Latest from UKIP Daily

A Narrow Escape – Part III

The Danger Avoided

In the event last year’s referendum gave a narrow majority to the Leave vote. This caused howls of protest and outrage from the Remain side. It is easy to imagine that if the Remain side had won, there would have been whoops of triumph and joy from the Cleggs of this life. A Remain victory would have been taken as a complete acceptance by the people of Britain of the entire EU project – hook, line and sinker.

 

The whole project would have gone full steam ahead. The last vestiges of national sovereignty would have been extinguished, and the exit doors would have been blocked. The United State of Europe would have been hauled up into view, and proclaimed in all its majesty. We would have been doubtless lined up for the Euro and for full Schengen membership. Our obstructionism had been tolerated hitherto by a fear that if Brussels rubbed the Brits up the wrong way too much, the Withdrawalist tendency might have taken over in British politics, and they would have lost us completely. Hence the resorting to salami-slicing techniques, and stealthy attempts to “softlee softlee catchee monkee”.

 

So far the entire project has been delayed, many parts of it postponed or delayed, by British internal opposition, viewed as foot-dragging by many in Brussels. All this would have been removed at a stroke by a victory of the Remain vote.

 

Corpus Juris would have been imposed – the full nine yards of it. We would have been subjected to the iron fist of the European Public Prosecutor and his delegates. The European Gendarmerie Force, an essential tool for any Government of Europe to impose its will on the peoples of Europe, would surely have been beefed up from its current embryo form, and their lethally-armed, paramilitary, centrally-commanded, squads stationed all over the territory, to impose the central authority’s will on the periphery.

 

Any attempt to then declare a unilateral independence would have been treated as sedition by the European Court of Justice, and dealt with severely. The exits would have been sealed.

 

So on 24th June last we could breathe a huge sigh of relief that this catastrophe had been avoided, though few were aware of just what had been at stake. Our route to the high seas of freedom and independence is now open.

 

Or is it?

 

We still have to navigate through the two years while we are still subject to all the rules and regulations of Brussels. Legally, until Parliament actually repeals the ECA 1972, we are still under their tutelage. The government entrusted with piloting us through this tricky time is still led by, and mostly made up of, those whose real commitment to our independence is at best questionable, judging from their recent political record.

 

And there is one great glaring omission, that HMG not only might not make up for, but something which they have openly said they intend to leave in place. May and Rudd mean to keep us subject to the European Arrest Warrant – INDEFINITELY. Rudd said so, in a speech to the Commons, on March 6th.

 

We have seen that the authorities of one member State, Romania, are already using this arbitrary power of arrest, transportation and lengthy detention, for political purposes, against a British resident, Alexander Adamescu.  Others may follow suit. And once the European Public Prosecutor is up and running, Brussels itself will be able to wield this essential weapon, side-stepping our ostensible opt-out from this jurisdiction, as confirmed by the learned opinion of Jonathan Fisher QC.

 

With storm-clouds on the horizon, and stormy times ahead, we cannot allow this grappling-iron to remain embedded in the bulwark of HMS Britain. We must demand that the government, and Parliament, cut us free, at once.

 

Part One of A Narrow Escape

Part Two of A Narrow Escape

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Torquil Dick-Erikson
About Torquil Dick-Erikson (22 Articles)
Torquil Dick-Erikson has been living in Rome for over 40 years,and, as a legal journalist, studying the differences between the continental and the Anglo-Saxon systems of criminal justice (there are no Chairs of comparative criminal procedure in any University in the UK or elsewhere, AFAIK). He has spoken in conferences in Italy and in England, and published in Italian and English law journals, as well as in the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal, and elsewhere. From 1993 to 1998 he was a contributor to The European Journal, where he published his findings on Corpus Juris

5 Comments on A Narrow Escape – Part III

  1. I fully agree with Torquil Dick-Erikson comments on the difference between the British legal system and the legal systems in mainland Europe. Historically the Mainline Europe systems are following the Napoleonic system, a time of mainland European unity. Haheas Corpus defines the Anglo Saxon principles of Justice.

    I cannot understand politicians who talk about the sovereignty of the British Parliament and then acquiesce to European Union orders. Why do they use double standards, either the UK Parliament is supreme or the EU is supreme, I vote leave for the UK Parliament to be the supreme power in the UK.

    The forthcoming General Election will mean that the Remainers, who have not accepted the democratic will of the majority of the British voters, will have to defend their views. It will be interesting to see if the elected candidates at the next General Election, who prefer EU sovereignty to UK sovreignty, will demand a re-election if they do not obtain more than 50% of the vote; a person of principle would demand a re-election.

  2. I fully agree with Torquil Dick-Erikson comments on the difference between the British legal system and the legal systems in mainland Europe. Historically the Mainline Europe systems are following the Napoleonic system, a time of mainland European unity. Haheas Corpus defines the Anglo Saxon principles of Justice.

    I cannot understand politicians who talk about the sovereignty of the British Parliament and then acquiesce to European Union orders. Why do they use double standards, either the UK Parliament is supreme or the EU is supreme, I vote leave for the UK Parliament to be the supreme power in the UK.

    The forthcoming General Election will mean that the Remainers, who have not accepted the democratic will of the majority of the British voters, will have to defend their views. It will be interesting to see if the elected candidates at the next General Election, who are remainers, will demand a re-election if they do not obtain more than 50% of the vote; a person of principle would demand a re-election.

  3. Torquil thank you for your articles which are, to say the least, most timely!

    I have a question regarding Magna Carta and the European Arrest Warrant. I have only the vaguest understanding of Magna Carter but in essence think its real-world significance lies in constraining the power a British Monarch has over the citizenry.

    If so how is it that a British Government can legally give to a foreign entity like the EU the power to seize, remove from the UK and detain indefinitely without trial, a UK citizen? If my understanding is correct this is something even our own monarch would not be able to do.

    • Michael, thank you for your kind words.
      The European Arrest Warrant is in direct violation of Magna Carta’s article 38, which says “No legal officer shall initiate legal proceedings against anyone [like arresting them] on their own mere say-so, without reliable witnesses already brought for the purpose.” This is the basis of Habeas Corpus. Habeas Corpus does not exist on the continent, but nobody in Britain AFAIK, including the legal profession and the government, has bothered to study continental criminal-law procedures, which are completely and utterly different from ours. You can see details in my speech given at the House of Lords on 15th March, linked from https://savebritishjustice.wordpress.com
      Parliament re-confirmed our acceptance of the EAW in November 2014. By doing so it violated Magna Carta, but no law in Britain has entrenched constitutional status, Parliament can amend or revoke any previous law as it chooses, by a simple majority vote. The only thing it cannot do is to bind future Parliaments.

    • Yes, thank you Torquil. I find the whole issue a minefield. I don’t trust Mrs.May, but I fear many people do.
      I just have as my starting point that Edward Heath illegally took us into the EU on a false prospectus – the knowledge has been out there for years and yet no-body ever mentions it. Why would this Tory Prime Minister not be also offering us a false prospectus? I believe people will find we have left the EU in name only, probably signed up to a European Army, probably still operating under EU Law in many areas, still ‘sharing’ our fishing grounds although we might just get the latter, as it will ensure Tory votes in the future where there were Labour before.
      I only wish UKIP hadn’t been infiltrated, so that Nigel could have stayed to see things through. I don’t blame him, but he wasn’t astute at judging character and let the enemy through the gates. And now, as far as I can see, UKIP is weak and ineffectual, as was always the plan.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*