Reinventing Public Affairs: Fill & Download for Free

In my opinion, prostitution in the U.S. should be legal.*Let me first start by issuing the following disclaimer:I have never been with a prostitute. If legalized, I would not visit a prostitute. I gain nothing by writing this. I am not affiliated with any organization or group that advocates for prostitution.I understand that many women can be offended by this so I ask you to please proceed with an open mind before you kill me with comments below regarding the ills of human trafficking or the morality of it all. First, four background points:A short history of prostitution[1] in ancient Greece and the U.S.The Federal government has left the legality of prostitution to the individual states to decide if it should be legal or not within their individual borders.The state government of Nevada is the only state in the U.S. that has legal prostitution and has left the decision of legalization to each individual county (In Clark County, where Las Vegas is located, it is illegal) rather than a state decision of where and where it is not legal.A review of any Nevada county law or ordinance regarding prostitution will show strict statutes that must be followed. It is a regulated industry. One such statute is that street prostitution is illegal and that prostitution must only take place in a controlled environment called a brothel and not in a residential neighborhood, and not near a school.All workers in a brothel must be registered with the county.All brothels must be licensed.All workers must get tested for STDs and HIV once a week.Legalization significantly reduces human trafficking and street walkers.Legalization significantly reduces underage prostitutionLegalization significantly reduces forced prostitution.Legalization may make it easier for police to find underage and human trafficking (#7–9 above). The legalized brothels are controlled and works to help get women off the street and in a safe environment. Many more streetwalkers will be off the street resulting in fewer ad’s for a “date.” Police may have an easier time and more success in finding human trafficking, underage, and forced prostitution.Police man power for sex crimes and task forces can be reduced due to fewer street walkers, pimps, and John’s to arrest, allowing the police to redirect more availability to more serious crimes .The courts will have fewer prostitution cases to process resulting in other cases being heard and resolved more quickly.Public defenders will have a lighter case load allowing them to spend more time on other, more serious defendants.Legalization significantly reduces men having to be concerned about arrest and having their lives and reputations destroyed.Men (customers) will be safer. No more driving to the “bad” part of town, risking getting robbed, assaulted, or ripped off by a worker.Studies that compare indoor prostitutes (as opposed to street walkers) with non-prostitutes find that they have similar levels of self-esteem, physical health, and mental health. Many indoor prostitutes even report a rise in self-esteem after they begin their indoor work (Weitzer, 2012).Kingley Davis, theorized that prostitution lowers the divorce rate. He reasoned that many married men are unhappy with their sex life with their wives. If they do not think this situation can improve, some men start an affair with another woman and may fall in love with that woman, threatening these men’s marriages. (Kingsley Davis was was an internationally recognized American sociologist identified by the American Philosophical Society as one of the most outstanding social scientists of the twentieth century.)Legalization significantly reduces the acts occurring in seedy motels and the activity that is seen around those neighborhoods.Legalization significantly reduces drug use. A brothel is a controlled environment where no such activity is tolerated.Legalization significantly reduces any guilt or embarrassment by either of the two parties involved.It creates a safe environment for the workers.All brothels are regulated and most follow strict code adherenceAll prostitutes must be tested for STD, HIV, etc once a week (Nevada has not recorded a single case of HIV in a brothel since legalizing Prostitution.)Condoms must be used. There is no option.The women can always choose to not participate with a customer if she does not want to do what the customer wants to do. The customer can choose another partner.All prices of all sex acts are clearly posted and/or menu’s are provided. No negotiations.Brothels provide a clean & safe environment for all parties involved.Creates a new source of tax revenue.“Let’s assume that 50 million acts of prostitution occur annually in the United States (it is closer to 70 million), and that each of these acts costs an average $30. Putting these numbers together, prostitutes receive $1.5 billion annually in income. If they paid about one-third of this amount (admittedly a rough estimate) in payroll taxes, the revenue of state and federal governments would increase by $500 million.” (resource)Removes “Red Light Districts” and moves everything into a controlled environment.Prostitution was legal in the U.S. up until 100 years ago (1920) when it became illegal due to the religious moral reasons. Are we still making laws based on religious reasons?Prostitution has long been illegal due to moral reasons. To that point consider this:Who is to say what is and is not moral in this day and age? Homosexuality, black/white relationships, and sodomy were all once illegal.Sodomy laws in the United States, were inherited from British criminal laws with roots in the Christian religion. Christian religion no longer dictates U.S. law and is a violation of separation of church and state.If we follow British rule of law (which is what U.S laws are based upon), prostitution is legal. Therefore, American law should follow, right? (I personally do not agree on this point.) There are certain restrictions however.In the case, Lawrence v Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), the U.S. Supreme court, in a 6–3 decision, struck down Texas State law (and therefore 13 other states) that made Sodomy illegal between consenting adults. This is significant because Lawrence v Texas overruled a previous Supreme Court decision, Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986 that found a Georgia statute banning sodomy, was valid because the Constitution did not apply to constitutional protection of sexual privacy. By reversing the 1986 decision, the Court ruled that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the 14th Amendment.Legalizing Prostitution would give the workers a right to unionize and be entitled to certain protections.The spread of STD’s and HIV could be significantly reduced (condom use).Worker injury (whatever that might be) would be covered under OSHA.Workers could possible be entitled to benefits such as sick time, paid time off, and even vacation and retirement planning.Workers would receive health benefits.Strip Clubs are legal and the activity in these clubs comes very close to a brothel. Why is it permissible to watch a woman (of her own free will) remove all her clothing in public and dance naked for money but she cannot, of her own free will, have human contact of her own free will.Two (or more) consenting adults, agree to have sex with each other, and get paid to have sex with each other. That’s prostitution, right? No, there is a loophole. XXX rated movies. These actors get paid to have sex but because they are being filmed for commercial purposes and claim it as an art form, then that’s ok, They are not breaking the law. Hmmm…Roe v. Wade. This might be a stretch but Roe v Wade gives a woman the right to choose what happens to her body and focuses on reproductive rights. It mentions personal autonomy. Personal autonomy is a key provision here. Can such an argument be referenced for what a woman decides to do with her body, such as participating in prostitution? (For more on personal autonomy, see Part IV of this John Marshall Law Review article. See also this Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository article.)“Corruption would be rampant.” This is a baseless statement. Lets be realistic. There is corruption with every single job on the planet including, Police, Politicians, Priests (and other religions), Judges, teachers, social workers, Stock Market (money managers), etc. Are all priests, police, or teachers bad? Of course not. The majority of all workers and professionals are good, honest, hardworking people. Just because a woman is a prostitute does not make her a bad person. I cannot say why a woman would want or need to do this sort of work, but the reason is not for any of us to judgeA U.N. report found "very low" rates of sexually transmitted infections among the sex workers of New Zealand, a country whose total decriminalization of prostitution many advocates consider to be the gold standard in sex work policy. NZ - it's a great place to be a prostituteFormer US Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders thinks it makes no sense to ban prostitution simply because it objectifies women: “Why are we so upset about sex workers selling sexual acts to consenting adults?” she asks. “We say that they are selling their bodies, but how different is that from what athletes do? They’re selling their bodies. Models? They’re selling their bodies. Actors? They’re selling their bodies.”Recently, in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, an appeals judge asked, why it should be “illegal to sell something that’s legal to give away?” Other judges have said the 14th amendment and Lawrence v. Texas does not apply to Prostitution because that is not what those who wrote the 14th amendment nor the Supreme Court Justices had in mind. Really? How is