Tory minister Blunt blunders again

Prisons minister says that the riots were a "one-off" event. How can he be so sure?

The prisons minister, Crispin Blunt, who seems to make a habit of embarrassing the government (he promoted the idea of "prison parties" and suggested that soldiers could be used by probation chiefs as cheap labour), has just left a huge hostage to fortune and described the riots as an "exceptional" event that will lead to a "one-off increase" in the prison population. Given that there is every possibility of further civil unrest, his comments are premature to say the least. As Tom Watson observes, there is now a "newly primed timebomb under his career".

Blunt said that he was "completely confident" that the system could cope but the prison population is now at a record high of 86,654, just 1,439 places below operational capacity, and a recent Ministry of Justice memo warned of outbreaks of violence between rioters and serving prisoners. Two young prisoners, who were arrested after the disorder, were hospitalised last week after a "nasty" assault at Cookham Wood Young Offenders Institution in Kent. As the Prison Reform Trust has warned, parts of the system are "becoming human warehouses, doing little more than banging people up in overcrowded conditions, with regimes that are hard pressed to offer any employment or education."

The coalition still plans to cut more than 2,500 prison places but Blunt declared that there would be places "for all those sent to prison by the courts", adding that "we will continue to do that regardless of how many people are sent to prison." Blunt is almost certain to be moved by Cameron at a future reshuffle, so it will be left to his successor to reconcile this pledge with Ken Clarke's ambitious justice reforms.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Brexiteers want national sovereignty and tighter borders – but they can't have both

The role of the European Court of Justice is a major sticking point in talks.

Why doesn't Theresa May's counter-offer on the rights of European citizens living and working in Britain pass muster among the EU27? It all comes down to one of the biggest sticking points in the Brexit talks: the role of the European Court of Justice.

The European Commission, under direction from the leaders of member states, wants the rights of the three million living here and of the British diaspora in the EU guaranteed by the European Court. Why? Because that way, the status of EU citizens here or that of British nationals in the EU aren't subject to the whims of a simple majority vote in the legislature.

This is where Liam Fox, as crassly he might have put it, has a point about the difference between the UK and the EU27, being that the UK does not "need to bury" its 20th century history. We're one of the few countries in the EU where political elites get away with saying, "Well, what's the worst that could happen?" when it comes to checks on legislative power. For the leaders of member states, a guarantee not backed up by the European Court of Justice is no guarantee at all.

That comes down to the biggest sticking point of the Brexit talks: rules. In terms of the deal that most British voters, Leave or Remain, want – a non-disruptive exit that allows the British government to set immigration policy – UK politicians can get that, provided they concede on money and rules, ie we continue to follow the directions of the European Court while having no power to set them. Britain could even seek its own trade deals and have that arrangement.

But the problem is that deal runs up against the motivations of the Brexit elite, who are in the main unfussed about migration but are concerned about sovereignty – and remaining subject to the rule of the ECJ without being able to set its parameters is, it goes without saying, a significant loss of sovereignty. 

Can a fudge be found? That the Article 50 process goes so heavily in favour of the EU27 and against the leaving member means that the appetite on the EuCo side for a fudge is limited. 

But there is hope, as David Davis has conceded that there will have to be an international guarantor, as of course there will have to be. If you trade across borders, you need a cross-border referee. If a plane goes up in one country and lands in another, then it is, by necessity, regulated across borders. (That arrangement has also been mooted by Sigmar Gabriel, foreign minister in Angela Merkel's government. But that Gabriel's centre-left party looks likely to be expelled from coalition after the next election means that his support isn't as valuable as many Brexiteers seem to think.)

On the Conservative side, a new EU-UK international body would satisfy the words of May's ECJ red line. On the EU27 side, that the body would, inevitably, take its lead from the treaties of the EU sans Britain and the ECJ would mean that in spirit, Britain would be subject to the ECJ by another name.

But it comes back to the Brexit dilemma. You can satisfy the voters' demand for non-disruptive control of British borders. You can satisfy political demand for sovereignty. But you can't have both. May – and whoever replaces her – will face the same question: who do you disappoint?

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.

0800 7318496