EU debate disappointment at TPA’s post-election conference

The Taxpayers’ Alliance, in conjunction with Conservative Home, Business for Britain and the Institute for Economic Affairs, held a post-election conference in London on 11th May. The four-hour event covered a number of topics, including Scotland, the election campaign itself and the prospects for change in the EU. Although three of the four organisations co-hosting the event would claim to be cross-party, the meeting had a very strongly Tory flavour to it, with most of the keynote speakers being Conservative Party members.

Dr. Liam Fox was one of those who addressed the conference and his speech sounded a distinctly EU-critical note. He was particularly concerned about further possible calamities within the Eurozone, calling the Single Currency “an economic pass-the-parcel; a time bomb which they all hope will go off when someone else is holding it.” He claimed that senior figures in Brussels live in a parallel universe, quoting Mario Monti, a former Commissioner and Prime Minister of Italy who said recently “We have done so well with the Euro”. Dr. Fox appeared somewhat sceptical about the prospects of any meaningful renegotiation, especially in the light of recent comments by José Manuel Barroso, a former President of the European Commission, who stated that he would support renegotiation “as long as it is compatible with the objectives of the European Union.” Given that the main objective of the EU is “ever-closer union” and the logical end-point of “ever-closer union” is “union”, this does not sound promising for Mr Cameron, said Dr. Fox.

The panel for the debate on reform in the EU consisted of Douglas Carswell, UKIP’s sole MP, Matthew Elliott of Business for Britain and Laura Sandys, the former MP for Thanet South and Chairperson of the European Movement. For someone such as myself who had attended CIB’s rally and the recent presentation on “Flexcit” by Dr Richard North, the level of debate appeared pretty puerile by comparison. Admittedly, with a time slot of only half an hour including questions from the floor, there was not going to be long enough to do this subject justice, but it was particularly frustrating that neither of the other panellists took Laura Sandys to task for repeating Cameron’s statement that we had to stay in the EU to be “at the top table”. This shows a sad ignorance of how the EU now works. So much regulation landed on us by the EU does not originate in Brussels at all. The EU merely acts as a conduit for various organisations such as the World Trade Organisation, UNECE (the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) and other global bodies. These are the real “top tables” and we do not have our own seat here. The EU represents us, but not just us. It represents all 28 member states. We would have far more clout in influencing legislation as an independent country, especially given that these bodies are not so keen to see national vetoes surrendered as the EU. (Your scribe attempted to raise this subject when the debate was opened to questions from the floor, but there was insufficient time for all those who raised their hands to be given a chance to speak)

Douglas Carswell stated his belief that David Cameron would try and repeat Harold Wilson’s trick of 1975, trying to sell a piffling concession to the electorate as a major triumph of renegotiation. With that one would agree. His endorsement for Business for Britain and its importance in the forthcoming referendum is a different matter.

Matthew Elliott said that remaining in under renegotiated conditions was better than the status quo. However, his contribution was most disappointing. He clearly shows no understanding of the EEA/EFTA option which would satisfy the concerns of businesses he claims to speak for while opening the door to a much better future. It would be by far the best way of satisfying on the one hand, a desire for a looser trading relationship with the EU while on the other ensuring a seamless exit. One was left with grave doubts as to whether he really does want to see our country regain his liberty.

However, given Laura Sandys’ senior role within the European Movement, it is apparent that fear, uncertainly and doubt are the only real weapons available to those who support our membership. She said that the pro-EU movement had failed to make the case for the positive role played by the EU. To which one must reply that it is because it hasn’t actually played a positive role; it has done far more harm than good. Supporters of our EU membership really don’t have any convincing arguments. Their arguments are very weak and easily refuted, Unfortunately, although right is on our side, we have a long way to go to win the argument irrevocably. Withdrawalists are still not at all clear what to do with the aces in our hand which, if played correctly, should finally persuade the public how much better life will be on the outside. I therefore left the meeting with a mixture of hope and frustration.

Two and a half years to save our country

The surprise result of the 2015 General Election means that the UK will be holding a referendum on its membership of the European Union in less than two and a half years’ time. David Cameron’s victory will now be concentrating many withdrawalist minds on how to achieve an “Out” vote in that referendum and the scale of the challenge becomes apparent when one of the tactics which propelled the Conservatives to an unexpected victory will be used to encourage our countrymen to stay within a “reformed” EU – fear.

The last-minute nature of the swing to the Tories and the widely-reported indecision on the part of many voters don’t exactly point to an enthusiastic endorsement for David Cameron. Rather, the prospects of a Labour government propped up with SNP support made many waverers decide to back the devil they knew rather than the more frightening devils they did not. The bottom line, however, is that however grudgingly many voters put their crosses in the Tories’ box, the scare tactics paid off.

Yesterday, in a piece in the Daily Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard pointed out that a referendum held in 2020 or after would be more easily won by supporters of withdrawal. Had Labour won the election, the shock of defeat “would have “flush(ed) out the last EU dreamers and leave a post-Cameron party with even less tolerance for the posturing of Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker….There is a high likelihood that such a party would let it rip on euroscepticism while in opposition and then come roaring back in five years’ time given that the most likely scenario would have been the replacement of David Cameron by a more eurosceptic Tory leader.” This is a fair point, although his proposal of Boris Johnson for this role is distinctly unconvincing. Another point which would have favoured 2020 for the referendum is that it gives us longer to address the disunity and disorganisation of the withdrawalist movement. We have right on our side and a far better case than supporters of our EU membership, but we are not winning the argument and time is short.

However, there is still everything to play for. We can win the battle for our country’s freedom and while this is not the time for naïve optimism, there are a number of factors which could swing opinion in favour of withdrawal.

Firstly, while the Tory party held together with an impressive stage-managed unity during the campaign, with Cameron’s many critics biting their tongues, this does not mean that they are any happier with his policies than they were a couple of years back when his leadership looked to be on the line. Especially given Cameron’s stated intention to pass over anyone advocating withdrawal from the EU when it comes to choosing his cabinet, leaving him effectively with only the dregs of his party to choose from, the rebellious backbenchers will come roaring back with a vengeance before too long. With the Tories’ majority so small, they will wield a considerable degree of power and if they can coalesce around a sensible exit strategy, such as “Flexcit”, this will add some considerable weight to the “Out” campaign.

Secondly, the anti-politics mood has not gone away. The electorate may have given a clear signal about who they want (and don’t want) to govern them, but this does not mean the profound disconnect so many people feel towards politics and politicians of all parties has gone away. The withdrawalist movement has so far failed to harness this sense of remoteness from the corridors of power. In particular, the individualism of the younger generation ought to make them natural opponents of something as remote and bureaucratic as the EU. Admittedly, the presence of pro-EU propaganda in schools has not helped, but winning the younger generation for the cause of independence is not impossible if the message is packaged appropriately.

Thirdly, the EU itself, for all the money it may pour into the “in” campaign, is not going to change its ways, especially under the leadership of Jean-Claude Juncker at the European Commission. There will be plenty of events in Brussels which, if handled correctly, can re-kindle the fires of euroscepticism within the UK population. The bottom line is that we don’t fit and never will. Only fear and ignorance stand in the way of withdrawal.

Finally, and unusally for this website, a quote from the Guardian. Commenting on why the Tories’ strategy of fear was so successful, Rafael Behr wrote, “that kind of tactic only works when it plays to underlying weakness in the opposition offer.” Divided and disorganised the withdrawalist movement may be, but if we can get our act together and sell both a watertight exit strategy and a vision for a newly independent UK, there is nothing weak about the withdrawal offer. It is only natural common sense. We are only seeking to encourage our compatriots to vote for something that will be very good for them. Can we spring an even greater upset than this morning’s results in late 2017? Yes we can.

Photo by Brabantia – Designed for Living

Report on “Flexcit” Workshop, 29th April

Several members of the Committee of the Campaign for an Independent Britain were among those attending a workshop at the Farmer’s Club in Westminster, London on Wednesday April 29th. The workshop was originally to have been chaired and hosted by Peter Troy, but he suffered a severe heart attack a couple of days before the event. The two sessions were therefore chaired by CIB’s new chairman Edward Spalton and vice-chairman Anthony Scholefield.

The speakers for the two sessions were Robert Oulds of the Bruges Group and the political analyst Dr Richard North. Robert Oulds explained why the EEA/EFTA model as used by Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein was the only route to a seamless exit from the EU. While it is not an ideal long-term relationship between an independent UK and the EU, it will prevent job losses and enable the UK to function without any hiccups form day 1 of exit. He showed how “soft” the support for withdrawal is. Many people would prefer to stay in a “reformed” EU, but when businessmen are quoted in the press supporting EU membership, it is the trade aspects that interest them. They are not really interested in the EU’s political agenda. One opinion poll commissioned by the Bruges Group indicated that when the voters are offered a choice between the EU and EFTA – in other words, between a political Europe and a trading relationship – the result is overwhelmingly in favour of EFTA. He stated that senior officials from EFTA have indicated that the UK would be very welcome to re-join.

