I’d be very interested to find out what wriggle room, member states have when it comes to EU Directives. After all, the Home Office had first proposed a giant database of their own to collect all these data logs, but that has been shelved. So what else could go?

You’re right that the EU did not have to approve it but that’s one of the things that disturbs me about the EU – I’m not convinced these things go through the same levels of representative debate to become Directives as they would in member states own parliaments.

I am not sure what can be done but I think it’s worth watching states such as Sweden as they look about ready to stand up to the directive. In their case their proponent was their own justice minister at the time but their government as a whole now seems to regret it. Also Germany are starting to realise what the measures would mean, a country that has such vivid memories of the Gestapo may yet find the will to stand firm against it.

In general I think it is important to always highlight where these ideas came from and who voted for them – we need to close off the expectation that this method will be a smoother ride to get unpopular policies past the electorate. We need to remove their ability to use this sleight of hand whenever they try by always loudly pointing out whose idea it was, or who voted for it.

You’re totally right re the difference between the EU and the ECHR, that was a dumb comparison on my part. I should have stuck to directives, a better example would perhaps have been the working time directive, which we seem quite content to challenge.

I apreciate this policy may have originated with Tony Blair and chums, but the EU did not have to approve it or spread it to all other EU states. But now that it is an EU Directive, what can be done?

The other point is that DNA retention is not about the EU. The European Court of Human Rights is under the Council of Europe and its rulings are not binding.

However, this Govenment by enacting the Human Rights Act have agreed to go along with all judgements and case history. Though in the case of DNA, they seem to be ignoring the spirit of the judgement if not the word.

“what people should be aware of is that the Data Retention Directive is an EU driven policy”

Yup – and who were the principle people putting forward and backing the directive from the start?

Full marks for anyone who says “Tony Blair and chums”.

The government does this a lot, especially with their more draconian ‘reforms’. They lobby, cajole and slide things into European directives then claim to their own people, “It’s not our fault – those nasty Europeans are making us do it to you”.

The EU is merely being used by the British Government as an incubator to protect unpopular ideas, so they can transplant them fully grown into British law, bypassing much debate in the UK.

If they cared they would object to the directive. Think about it, they seem pretty happy to ignore EU law on illegal DNA retention, but oddly keen to go along with the directive to spy on citizens.

Apparently duplicity works.