Juries, Democracy and the European Union

When it becomes serious, you have to lie. Jean-Claude Juncker President, European Commission

Whilst we recognise the role of juries in dispensing justice – namely establishing the truth and working together with the state, their role in facilitating democracy is less well known. Without juries and jury trials our understanding of democracy, especially the concept of the sovereignty of the people, would be very different. Perhaps our ‘democracy’ would have already come to resemble the European Union’s version – a figment of the ruling establishment’s imagination under which the sovereignty of the people something that, if it is recognised at all, can be ignored when inconvenient to their aims.

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about the influence of jury service on the education of citizens in social responsibilities towards society in his book in Democracy in America. Yet jury service goes further because it is an acknowledgement that the state cannot operate alone. The citizenry are required to  participate actively and the collective decision of the jury (about truth and therefore, guilt) is the correct one. The state in particular recognises the skills (listening, analysis and consensus evaluation), trustworthiness (honesty and integrity) and commitment (to justice and the rule of law) of the people.

The electorate is a somewhat larger jury, whose ability to determine the right political party (or parties) to form the government is largely accepted by everyone. Without this longstanding tradition of an active, participatory citizenry forming juries, whose collective judgement is ‘truth’ (hopefully based on factual evidence) and respect for the rule of law, there can be no functioning democracy as we understand it.

Historically there is also a close connection between a ‘jury’ and the limitation of state power. In Magna Carta (1215), in the forerunner of a rudimentary Parliament we find a council of 25 nobles established to keep the sovereign in check. There was also a real jury (of fellow men) to prevent abuse of absolute power through imprisonment of freemen.  In time, as jury trials evolved, the need to review evidence and establish the facts became the foundation of determining guilt or innocence and therefore of dispensing justice.

The Roman law, which had considerably more influence on the Continent, was somewhat different from our common law in establishing guilt or otherwise. It amounted to listening to the rhetoric of the ‘for’ and ‘against’ orators (lawyers etc.) and accepting the better presented argument. The classical definition of rhetoric was ‘the art of pleading well’. Establishing ‘facts’ as such did not come into it. Our modern understanding of ‘facts’ became commonplace only after 1660 with the founding of the Royal Society.  Previously ‘facts’ were deeds, derived from the Latin facio ‘I do’, and this older usage of the word still occurs in expressions such as ‘accessory after the fact’.

Currently, the electorate cannot operate as a jury in determining the most appropriate form of government and rule of this country in the EU Referendum (UK-based democracy or Brussels-based authoritarian corporatism) because it is being denied the necessary factual evidence.  The state, in the form of the government apparatus has prejudiced its judgement by distorting the evidence, instead of working with the jury (the electorate) to further democracy,. Consequently we are left, as in Shakespeare’s, works to establish the truth for ourselves through tokens or signs and the rhetoric or claims being proposed by the advocate, as in the Roman law tradition.

In summary, our view of democracy, sovereignty of the people and the need for the electorate to be able to judge on the basis of facts is not necessarily shared in the ruling establishment of the EU because of their different historical evolution and precedence. Part of this difference comes from the world of Roman law and the reduced role of trial by jury which, where they exist, is much more limited. Electorates can in the EU’s strange world be legitimately misled by rhetoric (or deceived by lies) since the most eloquent are the final arbiters of truth. And as we regularly see, the will or sovereignty of the people can be ignored in a way that is naturally alien to us arising from our longstanding traditions.

Could we ever change this different EU vision to more closely align with ours? In effect, to achieve a paradigm shift of assumptions, objectives, knowledge and experience amongst the ruling elite? Mr Cameron’s brilliant Oxford-educated rhetorical skills (the triumph of style and superficiality over logic and substance) have failed so far.  So he, his cronies, fellow travellers and the ruling elite have turned on us, spreading fear and despondency in order to get their way and in doing so are prejudicing the operation of democracy.  The jury can no longer have any reasonable doubt – the facts so far don’t speak for remaining.

That booklet!

We have received a number of e-mails from people very angry about our money being spent by the government producing the booklet which landed on our doormats last week.

Some people have very kindly responded by making a donation to us, for which we are most grateful. “I don’t want my taxes used on propaganda… so I have to do my bit to redress the balance” said one kind contributor.

But what of the booklet itself? It has been criticised  – and with good reason – both for its style and content. Rosalind Moffitt, an inclusive communications consultant at Inklecomms, said of the former, “I….am astounded by the long and complex sentences within the leaflet. It also uses many unnecessarily difficult words. The leaflet is written at a complex level for average-low literacy readers, so it will be difficult for many to read and understand” Good news for the Brexit campaign!”

Turning to the content. Lord Wemyss did not mince his words, calling it “senseless twaddle – insulting to the intelligence of the recipients.”

This is indeed a good summary. If the “twaddle” can be categorised, most of it comes under three headings:-

  1. So-called “benefits” which aren’t actually very beneficial.
  2. Benefits which we don’t actually need to be in the EU to enjoy
  3. Untrue and misleading statements.

In the first category comes the European Arrest Warrant, which is mentioned under “keeping us safer”. Since 2004 (when the EAW was first introduced), we are told “over 1,000 suspects have faced justice in  UK courts and over 7,000 have been extradited.” Fine. You try telling people like  Andrew Symeou or  Edmond Arapi how wonderful the EAW is. These men suffered gross miscarriages of justice, being exposed to judicial processes on the Continent which do not include the legal safeguards we are accustomed to in the UK. It is so easy to forget that Magna Carta may have crossed the oceans, but it never crossed the Channel. One consequence of this is that you can be tried in absentia, tried on hearsay evidence or kept in detention for ages without being charged. The EAW potentially exposes any one of us to all these horrors.

Also sold as a benefit, on page 12, we are told that “the EU is leading the world on tackling climate change”. Try telling those made redundant in the now defunct UK aluminium smelting industry what a good thing this is! Perhaps when we suffer blackouts because our government has signed up to unachievable emissions targets we will console ourselves with how virtuous the EU is being!

Turning to the second category, the phrase “Single Market” comes up no fewer than eight times. There are probably few regular visitors to our website who aren’t aware that we can retain access to the Single Market on leaving the EU by re-joining EFTA and availing ourselves of the European Economic Area agreement.  The booklet boasts how the EU “guarantees many employment rights” without mentioning, of course, that most employment legislation originates with global organisations like the International Labour Organisation. These benefits would not disappear if we left the EU.

“EU reforms in the 1990s have resulted in a drop in fares of over 40% for lower cost flights”, proclaims the booklet.  Once again, one has to question whether this benefit would disappear if we left the EU. to help us answer this question, guess which airline won the “Best low-cost airline in Europe” award in 2015? It was called Norwegian and furthermore, this airline which seems to hoover up awards, flies to a number of European destinations but isn’t based in the EU.

What about the untrue and misleading statements? It’s hard to know where to begin. Going back to the Single Market. we are informed that “No other country has managed to secure signficant access to the single market without having to follow EU rules over which they have no real say /pay into the EU”. Shoddy work here. As we have pointed out, Norway is widely consulted  in the framing of EEA relevant legislation (which amounts to less than 25% of the total Acquis)  and the price it pays to access the singel market is peanuts compared with how much we pay per capita to the EU as a memebr state.

The first page proclaims that “the UK has secured a special status in a reformed EU.”  Oh really?  The legality of the agreement has been widely questioned, with Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, the vice-president of the European Parliament, describing it as “nothing more than a deal that has been hammered out down the local bazaar”.

Part of the “deal” is that “we will not join the Euro” Didn’t we secure that opt-out over 20 years ago? What about the “tough new restrictions on access to our welfare for new EU migrants”? Well, suppose that, say a  Latvian decorator moves over here after 2016, falls off a ladder and breaks both legs after living here for three years dyring which time has only worked for 29 months. In theory, he shouldn’t get much out of our system under Dave’s new deal. In practise….?

Keeping our own border controls is another benefit which is part of our “special status” so we are told. Once again, if this means that we are not part of Schengen, this is not exactly a show-stopper. We secured an opt-out here many years ago.

The biggest criticism, however, is that nowhere in this booklet does the word “sovereignty” come up. The  EU’s unique selling point is that it requires member states progressively to hollow out their national institutions and surrender soverignty to supranational institutions. These other issues are peripheral. the creation of a federal superstate is the EU’s raison d’être. Failing to mention it is rather like a supplier of fruit trees illustrating its products with lovely pictures of apple blossom but failing to show a single picture of a nice ripe apple or to mention that the reason you buy an apple tree is to eat of its produce.

To be blunt, this reluctance even to mention what the EU is all about is just plain dishonest. If the referendum is won by the “remain” side without this issue being at the centre of the debate, it will have been a pyrrhic victory which will leave us stilll being the EU’s awkward partner, always dragging our feet and being outvoted more than any other member state.

Is this really what Mr Cameron  wants? it will be a most unsatisfactory legacy. Best for his sake and for our country if we deny him such an opportunity by securing a vote to leave.

