Plans to create a centralised EU prosecutor will fatally undermine our legal system and kill off the principles of trial by jury and ‘innocent until proven guilty’ which have been the fundamental rights of Britons since the Magna Carta.
Express.co.uk has learned that a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), which would have sweeping powers to pursue British citizens, is expected to be up and running by the end of this year.
Today Christopher Gill, president of The Freedom Association, warned that the relentless march towards a uniform European legal system based on continental law, which was rebuffed in the early 2000’s, will get back under way as soon as Britain votes to remain in the 28-nation bloc.
Brussels plot to impose Euro law after EU referendum a 'threat to our freedom'
|Four hours left to win £100 of Amazon vouchers!! Don't miss out! Take our short survey to enter||24-10-2016|
- 2 followers
- 1 badge
- Thread Starter
- 08-05-2016 19:02
- 89 followers
- 3 badges
- 08-05-2016 19:04
Lol. So much for the fearmonging by those who want to remain
Posted from TSR Mobile
- 0 followers
- 1 badge
- 10-05-2016 02:37
To start with the latter (ii):
How about the fear attached to how a 'Brexit' would leave the UK more at risk of war with our European neighbours? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36243296 - which can be interpreted as saying, the only reason we have peace is because of our membership and that being outside,our neighbours have no reason to be friends with us XD The notion is preposterous, when it was our relations with our neighbours that brought about peace!
How did the EU come about in the first place? Because the nations of Europe came together, proclaiming a united desire to prevent war. They achieved this first in two ways! Both in 1949, 4yrs after WW2 ended ; (i) the establishment of a peacetime military alliance - NATO, (ii) the establishment of an organisation that sought to unite Europe in promoting democracy, the rule of law and human rights - Council of Europe - which most significantly introduced the European Convention on Human Rights in 1950
What about the EU? Well, the EU as we know it (going beyond just trade) wasn't till 1992 under the Maastricht Treaty when it was known as the 'European Community' until it became the EU in the 2009 Treaty of Lisbon - before then! the sole intention was to control resources (1952 European Coal and Steel Treaty) and trade (1957 Treaty of Rome - European Economic Community)
I do not believe the 'remain' camp's argument for one second that a 'Brexit' means leaving Europe and turning our back on Europe. It is nothing of the kind. The Council of Europe comprises of 47 members, as opposed to the 28 in the EU - are the other 19 members turning their back on Europe? NO and neither would the UK
Cameron highlights in his speech of how we cannot ignore our neighbours, as we recalls the wars that the UK engaged in. Once again placing the history hat on my head, it was the attack on Belgium, to which the UK had a Treaty promise to protect, that brought the UK into WW1 - and WW2? Germany was warned that France and UK would enter the war if they attacked Poland, and when Germany did, France and UK responded.
I see no reason whatsoever, that a Brexit would mean that we no longer co-operate with our European neighbours.
I neither believe that the EU was the driving force to peace in Europe but the nations of Europe that came together.
I also do not believe that a Brexit would sever our ties as far as our intelligence is concerned as some would have us believe, but! that we can continue to co-operate - why? well it is argued we give more than we receive - how? co-operation, as it isn't just the EU that we share intelligence with, what about Saudi Arabia?
Besides, as the article elludes to - How can a threat of peace all of a sudden become a virtue certainty, when Cameron was prepared to lead the 'leave' campaign 3 months ago - clearly this issue did not apply then and cannot now
Now to address (i) to return to the topic before I get carried away:
IF the article elluded to something false and real, then I would agree with your disbelief BUT the EPPO is real! as under Article 86 TFEU. In order to address what the EPPO is, I quote Article 86(2):
The European Public Prosecutor's Office shall be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment, where appropriate in liaison with Europol, the perpetrators of, and accomplices in, offences against the Union's financial interests, as determined by the regulation provided for in paragraph 1. It shall exercise the functions of prosecutor in the competent courts of the Member States in relation to such offences.
NOW! The OP refers to how the EU prosecutor will undermine our legal principles, as arising from the Magna Carter - which! we can gather from the Treaty in that they will not only investigate a suspect, but also prosecute said suspect and! then judge! their case (See from the EU's official site itself, where it states that the EPPO would be 'embedded in the national judiciary': http://ec.europa.eu/anti-fraud/polic..._prosecutor_en) and YET! to respect OUR rule of law in the UK, the Judiciary is supposed to be independent to the executive and YET! they are 'accountable before the European Parliament, Council and national Parliaments' (the executive O_o)
It is a very concerning thought BUT it only applies to finance/fraud at the moment under Article 86(1) with extensions possible under Article 86(4) to apply to other areas, which the European Parliament appear to be in favour of (among other things)
It is not only the EPPO which raises controversy and yet gains support within Europe as highlighted above, but equally other concerns raises questions; can the UK do anything about it, does the UK have the necessary influence, can the UK opt-out, would an opt-out have any significant consequence in the near future (such as the effect of the Eurozone: here) and whether the UK will be better out.Post rating:1