that known? The ruling references Personal Autonomy.Prostitution can be a controlled and regulated industry. Without regulations, we get what we have today….street walkers, drug addicts, abused women etc. This profession is known as the worlds oldest profession. It’s not, nor will it ever, go away. It was completely legal in all the U.S. until only 1920.We can waste tax payer money by continuing sting operations, arresting offenders who will only turn around and go right back to the street after posting bond or, we can provide a safe and regulated place for all involved and redirect police resources to truly hurtful and dangerous crimes.I cannot imagine anyone who would rather drive to a seedy part of town, risk arrest, getting robbed, contracting an STD, and embarrassment by arrest, versus going to a place that does not hide the truth and provides safety for all parties.I’m not an attorney or an advocate, but in my eyes, the only reasons prostitution is illegal is because nobody is willing to write the rules and because of those who define morality. Bt who defines morality? Does your morality have to be my morality? It is not the same thing to all people. I guess that falls to the court system…the same court that once outlawed sodomy, sex between two males, and black/white sex.In my opinion, the decision to have sex between two consenting adults, whether it be for money, food, or Winnie the Pooh stickers, is and should be, between the adults involved. There needs to be, like all other legal matters, rules and restrictions put into place to protect everyone. And no need to reinvent the wheel. We can use New Zealand, Amsterdam, and Nevada as the blueprint for policy. All objections such as STD’s, HIV, corruption, exploitation, etc, are really just from people who object to the activity and have no desire to make it legal and they are absolutely entitled to their opinion, but I don’t care for alcohol and there are some religions that forbid drinking it, but that does not mean we should outlaw alcohol due to moral and religious beliefs? We already tried that in the U.S. and it failed miserably, in part because all kinds of mobs and corruption materialized. Al Capone made his living from running illegal moonshine and secret “speakeasy’s.” Those speakeasy’s and running moonshine (all the illegal activity) vanished right after alcohol was legalized again.Human nature is such that if we want something bad enough, we will find a way to get it. That is why there is and has always been prostitution. We’ve legalized marijuana, alcohol, same sex marriage, abortions, segregation, sodomy, and so many other “once illegal” activities. The illegal fixation on prostitution pales in comparison to the benefits for all parties involved including the workers, the customers, the tax payers, the government, and the public at large.(Reed Saxon/AP)EDIT: The word. “Eliminates” used in my opinion are too definitive as Sean Patrick points out in his comment below. I agree. I am changing the word to “reduces.” Also, I added a TON more points to and links. My apologies to the first 18K readers who did not read this revised version that has more clarity.Edit #2:Human Trafficking has become a very hot topic lately which has created many non-profit organizations to help those who are involuntarily forced into being a “sex slave” with little hope of escape. I fully support & agree with such organizations to the point that modern day slavery of any type should not and can not be tolerated anywhere, in any country. While these organizations are doing a terrific service by building awareness of a problem that needs addressing, I do not agree with everything they advocate, specifically their attempt to keep prostitution illegal and that it is bad for everyone everywhere. There is research, commissioned by Human Trafficking groups, that show even legalized prostitution in Nevada is detrimental and is known to have forced labor and so I want to address that concern, that legalizing will not put an end to human trafficking and actually increases human trafficking (this is what some research reporting has concluded).First, everyone should always be wary of any research commissioned by groups that want to prove their point as valid. It almost goes without saying that these groups would bury the report if the research showed the opposite of what they theorize and want others to read.Second, brothels are regulated in Nevada and should be heavily regulated. Las Vegas does a pretty good job of regulating anyone working in a gaming environment by requiring every worker to obtain and carry a “Sheriff’s card” (also called a Work Card.)This card can only be obtained by a person who is sponsored by an employer who has agreed to hire them. You cannot obtain a card before being employed, only after being offered a job by an employer. This does not completely stop problems but certainly makes things more difficult for the illegal activity to occur. In fact, Las Vegas already requires that those working in brothels have such a card even though prostitution is illegal in Clark County (where Las Vegas is located.)As you can see from the following sample, the questions are specific and more detailed questions can be added including a private, in-person interview with a deputy or agent who can ask the worker specific questions such as “Are you being forced into this work?” “Do you need help with an addiction?” “Why have you chosen to do this work?” “Has anyone threatened your safety if you do not obtain this card or work in the profession?” The workers can be required to renew the cards annually with an interview.Here is a sample application for a Sheriff’s card.https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Documents/SampleWorkCardApplication.pdfWith proper regulations, many concerns are addressed and for those who continue to participate in trafficking, pimping and smuggling of humans, the penalties should be made more severe and as severe as possible.————————————————————————-Footnotes and Further Reading that might apply to this opinion:Federal MaterialSearch U.S. Supreme Court DecisionsSearch U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals DecisionsSearch LII Preview/ Analyses of Supreme Court Cases1st Amendment to U.S. Constitution4th and 5th Amendments to U.S. Constitution14th Amendment to U.S. ConstitutionSearch the Annotated Constitution of the United StatesU.S. Supreme Court: Historic Right of Privacy-Personal Autonomy DecisionsGriswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969)Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973)Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977)Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)Lawrence v. Texas(2003)State Judicial DecisionsN.Y. Court of Appeals:Commentary from liibulletin-nySearch N.Y. Court of Appeals DecisionsAppellate Decisions from Other StatesOther ReferencesGood Starting Point, including a short history of Prostitution and the following references:Turkington & Allen-Castellitto Privacy Law: Cases & Materials, West Group (2002)Barry, K. (1996). The prostitution of sexuality. New York, NY: New York University Press.Brewer, D. D., Potterat, J. J., Garrett, S. B., Muth, S. Q., John M. Roberts, J., Kasprzyk, D., et al. (2000). Prostitution and the sex discrepancy in reported number of sexual partners. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97, 12385–12388.Bullough, V. L., & Bullough, B. (1977). Sin, sickness, and sanity: A history of sexual attitudes. New York, NY: New American Library.Bullough, V. L., & Bullough, B. (1987). Women and prostitution: A social history. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.Clinard, M. B., & Meier, R. F. (2011). Sociology of deviant behavior (14th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.Davis, K. (1937). The sociology of prostitution. American Sociological Review, 2, 744–755.Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2011). Crime in the United States, 2010. Washington, DC: Author.McCaslin, J. (1999, October 13). Vaginal politics. Washington Times, p. A8.Meier, R. F., & Geis, G. (2007). Criminal justice and moral issues. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Ordway, R. (1995, May 26). Relaxation spas perplex officials. The Bangor Daily News, p. 1.Ringdal, N. J. (2004). Love for sale: A world history of prostitution (R. Daly, Trans.). New York, NY: Grove Press.Rosen, R. (1983). The lost sisterhood: Prostitution in America, 1900–1918. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Stanford, S. (1966). The lady of the house. New York, NY: G. P. Putnam.Weitzer, R. (2009). Sociology of sex work. Annual Review of Sociology, 35(0360-0572, 0360-0572), 213–234.Weitzer, R. (2011). Legalizing prostitution: From illicit vice to lawful business. New York, NY: New York University Press.Weitzer, R. (2012). Prostitution: Facts and fictions. In D. Hartmann & C. Uggen (Eds.), The Contexts reader (pp. 223–230). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.Footnotes[1] Social Problems: Continuity and Change

