I received this from a certain Mark Halsall. If you happen to be reading this, Mr Halsall, I would prefer to see any arguments about this from people who haven't got any political self-interest on this subject!!
The report in the Sunday paper was wholly biased and I am considering sending them a letter telling them as much!! Any newspaper that treats Jeffrey Titford of the UKIP seriously deserves to be treated with suspicion!! Regards, Steve. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Halsall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Stephen Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 10:05 PM Subject: Metrication and Corpus Juris > Hi Steve, > > Apologies for emailing you directly, but I cannot post directly to the > UKMA list, and listmaster Chris has not forwarded my recent email on > this general subject. > > Understand that I think the UK should not ratify the Treaty of Nice, > and do not think metrication should be imposed by the EU - I think it > should be done by a sovereign UK. > > The Corpus Juris issue is pivotal on my opinion of the EU. > > Hope the following explains a little. I'm uncomfortable with the > reference to metrication, but it's all true, and scary. > > Regards, > Mark Halsall > > > Say Goodbye to England > Paul Craig Roberts > Nov. 30, 2001 > > Anglophiles had best pop over to the Misty Isles for a last experience > of Great Britain before the country is reduced to an oppressed > province of the European Union. > > Napoleon could not conquer England, nor could Hitler, but socialist > bureaucrats in Brussels have, with help from Tony Blair's New Labour > and British nonchalance. Britain is on its way back to the reign of > Charles I, with its secret courts and imprisonment without trial or > evidence. Once-proud Brits are suffering the indignity of being > gradually brought under European law by ministerial edicts that bypass > Parliament. Recently the British lost their ancient system of weights > and measures, and now they are on the verge of losing their legal > system, the development of which is, essentially, the history of > Britain. > > Although willing to be bullied along the path to European integration, > the British steadfastly have held on to their justice system. And for > good reason. > > Historically, English law has been a shield of the people, standing in > stark contrast to Europe's Napoleonic criminal law, which does not > safeguard law against its use by government as a weapon. English law > does not permit police to arrest citizens without evidence or to hold > them more than 48 hours without presenting charges in open court. The > European system permits police to arrest citizens on suspicion and to > detain them indefinitely while preparing a case against them. > Moreover, the accused European has no right to see the evidence > against him, no right to a jury trial and no right to an open court. > His case is decided by a professional judge, whose career and > advancement are dependent on the state that brings the case. > > Under European law, there is no presumption of innocence or protection > against double jeopardy. The accused can be subjected to repeated > trials on the same charges until the state wins a guilty verdict. The > English fought a civil war to rid themselves of such an oppressive > "justice system," and now in a sweep of anti-terrorism hysteria the > Blair government is sponsoring a "terrorism bill" that signs away the > English birthright. > > The "Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill" currently moving through > Parliament contains a provision (109) that removes Parliament from the > decision to replace English law with Europe's Corpus Juris. Unless > Parliament rejects this provision, the EU Council of Ministers in > Brussels, with the concurrence of the British Home Secretary, can vote > away English legal protections and replace habeas corpus with > Napoleon's code. The British also face the unpleasant prospect of > being tried by European prosecutors for offenses that are not crimes > in Britain. A few days ago Law Lord Richard Scott asked the > government to give more careful thought to the European arrest > warrant. The warrant does not require evidence and would permit > British citizens to be extradited to Europe for interrogation should > they be suspected of crimes such as racism and xenophobia (fear or > hatred of foreigners). Surely this spells the end of soccer. > > Will this direct threat to British liberty cause the Brits to confront > honestly the loss of sovereignty required by European integration? > Lord Tebbit was succinct on Nov. 1 when he said ratification of the > Nice Treaty (European integration) "would be both contrary to Magna > Carta and a breach of the Coronation Oath, which sprang from the > settlement of 1688" that established the accountability of law. > > If the British decide to give up sovereignty, they might try for > better terms. Why not form a European Union on the basis of English > Law? This would be a huge gain for all of Europe by bringing English > liberties at long last to the Continent. Are the British people so > smitten by Europe that they would give up their historic achievements > and replace "law as shield" with "law as weapon"? > > The Labour government has not been honest with the people about the > implications of European Union. Instead, Brits have been led down the > path with assurances that they can be both British and European. Now > that shopkeepers are being arrested for selling by the pint and pound > instead of by the liter and kilo, the British might realize that > Europe is a threat to their national character and to their liberty. > > Dr. Roberts' latest book, "The Tyranny of Good Intentions," has just > been released by Prima Publishers. > > Copyright 2001 Creators Syndicate Inc > > > >
