Oliver Letwin, MP exposes the EU Constitution
FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The fourth of the Bruges Group’s papers on the
draft EU Constitution dissects the threat it poses to Britain’s legal system.
Oliver Letwin exposes one of the least noticed features of the EU
constitution. He argues that it provides the basis for the gradual transfer of
virtually the entire criminal law from national Parliaments to Brussels. The
Criminal Justice provisions will undermine Britain’s laws, legal system and
procedure and the unique safeguards that have developed in Common Law. Oliver
Letwin also critiques the Government’s slight-of-hand in pretending that the
Constitution does not represent a significant change to Britain’s laws and
legal traditions.
Oliver Letwin highlights the provisions of concern. Chapter IV
Section I, reads: "The Union will take measures to prevent and
combat crime, racism and xenophobia". It goes on to tell us that the
Union will aim at "the approximation of criminal laws".
Chapter IV Section IV tells us that: "judicial
co-operation in criminal matters in the Union...shall include the
approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States". He says,
"This is, in other words, a document that begins to put the local judiciaries
in the position of working towards the approximation of the criminal laws
between the States - I don't think that implication has been spelt out by Mr
Hain if, indeed, he has remotely noticed it."
Oliver Letwin then analyses the so-called Framework Law, which is to
establish measures to: "prevent and settle conflicts of jurisdictions
between Member States." And, "to facilitate co-operation in criminal
matters between judicial and equivalent authorities in relation to proceedings
and the enforcement of decisions." These will, according to Mr Letwin,
effect criminal proceedings and the enforcement of decisions, i.e. in
policing. A European Framework Law may establish "minimum rules concerning
admissibility of evidence, definition of the rights of individuals in criminal
procedure, rights to victims and any other specific aspects of criminal
procedure which the Council has identified." This turns even court
procedure into an EU Competence (power).
The authors of the draft are primarily concerned with definitions of, and
sanctions for, serious crimes. Such as: "terrorism, trafficking in human
beings and sexual exploitation of women and children, illicit drug
trafficking, illicit arms trafficking, money laundering, corruption,
counterfeiting of means of payment, computer crime and organised crime."
Yet the authors of the draft don't regard that as a limit, because they go on
to tell us that the Council can add "to the list".
This could extend the EU institutions interference into all criminal
areas.
This is, in short, a clear charter for the progressive transfer of control
over the criminal law of the UK and other Member States from our Parliament to
the Council, the Commission, the ECJ and the European Parliament.
Oliver Letwin states that, "If Mr Hain believes that such a transfer
is a "tidying up exercise", it is difficult to know what Mr Hain would regard
as serious."
As Oliver Letwin argues, "The modern State has, as its primary purpose, to
protect one person against others. In our own case, this conception goes right
back to Magna Carta and beyond... Our freedom was established when
Henry II set about the creation of the common law; when the Barons brought
King John to Runnymede... Right back to the foundations of the modern State...
" These freedoms will be undermined by the EU Constitution.
Oliver Letwin explains why the criminal justice provisions are in the
Constitution, "...the only plausible motive for the people who have drafted
this draft - is to lay one of the principal foundations of statehood. The
authors have built into the Constitution the basis upon which, progressively,
the combined forces of the Council, of the ECJ, of the Parliament, and of the
judiciaries of the Member States, will transfer power over the criminal law
from the Member States to the central authorities, and thereby help to
establish those central authorities as the primary State."
He Concludes, "This is not a tidying-up exercise. To transfer power over
the criminal law is, on the contrary, one of the most fundamental things that
could happen to this country's constitution. It is bad enough that such a
thing should be put forward by a Prime Minister of this country. It is
unspeakable that he should suggest it is something about which it is not
necessary to vote in a referendum and for which it is not necessary to obtain
the full-hearted consent of the British people."
- ENDS -
- NOTES TO EDITORS -
The Bruges Group has a special section of our website dedicated to providing
Comment and Analysis on the EU Constitution. The URL is www.brugesgroup.com/euconstitution
Click here to
access Oliver Letwin's paper online
Additional copies can be obtained from the Bruges Group
Bruges Group representatives are available for
interviews and quotes
For further information contact:
Robert Oulds
Director
The Bruges Group
216 Linen Hall
162-168 Regent Street
London, W1B 5TB
UK
Tel: +44(0) 20 7287 4414
Fax: +44(0) 20 7287 5522
E-mail: info@brugesgroup.com | 
