eurealist.co.uk

The Anglo Saxon Chronicles returns to the central objection against the EU, in it recent post “Why Britain is Different” it argues aginst the proposition that all the nations of western Europe have a common identity, and therefore should be unified into one political, legal and economic entity under a supranational state. This is often put forward as a justification for the European Union, as Britain is a part of Europe, therefore, it is argued, it must join in this unifying process.

“However the real division in the Western civilisation is not between Europe on the one hand and North America and Australasia on the other. It is between all the English-speaking countries on the one hand, whose institutions are based on the English common law system, and those of the Continent on the other. It is worth exploring this difference in some detail”.

I urge those who would argue that we do not have a constitution or that government can do anything it likes, or those who simply cannot accept that Britian and the British people are having to move so much further than the continentals to achieve the ever closer union the EU tells us we want, to read this post because it clearly shows why we are really different and why there is much dislike of the EU.

“The legal and political tradition of Continental countries is the exact opposite of the British tradition, and there is no way in which they can be merged without destroying one or the other. In the conception of law and society which exists in Continental countries, the state is not merely the supreme, but the sole legal entity within society. No person or institution has any rights whatsoever that have not been granted by the state, and which are in the power of the state to revoke. Under the Code Napoleon, which is the fundamental law of France, Italy and Belgium, every activity is illegal unless a law has been specifically passed permitting and regulating it. The German legal system is very similar. By contrast, in the British tradition every activity is legal unless Parliament has passed a law prohibiting or regulating it.”

In reality this means that if the law says we are innocent until proven guilty, it means just that, so therefore the law must prove us guilty, we do not have to prove ourselves innocent, we are innocent, It means that the police do not have the right to stop innocent motorists to ask them to take a breathalyser test because they are innocent, recent moves by this government are no more than attempts to destroy British system with the intention of making further EU integration possible, they can only do that by taking powers no British government has ever had before.

Tim Worstall takes up the story “Are We Still a Free People?”

“We have a Home Secretary who has been told by the courts that locking foreigners up and denying them their right to trial is illegal. The basic presumption is that one must either be tried and convicted, or be being held on remand while that process is put in train, for it to be allowable for the State to lock you up. His reaction on being told that foreigners have the same rights as natives was, quite amazingly, to remove that right for natives. Quite. The most basic foundation of the relationship between citizen and state, that of the right to trial, Habeus Corpus and all the rest, has been altered. It is seriously proposed that the Home Secretary should be allowed to intern anyone at all, on no evidence that he has to reveal (and thus can be argued against), for as long as he wishes.

While these two, ID cards and the abolition of Habeus Corpus are home grown, it is interesting to note that (almost) all of our EU colleagues have the former and do not have the latter. Only the most cynical of paranoids could possibly believe that this is part of a long term harmonisation project.

All of this is happening in a system where, if you remember Bernard Connelly, the highest court in the system has said that criticism of the EU can be curtailed without it being a breach of free speech, in much the same way that restrictions on blasphemy are not a restriction of free speech.”

Of course now the government has started this transformation or revolution against the British Constitution it leaves the door open for the Europhiles to claim that as we have no protection from our own government, we need not worry about not having those same protections in the EU, that as our democratic control is being ignored by the British government, we do not need it because our representatives will make the decisions for us.

This is not the answer, this is going along with their agenda, what we need is to reassert our independence from an over powerful executive, we need to remind them that they are elected by the British people to uphold our laws and our system of government that to incarcerate British people without trial, is against the laws they were elected to uphold, to allow a foreign country to demand our arrest and transportation to their control to be tried by their laws under their system, without any protection from our own state is to undermine the basic reason for the state in the first place and is a sure sign that this government have abdicated any rights to power.

We were promised the Code Napoleon would not undermine Common Law now we see that it is actually destroying it.