Richard North’s “Flexcit” presentation emphasised that withdrawal is only the beginning of a process. He pointed out that with the growth in international trade, standards are often decided at a much higher level than the EU. This shoots down David Cameron’s “top table” argument inasmuch as an independent UK would have its own seat at the WTO and various UN bodies. At the moment, the EU negotiates a previously agreed position on behalf of all 28 member states, with France and Germany usually the dominant forces in agreeing what the EU position will be. WE therefore have less influence by being in the EU.

He pointed out the unrealistic approach to withdrawal taken by some individuals. In his proposals, the full acquis, the CFP and the CAP would have to be “repatriated” into UK law to tide us over because of the length of time it will take to devise independent domestic policies. Research he undertook with Owen Patterson MP suggested that at least five years would be required to produce an independent agricultural policy. Also, farmers like the CAP and some are dependent on its subsidies. Britain’s growing population is becoming increasingly and dangerously dependent on imported food and sudden drastic changes to the farm support system would make the situation worse at a time when production needs to be encouraged, not disrupted.

Robert Oulds summarised the picture both speakers were painting: withdrawal was like arriving at Heathrow Airport – the beginning of a journey rather than the destination, (No one goes on a holiday to Heathrow!) Flexcit is a guide to where the journey will lead our country. Time was too short for Dr North to go through the remaining five stages on the journey in detail – addressing the immigration and asylum question, creating a genuine European single market, developing independent policies (including foreign and defence policies, agriculture and fisheries), global trading and finally domestic reform. This final section suffered particularly from the constraints of time, but it is in many ways the most radical and exciting area – a major re-vamp of the entire political system designed to return power to the people and to ensure that the lies and deceit which saw us dragged into the EU can never be repeated again. This will already be familiar to some readers as the Harrogate Agenda

All in all, a stimulating afternoon that generated some interesting question and answer sessions. However, it left many of us wanting to know more. Thankfully, to that end, all participants were given the latest version of the Flexcit document – a full 411 pages – which will make for stimulating reading for us all over the next few weeks. Anyone wishing to download the document for themselves can do so here.

Videos of both sessions will be posted onto the website in the nest week or so. CIB wishes Peter Troy all the best for a speedy recovery.

More nonsense from Ed Miliband

The latest sparring match in the election campaign has centred on foreign policy. Ed Miliband accused David Cameron of adopting an “inward-looking approach” to foreign policy at a speech at Chatham House on Friday. According to the Labour Leader, the Prime Minister’s leadership has resulted in the “biggest loss of influence for our country in a generation”.

Like a worn-out gramophone record, Miliband will include a criticism of Cameron’s offer of an in/out referendum on our membership of the EU. Recognising the weakness of the economic arguments, he has had to turn to the alleged political arguments against withdrawal. “The Tory view threatens to weaken further our position abroad, a pessimistic isolationism,” claimed Miliband.

This organisation is no cheer leader for David Cameron. His offer of a referendum is better than nothing, but it is quite clear that a Cameron-led government will bend every sinew to obtain an “in” vote. However, Miliband is living in cloud-cuckoo land if he believes that staying in the EU will increase our clout on the world stage.

Several recent articles which have appeared on the internet bring home the hard truth – the EU revolves around Germany. It has the largest population and is by far the largest economy in the Eurozone. The crisis in Greece has underlined how much Germany calls the shots in the Eurozone. Once Chancellor Angela Merkel and her finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble made it clear that there can be no deviation from the policy of austerity agreed in 2011, the die was cast. The rest of the single currency bloc and Christine Lagarde of the IMF all fell into line:- Greece can expect no realistic easing of credit terms.

There are legitimate grounds for exasperation with Greece. Even the far less confrontational centre right government led by Antonis Samaras, which was ousted by Alexis Tsipras’ left-wing Syriza movement earlier this year, dragged its heels. Given Syriza came to power on an anti-austerity ticket, it was inevitable that Brussels and Frankfurt would quickly find themselves at loggerheads with the new régime in Athens. However, for all the criticisms which can legitimately be made of the immature behaviour of Syriza’s leaders and the party’s ill-judged economic policies, they had a mandate from the Greek electorate.

