X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Coffee House

Tory MPs see gains on justice and home affairs opt-outs

15 July 2013

10:07 PM

15 July 2013

10:07 PM

Justice and Home Affairs ministers have spent a muggy afternoon in the Commons slogging through several hours of tetchy questions from backbenchers about the government’s plan to opt out of European Union justice and home affairs measures, before opting back in to the ones the government has decided it likes. It’s at times like this that anyone other than Theresa May, who spent a considerable amount of time hopping up and down to take endless interventions from her own Tory colleagues, would start to wonder whether the party leadership really was a prize worth working so hard for, given the amount of reassurance MPs need on just one policy area. But the Home Secretary and her colleague Chris Grayling remained extraordinarily patient throughout. In the end, the government won its motion on opting out of the measures 341 votes to 244. This will now be followed by reports from the Home Affairs Select Committee, the Justice Select Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee on the measures the government plans to opt back in to.

The whips warned May last week that the motion as it stood would be defeated, so she re-wrote it. Then MPs threatened to support an amendment from Sir Alan Beith, Bill Cash, Keith Vaz (the chairs of the above committees) and Natascha Engel deleting a reference to the list of measures that the government had announced it would definitely opt back in to. These MPs disliked this reference because they felt it gave them less power to properly scrutinise the measures before consenting to the opt-in. Grayling accepted this in quite a casual manner, and thus another rebellion was averted. But Conservative MPs say this gives them hope that in the next few months, they will get a little bit more of what they want, based on the amount of ground the whips have yielded in the past week at the suggestion of a revolt.

[Alt-Text]


One problem that May has is that these opt-ins are being seen by eurosceptics as an omen for David Cameron’s renegotiation of Britain’s membership of the European Union. I hear that the whips have been trying to remind them that on these measures, the party can’t go as far as it would like because it is in a Coalition, and May did the same in today’s debate. She told an anxious Mark Reckless:

‘The issues involving justice and home affairs to which I referred earlier are being considered in the Government’s “balance of competences” review. Undoubtedly the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice will need to be considered when, after the election, a future Conservative Government renegotiate Britain’s relationship with the European Union; but the choice that is before us now is binary. We are a coalition Government with no mandate to seek a renegotiation of our relationship with Europe. We must make a choice about whether, having exercised our right to opt out of these measures, we should seek to opt back into any of them—knowing that we would be subject to the junction of the European Court of Justice—if we think that they are in the national interest.’

All’s well that ends well, for the time being at least. But this is partly because Tory MPs have forced ministers around to their thinking in stages. It’s another example of the psychic backbencher at work. Eurosceptic MPs will now be hoping that they can force their leadership still further before the opt-ins are agreed.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close