 Felly, mae'n gweithio i Professor John Spencer, yw'r profesi ymeritys yw'r Ffacoledig Llywodraeth, y cyfnodol yn y Llywodraeth Cymru, o'r ddweud o'r cyfnodol i'r cyfnodol i'r ddweud i'w ddweud? Yn ymgyrch, Amy. Fy hoffi'n gweithio'r Llywodraeth Cymru i'r cyfnodol i'r cyfnodol ac rwy'n gwybod i'n gwybod i'w ddweud. Felly, mae'n gweithio'r llyfriddwyr ar gyfer y Llywodraeth Cymru, fel ynghyltygael yn rhoi cyffaith cyfrnodol i'r colleddi Orbhe Design ac edges followersALLad addysgu lleoedd i'r llyfriddwyr llyfriddwyr. Rwy'n gweithio, mae'n gweithio eu cyffnodaeth yn Belgiwm yn Llywodraeth yn Ithlau, a rydyn ni'n gweithio yn yngliff y bydd y cymryd cymrydau a rydyn ni'n gweithio yn ymddangos y bydd y cymryd cymrydau. Rydyn ni'n gweithio i'r cymryd y Llywodraeth yn eu cymrydau yn ymddangos, a gweld llawer o'r cymunedau sy'n gwneud i gweithio ar ein studiad. Mae'r studiad Cymryd Gyllidexio yn ymddangos 100, oherwydd ein ddegwyd o unrhyw o'r lefnod amddangos y bydd y cymryd cymryd y bydd yn iawn yn falch i fod o bobl o b bottle, festu cymryd y bydd yn codi'r newid caryllwtai a'r newid cymryd y bydd llawer y bydd gyda gallwch chi gymryd。 Yn rhaid na'r gwrthodd ystafell, oherwydd eu loedau ni'r Llywodraeth Eurofa, ymlaen nhw ydych chi weithniadodd. Mae hynny nid gothau Brasol o bolygu'r Lleyw yn cyfliad o'r lem i ran i gyd Springs ac os y gallwch chi'n gyflawn ni yn cael y pethau esfawr yn cyflawn ni'r cyflawn ni'r Llywodraeth ac os y cyflawn ni'r Cyflawn ymlaen nhw efallai fel y gallwch hefyd mae'r rhiforendwm yn ymdweud. Bydd wedi bod yn y Delyg Ddweud y 10 mai, y brosl yng Nghymru yn ymdweud i'r llyfr o'r Llyfrgell Eurolaw am y rhiforendwm yn cael ei gread o grwpio, etc. Ychydig iawn i gweithio eu prosiectur o'r Llyfrgell Eurolol yn cael ei chyloedd eu cyfnodol i'r cymdeithasol ac i'r prynsibol ddiweddol yn cynnig arlaedd a'r gyfer gilydd. Why we demand anything, this is all can be a result of a restored account of the Corpus Eurus 프로j Megan Markkart. aڵ was a proposal in the original proposal we gave to get the CG prosecutor some rules and far from say that people would be presumed guilty. In article 31 of the project we said Byrddyn o'r prif, any person accused of one of the offences set out above is presumed innocent until his guilt has been established legally by a final judgement. So, the story about the Brussels plot is on a par with the story about the north-east floods on Boxing Day being caused by the EU and the EU having a plan to stop the Queen having corgi dogs and the EU having a plan to stop us having double-decker buses in London and all those similar euro myths. So, what is European criminal law then? It consists of five bits, rather disparate at the moment. There's a body of law regulating institutions which have been set up, like Europol and Eurojust, and on the way a European public prosecutor, if that should ever happen. The aim of these things is to try to coordinate efforts at dealing with crime cross-borders. Then, with the similar aim, there are a body of instruments to encourage police cooperation. For example, an EU instrument providing a legal basis for setting up joint investigation teams into crimes with cross-border elements to them. Then there's a body of instruments to do with mutual recognition, that's to say providing for the more or less automatic recognition and enforcement of judgements and orders from courts in other member states, head of the list being the European arrest warrant which everybody's heard of. Then there are measures trying to harmonise criminal law by trying to ensure a common approach to certain forms of misbehaviour, particularly ones which cause problems across borders, like terrorism, drug smuggling, money laundering, child pornography. These instruments require the member states all to have criminal laws punishing these things and to have maximum sentences which are of at least a certain degree of severity. Then lastly there are some instruments trying to harmonise criminal procedure by requiring the member states to ensure their criminal procedure does various things like respect victims' rights in certain ways and provide certain minimum rights for defendants. The aim of this is to try to reinforce mutual recognition by ensuring that the courts of the different member states have confidence in the qualities of justice in the other member states whose orders and judgements they're expected to enforce. The Luxembourg court system as of December 2014 now has a measure of jurisdiction over all this but it's quite limited. It can have infringements proceedings brought against member states that fail to carry out their obligations, not much of a threat to the UK which has a good record of implementing its international obligations and its European obligations, which is one of the reasons why the UK is rather cautious about letting itself in for these obligations. It can also entertain preliminary references from our courts so if one of our courts has a question that arises as to the compatibility of some piece of national legislation with a European instrument it can ask the Luxembourg court what the position is and should be and ask it for directions. Contrary to what some people think, Luxembourg isn't a further round of appeal in criminal cases particularly for unveritorious defendants. So why are we so exercised by all of this? I think we're exercised