Dribble, wibble, Theresa May….

New powers to block extradition could be given to ministers to better protect Britons wanted by foreign courts, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.


An independent review of agreements with the US and European nations is to be announced by Theresa May, the Home Secretary.

Doesn\’t matter what Theresa and her experts say, conclude or do about the European Arrest Warrant.

It\’s European Law, we\’re not able to change it domestically: European law over rides anything we might decide domestically.

In order to change it we\’ve got to convince the European Commission to propose an amendment to the law, (for no one else, no country, not the European Parliament, is allowed to propose or revisit European laws) then get it through the Council of Ministers and then the European Parliament.

It\’s just not going to happen, is it?

7 thoughts on “Dribble, wibble, Theresa May….”

  1. A well-designed europe-wide arrest warrant is a very good idea, so no-one’s ditching the whole concept, just looking at its design and aplication. You’d have to figure out how much of the problem is the way the law was implemented in the UK – which is within the UK’s control, how much in the way it is applied in the UK, again within the UK’s control, and how much is a genuine design problem in the law itself, which you’re right about, but we did agree to in the first place.

    the US bit clearly needs fixing and can be fixed.

    No idea why the last lot couldn’t tackle this issue – so applause to the coalition.

  2. This is all window-dressing to make people turn back to “their”* Eastenders and Eggs-Faktah.

    An Europe-wide arrest “warrant” is not a “warrant”, surely, unless issued by a UK court. As such, European countries asking a UK court for an arrest warrant? Well, that is one thing, but a warrant issued in a foreign country – I know the Federasts want to end that concept, but go boil your heads – should and must NOT apply.

    However, as all three parties have willingly handed over what does not belong to them – our sovereignty – and one day the masses will wake up to it, probably once the final bolt is thrown in the armoured door that has been stealthily shut behind them.

    * why is it that some people seek to imply ownership over such utter tripe?

  3. I read somewhere that other countries (e.g. Germany) put protections into the way the EAW operates that mean the described gross injustices don’t happen to their citizens.

    We, of course, gold plated it (if I can use a term like gold plating when it comes to the utter shambles of the legislation – typical New Labour drafting we came to know and not love).

  4. (Here is a good briefing on what happened in Germany). One of the things its Constitutional Court said, in striking out its version of the EAW, is that the law hadn’t implemented the part of the Framework Decision that allows the judiciary to refuse the warrant – Germany, then, was guilty of gold-plating too.

    But Germany had extradited a number of its citizens before someone (accused by Spain of being involved in terrorism) challenged the constitutional validity of the EAW. Furthermore, there is of course nothing to stop the legislature from passing a new law and any challenge must begin anew – although until they do pass a new law, all EAWs for German citizens must be refused. (I don’t know the situation nowadays – there may be a new law)

    There seemed to be a rather more black and white case in Poland, where the Constitution says “the extradition of a Polish citizen shall be forbidden”, but there they argued whether extradition under the EAW meant the same thing as extradition under the Constitution! Despite the success of the constitutional challenge, people could still be extradited because the court, as it was constitutionally entitled, delayed the effect of its ruling by 18 months (IIRC to give the legislature time to create a new law to comply with the constitution and the Framework).

    Tim’s point stands. Even if your country has a constitution that ostensibly prohibits extradition, you are going to be tied up in legal arguments while the state attempts to comply with its EU obligations and continue to risk being extradited – even when there are valid concerns relating to the standards in the criminal justice system or the specific case (e.g. Garry Mann and Portugal, Andrew Symeou and Greece).

    EU harmony trumps the individual’s freedoms and rights.

  5. As Kay states, other countries have implemented the EAW to varying degrees. For instance, Belgium doesn’t allow extradition for abortion or euthanasia related crimes. Why can’t the UK amend it’s implementation of the EAW whilst still allowing the EAW in general. What’s to stop the UK putting in an extra judicial step between the arrest and extradition to another EU country? What’s to stop the UK limiting the crimes under which a EAW is valid in the UK, like taking a minor shoplifting crime out of the EAW (so stopping the huge numbers of Polish being shipped to Poland at taxpayers expense).

  6. I don’t have a lot of respect for the Germans on this issue. Remember, this is a country that has paid for data stolen from Swiss banks. Flagrant abuse of due process, etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *