MANY of the specifics on which powers the Conservative leadership wants to repatriate have been thin on the ground.
Last year, the UK Government began a "balance of competencies review", amounting to an audit of EU powers and their impact on the UK, which could later help provide the basis for the Tory repatriation plan.
Last night, when asked about the details of which powers the Tories wanted to move from Brussels back to London, Foreign Secretary William Hague remained vague. He referred to the party's last manifesto but admitted "circumstances move on".
The 2010 manifesto referred to three areas – the charter of fundamental rights, criminal justice, and social and employment legislation – where powers "should reside with the UK, not the EU".
In October, Home Secretary Theresa May said the UK Government intended to opt out of 130 EU measures on law and order, including the European Arrest Warrant, which the LibDems supported. It could opt back into some later on if the rest of the EU agreed.
In his speech, David Cameron pointed to extending Britain's opt-out from parts of the European working time directive.
He said: "It is neither right nor necessary to claim the integrity of the single market or full membership of the European Union requires the working hours of British hospital doctors to be set in Brussels."
This month, the Fresh Start Group of Tory MPs laid out areas it wanted Britain to retain control over, including financial services, social and employment law, policing and criminal justice.
Just what powers a Tory Government might be able to repatriate after the 2015 General Election is unclear but Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, famously said such plans were a "false promise wrapped in a Union Jack".
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article