Sex trafficking/people trafficking is an international crime. UK cannot deal with it on its own despite how great the delusions of grandeur some may have. The same goes for any country.
What can we not deal with 'on our own' as you put it?
yeah stick to brussels. ami do it right mr cameron? And someone should stop calling this govt a coalition. it is not one. it's a tory govt
What makes you say that?
looks like one to me -
politicians from two parties - check,
combined policy decisions put forward - check
weighted in favour of the conservative ideology because they have a lot more MPs - check
Sex trafficking/people trafficking is an international crime. UK cannot deal with it on its own despite how great the delusions of grandeur some may have. The same goes for any country.
But it is not a crime in Britain for someone to "people traffic" between, for example, India and Pakistan.
Ergo, Britain only needs to respond to those crimes happening in Britain, and has no need of EU dictats to facilitate that response.
Is it possible to selectively opt-in the Home Office suggest?
My person feeling is that sex trafficking legislation is too important to play politics with.
The road to Hell is paved with comments like those!
The Devil is invariably in the detail; whilst we can all get behind the notion that stopping sex trafficking is a Good Thing, the restrictions the legislation itself may place on Whitehall's freedom of action, together with the obligations it may place on our institutions, may not be equal to what the legislation can reasonably be expected to deliver.
Something like sex trafficking has obvious cross-border implications and there needs to be co-operation between different states in order to tackle it effectively. The extent to which it requires legislation at an EU level I'm not sure; it may be that some is required, but it needs to be scrutinised to ensure that it grants "the EU" the tools to deliver the required results without restricting Whitehall's autonomy too greatly or unnecessarily.
Sounds like a wise move - why the need to sign up for something now that has not even been written and then be bound by QMV when it finally is.
Surely better to wait and see what the final outcome is.
So long as we get to shape whatever legislation comes out of it. Sitting on the sidelines and being presented with a fait accompli - "here's what we (26) have come up with, take it or leave it" - isn't exactly the best use of our diplomatic clout.
Maybe, just maybe, the Coalition believes that Britain can get a handle on this problem without needing idiot boards from Brussels.
Maybe, just maybe, they believe were are capable of dealing with problems in Britain without ineffective and pointless interference from the EU.
Maybe, just maybe, this is a sign of strong, effective and decisive government; rather the weak, ineffective and indecisive government we tend to see from the EU.
All in all sounds like the British Government are doing what we elected them to do - run the country in our interests.
Can't really see what there is to complain about here; unless it is that Labour never once showed this kind of political courage.
Or maybe, just maybe it's just that they're not prepared to sign a blank cheque, nor commit Whitehall to anything until they know a bit more about what it entails in practice. Hyperbolic rhetoric is all very pretty, but often Occam's Razor is your friend.
This is why I find the EU and how its set up and run so confusing.
I thought directives had to be follwed by all countries?
But then, I always thought that was a contradiction too, as the real big polices are decided by ministers and i always wondered who issues the sirectives and how, without the consent of ministers of all the countries etc etc
This is why I find the EU and how its set up and run so confusing.
I thought directives had to be follwed by all countries?
But then, I always thought that was a contradiction too, as the real big polices are decided by ministers and i always wondered who issues the sirectives and how, without the consent of ministers of all the countries etc etc
There are some areas of legislation that don't apply to all Member States - for instance because of various opt-outs that prevail. (There are some others that apply even to non-member states, for instance matters that affect the EEA or Schengen.)
As for who "issues" directives, one could say "everyone". The process starts with the Commission, who drafts them, and presents the draft to the Council* and Parliament; if there are issues of contention then the Council and Parliament debate them until the directive is agreed, and then the directives go to national Governments who then transpose them into national law.
* "Council", in this sense, is the Council of responsible Ministers of Member States - so if it's an agricultural directive, it would be all 27 agriculture ministers; if it's something to do with energy, it would be all 27 energy ministers, etc.
If they're playing Eurosceptic politics with sex traffcing then it is a sad state of affairs. Seems it's better to have a few thousand women enslaved, beaten and raped than to risk them being here legally.
And what sort of Hell do you envisage in the detail of an anti-sex trafficking directive?
As I said - tackling sex trafficking is highly laudable (did anyone see that documentary this week on Channel 4?) but not every proposal that is entitled "Anti Sex-Trafficking Directive" is necessarily a useful and proportionate tool for the job. (From Yes, Minister: "always dispose of the difficult bit in the title".)
The Devil is in the detail. What does the (proposed) directive actually do, what does it require of our law enforcement agencies, etc.?
Comments
What can we not deal with 'on our own' as you put it?
What makes you say that?
looks like one to me -
politicians from two parties - check,
combined policy decisions put forward - check
weighted in favour of the conservative ideology because they have a lot more MPs - check
Where's your evidence that it isn't a coalition?
But it is not a crime in Britain for someone to "people traffic" between, for example, India and Pakistan.
Ergo, Britain only needs to respond to those crimes happening in Britain, and has no need of EU dictats to facilitate that response.
Sex trafficking is rampant in this country. I suspect some Tories think its a good use for poor women.:mad:
The road to Hell is paved with comments like those!
The Devil is invariably in the detail; whilst we can all get behind the notion that stopping sex trafficking is a Good Thing, the restrictions the legislation itself may place on Whitehall's freedom of action, together with the obligations it may place on our institutions, may not be equal to what the legislation can reasonably be expected to deliver.
Something like sex trafficking has obvious cross-border implications and there needs to be co-operation between different states in order to tackle it effectively. The extent to which it requires legislation at an EU level I'm not sure; it may be that some is required, but it needs to be scrutinised to ensure that it grants "the EU" the tools to deliver the required results without restricting Whitehall's autonomy too greatly or unnecessarily.
So long as we get to shape whatever legislation comes out of it. Sitting on the sidelines and being presented with a fait accompli - "here's what we (26) have come up with, take it or leave it" - isn't exactly the best use of our diplomatic clout.
Or maybe, just maybe
I thought directives had to be follwed by all countries?
But then, I always thought that was a contradiction too, as the real big polices are decided by ministers and i always wondered who issues the sirectives and how, without the consent of ministers of all the countries etc etc
There are some areas of legislation that don't apply to all Member States - for instance because of various opt-outs that prevail. (There are some others that apply even to non-member states, for instance matters that affect the EEA or Schengen.)
As for who "issues" directives, one could say "everyone".
* "Council", in this sense, is the Council of responsible Ministers of Member States - so if it's an agricultural directive, it would be all 27 agriculture ministers; if it's something to do with energy, it would be all 27 energy ministers, etc.
And what sort of Hell do you envisage in the detail of an anti-sex trafficking directive?
The hell that would allow trafficed women to remain here?
As I said - tackling sex trafficking is highly laudable (did anyone see that documentary this week on Channel 4?) but not every proposal that is entitled "Anti Sex-Trafficking Directive" is necessarily a useful and proportionate tool for the job. (From Yes, Minister: "always dispose of the difficult bit in the title".)
The Devil is in the detail. What does the (proposed) directive actually do, what does it require of our law enforcement agencies, etc.?
I'm sure that the EU-wide arrest warrant sounded very good in the initial proposal.
Despite some niggles, I'd say it's still on balance a good thing.