Overriding justice

One of the key arguments that pro-EU campaigners will advance for voting to stay in is that membership of the organisation provides collective security. It is hard, however, to reconcile that contention with a preliminary ruling of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in a deportation case involving the daughter-in-law of Abu Hamza, the jailed hate preacher.

Her deportation to Morocco has been ordered by the Home Office, but Maciej Szpunar, an advocate general at the European Court, says this would deprive her of the human right to family life with her young son, who is a British national. The implication is that the Government’s policy of deporting foreign nationals sentenced to 12 months or more in prison is unlawful when EU citizens are involved.

Although the ruling acknowledges that there may be exceptional security considerations that would override such a ban, it none the less demonstrates the ability of the EU to intervene in a matter of national security and, in theory, prevent a member state taking action it felt necessary to protect its citizens. Unlike the European Court of Human Rights, the ECJ’s rulings are binding.

Even a new British Bill of Rights enshrining a sovereignty protection, suggested by David Cameron last week, would not change the primacy of EU law, since it is enshrined in UK statute. The only way this could be disapplied would be to repeal the European Communities Act and leave the EU, which is the central issue of the referendum. It is the Government’s duty to protect its citizens from harm. Mr Cameron will have his work cut out persuading voters that this sort of ruling helps to fulfil it.