31 August 2010


So the coalition government is choosing to opt out of (or not to opt in to) an EU directive to co-ordinate member states' action against sex traffickers. What possible justification could they have, other than seeking to appease the Tory wingnuts? Well try crunching down on this set of weasel words from the Home Office:

A Home Office spokesman said: "Human trafficking is a brutal form of organised crime, and combating it is a key priority for the government. The UK already complies with most of what is required by the draft EU directive.

"The government will review the UK's position once the directive has been agreed, and will continue to work constructively with European partners on matters of mutual interest. By not opting in now but reviewing our position when the directive is agreed, we can choose to benefit from being part of a directive that is helpful but avoid being bound by measures that are against our interests."

Does this flannel carry any meaning whatsoever? Surely better to agree to opt in and seek to strengthen the proposed directive in negotiations? I thought that Cleggy approved of Europe and that he wanted to co-operate with our EU partners?

No comments: