The European Arrest Warrant: a useful tool (for a tyrant)

The erosion of liberty continues apace. Watching it happen over time is like observing the crumbling white cliffs growing ever weaker as the waves crash into them. It is generally a gradual, continuous process but eventually comes the moment when a great chunk crumbles into the sea and is washed utterly away. Today is such a day; a sad day for Britain and a shaming one for Parliament. Most distressing of all is how few people are aware of it, and how even fewer seem to care. Make no mistake; this is a significant time in British history, one that will be studied far into the future. We are in the late stages of a long process in which we are willingly surrendering the independence of our legal system. It is the Conservative Party that is leading us down the dark, illiberal path to subjugation. For shame.

David Cameron has tried to portray himself as some kind of British bulldog fighting our corner in Brussels, he even disingenuously claimed to have secured the “greatest ever return of powers to the UK”.  In May the Government opted our of 100 trivial criminal justice measures that have already been duplicated by national legislation or had never actually applied in the UK in the first place. The 35 measures that the Government have opted back into are the most dangerous and illiberal and consist of a large-scale transfer of sovereignty to the European Union. It is nothing less than a step towards the usurpation of the English legal system, which is necessary if we are to be fully integrated into the political state and be part of a common EU criminal justice system. Of all these measures there are none more potentially tyrannical than the European Arrest Warrant.

Not only does is it a total violation of our sovereignty, meaning we have to surrender our own citizens to other EU states on request. It is also another dangerous power for the British state to use and abuse at will. Only a fool trusts in the fear mongering line of defence that the EAW is an absolute necessity to defend us against the great bogeymen of our time, terrorists and paedophiles. It was possible to extradite terror suspects and sex offenders before the European Arrest Warrant was created and would be if were to remove ourselves from its jurisdiction. Furthermore, only a tiny amount of the people arrested under the EAW are accused of terrorism. Opting out of the EAW simply means that we would revert to having extradition agreements that we had before, the kind we have with many non-EU states

How often is the line carted out that the EAW is a “useful” or “essential tool” that the police and security services need in their arsenal? It gives the impression that the British authorities are deft craftsmen who will only use the “useful” tool when absolutely necessary and appropriate. One of the primary considerations when restraining the state is to think of how a certain power, or law, can go beyond whatever its original purpose was and lead to abuse or misuse in the future. An example might be when the social services and police hysterically overreact when a mother and father decide to remove their son from NHS care and seek treatment elsewhere. Oh well, he was only traumatised a little, and they were only held without cause, evidence or trial for a few day. All’s well that ends well.

This argument must be treated with the contempt is deserves. If we gave the police and security services every “useful tool” they asked for we would not have a shred of liberty left.   The same propaganda is used to justify identity cards (which would’ve sealed our identity as serfs), 90 day detention, secret courts and mass surveillance. This is to be placed in the file which reads “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”– the mantra of the slave.

Under the European Arrest Warrant no evidence is required to justify extradition and in any case British courts have absolutely no power to consider whatever evidence there may be. It is a trivial bureaucratic matter, in other words, a simple form has to be filled in and then a British citizen can be carted off to a court in a foreign judicial system. That’s it, plain and simple; our centuries old protections of liberty can be dismissed arbitrarily because of a vague accusation made in another EU state without any evidence being provided. Not a peep of protest from EU fanatics, neither from the so-called “liberal” left who caused an uproar when the USA issued an extradition order for Gary McKinnon but raise no objections about the EAW when its tyrannical sights were set on Andrew Symeou or the King family or Keith Hainsworth (and there are many lower profile injustices). Incidentally, if Gary McKinnon was wanted in an EU country he would have been cuffed and extradited hastily back in 2002.

Extradition between countries is often necessary, however, it is surely only right and correct that before the suspect is extradited a court should consider if there is a case to answer? There would be an uproar if somebody was held on remand in Britain without any evidence of wrongdoing, how can anybody (let alone a self-styled conservative or liberal) support a situation in which someone can be dragged off to another country without a court in Britain being able to look at the evidence?

This is the crux of the matter. This European Arrest Warrant is a disgraceful interference in our internal affairs, a further blow to liberty and a violation of our national independence. It is one step further towards a pan-European criminal justice system. Theresa May’s amendments and guarantees are flimsy and it is the EU parliament that decides when they apply, not our own. Britain has, or rather had, some great pioneering traditions of liberty; Habeas Corpus, the presumption of innocence and the guarantee of a fair trial by jury to name but a few. Today in parliament they have been disgraced and we have been betrayed.

  14 comments for “The European Arrest Warrant: a useful tool (for a tyrant)

  1. Tim Carpenter
    Nov 20, 2014 at 2:02 am

    Remember, the EU consider themselves ultimately in charge of “internal affairs”.

