Bill Cash wrote in The Spectator: “We need to repatriate our democracy and govern ourselves. It is therefore essential that the Prime Minister introduces a Bill so that a Referendum vote can take place before the General Election, followed by a fundamental renegotiation of the existing European Treaties, in line with the democratic wishes of the British people as expressed through that referendum. It is about democracy – what is required is the repatriation of the ability of the British people to govern themselves through their vote in General Elections, with their laws and in their Parliament. They cannot currently do this as the European Treaties prevent them from doing so.We want European trade and political cooperation in the EU but not European government.

Last February’s agreement on the EU's 2014-2020 budget reached by the EU leaders was a victory for David Cameron. Due to David Cameron determination the EU leaders agreed to a multiannual financial framework that reduces EU expenditure for the first time in the EU’s history. However, the political agreement reached by all the EU member has to be translated into a Council Regulation and requires the consent of the European Parliament. The MEPs have therefore a stronger negotiating position as they can use their right of rejection to negotiate compromises with the Council and to obtain concessions from the EU’s Member States. In fact, the MEPs rejected the long-term budget for 2014-2020, as agreed by EU leaders, and stressed that cannot accept it “without the fulfilment of certain essential conditions;” The European Parliament is particularly determinate to resolve the issue of unpaid bills from last year’s budget.

There has been widespread coverage of David Cameron’s defeat over the EU Referendum. Although the House of Commons rejected the non-binding motion, 130 MPs, including 114 Conservatives, voted in favour of the amendment expressing regret that an EU referendum bill was not included in the Queen’s Speech. During the yesterday’s debate Bill Cash made the following speech and interventions.

The Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States codifies the existing legislation and case-law in the area of free movement. Member States had to bring into force the laws and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive by April 2006. The Immigration (Europe Economic Area) Regulations 2006 implemented in the UK law the Directive. The Directive only applies to EU citizens who move to a Member State other than the Member States of their nationality and to their family members. Generally, EU citizens residing in the Member State of their nationality do not benefit from the rights granted by Community law on free movement of persons and their third country family members are therefore covered by national immigration rules. Nevertheless, those EU citizens who go back to their home Member State after having resided or having exercised their rights to free movement in another Member State may benefit from the rules on free movement of persons.

The MigrationWatch UK has recently published a paper drawing attention to an EU loophole which has allowed “100,000 dependants of EU nationals resident in Britain entered the UK in the last five years with no conditions attached but with full and immediate access to benefits.”

Following the UK and other Member States veto of the Commission’s draft directive introducing a financial transaction tax (FTT) in the EU, the Economic and Financial Affairs Council has decided to proceed through enhanced cooperation. The UK is home to Europe’s biggest financial centre, such tax was, therefore, considered an attack on the City of London. However, the damaging proposal for a EU-wide financial transaction has not been completely ditched. Despite the veto and despite the non-participation in the enhanced cooperation, the UK will still be affected by such tax. Hence, the recent Government’s decision to challenge the FTT before the ECJ is welcome.

The Directive on the application of patient’s rights in cross brother healthcare was adopted in 2011 and the Member States have till 2013 to transpose it into national law. There are concerns that the directive will have a negative impact on Member State’s ability to organise their respective national health systems or on the safety and security of patients. The rights of patients who seek/receive cross-border healthcare should be protected but one could wonder if the directive would protect those rights whilst ensuring the Member State’s responsibility for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care. In fact, one could say that such measures wont work.

The House of Commons debated, yesterday, the European Commission’s 4th Railway Package. During the debate Bill Cash made the following interventions:

Following an agreement with the European Parliament, at first reading, the Council has recently adopted, without discussion, a directive on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and a Regulation on Online Dispute Resolution (ODR). The new system has been described as providing for “simple, fast and low-cost out-of-court settlement procedures designed to resolve disputes between consumers and traders arising from the sales of goods and services.” The Government has supported the overall objectives of the ADR/ODR proposals.