The hounding of Kate Hoey MP

A Principled Independence Campaigner under attack from her own party.

Kate Hoey gave us an inspirational speech at our CIB rally of 2016, a little more than a month before the referendum  So it is sad to report that her Vauxhall constituency Labour party passed a vote of no confidence and wants the Labour party to withdraw the whip from her. Forty five party members out of a branch membership of 2,300 turned up for the meeting and only three abstained from the vote. The other forty two voted in favour.

Kate told the Independent “ Not a surprise – my local party activists are solid EU remainers, I will always put my country before my party and helping my constituents is a priority . After 29 years as an MP I am quite relaxed about the vote and it won’t influence me in any way how I vote in the future”.

She was one of four Labour MPs to vote with Theresa May’s government on a crucial vote that resulted in the prime minister narrowly avoiding defeat. She was also one of the 42 Labour MPs who actually voted in support of Jeremy Corbyn as leader.

Kate will no doubt be looking ahead with her usual firmness and vigour to deliver what people voted for in the referendum. We also owe her a considerable debt for deliverance from one of the nastier projects of the European Union some twenty years ago.

A principled independence campaigner for all her political life, Kate is particularly remembered for her part in frustrating the attempted introduction of the uniform EU legal code Corpus Juris in 1998 which would have abolished long-held British rights such as jury trial and habeas corpus. Kate was a Home Office Minister at the time and promised to veto it. Labour MEPs  supported the new legal system in Strasbourg, Tony Blair did not have the stomach to disown Kate publicly but she was later moved to Sport. Neither did Blair endorse Pauline Green MEP (Labour) the leader of the European Socialists who contrived a motion in the EU Parliament to “welcome” this appalling denial of British freedoms*, a motion which was also supported by Conservative MEPs, contrary to the stated policy of their own party.

We hear that another principled Labour supporter of independence and democracy, FRANK FIELD MP is facing similar action from his constituency party.

All friends of freedom will wish them well.

* For the full background to this vital and still continuing threat, please see Torquil Dick Erikson’s articles at savebritishjustice.wordpress.com . The European Arrest Warrant (EAW), so beloved of Mrs May, is an offshoot of this alien philosophy, achieved by a totally unjustified “Mutual Recognition ” amongst the very different legal systems used in EU states, in particular as between our system, derived from Magna Carta and the systems used on the continent, largely derived from the Inquisition via Napoleon.

The EAW is unconstitutional. Here is how it can be struck down

© by Torquil Dick-Erikson, 04/04/2018

Not just EAW arrests are unconstitutional, but so are all arrests made on no evidence.

This is the chief difference between an arrest made on a domestic arrest warrant and an arrest made on a European Arrest Warrant.

A domestic arrest warrant must be backed by evidence already collected, under our UK laws on Habeas Corpus, based on Magna Carta sec.38 (see below).

In contrast, under the Napoleonic-inquisitorial systems used in continental Europe, a suspicion based on clues held by the investigator (who usually wears a judge’s robe), is enough to order an arrest and an imprisonment. Then they seek evidence, while the suspect may languish in prison for months, with no right to a public hearing during this time. See details in my speech at the House of Lords, given on 15th March 2017. In this speech I also dealt with the inadequacy of the European Convention on Human Rights in this regard.

The injustice of the EAW when issued against a person in Britain is that the British court is not allowed to ask to see any evidence.  Often there is none, or so flimsy it would not stand up for 5 minutes in a UK court. When our MPs passed the Extradition Act of 2003 they surely assumed that all our EU “partners” must have a requirement for evidence similar to ours. The assumption was unfounded, as various cases since then have demonstrated, e.g. Andrew Symeou, or Colin Dines, a British judge forcibly transported to a prison in Rome.

This is the nub of the case of the Catalan Professor Clara Ponsati, and which, it is to be hoped, will be at the heart of the debate to be held in the Sheriff’s court in Edinburgh on April 12th next, or perhaps subsequently.

Here, in summary, is my suggestion as to how the EAW against her can be dismantled:

  1. She is accused by the Spaniards of “violent rebellion” and “misuse of public funds”. (It is clear that Prof. Ponsati has never used nor advocated violence, the use of the term shows bad faith on the part of Spain’s judiciary, an intention to smear her character before public opinion.)
  2. She should ask the prosecution to produce evidence of this.
  3. The court will respond that under the terms of the Extradition Act 2003 this is not necessary, these are matters that will be dealt with by the Spanish courts, and her request will be refused.
  4. At this point she can quote Habeas Corpus and Magna Carta sec. 38, which stipulate that no legal proceedings can be started against anyone without evidence (see details below).
  5. The court will reply that the Extradition Act 2003 dispenses with the need for the foreign judicial authority to produce evidence to a British court, and its provisions supersede the earlier ones in Habeas Corpus and Magna Carta, by implied repeal.
  6. At that point she can say that Habeas Corpus and Magna Carta are CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS, which are not subject to implied repeal, quoting the precedent of the Metric Martyrs judgement by Lords Laws and Crane (see details below).
  7. It then becomes apparent that the EAW is unconstitutional, repugnant to our Constitution, and invalid in the UK.

I cannot see how the Court can answer this. They might wish to refer it to the European Court of Justice, which of course will have no regard for our Habeas Corpus or Magna Carta safeguards (unknown in continental Europe), but at that point the matter takes on enormous public interest, not just in Scotland and Catalonia, but world-wide.

Two contrasting legal systems will be seen to be in conflict. Our Magna Carta based heritage, versus the Napoleonic-inquisitorial heritage of continental Europe (adopted in toto in the EU’s “Corpus Juris” proposal for a single EU-wide criminal code, which was rejected by the UK in 1999. The EAW is the first step towards Corpus Juris).

Domestic arrests, whether made in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland, have to be supported by evidence of wrong-doing already collected by the investigators beforehand. To make sure that this happens, Habeas Corpus stipulates that an arrested person must appear in open court within hours, or at the most a few days (or in very extreme terrorist cases, 28 days), and there charged formally with a precise accusation. And if so required, the prosecution must be able to produce their evidence of a prima facie case to answer, at that hearing.

This fundamental right, which protects innocent people who are wrongly suspected of crime, descends from Magna Carta, section 38. This (usually unnoticed) section is the basis of Habeas Corpus, which prevents people from being arrested and imprisoned arbitrarily, on no evidence.

In their incredible and foresightful wisdom, 800 years ago, our forefathers laid down, in Latin – and the Latin is important – in just fifteen words, the basis of our freedom from arbitrary arrest and prosecution or persecution and harassment by officers of the State. It says:

“Nullus balivus ponat aliquem ad legem, simplici sua loquela, sine testibus fidelibus ad hoc aductis.”

In English:

“No legal officer (balivus, originally “bailiff”) shall put anyone to the law ie shall start legal proceedings against anyone (NB “anyone” “aliquem” – this is a universal human right, not limited to “free men”), on his own mere say-so, without reliable witnesses who have been brought for the purpose.”

N.B. Note the use of the past participle “aductis”: the witnesses, the evidence, must have already been collected BEFORE any legal proceedings, such as an arrest, are started. In continental jurisdictions they can, and often do, order suspects to be arrested first, and then, AFTERWARDS, they seek evidence. They are allowed to do this under the provisions of their own Napoleonic-inquisitorial systems, which are alien to our own Magna Carta heritage. This procedure, also called “fishing expeditions”, is NOT ALLOWED under Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus laws.

This means that nobody can be subjected to any legal act, like arrest or detention, without previously collected EVIDENCE.

Most people think the EAW is just about catching criminals. It is not. It is potentially a tool for tyranny. It is a threat to the freedom of the innocent. It can be wielded by the British authorities against suspects in Europe, but also by any European judiciary – however reputable or however dodgy – against any of us.

Here are some details of the case judged on Appeal which gives us the useful precedent, whereby Habeas Corpus and Magna Carta can trump the Extradition Act 2003 even though they were passed earlier.

It was a famous case some years ago, when some market traders in Sunderland were convicted and given a criminal record for having sold bananas by the pound weight instead of by the kilogram as had become compulsory under an order complying with an EU directive, issued under the legal force of the European Communities Act 1972 (ECA72). The defendants of this absurdly unfair conviction became known as “The Metric Martyrs”. They appealed against their conviction, but their appeal failed.

We must look at the reasons given, why their appeal was turned down.

