Some high profile Tory Remainers are on a hit-list of MPs to be targeted with demands they support the government in voting down the House of Lords amendments to the EU Withdrawal Bill.

Conservative MPs such as the former Chancellor Ken Clarke and the ex Education Secretary Nicky Morgan are on the list of Tory MPs to be targeted with letters demanding they back Brexit and reverse the Lord's amendments to the EU Withdrawal Bill.

Brexiteers Richard Tice and John Longworth from Leave Means Leave have asked their activists to launch the campaign, says the Sun.

The letter says that although most Tory MPs recognise that they must deliver, there are still a few who are looking to go against the manifesto on which they stood in the 2017 general election.

And it goes on to say:

"If you continue to oppose the result of the democratic referendum of 2016 then you should resign from the Conservative Party who made a manifesto commitment to leave the single market and the customs union."

Now that would be the honourable thing to do, wouldn't it?

Now to elections.

The UK Electoral Commission has set aside £829,000 to run next year's European Parliamentary elections says the Telegraph. Despite the UK leaving in March that year.

This has set Brexiteer hares running with talk that this is part of a hidden move to keep the UK in the EU.

Well, the Electoral Commission has said that it is setting the money aside as a precautionary measure.

And one supposes that unless the commission is told not to prepare, that it is duty bound to do so.

As Jacob Rees-Mogg said, the clarity that these elections will not be taking place will stem from the EU Withdrawal Bill when it goes through.

After all, an Electoral Commission spokesperson did say that:

We do not anticipate spending any money, pending the UK Government repealing the necessary legislation.

But you have to wonder what would happen if the bill gets stalled and the relevant legislation remains in place and we end up leaving the EU without a deal on 29th March 2019 – would we end up having meaningless elections just because the rules say so?

I'm hoping this is just bureaucrats doing what bureaucrats are good at – following the administrative process come what may.

Now, according to Politico, Michel Barnier has said that the UK must accept the supremacy of the European Court of Justice in order to achieve a successful withdrawal treaty and transition period.

And he is quoted as saying:

"We cannot accept that a jurisdiction other than the Court of Justice of the European Union determines the law and imposes its interpretation on the institutions of the Union."

In essence, it seems to me that what he is saying is, we cannot be in any EU programmes unless we come under the direct control of the European Union and we abide by its decisions and the rulings of the ECJ with respect to that programme.

And with the PM of Luxembourg, Xavier Bettel, saying of the UK "They were in with a load of opt-outs. Now they are out, and want a load of opt-ins." We should actually look at what we are really asking for.

We should not be asking to stay inside these institutions where the EU can legitimately demand that we obey its rules. We need to be setting up our own national bodies that can liaise and share information with those EU institutions where it is beneficial to both sides. You don't have to be in all those EU institutions in order to deal with them.

Also, that the government is asking for so many opt-ins should worry all Brexiteers – because it is shying away from the task of getting on and setting up our own independent sovereign nation.

Many people cite the European Arrest warrant system as one of the things we should stay in, which would put the EU in control of some arrests in this country post Brexit.

Now, if you go on the National Crime Agency website and look at the latest EAW statistics you will see that from 2010 to 2016 inclusive, which is the most recent calendar year data available, you will see that there were a total of 62,583 EAW requests received into the UK from other EU countries, that's nearly 9,000 every year. Whereas over the same period the UK issued 1,773 to other countries, which equates to an average of 253 a year.

Does that mean that the EU is trying to get hold of tens of thousands of nasty criminal Brits? No, because when you look at the stats the number of UK nationals wanted for crimes elsewhere in the EU was 772 over that seven year period, which is 1.25% of the total.

Of the 1,773 EAWs issued by the UK to the rest of the EU, 983 were for UK nationals, which is 55% of the total and averages out to about 140 a year.

A point to note is that EAWs are issued when a country wants the suspect or convicted criminal back in its custody and looking at these figures doesn't it show that the EU has more of an interest in getting our help than we have in getting theirs?

Also, as far as I can tell these stats show that open borders just allow people to wander around the EU committing crimes and then hopping unchecked across a border between EU states to escape.

Now, if there was a properly controlled border between the EU and the UK, maybe most of these people would not be able to get across – because surely the border would, by its very existence, be a deterrent. The criminals would be much less likely to chance it, or have to go to extreme lengths to avoid it.

The upshot is that as far as I can tell, it is the non-existent national borders in the EU that causes the need for the EAW.

Oh, and although the UK is not within the Schengen zone, we did join the Second Generation Schengen Information System in 2015.

It is also worthy of note that in June 1956 the UK joined an organisation called Interpol that has 192 member states and we are not in a political union with all of them with that body overseeing us, are we?

We are quite capable of setting up the relevant agreements, so let's have less 'in' with talk of EU control and more talk of liaison and co-operation between the UK and the EU.

Comment Here!