on British citizens.

Foreign police will be able to travel to the UK and take part in the arrest of Britons.

They will be able to place them under surveillance, bug telephone conversations, monitor bank accounts and demand fingerprints, DNA or blood samples.

Anyone who refuses to comply with a formal request for co-operation by a foreign-based force is likely to be arrested by UK officers.

These new powers would come under the European Investigation Order (EIO), which is intended to compliment the controversial European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and the European Evidence Warrant (EEW) to be implemented by 2011.

The EIO Directive has been proposed on the basis of Article 82(2)(a) of the Lisbon Treaty. This means that the proposal is subject to qualified majority voting so no member state has a veto.

The UK, however has an opt in as part of its infamous red lines negotiated by the previous administration, so it could decide not to take part in the process at all, and let the other member states continue on their own. But no, as the Mail reports, the coalition cannot wait to sign up quick enough:

But ministers have made a dramatic U-turn since joining the pro-EU Lib Dems in government, and the wide-ranging powers are due to be approved later this week.

Whitehall insiders say ministers have been persuaded it has many benefits. In particular, police say they will gain from the fact that the arrangements will be reciprocal, making it easier for them to track suspects overseas.

Ministers have been persuaded? I bet they have, by the Foreign Office whose loyalty is to the bureaucrats in Brussels not to us.

Even worse, not only will the EIO allow any EU police force to start investigations on UK soil, but no judicial authority is needed to verify whether there are reasonable grounds for an offence to have been committed. Even in this country the police can’t investigate on a whim, they need to have reasonable grounds.

But even if Cameron promises (and we know what these are like) that the EIO should be subjected to judicial scrutiny, if we decide to opt in it would be very difficult to amend the draft proposals anyway. There is no guarantee that the EIO would not pass in its current and highly dangerous format. And once the UK has decided to opt-in there is no right to opt-out even if the outcome of the negotiations is not acceptable.

Once again the Tories are shown to be complete Europhiles, as Richard North points out:

But now we have the Tories back again, we can look forward to another leap forward in European integration, just as we do every time we have a Tory government.

Amusingly, and not surprisingly, just before the election, the Labour was accused of wanting to sign up to the same proposal:

Minutes of a parliamentary committee show Labour is quietly backing the idea. Home office minister Meg Hillier said: 'We would in principle support a new and comprehensive instrument based on mutual recognition that covers all types of evidence'.

And the Tory response? Tory justice spokesman Dominic Grieve said at the time:

'In supporting this proposal, Labour is yet again showing its relish for surveillance and disdain for civil liberties'.

The voters outside looked from Labour to Tory, and from Tory to Labour, and from Labour to Tory again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.