 

 


 

The EU is a security catastrophe

The remarkable ease with which terrorists could travel within the EU’s borderless Schengen countries to kill 160 people in Paris and Brussels has alarmed everyone except the Euro-elite in Brussels. The Paris and Brussels bombers went from Syria to Holland to Belgium to France to Hungary before and after the Paris attacks and before the Brussels attacks. But Cameron agreed with his fellow EU leaders that discussing changes to the free movement of terrorists across national borders would be “inappropriate”!!

A former Tory leader Lord Howard rightly attacked the Government and the EU saying that the Schengen zone “makes Europe less safe” and a former head of MI6 and a former director of the CIA have said that Britain returning to a self governing nation state would not affect and might indeed enhance our security.

This chimes well with the late Sir Louis Le Bailly the former Director General of our Defence Intelligence Staff who recommended my 1997 anti EU book “Europe’s Full Circle – Corporate Elites and the new Fascism” to “all who cherish our heritage as a nation state”.

Sir Richard Dearlove the former Head of MI6 said in a magazine article that:
“the truth about Brexit from a national security perspective is that the cost to Britain would be low. Brexit would bring two potentially important security gains: the ability to dump the European Convention on Human Rights – remember the difficulty of extraditing the extremist Abu Hamza of the Finsbury Park Mosque – and, more importantly, greater control over immigration from the European Union.”

Former CIA Director General Michael Hayden said that “with regards to these kinds of questions the (European) union is not a natural contributor to national security of each of the entity states and, in fact, in some ways [it] gets in the way of the state’s providing security for its own citizens.”

No limit to those who could enter EU
As soon as the EU destroyed the internal borders of the European Union – which it did 22 years ago in the Maastricht Treaty where “European citizens” were allowed to travel to any other EU state as a matter of right – then Europe was open to unlimited and effectively uncontrolled migration from all over the world – a situation which Jihadist Muslims have been able to exploit.

It was in our book Treason at Maastricht in 1994 that the late Norris McWhirter and I showed that the Treaties that British ministers had signed were an immigration disaster (it was Hurd who only half humorously said “We had better go away and read what we have signed”!).

Since Maastricht any EU citizen can go to any other EU State to live and work. Any National of any EU State can become an EU citizen and any State can make anyone in the world their national. So there was and is no limit to the number of the world’s peoples who could not be given free access to any EU country, with any one EU State creating “citizens” which all the others have to accept.

Given that several small EU States are in danger of becoming, with the aid of the European left, Muslim States – or critically Muslim influenced – within the next generation (Sweden and Belgium being the most obvious) the scope for a rogue State exploiting this grotesque “citizen creating” danger is very great indeed.

There is not a single reason for the United Kingdom to stay within the madhouse which is the EU but among the many critical reasons for leaving – constitutional, financial, economic, social, democratic – the most immediate is the critical danger of our uncontrolled borders made unenforceable by the idiocies of the European Union’s policies on “borderless” States and the creation of “European citizens”.

With our thanks to the Freenations website, where this piece first appeared (http://freenations.net/the-eu-is-a-security-catastrophe/), for permission to reprint the article.

Rodney Atkinson’s latest book “And into the Fire…..” is available from Amazon

Britain on the brink: A useful link to pass on to the uninformed.

This video was produced a few years ago, but is still a useful tool to enlighten those who are unaware of the true nature of the European project. Speakers include Christopher Booker, Christopher Gill MP, Vladimir Bukovsky and Ian Milne, with an inttoduction by the late Sir Patrick Moore CBE.

Featured in the video is Bukovsky’s famous quote: “I have lived in your future and it didn’t work”.

While there is no discussion about the mechanics of Brexit and the debate has moved on since the video was made,  its graphic style pulls no punches when it comes to descibing just how dreadful the EU is and why we need to regain our independence.

EU coercive armed force coming in?

Last month, I read in the Italian media that the Commission wants to beef up Frontex – the EU’s border guards corps, and send them to places like Greece, or any other member state (presumably within Schengen) – even against the will of that member state. This is confirmed by the statement by the Swedish Interior Minister admitting as much in this article.

The frontier guards will of course be equipped with lethal weapons and will operate under the EU’s own flag, and be answerable only to Brussels.

It should be realised that their presence on the territory of a nation-state will therefore amount to a military occupation of that nation-state.

Once a bridgehead has been thus established by Brussels with the stationing of EU frontier guards in a member state, on the excuse that the state in question is unable to control its own frontiers, the road will be open for the European Gendarmerie Force to move in too.

