Europe will block Tory plans for Immigration
Discussion
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/25/ntory25.xml
The European Commission threatened last night to block Michael Howard's programme of tough immigration controls if the Tories win the election.
These would include setting an annual limit on the number of asylum seekers.
Michael Howard and David Davies launch the policy
While Mr Howard faced criticism at home from refugee and race groups, Brussels officials said that directives already signed by the Government would prevent the Tories from adopting a go-it-alone policy on immigration.
A qualifications directive would stop them from withdrawing from the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees, which prevents Britain from taking immediate action to deport asylum seekers whose claims are not genuine.
Europe's intervention in what has become a major issue in the election campaign took Westminster aback. MPs and officials were unaware of how much national sovereignty on immigration and asylum had been transferred to Brussels.
The Conservative leadership responded by saying that a Tory government would immediately opt out of the new rules. If that were blocked, it would insist on renegotiation to allow Britain to determine its own asylum and immigration policies.
Mr Howard had earlier denied that he was "playing the race card" by putting proposals for strict controls on immigration at the heart of the Tory campaign.
He said that immigration was out of control and that the country could not absorb the "millions" more who wanted to come here. Firm but fair controls were essential for good community relations and national security.
A Tory government would set an annual limit to immigration, including a quota for asylum seekers. It would introduce legislation to give the home secretary power to order the removal of bogus asylum seekers.
Within hours the European Commission said that Mr Howard was too late.
The qualifications directive establishes a binding EU definition of who is a refugee. It has been adopted by Britain and other EU governments and comes into full force in September next year, regardless of who wins the election expected in May.
Its definitions are drawn from the UN convention but expand on and reinforce the rather vague clauses of the 1951 treaty. It offers additional protection to asylum seekers fleeing civil wars and lifts its definitions for such cases wholesale from the European convention on human rights.
Friso Roscam Abbing, the chief spokesman for the EU justice commissioner, Franco Frattini, said that in 1997 Britain had negotiated a sweeping opt-out on questions of immigration. But in recent years, as the EU drew up a common asylum policy, the Government explicitly opted into the negotations. It had signed every directive to date.
"There is nothing in these protocols that allows a British government to opt back out again," Mr Roscam Abbing said. "So Britain is bound by them." Nor would a Conservative government be able to set quotas for the number of refugees accepted each year.
"Say they set a quota of 10,000 a year," Mr Roscam Abbing said. "Well, the 10,001st case could say to a British judge, `Your government is bound by EU rules and is not at liberty not to consider my claim,' "
A rolling wave of protocols and directives - one in force, one coming next month, a third next year and a fourth in 2007 - have overridden national laws on where governments keep asylum seekers, how they treat them, and how many appeals they are allowed.
If a future British government were to enact laws that contravened EU regulations, the commission would begin "infringement proceedings". Those would be followed, if resistance continued, by legal action in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
When The Telegraph told David Davis, the shadow home secretary, he said: "We had a pretty good idea we would have to renegotiate because the Blair Government has been opting into more EU asylum policies."
Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, said that Mr Howard's announcement left the way open for racists to put the "worst construction" on his message.
Heaven forbid we might want to set our own UK laws for the UK eh? What would we be thinking?
Phil
The European Commission threatened last night to block Michael Howard's programme of tough immigration controls if the Tories win the election.
These would include setting an annual limit on the number of asylum seekers.
Michael Howard and David Davies launch the policy
While Mr Howard faced criticism at home from refugee and race groups, Brussels officials said that directives already signed by the Government would prevent the Tories from adopting a go-it-alone policy on immigration.
A qualifications directive would stop them from withdrawing from the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees, which prevents Britain from taking immediate action to deport asylum seekers whose claims are not genuine.
Europe's intervention in what has become a major issue in the election campaign took Westminster aback. MPs and officials were unaware of how much national sovereignty on immigration and asylum had been transferred to Brussels.