Is the EU about to undermine this and seek régime change? This is the verdict of at least one analyst who states that “The campaign to bring Greece into line is not just about economics. It is power politics designed to crush any democratic voices that challenge the EU’s reigning economic orthodoxy.” If it fails, Greece may leave the Euro and possibly the EU, which, while financially manageable, would raise all manner of political implications, especially given Athens’ warm relationship with Vladimir Putin in Moscow. However, what if it succeeds?

The writer goes on to say that “Brussels will have definitively exposed its profoundly anti-democratic nature” and that “this will have political repercussions, not only in much bigger peripheral countries like Italy and Spain, also suffering under austerity policies, but in countries like France and Britain that belong to the core of the EU. A German-led exercise of power to crush a democratically elected European government with an iron fist will provoke a strong reaction in France, which sees itself as a bastion of democratic ideals. An off-the-cuff remark by Schäuble at the IMF meeting to the effect that France, too, would probably be happy to have someone force their Parliament to take action provoked a storm of indignation in France cutting across party lines.”

Turning specifically to UK, the article goes on to claim that crushing Greece “could tip the scales in a British election next month deemed too close to call, fuelling eurosceptic opinion that could boost not only the anti-European U.K. Independence Party but the Conservative Party of Prime Minister David Cameron, who has pledged to hold a referendum on continued EU membership if re-elected.” Considering Cameron is every inch a Brussels stooge, it would be ironic if he were to benefit from an escalation in the Greek crisis, but at least it would show up Miliband’s claims for the hollow nonsense that they are. Germany rules the roost as far as the EU is concerned. FACT. If we want to have any real influence in the world, we therefore have to throw off its yoke and regain our independence.

Photo by RiotsPanel

The paradox of the City and the EU

The Daily Telegraph recently featured a report confirming the results of earlier polling that the majority of financial workers in the City of London would vote to remain within the EU.

Ironically, more than 40pc of those surveyed believe that Brussels is actively hostile towards their industry and with good ground. Tim Congdon’s booklet The City of London under Threat was published five years ago and illustrates how the EU’s attack on the City began to undermine its leading position in the financial world several years ago.

Nonetheless, in the latest survey conducted by the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation (CSFI), only 12pc of those surveyed said they would “definitely” vote to leave, with 73% saying they would “definitely” or “probably” vote to stay.

All is not lost, however. As Andrew Hilton, the director of the CSFI said, “Support for the EU is based on resignation rather than enthusiasm. Yes, the City wants to remain in the EU, but it doesn’t like Brussels, it fears European regulation and it is worried about the political drift of the EU.” The nub of the issue is that “the City is scared of the implications of an out vote and about its vulnerability if the UK chooses to go it alone.”

In other words, if a strategy could be devised and sold to City workers that would ensure an EU exit would preserve their trade while freeing them from damaging regulation originating in Brussels, support for EU membership would likely prove very soft. With organisations such as Global Britain and Business for Britain actively seeking to engage with the Business Community – including workers in the City – winning this important group of people for the withdrawalist cause is by no means an impossibility.

Photo by vic15

Why Britain must repudiate the European Arrest Warrant

Justice photo

Copyright (c)  Torquil Dick-Erikson 2014

1) The EAW is unjust and oppressive, and tramples on our historic rights and freedoms

Habeas Corpus presupposes that any order to arrest a person must be based on evidence of a prima facie case to answer that has already been collected by the authorities. This requirement is negated by the EAW, which forbids UK courts from asking to see evidence collected by the requesting state. The reality is that under the Napoleonic-inquisitorial systems of criminal justice used on the continent, suspects are arrested on the basis of mere clues, and most of the investigation to seek evidence is conducted with the suspects under lock and key. This can last many months, and there is no right to any public hearing during this time. This cannot happen under British procedures, where Habeas Corpus ensures that within hours of arrest, a suspect must be brought into an open court hearing and there charged, with evidence already available to be shewn.

 

2) It is based on a false conception – that the European Convention on Human Rights gives equivalent protection to our rights in all EU countries.

Neither the governmentt nor even the legal profession has conducted any systematic research into continental criminal law systems. They all rely (lazily) on the fact that all EU states are signed up to the ECHR, and this is supposed to guarantee the fairness of their systems and their worthiness of recognition by our own. It is (presumably) supposed that the matter of evidence need not be examined by a British court, because the foreign court can be relied on to deal with it adequately and fairly.

