Why did we vote to leave? Two quick reminders

A number of UK companies are to be given a pre-Brexit leaving present by the EU – a substantial fine. According to this piece in Bloomberg, the European Commission intends to complete its investigation into a controversial tax break for U.K.-based multinationals will be ready later this year. None of the companies involved in the U.K. probe is accused of wrongdoing. It is the government’s tax system is the issue for regulators in Brussels.

With the second anniversary of the Brexit vote looming, here is a timely reminder of why we voted to leave – to take back control from these unelected bureaucrats.

Another reminder was provided by Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator. He warned that we would be ejected from Europol and from the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). Although meant as a threat, if his words are to be taken at face value. they ought to be a cause of rejoicing for Brexit campaigners. On this website, we have repeatedly highlighted the failings of the EAW and have stated that Brexit must mean our withdrawal from it.

Unfortunately, things are not that simple. Barnier’s words are most likely designed to pile additional pressure on Theresa May, who is desperate to keep us in the EAW. Still, who knows, more by accident than design, thanks to the government’s lack of progress,  we could end up with a better Brexit at least in the area of criminal justice than the Government actually intends?

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):

How to rid ourselves of the European Arrest Warrant

THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT (EAW) IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

IT MUST – AND CAN! – BE STRUCK DOWN.

HERE IS HOW.

 

© by Torquil Dick-Erikson, 24/3/2018

Not just EAW arrests, but all arrests made on no evidence, such as those suffered by Lauren Southern, and others.

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

Theresa May and Amber Rudd want it to continue indefinitely, in a Security Treaty to be signed between the UK and the EU, even after Brexit.

Here is the shocking interview of Lauren Southern by Tommy Robinson,

Ms Southern, a Canadian citizen aged 22, was subjected to a banning order by the British authorities, preventing her from entering the UK, on grounds that she intended to interview Tommy Robinson, who they said was a “right-wing, racist leader”. On a previous visit she had distributed leaflets saying that “Allah was a Gay God” – as an experiment to test the reaction of the public and the authorities, and to verify the extent to which freedom of speech is curtailed now in the UK.

Not only was she banned from entering, she was also detained by Kent police for 3 days. During this time they telephoned her father in Canada to tell him that they were holding her under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, although they had no reason to suspect her of being a terrorist. Her father recorded the conversation.

It is indeed shocking, that people are now being detained, as Ms Southern was, on no evidence of wrong-doing. And as indeed happens regularly with the EAW, although there is in that case the (fake) excuse that the foreign authority issuing an EAW “must” already have evidence, although in fact the foreign authorities don’t have to have any evidence under their own Napoleonic laws as I explained during the CIB conference that Lord Pearson kindly hosted in March last year.

What happened to Ms Southern is a clear breach of Magna Carta, section 38. This (usually unnoticed) section is the basis of Habeas Corpus, which prevents people from being arrested and imprisoned on no evidence.

In their incredible 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 been already collected BEFORE legal proceedings, such as an arrest, are started. In continental jurisdictions they often 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.

Ms Southern and Tommy Robinson talk about legal redress for her dreadful experience at the hands of the British State. Might I suggest that what she suffered was an abuse of due process, indeed a perversion of justice, at the hands of the Kent police officers who detained her thus, on NO EVIDENCE. Her Habeas Corpus rights were VIOLATED.

Now if Ms Southern brings a case against the Kent police for unlawful detention (or some such offence, maybe false imprisonment…?), the Kent police might put forward the counter-argument that the PTA provisions gave them that power, and, since it comes after Magna Carta and indeed after the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 (and any subsequent modifications), it over-rides those guarantees under the doctrine of implied repeal.

This counter-argument can be invalidated as follows:

There 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. 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 their defence’s arguments: their defence had argued that the 1985 Weights and Measures Act, which allowed market produce to be sold in lb and/or kg, was subsequent to the 1972 ECA (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 WMA1985 over-rode that part or that effect of the ECA1972 under the doctrine of implied repeal, whereby if there be a conflict between laws then the subsequent law is deemed to have over-ridden 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 ECA1972, 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 and to Eurosceptics in general, 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 worth hearing, so the decision of the Appeal Court acquired the status of LEGAL PRECEDENT, which as every law student knows, is now binding on all 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. However what Laws and Crane established is the principle that Parliament cannot change the constitution by implied repeal.
  5. So 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.

So if in a case against the Kent police charging them with unlawful detention or false imprisonment, their defending counsel should argue that the PTA1972 over-rides any provisions of Magna Carta 1215 or indeed Habeas Corpus, under “implied repeal”, the counter-argument could be to say that Magna Carta has CONSTITUTIONAL status, and so has Habeas Corpus. Therefore if the PTA1972 had been intended to over-ride it 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.

After all the public razzmatazz (on both sides of the North Atlantic) about celebrating our Magna Carta heritage in 2015, I would like to see a judge having the brazen face to deny that Magna Carta has Constitutional Status! And since Ms Southern is a Canadian citizen, and Ms Pettibone (who was also so detained) is a US citizen, and both countries proclaim Magna Carta as a founding document of their – and our – civilization, I think that this argument ought to have the power to crush these miserable bureaucrats who try to steal our liberties.

As indeed was the original intention of those who drafted it, all those centuries ago.

And indeed as commentators from Coke to Churchill have repeated down the ages.

Previous attempts to get us out of the tentacles of the EU through the law courts have failed. Largely owing to the unwillingness of the judges to go against Parliament. And to the general climate of opinion which was held to be in favour of EU membership.

But now that Brexit has won the referendum, and the government is officially in favour, some judges might at least be willing to follow the precedent of the Appeal Court’s Laws and Crane…. who will thereby be hoisted with their own petard!

Torquil has also brought to our attention another appalling example of why we must leave the EAW – the case of a Catalan Professor at St. Andrews University who faces possible extradition to Spain.

Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed

Before readers start getting too angry about the agreement between David Davis and Michel Barnier over the terms for an interim relationship with the EU, it must be pointed out that the handshake between the two men does not mean that everything is done and dusted.

The transitional arrangements are only part of an overall deal which have to be approved by the European institutions and national parliaments, including our own. We are still a long way from reaching this point.

On this website, we have already explained why the transitional terms on offer from the EU are unacceptable. It will be very hard to follow it with a truly clean break. We most certainly don’t need to be shackled to the EU’s customs union and any ongoing participation in the Common Fisheries policy would be the ruination of our fishing industry. Fishing for Leave didn’t mince its words in a recent press release – it is nothing less than a capitulation by a weak government.

Just to remind readers about our fisheries:- The UK’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of 200 nautical miles/median line was established by a British Act of Parliament – the Fishery Limits 1976 Act – but because of our membersip  of what was then the EEC, that zone was promptly handed over to the EEC, to become EEC/EU waters, right up to the low water mark, and the resource within that zone also became EEC/EU resource, managed by them and not us.

In 1983 the EU established the quota system, shared out amongst the member states by means of what is known as “relative stability keys”. These keys do change when a new member joins or one leaves.

At 11pm, 29th March 2019 the UK’s EEZ is returned to our Westminster Parliament, who must take full responsibility under the guidelines of International Law – UNCLOS3. At that moment all EU quota ceases to exist in the UK’s EEZ.

It is then down to the UK Government with the support from a majority of the Westminster parliamentarians how much of the British peoples resource they intend to give away. There is no negotiation as such.

The EU has no legal authority to demand anything, because in just over a year’s time, the UK will become an independent coastal state under third country status. Unfortunately, it seems that our government is willing to concede to demands which the EU has no right to make.

There is hope that the deal may yet be torpedoed. The Committee for Exiting the European Union could not come to an agreement on a report not about the transitional deal per se but extending it. Jacon Rees-Mogg, in his characteristically eloquent manner,  called the majority report (which he and six colleagues refused to sign) a  “prospectus for the vassal state”.  He also called the its authors the “High priests of Remain”. Mr Rees-Mogg also fired a shot across the bows of Theresa May in an article for the Daily Telegraph. “The United Kingdom will not accept being a subservient state” he said. “In the case of tariffs, once we have left the EU, it is non-negotiable that our trade minister should be able to respond to any threat of increased tariffs from other nations as suits our national interest, not the EU’s,” He went on to add “In the words of one country’s frustrated trade negotiator, Britain has to decide if it is a serious country or a joke nation. It would be humiliating for others to have cause to think thus of us.”

Trade issues are not the only cause for concern. Since the Brexit vote, our government has signed a number of agreements with the EU on military cooperation, without consulting Parliament. The details can be found on the Veteran for Britain website, which we would thoroughly recommend to anyone wishing to follow this subject in greater detail. This article in particular warns of the potential dangers that will result from this and it seems that  ministers have indicated they intend to make the UK’s role in the agreements permanent via the exit treaty. The Government’s published negotiation aims include a proposal to stay in the European Defence Fund and defence industrial programme. This essentially means that we, as a free country, will be ceding our defence to an organisation we voted to leave.

On another key issue, the European Arrest Warrant, one concerned correspondent wrote to his MP about its dangers, which are well- reported on this website, only to be told that we were intending to stay a signatory of  the EAW and that was that.

To end where we began: nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. The battle is not lost yet, but our government, whether through incompetence, deceit, spinelessness or all three, is not delivering the Brexit for which we voted. As a democracy, we are given the chance to tell our politicians what we think of them. We in CIB will ensure that they will get the message well before the next General election – indeed, well before any deal is ready for signing. Recent developments are discouraging, but for the good of the country we love, the fight must and will go on. Sadly it appears that our real enemies are not in Brussels (let alone Moscow) but in Westminster and Whitehall.

More reasons for opposing our involvement in the European Arrest Warrant

Campaigners on this issue will be familiar with names like Andrew Symeou and Edmond Arapi, who have fallen foul of the European Arrest Warrant, suffering considerable distress as a result of being accused of  crimes they did not commit.

Our attention has been recently drawn to two further miscarriages of justice. Firstly, some people will remember the King family, whose son Ashya suffered from a brain tumour. They were arrested under an EAW because they took him to be be treated abroad with proton therapy rather than the radiotherapy on offer from the NHS .The young boy is now apparently “clear of cancer”.

Secondly,  Gary Owens, a former British rock star is about to launch a lawsuit of  $5.2m. against the Spanish government after being extradited to Spain, imprisoned for two and a half years and placed under criminal investigation, all for a crime he did not commit. He too was the victim of an EAW in 2008,  fifteen years after being freed without charge.

It is ABSURD that our government is not using Brexit as an opportunity to set ourselves free from this failed scheme.  Michel Barnier insisted that if we leave the EU, we will of necessity leave Europol and by extension, presumably the EAW as well. On this issue, we can but hope that he will not waver in any way and, in spite of the worst intentions of our government, mo more UK citizens will find themselves falling victim of this flawed arrangement when we leave the EU in a year’s time.

Security – partnership but not participation

Mrs May’s speech on security cooperation last Saturday was given in Munich, famous for the meeting between Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler in 1938 where an agreement was signed which Mr Chamberlain, on his return to the UK, would lead to “peace in our time”.

His hopes were sadly shaken a year later. Mrs May did not come away with any agreement, She was not expecting to. Instead, she went to Munich to deliver a speech which, like that by Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, earlier in the week, was good on mood music and aspiration but not at all satisfactory when it comes to detail.

Michel Barnier had stated that upon Brexit, we will no longer be part of Europol or the European Defence Agency. He did not mention the European Arrest Warrant, but it is not unreasonable to assume that we would be excluded from this too. At this point, virtually everyone who voted for Brexit should have been giving three loud cheers. Mrs May, in her speech, however, seemed to be saying what a disaster this would be. “Let’s be clear about what would happen if the means of this cooperation were abolished. Extradition under the European Arrest Warrant would cease. Extradition outside the European Arrest Warrant can cost four times as much and take three times as long. It would mean an end to the significant exchange of data and engagement through Europol.”

Fine, for as far as the EAW is concerned, as we have pointed out many times on this website, its convenience is outweighed by its serious flaws – flaws which have caused great grief to a number of UK citizens,  For example, Edmond Arapi was subject to an Italian EAW in 2004, being convicted in absentia of a murder in Genoa, even though he had never visited Genoa in his life and was working in a café in Staffordshire on the day of the murder. Andrew Symeou, a UK citizen, was extradited to Greece, denied bail and incarcerated for 11 months on charges of “fatal bodily harm” thanks to the signature of a Greek magistrate that no UK judge could overturn despite the evidence against him being obtained under duress. Mr Symeou published an account of his ordeal in a book called Extradited. He pointed out that unless, like him, you suffer from a miscarriage of justice, you are unlikely to appreciate just how flawed the EAW is.

Then, although we may be ejected from Europol, we would still be members of Interpol. If the EU is keen to cooperate with us on matters relating to criminal justice, which it would be foolish not to do, there are other models available which would enable us to maintain our independence.

Mrs May was right to highlight the need for close security cooperation between the UK and the EU after Brexit but we should be seeking to distance ourselves from the EU’s confrontational stance towards Russia. As Peter Hitchens put is, “Russia is no more of a threat to the UK than the Klingons”

Unfortunately, Mrs May has not freed herself from the widespread misapprehension that today’s Russia is merely the former Soviet Union under another name. She referred to “Russia’s hostile actions.” The reality is that blame for the current hostility between Russia and the EU lies as much, if not more, with Brussels than with Moscow. True, NATO must shoulder some of the blame for rapidly extending its reach to the boundaries of Belorus and Russia, but until 2009, it appeared that Russia was not that worried and might even have been considering joining NATO itself. It was the EU’s meddling in Ukraine, working behind the scenes to oust the pro-Russian but democratically elected Viktor Yanukovich, which has been the principal factor behind the deterioration in relationships between Russia and the West in recent years. Free from any vested interest in seeing Ukraine join an organisation which we have just voted to leave, we have the opportunity to re-set our own relationship with Russia rather than having to toe the EU’s expansionist, provocative line. It is surely wrong to seek to maintain enmity with a nation with whom we share a common European culture when it is possible to be friends.

Mrs May proposed that an new UK-EU treaty should be signed covering cooperation in defence and security issues. Will the EU play ball? Without a separate deal, it will take up to three years after Brexit for Britain – as a “third country” – to receive EU approval for data to be freely exchanged, so says the Independent. It will not be us who will be the biggest losers if the EU sticks rigidly to its rules about “third countries”, but then, if it is prepared to make an exception for security issues, this then poses the question, why not for trade?

All in all, the impression given by Mrs May’s speech is that she fails to see that in these issues, she has the whip hand and can use it to ensure that we achieve a full and complete break with the EU, replacing  participation in its agencies with a partnership which can still keep Europe secure. We just hope that as the negotiations proceed, in this area as well as in other key Brexit issues, her MPs will continue to give her a few gentle prods to ensure we do indeed achieve a proper Brexit in these key areas.

Photo by EU2017EE