The Conservative leadership responded by saying that a Tory government would immediately opt out of the new rules. If that were blocked, it would insist on renegotiation to allow Britain to determine its own asylum and immigration policies.
Mr Howard had earlier denied that he was "playing the race card" by putting proposals for strict controls on immigration at the heart of the Tory campaign.
He said that immigration was out of control and that the country could not absorb the "millions" more who wanted to come here. Firm but fair controls were essential for good community relations and national security.
A Tory government would set an annual limit to immigration, including a quota for asylum seekers. It would introduce legislation to give the home secretary power to order the removal of bogus asylum seekers.
Within hours the European Commission said that Mr Howard was too late.
The qualifications directive establishes a binding EU definition of who is a refugee. It has been adopted by Britain and other EU governments and comes into full force in September next year, regardless of who wins the election expected in May.
Its definitions are drawn from the UN convention but expand on and reinforce the rather vague clauses of the 1951 treaty. It offers additional protection to asylum seekers fleeing civil wars and lifts its definitions for such cases wholesale from the European convention on human rights.
Friso Roscam Abbing, the chief spokesman for the EU justice commissioner, Franco Frattini, said that in 1997 Britain had negotiated a sweeping opt-out on questions of immigration. But in recent years, as the EU drew up a common asylum policy, the Government explicitly opted into the negotations. It had signed every directive to date.
"There is nothing in these protocols that allows a British government to opt back out again," Mr Roscam Abbing said. "So Britain is bound by them." Nor would a Conservative government be able to set quotas for the number of refugees accepted each year.
"Say they set a quota of 10,000 a year," Mr Roscam Abbing said. "Well, the 10,001st case could say to a British judge, `Your government is bound by EU rules and is not at liberty not to consider my claim,' "
A rolling wave of protocols and directives - one in force, one coming next month, a third next year and a fourth in 2007 - have overridden national laws on where governments keep asylum seekers, how they treat them, and how many appeals they are allowed.
If a future British government were to enact laws that contravened EU regulations, the commission would begin "infringement proceedings". Those would be followed, if resistance continued, by legal action in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
When The Telegraph told David Davis, the shadow home secretary, he said: "We had a pretty good idea we would have to renegotiate because the Blair Government has been opting into more EU asylum policies."
Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, said that Mr Howard's announcement left the way open for racists to put the "worst construction" on his message.
Heaven forbid we might want to set our own UK laws for the UK eh? What would we be thinking?
Phil
The trouble is that we don't seem to have the balls to just go ahead and set this legislation regardless of what the arses in Brussels have to say about it. Can you imagine the French or the Italians giving two short shits about what the EU have to say about their laws? Or the Irish, for that matter. What was the comment from an Irish landlord recently? Something like "ah to be sure they've banned smoking in pubs but we'll just ignore it like all the other rules".
This country is all too ready to give away it's customs, traditions and rights to make its own decisions without fighting for them.
This country is all too ready to give away it's customs, traditions and rights to make its own decisions without fighting for them.
Good old Europe. When they signed up in 73, I bet they didn't forsee this much crap. It's about time we told them to 
off.
Turn the power off NOW!!
It's not the British public who lack bollocks, it's the government. I love my country and I want to live here, I don't want to be forced out by a parasitic government or a parasitic Europe.
>> Edited by love machine on Tuesday 25th January 09:29
off. Turn the power off NOW!! It's not the British public who lack bollocks, it's the
government. I love my country and I want to live here, I don't want to be forced out by a parasitic government or a parasitic Europe. >> Edited by love machine on Tuesday 25th January 09:29
I like this bit in particular:
Surely if a set of laws are made by one particular government that are then seen to be unacceptable by a future populace - there is a way out of them?
Phil
Some bloke said:
"There is nothing in these protocols that allows a British government to opt back out again," Mr Roscam Abbing said. "So Britain is bound by them."
Surely if a set of laws are made by one particular government that are then seen to be unacceptable by a future populace - there is a way out of them?
Phil
miniman said:
This country is all too ready to give away it's customs, traditions and rights to make its own decisions without fighting for them.