The trouble with this is that the ECHR is vague and woolly in its wording, and totally inadequate when compared to the safeguards provided by our own Common Law system. For example, article 6 says a prisoner has a “right to a public hearing before an impartial tribunal in a reasonable time”. But it doesn’t say what is “reasonable”. This can be as long as a piece of string. For us it is hours after arrest. In Italy, for example, and in the EU’s Corpus Juris proposal for a single criminal code for all Europe, it can be up to six months, extensible. During this time there is no right to a public hearing. The time is used by the investigators to interrogate the suspect in prison, and to try to build a case against him. 

 

3) It will give the EU the key power of statehood – arbitrary physical coercion over our bodies

 Only a State has the right to arrest someone and put them in prison, depriving them of their liberty. If anybody else does it, it is a kidnap, and kidnappers are common criminals. By giving the EU this power – which is henceforth to be submitted to the jurisdiction of the ECJ and the enforcement powers of the Commission, so placed quite beyond the reach of our Parliament – we will effectively be granting it Statehood.

By granting the EU the power to have people arrested in Britain on no evidence, we grant them the power to exercise physical coercion over us quite arbitrarily. The real reasons for arresting a person may be quite different from the ones ostensibly stated – ie the charges can be trumped up. Their purpose could be political.

 

4) The European Public Prosecutor will be able to use it against us (despite our opt-out)

The idea of “mutual recognition” by EU states of one another’s legal systems was originally put forward at Tampere in 1999 by Jack Straw as an alternative to the Corpus Juris proposal for a single system of criminal justice imposed on all (which he realised would be immediately unacceptable to the British people). The EAW is the first fruit of this idea. However the very first mention of a “European Warrant for Arrest” is actually in Corpus Juris itself (see below).

What seems to have escaped notice in Britain is that the EAW is not a permanent alternative to Corpus Juris, it is a stepping stone towards it. The centrepiece of Corpus Juris is the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor (EPP). Corpus Juris is the rule-book that defines his tasks and his powers. At least nine EU states are going ahead anyway with the EPP, under enhanced cooperation, though the UK has opted out.

However, our opt-out can be, and doubtless will be, sidestepped as have some other opt-outs in the past. Article 24.1.b of Corpus Juris (original edition, 1997) provides that “a European Warrant for Arrest, issued on the instructions of the EPP by a national judge… is valid across the whole territory…”. Obviously, since Britain has opted out of the EPP proposal, the EPP will not be able to instruct a British judge to issue an EAW. But he can order, say, a Belgian judge to issue one against a person in the UK. Unless we repudiate the EAW now, the British police will receive the EAW from Belgium, and will simply have to execute it, with no questions asked. The person will be trussed up and shipped over to Belgium, where he will await the pleasure of the Belgian judge, who will doubtless hand him over to the EPP, and there he will languish, under lock and key for up to six months, extensible by three months at a time (Corpus Juris, art. 20.3.g), and with no right to any public hearing during all this time.

Our own lawyers may well opine that “this would be an illegitimate use of the EAW”, but unless we repudiate the EAW now, the entire matter will be subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ, so out of our hands. And as we know, the ECJ’s mission statement says its decisions must always further the aim of “ever-closer union”…            

It is not yet known who will have power to appoint the EPP, but it is highly likely that the unelected Commission, which holds the monopoly of legislative proposals in the EU, will have a say. Doubtless there will be some statement in the legislation to say that the EPP “must be impartial and independent” but he will surely feel beholden to whoever it was who selected him, and who will doubtless have a say in his re-selection when his term comes to an end.

 

5)  Its supposed advantages are non-existent for Britain

It is said by its apologists that the EAW is good for Britain because it enables us to obtain the speedy extradition of our own criminals who have taken refuge in other EU countries (and by the way, if we controlled our own borders this would not be so easy for them). Now our own police and crown prosecution service will never request the arrest of someone (whether inside or outside Britain) unless they have already collected enough prima facie evidence against him. They do this anyway, and they did it before the EAW – they would send an extradition request with an indication of the evidence against the suspect. They would continue to do it after the EAW was repudiated and we reverted to the previous arrangements. Our own procedures would not change. The difference would be that the foreign prosecutors requesting us to extradite someone would also have to provide evidence against the wanted person. At present they can have people extradited on a mere whim, or a hunch, or a “feeling” that the person in question is guilty, they do not need to shew any hard evidence.