When the Appeal Court Lords Laws and Crane confirmed the conviction of the Metric Martyrs, they gave a novel answer to the defence’s arguments: the defence had argued that the 1985 Weights and Measures Act (WMA85), which allowed market produce to be sold in lb and/or kg, was subsequent to the ECA72 (under whose provisions the order criminalising the sale of fruit by the pound weight instead of by the kilogram had been issued). Therefore, argued the defence, the WMA85 over-rode that part or that effect of the ECA72 under the doctrine of implied repeal, whereby if there be a conflict between laws then the subsequent law is deemed to have over-ridden and annulled the provisions of the earlier law.

Not so, said their Lordships. They said that the ECA72 had the status of a “constitutional act”, and so could not be over-ridden by subsequent legislation under implied repeal, but only if the repeal was explicitly spelt out in the text of the subsequent Act.

Since the WMA85 did not explicitly repeal any provisions of the ECA72, which it might have done by including words like “any provisions in or deriving from the ECA72 notwithstanding”, but didn’t, then in this case the earlier ECA72 must be held to prevail over the later WMA85. They even added, as a consolation “sop” to the defence, that Parliament is in any case free to repeal the ECA72 whenever it wishes, as long as it does so explicitly.

The Metric Martyrs now presented an appeal to the House of Lords, but it was thought that their appeal was not worthy of consideration, so the decision of the Appeal Court acquired the status of LEGAL PRECEDENT, which as every law student knows, is now binding on subsequent decisions.

This “innovation” by Laws and Crane can be summarised in general terms as follows:

  1. There are now two levels of law in the United Kingdom: a) Constitutional laws and b) Ordinary laws. There are different rules applicable if Parliament wishes to repeal any of them.
  2. In cases where there is a conflict between two ordinary laws, the later law is deemed to annul those provisions of the previous law in conflict with it, under the well-established doctrine of “implied repeal”, whereby that part of the earlier law, if found to be in conflict with the later, is declared null and void.
  3. In cases where there is a conflict between an ordinary law and a previous constitutional law, then the constitutional law is held to prevail over the ordinary law, UNLESS the subsequent ordinary law EXPLICITLY repeals a provision in the preceding constitutional law. Parliament can repeal any constitutional law by simple majority vote, for one bedrock rule of our constitution is that No Parliament Can Bind Its Successors. This is also the basis for the doctrine of implied repeal.
  4. So, what Laws and Crane established is the principle that Parliament cannot change the constitution by implied repeal.
  5. By the same token, if there is a conflict between two “constitutional laws”, then it must surely follow that UNLESS the subsequent constitutional law EXPLICITLY repeals a provision in the preceding constitutional law, then the preceding constitutional law prevails.

Therefore if the Extradition Act of 2003 had been intended to over-ride Habeas Corpus and Magna Carta sec. 38, it should have said so explicitly. In fact it did not abrogate section 38 of Magna Carta! Indeed section 38 is hardly ever talked about because, in the English-speaking world at least, it is considered too obvious that you need evidence of wrong-doing before starting legal proceedings against anyone.

To get round this, a UK court would have to deny that Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus had constitutional status, or Parliament would have to repeal them. It is highly doubtful that either would have the heart and stomach to do so. The wave of public anger and indignation would be overwhelming.

That the European Arrest Warrant is in fact incompatible with Habeas Corpus is dealt with by Jonathan Fisher QC in his learned Opinion (para. 4 page 2, and para.s 70-85 pages 19-22):

The European Arrest Warrant – further reasons for pulling out

My speech on the subject of “European Law – will it go away with Brexit?” was delivered at a CIB-organised meeting at the House of Lords on 15th March 2017. You can download the full text here.

For those who wish to know more, I made a submission to the House of Lords in 2013-4 as a contribution to the debate at that time on whether to opt back into the EAW or not. This was posted on the CIB website a while ago and can be downloaded here. However, there were three appendices to the submission which were not previously available. They now can also be downloaded.

Appendix A shows the article I published in the New Law Journal in 1990. Readers may recall the famous miscarriages of British justice – the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4 – some Irishmen wrongly convicted of placing bombs in pubs for the IRA. After 15 years while these innocents languished in prison, the British system did acknowledge that this had been due to the investigators (the police) beating confessions out of them and then lying on oath in court. As a result of this, a well-known campaigner called Ludovic Kennedy then campaigned, with the support of barrister Michael Mansfield, to introduce elements of the French inquisitorial system, where investigations are conducted by, or under strict supervision of, a judge, not the police. My article served to show that this solution would not give the desired results, on the contrary.

Appendix B reproduces two pages from the official programme distributed to the participants at the seminar I attended in Spain in April 1997 where the Commission unveiled its Corpus Juris project for a single criminal code for all Europe. They serve to dispel and disprove the myth put about at the time by the Europhiles that  was NOT anything out of the EU institutions, just a “thinkpiece” dreamed up by some unaffiliated academics (untrue – see page B1); and the other myth that its scope was limited only to the defence of the financial interests of the EU, with no intention to expand it later to cover all other forms of criminal law and justice (again, untrue, see page B2 – where they openly call it an “embryo criminal code for Europe”).

Appendix C, taken from Hansard, gives the briefing paper I wrote which was read aloud in the Commons by Nick Hawkins MP in 2003. I think it is necessary to put this on the record because it shows that the government had done no research whatsoever into the continental criminal law system to which they were recklessly exposing British people in Britain; in fact, they did not bother to discuss and refute what I said, but simply disregarded my analysis completely. All that the government spokesman Bob Ainslie MP could say at the time was “Well, we see that the Italian justice system is very different from ours”. My main point was to show that the Italian system makes no hard and fast distinction between an investigation phase and a prosecution phase – an investigation is always “against” a suspect – so the government’s pretence that a case had to be “prosecution-ready” was meaningless.

The proposed alternative to the European Arrest Warrant is not satisfactory

I am afraid that David Davis’s scheme for a new European Arrest Warrant is not at all satisfactory as it stands. Here is the essence of it:

__________

Under the proposal a new “ad hoc” legal commission would replace the European Court of Justice (ECJ) which currently rules on extraditions.

The new panel would have a Supreme Court judge, an ECJ judge and one from a third neutral country to rule on each extradition.

__________

This proposal as it stands is merely cosmetic, and here is why:

Any oversight by a superior body, whether our own Supreme Court or even more so by a new ad hoc mixed legal commission can only see and ensure that the current EAW legislation is applied by the lower courts.

And the main problem is that it is not proposed here to alter the current EAW legislation, which says that prisoners must be surrendered at a bald, unsupported, demand from the requesting State, with no examination by a court of the requested State of evidence of whether there is a serious case to answer or not.

It is – wrongly and wrongfully – ASSUMED by many in Britain that the EU states will all have assembled evidence of guilt and will be “prosecution-ready” before they issue an EAW (as is the normal practice in Britain). Indeed according to the Treaty we are bound to trust them blindly to have done so, under the doctrine of “mutual confidence and recognition”.

Our politicos and legal eagles, not to mention pundits, are still – willfully? – ignoring the fact that the practice in States ruled under the Napoleonic-inquisitorial dispensation is to arrest a suspect FIRST, and only AFTER they have him under lock and key, do they try to build a case and seek evidence against him. This often takes months, while the unfortunate rots in duress vile with no public hearing, as we have seen happen all too often.

This is not – as our own people assume – due to the sloppiness of continentals in applying standards that we in Britain consider to be right and normal; it is the way their system functions normally, and is supposed to function. They do not work to our standards,  but to their own, which are completely different from, indeed alien to, ours.

I have been through the historic reasons, going back 800 years, for this profound difference elsewhere and shall not do so again here.

Whether the grounds for suspecting, and for arresting, a particular person amount to serious evidence of a case to answer, or flimsy evidence that would not stand up to serious scrutiny, or no evidence at all but merely clues, or just a hunch, or even a prejudice, on the part of the investigators, is sorted out in Britain by our Habeas Corpus.

This provides a right for a prisoner to be brought into a public hearing in open court within HOURS or at most a few days after arrest. And there he can demand to be shown the evidence on which he was arrested. He must there be “charged”, and in Britain and other English-speaking nations a charge must be based on hard evidence, already collected, of a case to answer. No right to any such speedy public hearing exists in continental States, where six months, extensible, in prison “pending investigaton” with no public hearing, is considered a normal limit (for many categories of cases, not only extreme terrorism cases), as per the Corpus Juris proposal for a single unified criminal code for all Europe.

Some years ago an attempt by our own government to introduce 42-day detention without charge nor public hearing in terrorist cases was resisted and opposed on principle by none other than David Davis himself, who nobly resigned his seat and stood for re-election on this very point, and was returned again by his electorate who clearly shared his concern to keep our traditional safeguards of the liberty of the subject. Has he forgotten this? How can it have escaped his notice that the EAW as it stands brings in not just six weeks, but six months, in the case of Andrew Symeou eleven months, detention without charge or public hearing?