Depends who you call "the country".. if its the pandering socialite communists in the House of commons, then Yes. if its the "common man" then who knows... sadly we have had it drummed into us that we are all powerless and the government rules us like a totalitarian state, therefore we don't march on parliment and throw these shysters out.
Cheers,
Matt.
M@H said:
This country is all too ready to give away it's customs, traditions and rights to make its own decisions without fighting for them.
Depends who you call "the country".. if its the pandering socialite communists in the House of commons, then Yes. if its the "common man" then who knows... sadly we have had it drummed into us that we are all powerless and the government rules us like a totalitarian state, therefore we don't march on parliment and throw these shysters out.
Cheers,
Matt.
Hear, hear, I'm down for the cause.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I know what you mean, but they will only get it by being supported, not branded as non-credible*.. What they actually need is some good PR people and a re-write of the manifesto into decent punchy "political" points. The National Front produced better, more sensible, literature through letterboxes around here than UKIP for the locals
Matt
*I realise you didn't say that exactly.
love machine said:
miniman said:
This country is all too ready to give away it's customs, traditions and rights to make its own decisions without fighting for them.
Depends who you call "the country".. if its the pandering socialite communists in the House of commons, then Yes. if its the "common man" then who knows... sadly we have had it drummed into us that we are all powerless and the government rules us like a totalitarian state, therefore we don't march on parliment and throw these shysters out.
Cheers,
Matt.
Hear, hear, I'm down for the cause.
We can't do it now though... remember the criminal justice act, and all this sneaky arrest and on the spot fine legislation. We're now in a position that if we did turn up brandishing pitchforks, then we'd all be banged to rights in moments.. Tony would turn the troops on us all
It also takes a huge amount of bollocks to stand up and preach a different religion to the masses. 90% of them are feeble minded and pander to what they've been indoctrinated with. All you need is a few left wing yoghurt weavers to make your life very difficult. Usually, it is the mature person who has such balls, hence UKIP being the party of the blue rinse.
Look how UKIP have been heckled by virtually everyone. (Including that tw*t Ian Hislop, what's your alternative asshole?).
I've really kicked today off on the wrong foot, thanks chaps.
We appear to be in a socio-fascist state.
>> Edited by love machine on Tuesday 25th January 09:43
Look how UKIP have been heckled by virtually everyone. (Including that tw*t Ian Hislop, what's your alternative asshole?).
I've really kicked today off on the wrong foot, thanks chaps.
We appear to be in a socio-fascist state.
>> Edited by love machine on Tuesday 25th January 09:43
miniman said:
The trouble is that we don't seem to have the balls to just go ahead and set this legislation regardless of what the arses in Brussels have to say about it. Can you imagine the French or the Italians giving two short shits about what the EU have to say about their laws? Or the Irish, for that matter. What was the comment from an Irish landlord recently? Something like "ah to be sure they've banned smoking in pubs but we'll just ignore it like all the other rules".
Did you see Dominic Grieve (Tory Shadow Attorney General) on Newsnight last night? Paxman laid into him and, in particular told him he was talking balls because the EU would never let them implement the proposals. Grieve effectively said that he didn't give a F
K about what the EU thought, this was policy and they would carry it out regardless. Don't worry. When the Conservatives regain power the first thing they will do is make a Churchill spirited gesture in the direction of Brussels. Take your human rights legislation, your unelected corrupt commission, your social chapter and your "constitution" and cram it up the self-same orifice from which you have been making all your acquisitive utterances.
Roll on the (counter) revolution.
Roll on the (counter) revolution.
unrepentant said:
The trouble is that we don't seem to have the balls to just go ahead and set this legislation regardless of what the arses in Brussels have to say about it. Can you imagine the French or the Italians giving two short shits about what the EU have to say about their laws? Or the Irish, for that matter. What was the comment from an Irish landlord recently? Something like "ah to be sure they've banned smoking in pubs but we'll just ignore it like all the other rules".