The problem lies in history of Indian Police since Mughal times and then British India rule.Policing in Mughal Rule“The Mughals continued the indigenous system of village policing. The Mughal province was a replica of the Central Government, and the administration centered in the head quarters.The Governor of a province was called the Subedar and under him were the Foujdars, who were in charge of sub-divisions. Though the Foujdar was mainly a revenue official he had also the responsibility of keeping the peace and dealing with robbers and other anti-social elements. To help him in the police duties he had a number of Thanadars who were in charge of armed forces. The activities of the Foujdars and the Thanadars were confined to using military force for quelling rebellions and disturbances by bands of robbers. They did not investigate cases.In cities and large towns the chief of the city police was called Kotwal. His duties were to maintain peace; arrange for patrolling of the streets at night, and keep a watch for pick-pockets through his subordinates at public gatherings. In addition to what might be called regular police duties, he was also required to look after people in prison, hear the charges against them and punish those found guilty. The Kotvals were assisted by Naibs or deputies. Kotwal's orders were appealable to the district Kazi. The above system though well suited to the needs of a simple agrarian community could not sustain the stains of political disorder that followed in the wake of the disintegration of the Mughal Empire.”[1]Policing under British Rule“With the disintegration of the imperial authority of the Mughals, there was a complete breakdown of the police system and it was to this legacy that the East, India Company succeeded as the Diwan in 1765.Warren Hastings, the first Governor-General sought to remedy the defects by abolishing in 1781 the Foujdari system and vesting the judges of the Civil Courts with police functions. They were given powers to apprehend persons charged with a crime and a sizeable police establishment was placed directly under them for this purpose. They did not, however,' have the power to try such persons, as criminal administration still remained the responsibility of the Naib-Nazim and his officers. In rural areas, certain zamindars continued to discharge police functions concurrently with the judges of the Civil Courts.Regulation XXII of 1793: Under the said Regulation the police were placed under the exclusive control of East India Company officers, the zamindars being forbidden to maintain such forces. At Dacca, Murshidabad and Patna wards were formed, each under a Darogha, who worked under the authority of a Kotwal. The Kotwal, who was in charge of the whole city, superintended the work of the Darogha and the staff under them. The Judge-Magistrate remained in overall charge of police work in each district.In 1813, a Select Committee was appointed by the Court of Directors, which in its report observed that the Daroghas were not less corrupt than the Thanadars of the Zamindars and the forces under them were inadequate for the protection of the people. They insisted on the maintenance of the village police. Provisions were made for the maintenance of Choukidars in certain cities and later at Magistrate's headquarters. They were paid stipends contributed by the local residents. By Regulation XX of 1817 all the rules which had from time to time been enacted respecting the duties of Daroghas and other Indian officers of police were arranged under 34 sections. Under the said Regulation the appointment of all police officers was vested in the Magistrate. This Regulation remained almost intact till the enactment of the Police Act, 1861.”[2]Duplicity of British in Policing Philosophy in Britain and India“A criminal justice system can hope to succeed in delivering peace and order only in a “majority defenders of law” situation, that is, most of the citizens obey the law voluntarily. And it is the responsibility of the police to facilitate the achievement of this objective.Robert Peel, the father of modern policing, had this insight when he founded the London Metropolitan Police in 1829. Calling the police “citizens in uniform”, he urged them to work in close collaboration with the community and focus on crime prevention. This remains a go-to strategy as it makes citizens partners in crime prevention and is the best bet for creating a majority-defenders-of-law situation. It is another matter that the British in 1861 built a militaristic and repressive police in India to defend their predatory rule.”[3]Indian Police Act 1861“The system of police administration introduced by the Police Act,1861 failed for these among other reasons; a) the importance of police work had been under-estimated; b) the responsible duties had ordinarily been entrusted to untrained and ill-educated officers, recruited in the lowest ranks form the lower strata of the society;c) Supervision had been defective, owing to the failure to appoint even the staff contemplated by the law and to increase that staff with the growing necessities of the administration; d) the superiors officers of the department had been allowed from various causes to get out of the touch even with the people and out of touch even with their own responsibilities, had been weakened by a degree of interference never contemplated by the authors of the system.”[4](Do you not feel the situation is still the same after 158 years of the failure of Police Act 1861?)Indian Police Service 1951“In 1951 the All India Services Act (LXI of 1951) was enacted constituting an All India Service known as the Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service. Rules were framed regulating the recruitment, uniform and conditions of service, pay etc. of the members of the Indian Police Service.Historical Baggage of Policing in the States“A close look at the State level Police Administration will indicate that most of its problems originate from history, the legacies of which make it stagnant, disjointed, outmoded and dysfunctional. Torn between three lists of the VII Schedule, the tasks of policing remain shared, muddled and overlapping responsibility between the Union and the State governments. The Union Ministry of Home Affairs though not directly responsible for police jobs, virtually functions as Union Ministry for Police, entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining peace, security and order in the country. This robs the State Police Departments from their initiative in reorganizing the police administrations.“So much so that the basic Police Act of 1861 and the three All- India Penal Codes, namely, the Criminal Procedure Code of India, the Code of Civil Procedure and the: Indian Evidence Act, remain more or less changed since the days of Indian Mutiny.”[5]“India inherited a militaristic and repressive police force from the British. It has, by and large, persisted with the colonial crime-fighting model. Commentators attribute the system’s persistence to a resource crunch, vested interests, an indifferent academia not challenging the efficacy of police practices and the glamorisation of tough cops.”[6]“India's police have largely failed to evolve from the repressive forces they were designed to be under Britain's colonial regime, according to a new report by the U.S.-based Human Rights Watch. "While 60 years later, much of India is in the process of rapid modernization, the police continue to use their old methods," the group said.”[7]“The 118-page report, "Broken System: Dysfunction, Abuse and Impunity in the Indian Police," documents a range of human rights violations committed by police, including arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and extrajudicial killings.”[8]Organisational Challenges“Organisationally, the three tier structure of State, district and police stations seems quite sound and feasible in consonance with the police philosophy and working conditions obtained in the countryside. But, the physical conditions, actually available in terms of buildings, furniture, telephone, conveyance, office records, malkhanas, police lock-ups, living quarters at the out post and the police stations are absolutely far from satisfactory. The expectations of the common man from his police station have gone very high and the newly recruited police officers also find it demeaning to live and work under sub-human conditions.”“The sanctioned strength of the police across states was around 2.8 million in 2017 (the year with the latest available data) but only 1.9 million police officers were employed (a 30% vacancy rate). As a result, according to Mint’s calculations, there are only 144 police officers for every 100,000 citizens (the commonly used measure of police strength), making India’s police force one of the weakest in the world. India’s police-to-population ratio lags behind most countries and the United Nations-recommended ratio of 222.”[9]Structural ProblemsThe democratic character of the Indian Constitution does not get reflected in the organisational concept of the Indian Police.The political executive in the federal system in India with police as a State subject has asserted its executive character through the political influence of police power.The people of India who have been bred and brought up in the colonial hostility and official police violence during freedom struggle remain ignorant about the hazards, dilemmas and limitations of policing as a profession.’The political parties, the vernacular press, opinion of the political leaders, the mass media and voluntary organisations, have done very little to develop the required ethos which can contribute to develop an efficient and responsible Indian Police. ”[10]Lack of True and Focused Police Reforms“Central government did initiate the modernisation of the police force scheme in the 1970s. But instead of switching to problem-solving and community policing strategies as the US did, it kept investing in the crime-fighting strategy — motorised patrolling, quick reactions to calls for help and reactive investigation. It ignored the failure elsewhere of the fire-brigade model of reactive policing in curbing crime by itself. It apparently led to an uninterrupted trend of an increase in crime and street violence in India. The ever-increasing fear of crime is reflected in gated communities and the booming private security industry.There is an urgent need to embrace a hybrid of the community-oriented and crime-fighting policing strategies and to reinforce it with crime-mapping and trend analysis.This is the time to reinvent the role of constables, who constitute 86 per cent of the police, and transform them to problem-solvers.With 356 million people in the 10-24 years age group, a proactive police engaging an interconnected, volatile and youthful population through community policing programmes is perhaps the only hope for enduring peace and lasting order.”