by it because a lot of people have got completely hold of the wrong end of the stick about what EU criminal law is about. As I've explained it, most of it is about trying to ensure that the justice systems of the member states, the different justice systems of the different member states work to some degree step in step to deal with crimes and problems which operate across borders and there's absolutely no question of there being a kind of Brussels plot to enforce the UK to give up the common law as is internalised by UKIP and by quite a large section of the Conservative Party as well. What might happen to all of this so if we think that this body of rules is quite important what might be the consequence of the referendum on that area of regulation? If the UK left the result could be that we'd be relieved of the burdens of this legislation insofar as it imposes burdens and that we would be deprived of the benefits of this legislation insofar as it confers benefits. Would the loss of benefits matter? Well, we have to remember that the purpose of EU criminal law is to deal with the unwanted consequences of free movement, free movement of persons, goods, capital and services which is a basic element of EU policy and designed to encourage free trade. It's designed to deal with the fifth freedom, the unwanted free movement of criminals and crime and not having the benefit of this legislation would matter or wouldn't matter depending on how much free movement we were left with after whatever exit deal was done. If the UK were to turn itself into a sort of northern European North Korea with borders firmly shut it wouldn't matter at all. If, as is expected, some measure of free movement continued then there would be in function of the amount of free movement problems resulting from not having the benefits of this body of law. What exactly would happen is uncertain as it is with almost everything else to do with Brexit because if we leave in an orderly fashion following the procedure laid down in the treaties there would be negotiated an exit package and this exit package might say business continues in respect of this or that or the other part of EU criminal law. But let's assume as is more likely there'd be some kind of clean break settlement. In that case, I don't think there would be many practical consequences from no longer being part of the body of rules harmonising criminal law or harmonising criminal procedure. But the pinch would come with not being part anymore of the body of law about the institutions like Europol or the police cooperation measures like joint investigation teams and other related things or mutual recognition instruments like the European arrest warrant. The legal sky wouldn't fall if that case because that happened because there would be ways around it but they wouldn't be easy ways. I think as regards the institutions like Europol we would be able to negotiate some kind of associate status but we'd be hangers on not members so we wouldn't be making the policy we'd be sitting on the sidelines and taking what they gave us. As regards police cooperation and mutual recognition we might be able to negotiate separate new deals with each member state but there are 27 other member states and a long list of measures and you've only got to multiply one by the other to see how there's rather a lot of negotiation which our civil servants would have to do. Or we might be able to make in some cases a treaty with the EU directly or as is often said we might be able to fall back on some of the pre-existing international agreements by which we used to manage this sort of thing before the EU criminal law came along to try to do things better and quicker. Much talk is about the European Convention on Extradition which is what we used to use as the basis for extradition between the other member states before there was the European arrest warrant and which we still use and they still use when dealing with extradition with countries that aren't members of the European Union though are members obviously part of Europe. And it's true that we could resurrect the European Convention on Extradition as the basis of dealing with the other member states if the UK left the EU and we weren't part of the European arrest warrant anymore but we would resurrect the problems that we used to have with it. One of them is that the European Convention on Extradition allows contracting states to contract on the basis that they won't surrender their own nationals. That's never been the position of the UK. We've always been quite happy to hand over our own nationals by extradition but it was the position taken by France, Germany and some other quite big and populous countries. And in the days when that existed and we had to use the Convention if somebody from one of those countries came here and committed a crime and went back home again we couldn't get him and the only way that he could be brought to justice was by arranging for him to be tried in that country which meant shipping the evidence and the witnesses out there and the consequence sometimes was that justice failed and we would have the same problems resurrected as well as the instrument resurrected as well. So we'd managed somehow I think but though the sky wouldn't fall we would certainly have difficulties which we don't have at the moment. Perfect. Thank you.