The European Convention on Human Rights provides no remedy. Its article 6 merely says that a prisoner must have a public hearing within a “reasonable” time after arrest, and the continentals will say that it is “reasonable” for them to take six months to investigate a person and assemble evidence against him of a case to answer.

One solution could be to force the continental States to hold a Habeas Corpus public hearing within hours of receiving a prisoner to show that there is a case to answer, or to release him. We have already seen that this would not be accepted by them for it goes against their whole legal culture. Indeed in 2002 the late Neil McCormick QC MEP presented a motion to the EU Parliament to set up a “Euro-Habeas Corpus” to go with the EAW, but it was overwhelmingly voted down.

So it will have to be our own courts who demand that an EAW, or indeed a warrant received from any foreign State, must be accompanied by evidence of a case to answer which can be examined by a UK court with the power to reject it if considered insufficient. This is what happened before the European Extradition Act of 1989. The delays complained about were largely due to the foreign authorities, who are quite unaccustomed to having to investigate first and arrest after. They prefer to do it the other way round. Under our previous legislation, they had to do it our way. Now we have to do it their way.

At present the UK is forced to conform to the continentals’ yardstick. This flies in the face of Magna Carta (clause 38).  But people on British soil (even if not British citizens) must be entitled to the protection of British laws. This always used to be the case, and it must be restored.

The renewal of border checks will enable the UK to keep out known foreign criminals whose identities have been flagged up to us by foreign authorities. So the garish scare-mongering about “Britain becoming the Costa del crime” and the “honeypot for criminals” argument can be laid to rest.

The practical argument that supporters of the EAW cannot answer is: if no substantial evidence of guilt is collected BEFORE arrest, how can the authorities know that they have got the right person to accuse? Indeed the record of the EAW’s application shows many cases where perfectly innocent people (including even a British judge – Colin Dines!!) were targeted and made to suffer forced transportation and often lengthy imprisonment, thus allowing the truly guilty parties to escape scot-free.

Even if we had our own Supreme Court to oversee the application of the EAW, it can only do so on the basis of the legislation as it stands. However sympathetic it might be towards an obviously innocent victim of a monstrous judicial muddle, or even of persecution on a trumped-up charge, as long as the doctrine of “mutual recognition” remains on our Statute book, the Supreme Court cannot do anything other than apply it. Willy-nilly. Judges in our lower courts have even been embarassed about EAW cases like this, but have been powerless to do anything other than apply the law as it stands. The Supreme Court would be in a like position.

So a reform of the EAW needs to insist that when foreign authorities send us a warrant to arrest someone on British soil, they must also send an indication of the evidence of a prima facie case to answer. Otherwise we cannot prevent them from using the EAW as a tool for fishing expeditions.

Mrs May must suspend the EAW now

By Torquil Dick-Erikson (c) 2016

In April 1997, at a specially convened seminar in Spain, the EU Commission unveiled its “Corpus Juris project”, for a single system of criminal law for the whole of the EU, based entirely on Napoleonic-inquisitorial principles. At that stage it was nothing more than an embryonic criminal code, but had it been inflicted on us, it would have swept away our own Magna Carta-based system, in particular our Trial by Jury and Lay Magistrates (art. 26.1), our Habeas Corpus (art. 20.3.g) and our protection against double jeopardy (art. 27.2). I happened to be among 141 European jurists invited to attend, as guests of the Commission. I was included in the Italian delegation, as a last-minute replacement. The head of the Italian delegation had read an article I had published in an Italian law journal and had been impressed enough to invite me to come along and fill an empty slot.

Since then, I have been following subsequent developments in the area of European criminal law, including the introduction of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and the establishment of its own paramilitary, lethally armed, police force, the European Gendarmerie Force (EGF). Six national gendarmeries are currently being trained and drilled side by side, in a location in Northern Italy, to weld them into a single European corps. They will then be deployed all over the European Union, in any state with its “consent” (art. 6.3 Treaty of Velsen, signed by EGF participant states).

In 2012, when she was Home Secretary, Mrs May said of the Eurogendarmerie, “Of course” we will call upon them, “onto British soil”,  “if we see the need”. Since she became Prime Minister, I can find no evidence that she has ever disowned this statement. What is more, no one, apart from Christopher Gill and myself, has been calling on Mrs May to refuse unevidenced European Arrest Warrants with immediate effect.