Did you see Dominic Grieve (Tory Shadow Attorney General) on Newsnight last night? Paxman laid into him and, in particular told him he was talking balls because the EU would never let them implement the proposals. Grieve effectively said that he didn't give a F
Paxman is another one of these "criticise everything" and offer no solution. If any of these people are so clever, why don't they offer a solution. Paxman and Hislop would both get a spank if they were near me.
GRRRRRRRR!
the lot of them. Well once again we've all been stitched up by a bit of EU legislation that we didn't know about, and didn't vote for. I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
Why are those in Power deliberately trying to
up my country..! Just think what it will be like in 20 years time if there is no radical change.. there will proabably be some EU household waste regulations telling me I can only have a dump once a day.. Matt.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I very much doubt it ! They want to be "in Europe, not governed by Europe" but the cost of continuing membership will be massive if we try and re-negotiate.. afterall we only pay them £20million-odd EVERY DAY already to be a member state, so that will go up for starters.
unrepentant said:
Did you see Dominic Grieve (Tory Shadow Attorney General) on Newsnight last night? Paxman laid into him and, in particular told him he was talking balls because the EU would never let them implement the proposals. Grieve effectively said that he didn't give a F
Not sure whether I would class that comment as "about time someone took a stand" or "election coming up, let's appeal to the repressed masses"...
Maybe, just maybe, this declaration on immigration might be the start of divesting our great nation of the miserable cloying wetness of political correctness - becuase although many commentators, and particularly politicians don't realise it, but the reacionary shock to this announcement is borne out of subsumed PC attitudes working into our psyches, and is not based on any significant popular attitude. Quite the opposite in fact - this is very much a "Light the blue touchpaper" announcement, and will bring to the surface a lot of support which has lain dormant in ordinary people's minds for a long time.
It is NOT necessarily racist, it is NOT necessarily isolationist - Great Britain as a society is incredibly tolerant and fair-minded - that is part of the raison that the current atmosphere of wishy-washy soft-left laissez-faire has been allowed to fester in UK politics. What we seem to have forgotten is that government policy should reflect the MAJORITY psyche, not the attitudes of those who shout loudest.
Furthermore, it is not unreasonable, in what is left of our democracy, to allow someone to express ANY opinion, and that still includes the Conservative party.
The apologists and power-mad current incumbents of Westminsters corridors of power are, first and foremost representing themselves, and President Blair will say and do anything to keep this country massaging his monstrous ego.
Personally, I do not want economic migrants in this country. I will happily accept those who are in fear of their lives, and also those who can bring something of significance to this country - skills and knowledge, not the outstretched beggar's hand. But I fail to see why we should accept thousands of people who come to Britain to escape poverty - we have enough poverty already to deal with, without importing extra!! British society is greatly enriched by cultural influences from abroad, but we are all impoverished by spongers, scroungers and those who come here just to live off the system.
It is NOT necessarily racist, it is NOT necessarily isolationist - Great Britain as a society is incredibly tolerant and fair-minded - that is part of the raison that the current atmosphere of wishy-washy soft-left laissez-faire has been allowed to fester in UK politics. What we seem to have forgotten is that government policy should reflect the MAJORITY psyche, not the attitudes of those who shout loudest.
Furthermore, it is not unreasonable, in what is left of our democracy, to allow someone to express ANY opinion, and that still includes the Conservative party.
The apologists and power-mad current incumbents of Westminsters corridors of power are, first and foremost representing themselves, and President Blair will say and do anything to keep this country massaging his monstrous ego.
Personally, I do not want economic migrants in this country. I will happily accept those who are in fear of their lives, and also those who can bring something of significance to this country - skills and knowledge, not the outstretched beggar's hand. But I fail to see why we should accept thousands of people who come to Britain to escape poverty - we have enough poverty already to deal with, without importing extra!! British society is greatly enriched by cultural influences from abroad, but we are all impoverished by spongers, scroungers and those who come here just to live off the system.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff