eurealist.co.uk

Eureferendum has a post with a link to

yourDictionary.com which “has just released eight different “Words of the Year” lists featuring the Top Words, Names, Phrases, Numbers, California YouthSpeak, Internet, Sports-related, and Colour-related Words, as well as the Top Words in Pop Music and the Most Frequently Spoken Word On The Planet.

Predictably, the most frequently spoken word on the planet is “OK” but what is really interesting is the “Top word” list. At number four is “Blogosphere”, the realm of the weblog. But sneaking in at number ten is “Eurosceptic”, reflecting the increased usage of this word and its growing political importance.”

This has me thinking about the words we use or those which are used against us to inform the EU debate, the self same your Dictionary.com has the word Euro as a prefix, meaning Europe; European: i.e. Eurocommunism. It is also of course the basic unit of currency among participating European Union countries. But to use the word Euro as a prefix to sceptic indicates that a Eurosceptic it in fact a disbeliever in Europe or things European and thus could well be accused by another word xenophobia. Of course as the Euro is in fact the currency then a true definition of the word Eurosceptic is one who is against the Euro. Which is why I prefer “Eusceptic” this is quite clear in its reference to the European Union and does not carry any connotations about my like or dislike of Europe or European People.

Of course naming things is also a method of refuting an argument without actually offering any counter argument the idea that naming an argument is the same thing as refuting it is often used by those who wish to stifle debate, and of course those who do not have an answer. One hears people describe contrary arguments as “sexist”, “racist” “xenophobic” “homophobic”, “unpatriotic” or “Eurosceptic” as if that proves they can’t be true. We need not refute the claims on factual grounds, because the mere fact that they contradict our politics is refutation enough.

Whilst the EU is busy using words which have a recognised meaning to refer to something else in Euro speak or using French words in translation to obscure the meaning they are also trying to invent words to devalue or attack those of us who are anti-EU.

The EU Commision and its acolytes would like us to believe that Euroscepticism is no more that the ravings of a small minority of reactionary misfits, who are spouting lies and falsehoods about the great European project, only because they have been spurred on by the British Eurosceptic press, at the behest of some foreign Press Barons who for some unspecified reason are intent upon undermining the government of this country. The EU Commissions web site not only uses the word Eurosceptic but then tries to define it by saying “British public opinion to provide fertile soil for what became ‘Euroscepticism’ – itself a misleading term, since it was often and remains a cover for outright hostility to the EU.” Media sympathy with Euroscepticism had a direct impact on British public opinion, leaving an indelible impression of continental inefficiency, introspection and ham-fisted bureaucracy.
The Commision then goes on with its own new word “Euromyth” and extolling the virtues of its own publication “Do you believe all you read in the newspapers?” debunking some of the Euromyths peddled by British newspapers.

By inventing the word “Euromyth” which they also define as “scare stories based on hearsay, rumours and half-truths, many of which have been repeated so often that they have become accepted truths within the public and media consciousness” the EU Commision is attempting to introduce this word into common usage with the meaning “a lie about the EU” and then they will be in the position of labelling anything they wish as a “Euromyth” suggesting that the statement is a lie without in any way offering proof that it is a lie, thus simply using this word as a method of refuting any anti EU argument and stifling debate. Yet if we visit their web site we can see for ourselves that many of these so called myths are factually based reports on the EU. The EU of course are not happy because they do not take an EU friendly line, and of course the EU does not like criticism, unless someone can show me this is an Eumyth.

The EU arrest Warrant entered into force in January 2004 in eight EU member states - Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK. However, several other states have been very slow to adopt it.

Perhaps the President of the Czech Republic Václav Klaus had a good reason that others are reluctant to give this power away, he said in October 03 that this bill would have made it possible for Czech citizens to be extradited to other EU countries to face trial. The Czech parliament has since accepted the EU Arrest warrant, so obviously it no longer cares about its rights top defend its citizens He is of course quite correct that that is the very reason for the bill in the first place. However Mr Klaus said that to pass such a bill would mean to hand over a part of the country’s sovereignty and its right to protect its citizens.

I do not know about the Czech government rights or otherwise in this matter, but I do know that the British government not only has the right to protect the Queens subjects, but it has a sworn duty to do so. A duty which by acceding to this international treaty it has refused to accept, we as British subjects can no longer rely on the our own government to protect us in the event that any Judge in any EU state issues a warrant for our arrest, our own police will execute that warrant with no evidence, and assist that foreign power to transport us to their own country to face charges in their courts under their rules. An added effect of this measure, will be to subject all extradition between the EU Member to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Thus further extending the powers of the union.

Tony Blair said “It is manifestly in this country’s interest to have a procedure that is a fast-track procedure for extraditing people to this country from European countries, what this will do is simplify the procedure enormously” he did not say that it would also seriously weaken the power of Parliament and the courts to protect the rights of British citizens and sweep away ancient rights as suspects would have no right to challenge extradition in their home country’s courts and would have no protection offered under our own laws. First they make us citizens of the EU then they make us subject to the laws of other countries then they ask us to pay our police to help them carry out these laws.
Although this law was introduced under the cover of terrorism it encompasses a great deal more than action against suspected terrorists, and there is no there is absolutely no guarantee that the European arrest warrant will not later be widened to other crimes or even abused, there is nothing preventing this. In fact as is usual with the EU method of introducing new developments “the nose of the camel approach” we the people are not told the full facts. This was based on a European Commission proposal, (document reference COM(2001)522 final/2). The agreement carries through the European Council conclusions of October 1999, in Tampere, which state that the formal extradition procedure should be abolished among the Member States. But of course what is really happening is the development of a single European judicial area. This can (as is the case in other areas) be used as a foundation to be built upon and extended later.

Treaty of Amsterdam created a space of freedom, of safety and of justice in the list of objectives of the Union; The Tampere European Council stated that “mutual recognition of judicial decisions and judgments … should become the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in both civil and criminal matters”. Although these extradition agreements were supposedly to apply only to those who had been sentenced in their home courts and were fleeing justice, the Commission said that there was “no reason for distinguishing between situations in which extradition is requested at the pre-trial stage and those in which it is requested for the execution of an enforceable judgment”. The basic idea is as follows: when a judicial authority of a Member State requests the surrender of a person, either because he has been convicted of an offence or because he is being prosecuted, its decision must be recognised and executed automatically throughout the Union. Refusal to execute a European arrest warrant must be confined to a limited number of hypotheses. The European arrest warrant is a warrant for search, arrest, detention and surrender to the judicial authority of the issuing country.

The principle of double criminal liability is abolished. It will hardly matter, therefore, if the offence for which the arrest warrant was issued does not exist, or that its components differ in the executing State. Under this principle each Member State not only recognises the entire criminal law of the other Member States but also agrees to assist them in enforcing it.

The added benefit is that a British subject may well find themselves arrested and extradited on one charge only for that charge to be dropped and then having to face other charges at the discretion of the judicial authority of the issuing country. “A person may be prosecuted, sentenced or detained for an offence other than that for which the European arrest warrant was issued.”
Europa

The Warrant also in its present form includes tought Crimes such as “xenophobia and racism” a definition of either will be for the courts to decide but which courts? If for instance opinions expressed on the internet were considered offensive these could well be considered extraditable, although Britain has negotiated a deal under which the offences will only apply when they involve incitement to violence. We have been forced to concede a review after two years at which point the directive could be extended to and not just those likely to incite violence.
So our government which is sworn to defend the rights of the British people have reneged on their duty to us, do we therefore still owe a debt of allegiance our Monarch or are we the people now in the position of having no duty to the Queen because she has allowed our government to break our contract with her.