[11]“According to a 2018 survey of 15,562 respondents across 22 states on perceptions about policing, the Lokniti team at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) found that less than 25% of Indians trust the police highly (as compared to 54% for the army). A big reason for the distrust is that interactions with the police can be frustrating, time-consuming and costly.”[12]Role of Judiciary“It may not be in sync with best democratic practices, but almost all contemporary liberal democratic regimes have an assemblage of “exceptional” laws. Sometimes more so in the bastions of democracy, like in the US and India. Often referred to as “extraordinary” laws, such laws are designed to, and legitimised by, the persistence of extraordinary situations.Prima facie it seems like a fair proposition deriving its logic from the “necessary evil” argument – these laws may be monstrous in their implications, they may violate civil liberties, but are needed to deal with exceptional situations. The threat of threat becomes the raison d’etre for exceptional laws. Rather than a tool to moderate political antagonism, they serve to strengthen the repressive arm of the state.But there’s something deeply worrying about the sanction these laws carry, and the range of activities they routinely bear upon. Under vague anEdit d nebulous definitions of terror and unlawful activity, they often encompass a wide range of nonviolent political activity and suppress contrarian, dissenting ideological or political perspectives. They allow for detentions without a chargesheet, create strong presumptions against bail, admit in-custody confessions and tacitly sanction torture. Over the years, their victims have been many innocents, whose stories ought to bear upon the collective conscience of this nation.”[13]“Colonial-era police laws enable state and local politicians to interfere routinely in police operations, sometimes directing police officers to drop investigations against people with political connections, including known criminals, and to harass or file false charges against political opponents. These practices corrode public confidence.”“According to the latest available data, 30% of all cases filed in 2016 were pending for investigation by the end of the year. This combined with the pendency in the judiciary means securing justice in India can take a very long time. As in the case of the judiciary, pendency in the police is driven by a lack of resources.”[14]“In 2006, a landmark Supreme Court judgement mandated reform of police laws. But the central government and most state governments have either significantly or completely failed to implement the court's order, suggesting that officials have yet to accept the urgency of comprehensive police reform, including the need to hold police accountable for human rights violations.”[15]‘In July 2018 the Supreme Court once again reviewed the progress of States and UTs on this front. Police reforms include fixed tenures for Director Generals of Police (DGPs) and Superintendents of Police. Also, the DGPs should have a minimum residual service to ensure continuity and stability and avoid frequent leadership changes. Also 23 States have ignored guidelines on appointment of DGPs. As of today, 12 States have not implemented the separation of investigation and law and order wings.”[16]Unless the Supreme Court puts the Chief Ministers and Chief Secretaries in jail over contempt of its ruling of 2006 by making it mandatory rather than recommendatory, the Political Executive and Bureaucracy is not going to change and improve policing for the citizens. The Citizens as voters too should demand it as the bare minimum through the power of their vote.Footnotes[1] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/jspui/bitstream/10603/140535/5/05_chapter%25201.pdf[2] http://In 1813, a Select Committee was appointed by the Court ofDirectors, which in its report observed that the Daroghas were not lesscorrupt than the Thanadars of the Zamindars and the forces under themwere inadequate for the protection of the people. They insisted on themaintenance of the village police. Provisions were made for themaintenance of Choukidars in certain cities and later at Magistrate'sheadquarters. They were paid stipends contributed by the local residents.By Regulation XX of 1817 all the rules which had from time to timebeen enacted respecting the duties of Daroghas and other Indian officersof police were arranged under 34 sections. Under the said Regulation theappointment of all police officers was vested in the Magistrate. ThisRegulation remained almost intact till the enactment of the Police Act,1861[3] People police[4] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/jspui/bitstream/10603/140535/5/05_chapter%25201.pdf[5] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/jspui/bitstream/10603/140535/5/05_chapter%25201.pdf[6] People police[7] Indian police accused of torture[8] India: Overhaul Abusive, Failing Police System[9] India’s police force among the world’s weakest[10] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/jspui/bitstream/10603/140535/5/05_chapter%25201.pdf[11] People police[12] India’s police force among the world’s weakest[13] 'Extraordinary' Laws Are Becoming Central to the Politics of Repression in India[14] India’s police force among the world’s weakest[15] India: Overhaul Abusive, Failing Police System[16] Police reforms must be expedited

The first part of this question is more interesting than the second. I don’t see the two as being alternatives. Everyone is motivated by a degree of self interest, but if the question is whether Johnson’s Euro-scepticism is genuine, boy have I got a treat in store for you.Johnson (like me) used to work in Brussels. He therefore carries the distinction of being a British Prime Minister whose eyes are wide open to how it works. This is what makes him uniquely well qualified to be Prime Minister, at this turbulent time. Most British Prime Ministers, particularly Blair, Cameron and most tragically, poor Theresa May, are naive about how the EU works and only discover once it’s too late.Corbyn in front of the EU would be mincemeat.Johnson is different. His experience of Brussels founded a healthy, strong Euroscepticism that has been in evidence, for many years. Note that being Eurosceptic is not the same as deciding to vote Leave in the 2016 referendum. I’d been a Eurosceptic since the mid-2000s but didn’t decide to vote Leave until a few weeks before the referendum.If you have strong Eurosceptic views and you’re the Prime Minister of the UK, then of course you care about Brexit. One thing trivially follows from the other.Do you worry about whether such views are genuine or only skin deep?Well, I’ve collected a selection of quotes from his articles for the Telegraph going back many years. I strongly recommend subscribing to the Telegraph. If you only hear one side of the argument because the Guardian and Independent don’t have a paywall, it’ll open your mind. It’s a small price to pay for something important. You’ll get to know your prime minister a bit better too. By trawling through his writings since the year dot, you’ll get more of a feel for where he’s coming from.Anyway, here goes. Please note, because of the amount of historic stuff he’s published on the EU, this is long. Maybe save it and read later at your leisure. But still, I think it proves the point.Europe is driving full-tilt, foot on the pedal, into a brick wall (Boris Johnson, 21 May 2012):I see the G8 has a brilliant solution to the problems of the eurozone. President Obama says it’s time for “growth and jobs”. Jolly good. That’s the stuff. Let me show you how to create employment – the Brussels way.Come with me through the streets of Athens, not far from Syntagma Square, and your mind will reel with the horrified realisation that history is not a one-way ratchet, that human progress is not guaranteed, and that a proud country can be reduced – by years of torture and bullying – to a state verging on total political, economic and moral collapse.Not far from the town hall, I saw a man using the pavement as an operating theatre to eviscerate a mattress for its springs. In the eyes of every politician there is a glassy humiliation, a sense that the fate of the nation is no longer in their hands. Even worse than the humiliation is the dread that things will deteriorate further still. Thousands are now being fed by soup kitchens.Unemployment is rising by the day, and among young people it now stands at a shameful 54 per cent. Yup, folks – those are the results of an EU plan to produce “growth and jobs”. It was called the euro, and it has been a catastrophe for Greece and pretty bad (with one notable exception) for the rest of the continent.We are told that the only solution now is a Fiscal Union (or FU). We must have “more Europe”, say our leaders, not less Europe – even though more Europe means more suffering, and a refusal to recognise what has gone wrong in Greece.The euro has turned out to be a doomsday machine, a destroyer of jobs, a killer of growth, because it entrenches and exacerbates the fundamental and historic inability of some countries to compete with Germany in making high-quality goods with low-unit labour costs.EU leaders may want a fiscal union, but it is deeply anti-democratic. We accept large fiscal transfers in this country because Britain has a single language and a single political consciousness in a way that Europe never will. Rather than creating an “economic government of Europe”, the project will lead to endless bitterness between the resentful donors and the humiliated recipients, as these diminished satrapies will be instructed to accept cuts and “reforms” – designed in Berlin and announced in Brussels – as the price of their dosh.Europe now has the lowest growth of any region in the world. We have already wasted years in trying to control this sickness in the euro, and we are saving the cancer and killing the patient. We have blighted countless lives and lost countless jobs by kidding ourselves that the answer to the crisis might be “more Europe”. And all for what? To salvage the prestige of the European Project, and to spare the egos of those who were wrong and muddle-headed enough to campaign for the euro.Britain needs immigrants, but it also needs tough border controls (Boris Johnson, 13 September 2010):I like to think I have campaigned pretty consistently against pointless quotas and restrictions, and sometimes readers have objected to my libertarianism. But never have I provoked such pant-hooting anger as when I suggested, the other day, that we might revisit the new cap on the number of talented people who can come to work in this country. Trawling the web, I came on a sensationalised report of my views, together with a thread of comments. It was like opening the door of the monkey house in the middle of a riot. It was a pandemonium of incredulous anger. I was a "traitor", cried the internet commentariat.The gist of my plan (or so they seemed to think) was to commandeer super-ferries laden with unemployed Venusian layabouts, draw them up off the beaches at Ramsgate and Deal, and then open the bow doors and order the hordes to swarm ashore – scrounging benefits from under the noses of the indigenous people.They seemed to think, in short, that I was in favour of uncontrolled immigration. Perhaps through misreporting, perhaps because I hadn't made myself clear enough, they had picked up the idea that I wanted to follow in the footsteps of Jack Straw and Tony Blair, and open the floodgates, take the brakes off and generally let rip.So perhaps I can enter a nervous cough of clarification. That impression is wrong. That is the opposite of what I am saying, and the last thing this country needs.Of all the revelations about the Blair years, one of the most fascinating and suggestive has been the confession by Andrew Neather – a former Labour apparatchik and now a reputable journalist – that Labour ministers secretly decided in 2000 to turn the immigration tap on full blast.They did this, he claims, not so much because the economy demanded more skilled workers from overseas, but because they wanted to transform Britain for good, to make the place more multicultural and "to rub the Tories' nose in it", by which I suppose he means to make the Conservatives seem ever more remote and out of touch with the realities of a changing country.After years of quiescence, the far-Right was back on the scene. By this year's general election, the issue of immigration had become utterly toxic, and all parties were calling for something to be done. Labour had already introduced a points-based system, but the Tories wanted to go further. They were, of course, statutorily incapable of addressing a large part of the problem – immigration from the 27 countries of the EU.Uncontrolled, unskilled immigration – no. Bringing indispensable skills to London – yes.Why are we paying to educate EU students in our universities? (Boris Johnson, 21 March 2010):On June 17, David Cameron will travel to Brussels for his first EU summit as prime minister. When the silence falls and the goggling interpreters prepare for the first words to be heard from a Tory prime minister in 13 years, he will be thinking – like all British PMs – of two audiences.To his new amigos he will want to send out a powerful message that the UK is ready to lead in Europe and to ensure that the EU is a force for good. And to the millions of voters back home he will simultaneously want to signal that he will stick up for this country's interests and that he will not allow us to be ripped off by our friends and partners in Brussels.We have rising unemployment among 16- to 24-year-olds, and the shortage of jobs has driven huge numbers to apply for university – at the very moment when the Government is asking universities to accept deep cuts in funding.We are warned that at least 100,000 British applicants will fail this year to get a place. Add those to the 46,000 who failed last year, and you have a lot of heartache. I am not one of those, by the way, who advocates savage cuts in the number of students or the closure of second-rate universities.This year British universities are educating 62,000 students from other EU countries, and applications for next year are up 36 per cent. They are flooding in from Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Italy, Sweden and elsewhere, and they are not only taking 5 per cent of the places, but they are also receiving colossal subsidies from the UK taxpayer. The subsidy for teaching is put at £4,000, and then they have the heavily subsidised £3,255 in loans to pay for the tuition fees, a loan that only becomes repayable once they have left university and reached a certain level of income.Nobody has yet explained to me how the Treasury is supposed to make sure that they eventually cough up. Are we really going to pay to send British tax officials tramping up dusty tracks in Sicily or knocking on doors in Warsaw to find out whether or not a former EU student at a UK university is earning more than £15,000? Add in the subsidies from Scotland, where EU students don't pay tuition fees at all (unlike English students, I might say), and you can see a vast transfer, by the British taxpayer, directly in favour of the education of foreign nationals.There is nothing like it anywhere else in Europe. The French and the Germans don't pay for the training of our nurses or bus drivers. Why are we paying for their students? The traffic is almost entirely one-way, in the sense that very few British students go to study in continental Europe.There is only one answer. We need a rebate. With Britain's net contribution to the EU budget rising to an amazing £6.4 billion, and with the country's finances so parlous that London babies are being buried in paupers' graves, we have no option but to raise this at the EU level.When Dave has finished with the mellifluous banalities about partnership and the heart of Europe, he should attire himself in cerulean blue, and pearls, and a pineapple-coloured wig; and he should cry: "We are paying for your students – and we want our money back!"And then he should hit the Brussels table with a heavy black handbag until they get the message.If Europe does get a president, it definitely won't be Tony Blair (Boris Johnson 5 October 2009):A spectre is haunting Europe, my friends. That spectre has a famously toothy grin and an eye of glistering sincerity and an almost diabolical gift of political self-reinvention. Barely two years after he stood down as prime minister, it seems that Tony Blair is about to thrust himself back into our lives.With his colossal mortgages in Buckinghamshire and London's Connaught Square, you might have thought he needed to stick firmly on the after-dinner circuit. You might have thought that the Blair finances oblige him to keep making boss-eyed speeches to armies of tuxedoed Arizona neo-cons about the importance of the special relationship and beating up Saddam Hussein.Well, not any more, it seems. Blair has evidently piled up such a fortune that he is ready for one more big public job, and we now discover that his extinction as prime minister was only the prelude for his re-emergence – like some wizard in The Lord of the Rings – in a guise more powerful than we can possibly imagine.He wants to be President of Europe. He wants to be the one-man incarnation of the wishes of 500 million people and 27 countries. He wants to be the answer to the decades old question originally posed by Henry Kissinger: "Who should the President of the United States ring if he wants to be put in urgent contact with Europe?"The solution used to be a delicious muddle of rotating troikas of council presidencies and secretariats in Luxembourg. But now, if and when the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, the answer is simple and elegant. Get me Europe on the line, says Barack Obama or Vladimir Putin – and instantly the phone will trill in Connaught Square, and Cherie will pick it up. "Barack! How lovely to hear you. I expect you want the President," she will say. "Darling!" she will call upstairs to where her husband is in the bath, meditating on a vast new speech on solving the problems of the Middle East with a programme of inter-faith school sport. "It's Barack on the hotline! He wants to know whether Europe will support fresh sanctions against Iran!" And President Blair will absently push aside his rubber duck, and shout back that Europe will ring America back as soon as Europe has finished in the bathroom.As for leaders less powerful and insistent than Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin, they will just have to wait their turn. David Cameron will have to join the queue of 27 prime ministers all wanting a bit of face time with President Blair, who will no doubt be voted a Blair Force One Jumbo Jet and all the motorcycle outriders, marine corps bands and fresh-faced interns that go with a presidential office. It is really a monumental poke in the eye for the British electorate. They finally get rid of the fellow after 10 years, only to find that he has re-emerged as a kind of Euro-emperor. He is about to dive in like Little Jack Horner and pull out the plummest job on the world stage – and all because the Labour government was so sickeningly deceitful as to betray its election promise and ram through the new Constitution without a referendum.Blair was the man who connived in the creation of this federal role, on the understanding that people would be allowed to vote on it. That was the promise he made in the 2005 manifesto, on which he was re-elected. The people have been cheated of that vote by Labour – and now we are seriously being told that Blair is in the frame for the job. Can it really be possible? Is this infamy really about to come to pass?As it happens, I think probably not. Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff, is said to be conducting a tour of European capitals to drum up support for his master. He has been to Prague, to Brussels and is off to Paris. And yet I have a feeling that the Blair Euro-presidency will turn out to be a mirage.Can you really imagine Nicolas Sarkozy being willing to share the international limelight with our Tony, when Blair is British, charismatic, and not remotely frightened of appearing in photocalls with people of more than five foot five inches in height? No, I will wager a fiver with any reader – proceeds to charity – that Blair will not be chosen as Europe's president, if and when the Treaty of Lisbon proceeds.The job will go Buggins-style to some relatively inoffensive Luxembourg socialist or superannuated Finnish environment minister. At which point, of course, the question is posed with even more force. Who is this person? Who elected them? By what right will he or she be purporting to speak for us in the UK?In what sense will the views of the "President of Europe" be related to the views of the British people? That is a question we deserve to have publicly debated, and that is why David Cameron and William Hague are so right and so brave to ignore the vote in Ireland and keep alive the hope that we can have our say, too.EU crisis: The Greek Austerity Diet will only leave them feeling fed up (Boris Johnson 14 November 2011):There are many who argue that the EU-imposed austerity measures are counter-indicated, and that they are only deepening the recession and making Greek difficulties worse.In a sense, it doesn’t matter if that analysis is right or wrong. What matters is that many Greeks already believe it — and they will therefore resent the programme all the more for being devised without their democratic approval. Many years ago Margaret Thatcher made a much-deplored speech in which she warned against the creation of “identikit Europeans”. Everybody said that it was absurd to talk in such terms. But her warning was spot on.We are using fiscal bullying to try to turn the Greeks and Italians into Germans. The whole European enterprise is now devoted to keeping the euro alive on the utterly specious grounds that the currency is synonymous with “Europe”. We are nailing shut the exits of William Hague’s famous burning building. British taxpayers going to be shelling out ever more in bail-out dosh, much of which will ultimately go to banks and bankers’ bonuses. And all the while the southern EU members will be put on ever tougher austerity regimes that frankly don’t suit their needs. No matter how hard I diet, I won’t look like a championship athlete. The Greeks can’t become Germans, and it is brutal to force them to try.Brussels is a shining symbol of where the real power lies (Boris Johnson 7 September 2009):Cor, I thought. This is what it must be like to be in one of those films. You nod off for 10 minutes and you wake up in 200 years' time. We had just pitched up at the Gare du Midi in Brussels and the transformation was incredible. It was 20 years ago that this paper despatched me to the Belgian capital to be its Common Market Correspondent, and in those days the Gare du Midi was a wonderfully dingy place with feral cats and trod-on chips and Turkish taxi drivers snoozing in their battered Mercs and trains departing slowly for First World War destinations like Poperinge.As you get to the sites of the burgeoning European institutions, it is as though gigantic alien motherships of glass and steel have crash-landed on the city, dwarfing the cobbled streets and crushing out the patisseries and the gloomy little bars I used to love.Take the Euro-parliament, which in my day had a fairly poky office on Rue Belliard. Look at it now. To call it a palace is a wild understatement. It is a series of palaces, a city within a city, with bars and restaurants and coiffeurs, and arcing passerelles linking one modernist monstrosity with another. In my time the Euro-parliament was an amiable backwater, the mother-in-law of parliaments, a herbivorous habitat of oddballs – German ex-stormtroopers, retired Italian porn stars, long-haired Flemish greens, the young Geoff Hoon. The agenda broadly consisted of having lunches in Strasbourg before issuing strongly worded and cosmically irrelevant denunciations of African famines or Latin American earthquakes.Today that parliament bar is heaving, and so are all the innumerable places of refreshment, pullulating with animated young thrusters of both sexes, their Christian Dior spectacles glittering with lust for – lust for what? Power, that's what. For the first time in the 30-year history of this much-mocked institution I had a sense of the power that seeps from the brown moleskin walls, and as I watched huissiers scuttling softly to and fro, I saw an assembly newly drenched and glistening with a rich béarnaise of self-confidence.And I could not help thinking, of course, of the pitiful comparison with Westminster, the parliament in which I recently served.What a contrast with Brussels. In Brussels and Strasbourg (and Luxembourg, where heaven knows what they get up to), the MEPs just turn up and ker-ching, they claim their per diems. They vote at the push of a button, they are attended by every possible comfort, they have minimal interaction with their constituents, and in general the great Euro-gravy train rolls on at très grande vitesse.In Brussels the parliament is growing in physical splendour and size, with about 750 Euro-MPs now browsing in its pastures. In London the tendency is all in the opposite direction. Not only are there plans to reduce Parliament from 659 to about 400, but British MPs face a protracted humiliation, of being forced by the whips to fill in weird prep-school forms giving an account of how they have spent every hour of every day.In Brussels the lunching seems as uninhibited as ever; in London it's humble pie all round – and the kicker of the whole affair is that this change is not just symbolic. It reflects the underlying reality. It reflects the shift in the balance of power and the fact that the laws of this country are no longer determined by Parliament at Westminster.You do not need to understand the detail of the directive on Alternative Investment Fund Management, for instance, to grasp that it is aimed at businesses in London, and risks doing considerable damage to such businesses, and yet our Parliament in London is wholly irrelevant. These hedge funds, private equity and venture capital firms had little or nothing to do with the financial meltdown of last year. But it happens that they have long been unpopular with certain European governments, who took advantage of the crisis to dust down an old plan of attack – rather as George Bush took advantage of 9/11 to launch an irrelevant attack on his father's bugbear, Saddam Hussein.The result is a directive that threatens to drive such businesses outside the European Union. Of course there is a case for sensible regulation, and there is still time for that directive to be improved. But who is going to do that work? There is no point in the venture capitalists and the hedge funds lobbying any British ministers. Under the new co-decision powers of the Euro-parliament, those crucial amendments will be made in Brussels by Euro-MPs.Indeed, with more directives in the pipeline, the future of the whole UK financial services industry is probably in their hands. That is why it is so telling to see the physical contrast between desiccated Westminster and sleek, self-confident Brussels. Power has passed, is passing, and under the Treaty of Lisbon, will pass further to the Euro-parliament.We’re right about the euro - that’s why Europe is angry (Boris Johnson 12 December 2011):I know some people are unsettled to see all these powerful Europeans getting so very, very cross. Angela Merkel has said that we weren’t even negotiating properly. Nicolas Sarkozy can hardly bring himself to mention Britain by name and has been filmed apparently refusing to shake David Cameron’s hand. Across the Continent, the papers are full of wrathful headlines about the general arrogance and stupidity of the Englanders/Anglais/Inglesi. I watched some poor Lib Dem Euro MP who seemed about to explode with disgust at the UK’s handling of the recent summit.And there must be many people in this country who find themselves a bit spooked by the vitriol of the criticism. For some days, the BBC has been telling us in sepulchral tones that we are “isolated” and “marginalised” – as if a decision had been taken to abandon us in our misty island like a bunch of woad-painted savages. So I hope everyone will be reassured if I point out that our European friends and partners aren’t really angry about the summit. Everyone is behaving as if there were something epoch-making about David Cameron’s use of the veto – as though some national Excalibur had been finally plucked from the rock, or as Trident had at last been launched from its briny lair.The reality is that plenty of prime ministers have blocked things that aren’t in this country’s interests – from Thatcher on the EU budget to Tony Blair on the withholding tax. And plenty of other prime ministers have been far more obstreperous than the British – one thinks of Felipe González of Spain, who used to hold up EU summits until he felt he had got his hands on enough Irish cod and haddock.No, they aren’t really angry with us for opposing the new Treaty for Fiscal Union. The reason our brother and sister Europeans are so chronically enraged with the British is that we have been proved completely right about the euro. For more than 20 years, British ministers have been coming out to Brussels and saying that they just love all this single-market stuff, but that they doubt the wisdom of trying to create a monetary union. And for more than 20 years, some of us have been saying that the reason a monetary union won’t work is that you can’t do it without a political union – and that a political union is not democratically possible.We warned that you would need a kind of central Euro-government to control national budgets and taxation, and that the peoples of Europe wouldn’t wear it. Now look. It wasn’t the Anglo-Saxon bankers who caused the trouble in the eurozone, Sarkozy mon ami. It was the utter failure of the eurozone countries – starting with France, incidentally – to observe the Maastricht rules. It was the refusal of the Greeks to control their spending or to reform their social security systems. In Greece and Italy, the democratic leaders have been effectively deposed in the hope of appeasing the markets and saving the euro; and what makes the leaders of the eurozone countries even more furious is that it doesn’t seem to be working.They blame David Cameron for “vetoing” a new EU treaty, when really he has done no such thing. It is perfectly open to the other EU countries now to go ahead and form their own new fiscal rules. If they want, they can decide to create an economic government of Europe. They may decide that now is the time – even though electorates are already feeling alienated from the political process – to hand sensitive decisions on tax and spending to unelected bureaucrats. It strikes me that this would be an amazingly dangerous thing to do, since the peoples of this Supra National And Fiscal Union (Snafu) would rapidly discover that they could no longer remove their government from office. I doubt very much that it would work, since there seems no particular reason why national governments should respect a collection of new “binding” rules any more than they respected the “binding” rules of Maastricht – not unless there is some secret proposal to enforce them by violence with a Euro-army.But even if the Snafu has little prospect of success, there is no reason for David Cameron to commit this country to a project that is intellectually, morally and democratically bankrupt. He was quite right to say that Britain would not participate; and the reason the others are angry with Britain is that the row conceals the real failure of the summit – and that is to come up with a solution for the problems of the euro. The best hope now is for everyone to cool off and look at the things that the citizens of Europe actually want from their institutions. The euro may or may not be saved – though it seems unlikely that it will still exist in exactly its current form a year from now, and the best thing would be if the Greeks (and perhaps others) were allowed an orderly exit from their pain.But there are still plenty of things that the European Union could provide its struggling peoples. In January, it will be 20 years since the dawn of the “single market”, and yet there are still all kinds of non-tariff barriers to trade. Here we are trying to create an economic government of Europe, and yet we haven’t even passed the services directive, which would allow everyone from opticians to estate agents to insurance brokers to set up more freely in other European jurisdictions. We are telling the Greeks that Brussels must effectively run their economy – and yet we can’t even agree on a common European standard for plugs.Everyone is now worried that other European countries will “punish” Britain, perhaps with new directives on financial services designed to damage the City of London. Well, in so far as that is a problem, it is not a problem that has been made any worse by this summit; and in so far as we need to assert our European credentials, now is the time to set out a positive vision for a Europe that actually helps individuals and businesses. Next time these leaders have a summit, let’s lock them in until they agree the services directive and come up with a Europlug.Snooty Europhiles should be forced to crawl in penitence (Boris Johnson 13 December 2010):I think we deserve an apology. By “we” I mean all the Euro-sceptics, Euro-pragmatists, Euro-realists and Euro-hysterics who were alarmed by some of the optimism that surrounded the birth of the single currency. Do you remember the disdain with which we were treated? We were told that we were boss-eyed Little Englanders. They used to say we were a bunch of xenophobic, garlic-hating defenders of the pint and the yard and the good old bread-filled British banger.Whenever we protested about any detail of the plan for monetary union, we were told that we were in danger of stopping the great European train, boat, bus, bicycle or whatever it was. We were a blimpish embarrassment to our country, a bunch of idiot children who had to be shooshed while the grown-ups got on with their magnificent plans.So it gives me a tingling pleasure to report that everywhere you look on the map of Europe we have been proved resoundingly and crushingly right.In the late Eighties and early Nineties, I was writing for this paper from Brussels, and the big topic of the day was what was then known as the Delors Plan for Economic and Monetary Union. I had one major reservation about the proposals. The problem wasn’t so much that EMU involved scrapping time-hallowed currencies such as the franc, the Deutschmark and the lira. As far as I was concerned, we could all use the Rice Krispie, provided Europe could be turned into an optimal single-currency zone.Politics made the euro, and politics can destroy it, especially if electorates start to feel it is a machine for German domination and the destruction of benefits and wages; or if the German electorate feels that it is a machine for fleecing Germany.In the meantime, all those snooty Europhile politicians and journalists who sneered at us for our doubts should be forced to crawl in penitence to Dublin Castle, scourging themselves with copies of the Maastricht Treaty. We have been vindicated, and the least they can do is admit it. They know who they are.Brussels is slowly beeting the life out of our sugar industry (Boris Johnson 20 February 2012):It is a tribute to the astonishing versatility of manufacturing in the British capital that we still have the largest cane sugar refinery in the whole of Europe. Any syrup needs they may have on the continent — one thinks, perhaps, of baba au rhum — are almost certainly satisfied by recourse to sugar cane, and the biggest supplier is Tate & Lyle. This historic company produces about 40 per cent of the cane sugar in the entire EU, and most of it comes from the London plant.Now this superb business faces a threat from Brussels, and the imposition of an unnecessary and badly thought-out regulation. For 134 years, the company has sourced its sugar cane from around the world — not unnaturally, since the crop doesn’t grow in the UK. Week in, week out, huge boatloads of brown crystals come up the Thames to be treated. The plant has the capacity to produce 1.1 million tonnes of refined sugar a year; and yet the company is prevented, by the EU commission, from importing the raw materials in the quantities it needs. Their current output is now down to 60 per cent of capacity — and the result is that jobs are being lost in a part of London that already faces the highest levels of unemployment in the city and indeed in the whole of the country.And while a great London business is unable to fulfil its potential, the price of sugar is pushed up — by the EU — far higher than necessary, and that price hike is felt by every hard-pressed consumer who eats anything in which sugar is an ingredient. That is a long list of foods, in tough times, whose prices are being pushed up by the Common Agricultural Policy. It is utter madness, and it derives from the ruthless determination of the Commission to protect the sugar beet producers of continental Europe.For decades they have been artificially shielded, by high tariff walls around the EU, which mean that sugar prices in Europe are more than double the world market price. And those sugar beet producers have been given huge sums of taxpayers’ money, in export refunds, to dump their produce overseas. In 2006 the Commission reluctantly bowed to outrage from Oxfam and others, and agreed to a programme of “reform”. Of the total EU sugar market of about 17 million tonnes, 13.5 million would be reserved for the European sugar beet barons. The other 3.5 million tonnes could be supplied by sugar cane producers around the world.The trouble is that these countries — in Africa, the Caribbean or Pacific regions — have not been able to fill the gap. To find enough cane sugar, Tate & Lyle need to be able to bring in boatfuls from places like Brazil or Central America: and that Brussels forbids. They face swingeing tariffs to bring more in — while the sugar beet producers are given a licence to produce more. At every turn the British refinery finds the system skewed in favour of the beet producers, mainly in France and Germany. But they can’t use beet in the London plants; and you can’t use beet to make golden syrup.Already 30 jobs are going — high-skilled jobs held by long-serving staff; and it is surely a disgrace that a natural source of employment is being choked at a critical time for the economy. London firms need to be given every incentive and confidence to hire more staff and expand, from tax breaks to the apprenticeship schemes we have been helping to lead from City Hall. And we are lobbying Brussels to drop its crazy prohibition, and allow Tate and Lyle to get cane sugar from wherever in the world it can find the stuff. It is time for common sense on the sugar regime — in the name of jobs for London and cheaper food all round.David Cameron must drive on with EU reform (Boris Johson 7 June 2015):It is now a month since that amazing victory on the night of May 7, and it is fair to say that for most of us the full implications are only still sinking in.Everyone is still gobsmacked at the scale of the reversal, victors and vanquished alike – and all military history surely suggests that this is the moment of maximum opportunity: an opportunity that may never come again.This is not the time to rest, to have a cuppa, and let our tank engines sit gently pinking in the sun. This is not the moment to allow the other side to regroup and come to terms with what has happened. This is the moment to drive on, to seize and hold new ground, to do things we have wanted to do for decades.They never saw this coming, in the chancelleries of Europe. They believed the polls, and concluded that there was little chance of the Tories being able to deliver on their promise of a referendum. Well, now we have the opportunity to produce reform that is right for Britain and right for Europe, and all the momentum is with the Prime Minister. Let’s get a deal that is good for the productiveness and competitiveness of the whole EU economy; and in making the case it strikes me that there is only one negotiating position that is sensible.You can’t begin talks by telling our friends in the rest of Europe we hate the whole Brussels caboodle, and are determined to recommend a No. Why, in the face of such fundamental negativity, should they make any concessions to Britain? And symmetrically it would be ludicrous to tell them that whatever happens we will want to stay in the club, and can therefore be counted on supinely to vote Yes to continued membership. That would rightly be seen as hopeless tactic, and, again, unlikely to produce reforms or concessions of any substance. There is only one way forward, and that is to enter the negotiations in good faith, but to make clear that if we don’t see progress then we must be prepared to walk away.My friends, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity. This is the first time in my adult existence that Britain is leading a campaign for change and reform in the EU that is backed up by the prospect of an in-out referendum. We cannot be half-hearted; we cannot just throw this chance away. Now is the time to rev up our engines, and fan out through the gap. It is clear that David Cameron is already making the running in Europe. Angela Merkel has said – of course! – that treaty change is possible. Plenty of other countries agree with our stance on migrant benefits; plenty agree that the EU machine needs to be less intrusive, and that national parliaments must be more involved, and that the religion of “Ever Closer Union” has had its day. Now is the chance to build that coalition for reform. It may not be easy, and it may take a while – beyond 2016, I am sure. But it can be done – and the same can be said, of course, about the rest of the political agenda.We must drive on, we must take and settle that vast tract of centre ground – the one that Tony Blair so effectively colonised and that Ed Miliband so rashly vacated.And finally, yes this next one was written after he declared for Leave, but it’s hard to argue it isn’t genuine. You can also amuse yourself at some of the futurology here. Some of the predictions he got right, others, catastrophically wrong! Still, this question isn’t about whether he’s right or wrong but whether he’s genuine in his support for Brexit.Future Britons will find it hard to believe that anyone voted to stay in the EU (Boris Johnson 22 May 2016):Thanks to an unexpected wormhole in the space-time continuum, I have come across the following passage from a historical textbook a few decades hence. It is a chapter called “Brexit”…It is now generally agreed among historians that Britain’s departure from the EU really began in 1991, a quarter of a century before the famous “Brexit” referendum. It was then that the UK government took the controversial decision to opt out of the third stage of European monetary union – thereby ensuring that the British people would be able to keep the pound sterling, rather than being forced to use the euro. When this historic rupture was confirmed by the Labour government, in 2003, there was widespread condemnation from those in British banking and business who were traditionally nervous of being left out of any European project, as well as from some politicians.As time went on, the decision looked better and better. By imposing a one-size-fits-all monetary policy on very different economies, the euro became a disaster. Unprecedented levels of unemployment were experienced in some Mediterranean countries. The French were sunk in malaise. The Greek economy shrank by a quarter. And yet the entire energies of the EU political class were devoted to rescuing this project.So when the British had their long-delayed referendum, in June 2016, they were being offered the worst of both worlds. They did not use the euro (whatever its supposed benefits), but there were at least two major ways in which – through membership of the EU – the British were exposed to the consequences of the euro catastrophe.The first was immigration. Thanks largely to the decision to keep the pound, and the flexibility that went with an independent monetary policy, the UK was a zone of relatively high growth – a comparative El Dorado of job creation. This meant that the UK experienced substantial waves of immigration by people in search of work, partly from eastern Europe but also from the southern countries that had been devastated by the euro. The British were traditionally welcoming, but they could see the pressures of uncontrolled immigration on the NHS and other services. They were alarmed that the influx was about 330,000 a year, unsure that they wanted this surge to help push national population to a predicted 70 or 80 million.They were disappointed when the UK government’s “renegotiation” of the terms of EU membership failed entirely to restore control of immigration to the UK authorities. They were also increasingly unsettled by the realisation – as the campaign went on – that it was not possible to vote for the status quo. The EU had plainly changed out of all recognition from the Common Market that they had voted for in 1975.In their desperation to save the euro, the Brussels authorities had set an ambitious agenda to go further and faster with a United States of Europe. Reading the fine print, the British discovered that there was nothing they could do to veto such moves – towards a fiscal and political union, as detailed in the “Five Presidents’ Report”. Nor could they stop further centralisation from applying to Britain.By the spring of 2016, many electors were thinking that the EU was moving in completely the wrong direction. With some polls even predicting a Vote to Leave, a highly nervous UK government resorted to a series of scare tactics. Hysterical claims were made about house prices, food prices, World War Three and other nonexistent bogeymen. The American president was prevailed upon to campaign for the UK to remain – even though, as he was repeatedly reminded, the US would not dream of compromising its independence in the manner required of EU members.As the brow-beating and scare stories intensified, many began to suspect that the government campaign to “Remain” was driven not so much by an enthusiasm for the Brussels system, but simple fear of the political embarrassment entailed in a Vote to Leave. The Leave campaigners focused on the anti-democratic nature of the EU.They demonstrated that EU legislation now inspired 60 per cent of all primary and secondary legislation at Westminster, and that the costs of this torrent of laws were running at about £600 million a week for British business – even though only 6 per cent of UK businesses actually traded with other EU countries. They convincingly showed that claims of UK “influence” in Brussels were laughable, given that only 3.6 per cent of EU commission officials actually came from the UK. They pointed out that plenty of non-EU countries had done better than Britain at exporting to the vaunted “single market”; that global free trade was legally impossible for Britain while in the EU; and in the end it was hard to resist the conclusion that the EU was an anachronism – outdated in a digital age in which people could shop across frontiers at the click of a mouse.Given the choice between taking back control or being sucked ever deeper into a federal superstate, the British voted for independence on June 23. To no one’s very great surprise, Project Fear turned out to be a giant hoax. The markets were calm. The pound did not collapse. The British government immediately launched a highly effective and popular campaign across the Continent to explain that this was not a rejection of “Europe”, only of the supranational EU institutions; and a new relationship was rapidly forged based on free trade and with traditional British leadership on foreign policy, crime-fighting, intelligence-sharing and other intergovernmental cooperation.The British felt suddenly and unexpectedly galvanised – with a renewed confidence in their democracy, and excitement about the new opportunities for global trade and partnership. The Brexit vote was followed by a powerful campaign for reform in Europe, and a widespread euphoria that at least one population had plucked up the courage to say that the emperor had no clothes.After only a few years it became increasingly hard to find anyone who would confess to having voted Remain.