The “United State of Europe” that the EU wants to build will clearly be based on the model of the centralised Napoleonic State, where the enforcers – i.e., the police – are always paramilitary, lethally-armed, and directly controlled by the central government. Thus their personnel are recruited nationally and then redeployed all over the territory, most usually not in their home towns, and housed locally in barracks. Thus, for example, the French Gendarmerie controls France, the Spanish Guardia Civil controls Spain, and in Italy there are three such bodies, the Carabinieri (military police), the Polizia di Stato (State Police), and the Guardia di Finanza (tax police – also militarised), all deployed all over the territory and each answerable to a cabinet minister (respectively, Defence, Interior, and Finance). Each nation is in effect under military occupation by its own central government. The machinery for a despotic form of government is thus pre-arranged, and readily available to a despot, when and if one comes along (as has happened all too frequently in European history).

So, likewise following the Napoleonic model, the United States of Europe is to have the Eurogendarmerie to control its own territory – ie the territories of what were once the nation-states. The embryo EuroGendarmerie Force (EGF), comprising the militarised police forces of six member states so far, is already up and running. If any should not believe it they can see the EGF’s own official website – www.eurogendfor.eu.

Compare and contrast to our British system, with 43 independent local constabularies, traditionally unarmed policemen, the concept of “policing by consent”, and so forth… Our system is designed to provide an obstacle to despotic forms of arbitrary government. We are the heirs to Magna Carta, which limited of the powers of the State over the people, while our continental brethren got the Inquisition instead, which expanded and deepened these powers.

I also read in the Italian media of renewed calls for the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor (EPP). This figure is the centrepiece of the Corpus Juris project, and he will be armed with fearsome powers of arbitrary arrest on no evidence and lengthy (months, or more) imprisonment without any public hearing. (These powers are already – and have always been – enjoyed by continental judiciaries, as British victims of the Euroean Arrest Warrant have been discovering to their bitter cost). The EPP will be the creature of the Commission who will doubtless nominate him, and the Commissioners may then, if they feel so inclined, use him to put away awkward people on trumped-up charges (quite easy since there is no need to exhibit any hard evidence for months, while the suspect languishes in jail…).

Of course Britain is not a member of Schengen and so our own government will doubtless tell us, smugly, that none of this need concern us.

However, if all of this has not yet come to pass, it is precisely because Brussels is aware that there is and there would be very strong opposition from the UK. They perceived this clearly from the negative reaction of Britain’s Parliament to the Corpus Juris proposal when it was first put on the table in 1999.

They realise that they cannot push this forward unless and until they have Britain locked into a position where we cannot say No.

They will now have this opportunity if the IN votes carry the referendum. For with a quisling, or at best a wavering, Cameron still in the saddle, clearly all British resistance to complete political, and legal, and indeed military, unification will be swept aside. They will say “THIS IS WHAT THE BRITISH PUBLIC WANTS AND VOTED FOR”.

Yet so far, the public is completely unaware of this precise threat to our democracy and to the personal freedom of each and every one of us, if the IN vote should carry the day. People think it is all merely about money, and prosperity. Yet was it not Jefferson who said “If a nation hands over its freedom in exchange for a perceived economic advantage, it will surely end up losing both”…?

It would be a tragedy if the vote was taken with voters in complete ignorance of these catastrophic consequences that an IN vote would unleash upon us.

At present, hardly anyone has any idea at all of these consequences. As far as I am aware, not one of the “leave” campaigning organisations has put these themes on the agenda.

Should not these matters be aired, and brought to the attention of the public, in good time before the vote?

The dangers of Corpus Juris

This letter was sent to the Daily Telegraph on 14th October by Christopher Gill, President of The Freedom Association.

Sir,

Lord Bamford (Daily Telegraph 14th October) is right to draw attention to the ‘price we all pay for our EU membership’ but there is yet another price that we all ignore at our peril.

Remaining within the EU means that ultimately we will find ourselves obliged to adopt the EU’s corpus juris in lieu of our own criminal justice system.

The existing European Arrest Warrant which permits arrest without the necessity to produce evidence of an offence having actually been committed is but a foretaste of what is to follow.

Under corpus juris there would be no law of habeas corpus, no presumption of innocence, no right to trial by jury, no protection against double jeopardy etc. etc.

In short, the loss of all the defences and protections against State inspired coercion that British subjects have enjoyed since time immemorial is a yet another not inconsequential price we would also have to pay.

Yours sincerely,

Christopher Gil