    • Nov 20, 2014 at 8:57 am

      I know this only too well, but not enough people do.

  2. Julie near Chicago
    Nov 20, 2014 at 7:16 am

    Sure. Just like Carter’s Little Liver Pills.

    (Taken for “constipation, dyspepsia, and biliousness.” You-all are too young and probably too British to remember. *g*)

  3. Nov 20, 2014 at 2:34 pm

    Just for clarification. I have been told that the line a “form has to be filled in and then a British citizen can be carted off .. That’s it, plain and simple” is disingenuous because “EU nations have #openborders. A judge in the warrant issuing country has ruled before the form filling occurs”.

    For a start, this is exactly what I was referring to. Yes, a judge in the warrant issuing country has ruled, but there is not a proper scrutinising of the evidence in a British court, nor do our citizens have adequate rights to appeal, hence why the process is so rapid.Extradition to non-EU countries can be a very lengthy process because the evidence is examined and appeals have to be played out. This might be frustrating when the accused is a genuine criminal but is absolutely necessary and right to protect people’s rights and liberty.

    The reply to this was that I “can’t define it as extradition in an #openborders world!” to which I answered that it IS extradition because it is still essentially being extradited to another country with a different criminal justice system.

    The whole bloody point i’m making is the argument that a pan-European criminal justice system which is effectively part of the vision of the EU as a single state is undesirable for Britain, and an erosion of our liberty. You can be all for open borders but it does not mean you are consequently all for treating European countries as one and their criminal justice systems as equivalent.

    The British legal system is very distinct from most on the continent, you cannot guarantee a British citizen will be given the same rights in another EU state as they would here, as has been proven many times in many sad cases. That is the point, it is illiberal, and I don’t think this state of affairs is right or desirable.

    Again, you can be all for open borders but that does mean you either have to support the EU, or the EAW.

    In this article I have tried to explain my point of view in simple terms and I do not think I have misrepresented myself, or been “disingenuous”.

    If you think the European Union is a single state and that this is desirable then there can be no argument against the EAW as it is a simple matter of dealing with cross border crime in one country. I think it is quite clear in the article I am against this whole notion.

    The end.

  4. Nov 20, 2014 at 3:11 pm

    And yes, this is a matter for libertarians, or anyone concerned with liberty, to be concerned with. If an individual is hastily extradited and then this individual is held without evidence, detained without trial, mistreated by the authorities (as has happened on numerous occasions) then CLEARLY individual liberty has been violated. In cases where there was a lack of evidence or mistaken identity the individual’s liberty would have been protected if the case had been properly analysed, and the evidence, or lack thereof, had been examined in a court BEFORE extradition, because the case would have been thrown out and extradition refused.

    • Tim Carpenter
      Nov 21, 2014 at 2:31 am

      Iirc , the US enshrines the right of any citizen to use any means up to and including lethal force to prevent the kidnapping and then taking abroad of people by a foreign power on American soil.

      Problem occurs when a Quisling govt recognizes the power as having soveriegnty, which seems so at best in all but name, in reality so.

      Further: this is not an issue of Cameron being a spineless lickspittle (though he is), but that Clegg, Miliband or their replacements would just do the same. They appear to be got at.

      Bribed with cosy sinecures and pensions? Threats of hill-top heart attacks? Woodland suicides?

  5. Nov 20, 2014 at 7:47 pm

    A good and thoughtful post Ben!

  6. Paul Marks
    Nov 20, 2014 at 10:56 pm

    The E.U. arrest warrant is obscenity – had the Prime Minister been sincere in his promises to take powers back from the E.U. he would have opposed it.

    The fact that Prime Minister supported the E.U. arrest warrant fills me with despair.

  7. Nov 21, 2014 at 1:25 pm

    All current and previous serving ministers who sanctioned the ‘Treaties’ that has shackled Britain to the EU should be arrested and tried with Treason. Any person who gives away sovereignty to a foreign power is a Traitor, plain and simple. I am aware that the EU is not a state as such, but all the measures they have enacted over many years have led them to assume this state. If Britain is forced to subordinate any legal or other sovereign powers to an external entity, then that is an act of Treason.

  8. Nov 23, 2014 at 11:31 am

    A clear and well written description of one of the most pernicious parts of the European Union Conspiracy.

    This conspiracy has been committed first and foremost by British traitors one of whom was Ted Heath in 1970 and subsequently by aggressive ‘political soldiers’ in both Britain and other countries of the former WW2 allies of western European mainland, along with our first WW2 enemy, Germany, who were also a founder member of the European Economic Community (EEC), more commonly known as the then “Common Market”.

    (If you desire, I warn not pleasant in any way, this shocking material will explain further: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNelt33QP_8#action=share )

    Whether through ignorance or as deliberate acts of treason on the part of many British politicians who personally along the way sold out their consciences and integrity to the lucrative European ‘gravy train’, that it has always been a conspiracy enacted through multiple instances of treason is now beyond question. The now known fact of Ted Heath’s committing of documents stating the ultimate aim as being a ‘Union of Sovereign States’ was revealed in the BBC programme ‘The Sceptic Isle’ presented by Peter Hitchens to have been enacted by him as soon as he became Prime Minister in 1970 by the sealing of the documents under the stamp “Secret”, thereby assigning them to status of ‘state secrets’. These documents I understand say enough to make it clear that what is taking place today and has been ever since was planned in detail in the 1960s, and the secrecy necessary secrecy to get it past the radar of decent minds in the decades immediately following Edward Heath’s succession to Prime Minister. (Any inaccuracies in my statement might be corrected by Peter Hitchens, who personally discovered the secret documents in the BBC programme ‘The Sceptic Isle’, or Ben himself, and whose corrections I would be most grateful for.)

    Of all the betrayals committed by people elected to high office and paid for holding those positions, and salaried people in supporting civil servant roles, yesterday’s betrayal follows the proceedings in the House of Commons that took place last week in which the so called Conservative Party deliberately and deceitfully misled the House, thus depriving the MPs present of a vote on the European Arrest Warrant in that sitting. But the most that comes even of deplorable debacles as that on signal items deeply affecting individual rights under Habeas Corpus, and the multitude of transgressions of Habeas Corpus that will inevitably take place as a result, is a feeble “Cameron facing rebellion as he denies MPs vote on European arrest warrant” as the Guardian headline described it, followed by a predictable none-rebellion of the backbench of spineless so called Conservatives. No better example than this can be had to show the electorate why Mark Reckless went to UKIP and triggered today’s Rochester and Strood by-election. The same for Douglas Carswell some months ago who now sits as UKIP’s first Member of Parliament and who helped trigger the first division of the House on that dreadful day.

    The situation we in Britain are in today, and which will not end at least until the May General Election next year, is an exact equivalent to the battle that took place between July and September 1940 of which an iconic photograph forms the avatar for the Timeless Architect on Twitter. That battle ultimately saved the world from Germany’s Nazi Socialist Party’s Nazism, which had almost consolidated it’s ‘Fortress Europe’. Today, the main difference is that there are no Messerschmitts, Dorniers, Heinkels, or Junker’s ‘Stukas’, opposed by Hurricanes and Spitfires, but traitors in our own ruling classes who have over decades starting in the 1950’s or earlier (Edward Heath the Timeless Architect understands was in hock with the Germans from 1937: ) conspired to destroy our sovereignty opposed by only one group of people supporting, until relatively recently, just one person on the name of Nigel Farage.

    However, victory in what could aptly be named ‘Battle of Britain 2015-15’ will require two more victories: overwhelming success of UKIP at the polls, a genuine referendum on EU membership by the UK, and victory in the referendum of a simple straight forward ‘OUT’ vote.

    If we do not win this second Battle of Britain then the gifting of everything that the sacrifices made by previous generations in two World Wars, particularly the second, will be lost … Forever.

    While so far we have history repeating itself, we must watch for and support the people who are opposed to this tyranny that comes this time in the form of traitors to our country in partnership with the European Union. Should we fail in this task, rather than facing Germany’s ‘Fortress Europe’ across the English Channel from the cliffs of Dover as in 1940, we will become inextricably locked in and part of the ‘Fortress of the European Union’.

    • Nov 23, 2014 at 6:01 pm

      Please don’t post as “Editor” – that’s me 😉

  9. Mr Ed
    Nov 25, 2014 at 12:14 pm

    The argument put forward for the European Arrest Warrant is, essentially, that it is better for bureaucratic convenience, that people can be carted around Europe like cattle at the whim of a judge or prosecutor (like Mr Assange) than the liberty of the citizen should extend to a chance to test the case against him before being extradited and possibly imprisoned for an indefinite period in a foreign jurisdiction.

    There should even be extradition between England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and no extradition should be permitted without the consent of a jury, adopting a system like the Grand Jury system, which used to exist until c 1934 in England and Wales.

    • Paul Marks
      Nov 25, 2014 at 12:51 pm

      Agreed Mr Ed.

    • Tim Carpenter
      Dec 1, 2014 at 11:50 am

      Bureaucratic convenience is rarely, if ever, a valid justification to compromise freedom.

Comments are closed.