The subtext of what the apologists for the EAW are saying is actually that, unless we continue to allow the foreign authorities to haul over anybody they fancy, providing no evidence, then they will retaliate, and put up all sorts of difficulties when we request an extradition from them. Even though our extradition requests are furnished with serious evidence. If this is really how they would behave, then they would be behaving in a petty and spiteful manner, and their behaviour would amount to blackmail. The British response to any type of blackmail should surely be robust. 

 

6) It will have good political traction with the public

It is said that arrests and extraditions only affect a tiny minority of the public, so people are not too concerned about it. It would thereby not be worth investing political capital in this matter. As long as we have confidence in the justice system under which we live, so that only real criminals are badly affected, this consideration may well be true.

However, one of the reasons to be proud to be British, is that British people actually do care when they see an innocent person wrongfully locked up. We do not just shrug and say “Well, that’s tough, but that is how the cookie crumbles”. On the whole we tend to get indignant, and we say “That is not how the cookie should crumble, and if it does, we damn well need to change it.” Hundreds of years ago, the English poet William Blake summed up the national feeling when he wrote, “A robin redbreast in a cage, Puts all heaven in a rage”. British people know, in their bones, that freedom from arbitrary arrest and wrongful imprisonment is important. Indeed it is important enough for past generations to have fought wars and laid down their lives to prevent it happening to us in our own country. Freedom and fairness are the values inscribed on our banner, in our laws, and in our hearts. We may be a “nation of shopkeepers” and we do realise the importance of economics, but we also cherish higher values than money (and indeed without freedom economics languishes).

At present people in Britain are accustomed to enjoying personal freedom and the safeguards of British law such as Habeas Corpus and Trial by Jury, as much as they are accustomed to breathing air without having to pay for it. Some are perturbed at some of the cases thrown up by the EAW, but overall they have accepted – so far – the bland reassurances by the politicos regarding the ECHR (“you know the Convention was drawn up largely by British lawyers…”), and by the unspoken assumption that the other EU countries are politically democratic and so surely must have fair and democratic criminal law systems too, even though not quite as scrupulously applied as our own. So they do not feel immediately threatened. They are like people lying on a beach facing the land and not seeing the tsunami wave rushing in from the ocean to drown them all. We just need to give them the facts, ie tell them to look over their shoulders towards the sea. When they see the tidal wave coming, they will react, just as they did in 1940. 

 

7) Repudiating it will not require the government to breach the Treaty, so no renegotiation is needed.

It seems to be insufficiently appreciated that this is an open goal. Under Lisbon, our government and Parliament were entirely at liberty to exercise the block opt-out from the 130 Justice and Home Affairs measures listed. They have done that, despite the shrill protests from Commissioner Reding. And now it is entirely up to us to choose freely which measures to opt back into, or not. No negotiation is needed. No permission or agreement from any EU body nor any other EU state is required. Opting back in is an entirely voluntary act. 

 

8) Not to repudiate it will make a mockery of Cameron’s stated aim to “claw back powers from the EU”

 In view of the above, the government’s stated aim to opt back into 35 of the JHA measures, including the EAW, makes a mockery of Cameron’s other stated aim to “claw back powers from the EU”.

Especially since the EAW is the ace of trumps, it is the key state power trumping all others, it will grant de facto statehood to the EU.

 

9)  Not to repudiate it will make a mockery of the Magna Carta celebrations currently planned by the government.

800 years ago, England made a major contribution to human civilisation, by beginning a process of limiting the power of the State, putting constraints on the power of the king. There is a general awareness in Britain today, and in the English-speaking world that shares our traditions, that in 1215 we did something good and important, and worth celebrating.

But we must also realise that at the same time, in continental Europe the Pope was setting up the machinery of the Inquisition, which vastly extended the power of the State over the individual. Only England to a fair extent escaped the ravages of the Inquisition during the centuries that followed. The EAW, and then Corpus Juris, by submitting us to the writ of continental prosecutors and judges, and of the EPP himself, will bring us under the sway of a Europe that uses the Napoleonic-inquisitorial method. Thus we shall be terminating 800 years of our own distinctive legal history, where the law has also been a shield for the individual against the otherwise overweening power of the State, instead of merely a weapon for the ruler to impose his will on the people.