And now, a bit of homegrown outrage. If you live in a EU country, in a few years, you could be subjected to the new European arrest warrant. Under legislation going through Parliament, it might soon be possible to have you extradited to the Continent for “racism” and “xenophobia”.
There is a new form of bigotry – “monetary xenophobia”, or opposition to the euro as identified by some EU funded bodies, such as EUMC, the European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia.
It has become increasingly obvious that European integration means transfer of authority to ever greater number of EU institutions, further from the reach of the member states’ citizens. Despite the decades of assurances that there are no plans to set up a common legal system and its enformcement, the Federasts just couldn’t contain themselves.
Now, it is becoming a reality – smuggled past unsuspecting publics in the traumatic days after September 11, 2001. If the emerging European constitution is ever implemented, Britain seems destined to give up its remaining veto in home affairs.
This has already been seriously diluted since the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 – which, incidentally, committed Europol to a more aggressive role in combating “racism” and “xenophobia”. Indeed, clause 3, section 20, sub-section 2 of the proposed legislation states that arrests under such warrants can be effected by policemen or “other appropriate persons”. Who are they? Commission officials? Europol?
Apologists for Europol have always claimed that it would be nothing more than a ‘clearing house for information’. Yet, Europol is initiating changes in policy and is in the vanguard of moves to increase the power of the authorities over ordinary citizens within the EU.
Europol can hold information on individuals on its Central Information System database that includes their ‘sexual orientation, religion, or politics’, as well ethnic origin, age, address, and so on. Indeed under article 8.4 of the Europol Convention there is a catch-all category of ‘additional information’ that could include hearsay and unsubstantiated allegations. Individuals included in the database need not have been convicted of committing criminal offences under national law or be thought likely to have carried out crimes for which they were never convicted. Information can be entered about persons who it is believed will commit crimes in the future.
The difference between British and Continental public culture, manifested in the legal realm, could not be more obvious.
In Britain, expression of heinous – even unconventional – views can marginalise you. But unless you seek to incite violence, your opinions in and of themselves cannot subject you to the rigour of the criminal law.
Not so in Europe, where technocratic elites have inherited the jealous intolerance of absolute sovereigns. Even as ministers struggle feebly to minimise the remit of Brussels in criminalising opinion, one is left with the abiding impression that they are acquiring far more influence over our traditional way of life than we will ever enjoy over theirs.
I think we should now be thinking of how best to live ‘independently’ of the EU avoiding its technocratic nightmare, whilst aligning Britain’s strategy with allies more powerful and far more natural to our Anglosphere traditions.
The State is not your friend…
and the Superstate even less so
Freedom loving people are always welcome in the United States. If Britain eventually comes too firmly under the statist thrall of the F.U. (French Union), there wil be an escape hatch waiting for those seeking to flee opression.
Mind you, don’t expect to get away from socio-political nitwits if you do decide to make the move. We’ve got plenty of them too, as you can see in this video.
–Andrew (A former Quebecer and Canadian who came for work but stayed for freedom.)
I cannot help noticing parallels between arguments about giving officials powers to monitor those they think might cause a crime, and the policy of pre-emption against Iraq and other rogue states, which are thought might cause a problem.
Split-screens again!
At what point does the state lose its sovereinty to the Federation? Should the EU hold one seat on the U.N. as opposed to the seats currently held by all the members? This would certainly help the parking problem in New York.
Johnathan: pre-emption against Iraq and other rogue states, which are thought might cause a problem!?!?
Having used poison gas on its population, invaded Iran and Kuwait, lobbed missiles into Israel etc, etc, etc. What do you mean by ‘might’ cause a problem?
Gabriel, I favour pre-emption against Iraq. But then this means we have to explain why the State should not say, keep close tabs on people with criminal histories in case they might cause a crime.
Hence my comment. Jeez, don’t take me for an idiotarian! I have made plenty of caustic comments about head-in-the-sand isolationists to be clear on that point, surely.
It’s quite simple: individuals have rights; states do not.
Or we could try and move the trend in the opposite direction?
How about getting Continental peoples interested in finding out about real freedom?
When the Federation has the military power to ignore the rules and keep you in. Go watch “Gone With The Wind” sometime. 🙂
Scott is correct… ultimatly if Britain’s political establishment finally realises that despite apearances, the English Channel is wider than the Atlantic, there is nothing the EU can actually do to prevent Britain saying ‘Hasta la vista, baby’.
What is the source of the quotes? I wish you would attribute your quotes so that I can see them in context for myself.
The quotes are always linked to in the post. If you click on “European arrest warrant” link, you will find the article from which the quotes are taken. That is how it’s done most of the time.