A Meaningless Opt-out

What is the point of our government acquiring an opt-out from EU legalisation and then transforming our national laws to fall into exact alignment with the original EU legalisation?

It would be reasonable to assume that the opt-out was negotiated in the first place because the EU laws were not acceptable to our government, it is certainly the case that the government trumpet their hard won opt-outs by claiming EU laws in the opted out areas do not apply in Britain, and the Europhiles then use the opt-outs as a debating tool.

To me it seems very much like a magician’s slight of hand for the government to trumpet their opt-outs and use them as reassurance to our parliament and people, but then later change our laws to bring them into line with the rest of the EU.

This is the case with the common immigration policy Britain opted-out of this directive in the Amsterdam treaty, at the time the Prime Minister made it clear that there we would retain our independence in this area:

“We have ensured that we, and only we, decide border policy, and that policies on

immigration, asylum and visas are made in Britain, not in Brussels. Others may

choose to have different arrangements, to suit their traditions and geographical

position. I see no reason for preventing them from doing so, although such

arrangements will continue to be governed by unanimity.”

- Tony Blair, Hansard 18 June 1997

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): 25 April 2001

We are strongly committed to maintaining the opt-out secured at Amsterdam. We are wedded to it. We will consider any measures that might be proposed as a result of the communication, but we reserve the right to decide whether to opt in. Our primary consideration is the maintenance of our border controls.

Later on 2004 Blair said

“No, we are not giving anything up … we are not going to participate on anything -

let me make this clear to you - that takes away our right to decide our own asylum

and immigration policies in the way we think is right for this country … we

insisted that we would retain complete control.”

- Tony Blair, Press Conference, 25 October 2004

Yet only 18 months later April 2006 the government introduced the EU’s Citizens Directive 2004- as implemented in the UK Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.

It is the supremacy of EU law which is now preventing the enforcement of deportation orders against criminals from other EU Member States. How can the government continue to claim they have retained control of our borders when they cannot say who will be let in or who can be excluded.

If Blair and Roche were to be believed it was an imperative for Britain to retain control of our borders and that policies on immigration, asylum and visas are made in Britain, not in Brussels. That was clearly their arguments when questioned on this subject at the time, they used the opt-outs to undermine any opposition to the proposals suggesting that it was safe for us to ratify the Amsterdam treaty because controversial clauses did not apply in Britain.

Yet at the end of the day we do not actually retain control of our borders, thus all the arguments and the denials amount to nothing more than government spin, the opt-outs seem to be nothing more than a traversing tool to use against their own parliament rather than a serious statement of policy. An Opt out appearers to be a device designed purely to pull the wool over our eyes.