Mrs May has insisted that “Brexit means Brexit”. If she is serious about this, EU authorities must no longer be allowed to arrest and deport people from Britain at their whim – i.e., without shewing any substantive evidence.  The EAW legislation specifically states that the authority issuing an EAW should not provide any indication of evidence of a prima facie case and the country receiving a EAW is not allowed to ask for any evidence but has to trust the requesting country blindly. Past experience shows that we cannot do this as their systems of criminal justice are totally different from our own. They allow a suspect to be arrested and kept in prison for many months “pending investigation”, with no right to a public hearing nor obligation on the prosecution to exhibit any evidence during this time..

We live in a country that has been remarkably favoured – partly due to our island location, partly because of the protection provided by what was once the world’s most powerful navy. We have thus been spared the violent changes which our continental friends have seen to their governments within living memory.

For them, the concept of heavily-armed paramilitary police like the EGF is quite familiar. They see them every day on their streets. They will be less concerned that we would have been that policing in the EU will eventually look like, feel like, and be like a military occupation by a hostile armed foreign force.

In this year’s referendum campaign, little was made of the vast difference between the UK’s criminal justice and policing systems and those on the Continent. At first glance, it hardly seems like a winning argument as most people in the UK have never been before a court of law, do not have a criminal record and do not expect to. This is to miss the point.  We have had such a long and unbroken history of peaceful constitutional development that we have forgotten that, at the end of the day, criminal law is actually the handle granting complete control over a State and all its inhabitants.

Criminal law means police, handcuffs and prisons. It means the physically forceful, enforcement powers of the State over the citizens. It is under the criminal law that the State can (or cannot) send its officers into your home, breaking down the door, hauling you out of your bed and off to a prison. The State holds a monopoly of legal, even lethal, force over the citizens, and the exercise of this power is regulated by the criminal law. In our country, the State has exercised this power in a considerably more benign way than across the Channel. For 800 years its powers in England have been limited by Magna Carta. On the continent they have been enlarged and deepened by the Inquisition, with methods as adopted and adapted by Napoleon.

It is therefore critical, if Brexit is to mean Brexit, that the inevitable co-operation that will be needed between the UK and the EU on matters of criminal justice must grant no concessions to any aspect of EU criminal justice which violates basic safeguards of our own historic system. Any arrangement must include a repudiation of the European Arrest Warrant and the solemn undertaking that there will never ever be any invitation for the EGF or any other armed EU body to set foot on UK soil.

If the EAW is properly presented as “Arrest and lengthy imprisonment on no evidence and with no right to a public hearing for many months”, which is what it is, but which was not made clear when Parliament voted to reconfirm it in November 2012, it will be very hard for opponents to argue against its immediate suspension, as from NOW. And procedurally a case can surely be made for Parliament to reverse its earlier decision, with immediate effect. We could have remained opted out from the EAW without violating any part of the Lisbon Treaty.

If the government suspended the acceptance of unevidenced EAWs with immediate effect, this would show that Mrs May really is serious when she says “Brexit means Brexit”.

Unfortunately, last week’s online Express carries articles showing that the government is actually going in the opposite direction. I quote:- “Britain will remain a part of Europol despite our exit from the bloc,” Policing Minister Brandon Lewis has told Parliament. This is not only “until we leave”, for He added: “The Government is exploring options for cooperation with Europol once the UK has left the EU.”

We must remember that Europol is not just an extension of Interpol; it is the embryo of what Helmuth Kohl called “a European FBI”. Once they get their boots on our soil we shall never be able to get rid of them, except by force, for they will only take orders from Brussels. The government surely has a duty not to let matters reach a state of armed confrontation. If we get signed up to Europol’s extended powers as is now suggested, and  we remain subject to the EU’s power to have any of us arrested and transported with no questions asked, we shall be always under the heel of Brussels. If Brexit means Brexit, this is unacceptable

This matter must be publicised, far and wide, beyond just the readership of the online Daily Express. The people must be told!

Brexiteers in Parliament, of whatever party, should raise their voices and demand that Mrs May must:

1) give a solemn assurance that we shall never ever under any circumstances whatsoever allow armed EU units to set foot on British soil;

2) suspend with immediate effect any unevidenced EAWs that are received in Britain.

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?