“Spanish police storm Catalan government buildings to stop independence referendum”
Yes, that is the headline in The Independent on September 21st. We see how different are the relations between citizens and State in continental Europe, and in Britain.
The inhabitants of Catalonia, a region in North-Eastern Spain with capital Barcelona, have a form of semi-autonomous devolved local government, like Scotland in the UK. The Scottish local government wanted independence from Britain, so they were allowed to hold a referendum. They voted to stay within the UK. If they had voted to leave, well, Westminster would have allowed them to leave.
Likewise the Catalans under their local government wanted to break away from Spain. The Basques had also wanted to break away, and had resorted to terrorist tactics. They were defeated. The Catalans, in contrast, organised a peaceful referendum, due to be held on October 1st.
This however was not allowed! The inquisitorial Spanish judiciary decided this was unconstitutional and illegal, and so they have now – with the full approval of the central government in Madrid – sent in the lethally-armed, paramilitary Guardia Civil, who have arrested the members of the local government in Barcelona and confiscated over 1 mn ballot papers that had been prepared for the vote.
This is the way in which a Napoleonic State deals with any who wish to break away. Napoleon conquered most of continental Europe in his day, and his codes of law, and method of building a State, underlie the practice of most continental States to this day. Here is a painting by Goya showing how Napoleon exported his revolutionary idea of the “Rights of Man” to Spain, a scene from events in 1808:
Any attempt to question the prerogatives of the State were, and still are, treated with an iron fist in an iron glove. The first chapter of the Italian criminal code is entitled “Crimes against the personality of the State”. The French constitution gives a procedure for changing itself, but excludes any possibility of any part of it breaking away.
So on September 20th the central government of Madrid sent its men-at-arms, the Guardia Civil, into Barcelona’s government offices, to stop by main force, let us say by brute force, their attempt to ask the people what they wanted.
A Madrid court has imposed fines on the organisers of the referendum. If they refuse to pay them, I don’t suppose they will be shot as in Goya’s picture, but they will doubtless be imprisoned.
A country may well be entitled to consider its territorial integrity to be sacred. But the point to make here is that the EU aims to forge a new United State of Europe on the same model. Look at the EU draft Constitution, reproduced in the Lisbon Treaty, where powers are either exclusive to Brussels, or if “shared” are allowed to the member states only in areas where Brussels has decided not to, or forgotten to, legislate.
If the vote on 23rd June last year had gone the other way, the UK would have been deemed to have accepted the entire EU project, hook, line and sinker. The euro, Schengen, the Corpus Juris criminal code, the lot. No more opt-outs or rebates.
So in this model it is all power to the centre, including, crucially, the power of enforcement by a centrally-commanded, lethally armed, paramilitary riot-police force – something quite alien to us in Britain, and to our tradition of locally-controlled, normally unarmed, civilian, police forces.
The Guardia Civil is Spain’s contribution to the European Gendarmerie Force, together with similar forces from 5 other EU countries. The EU aims to build its very own lethally-armed enforcement agency, controlled from Brussels, and the EGF is the nucleus around which this will be built. The forces from the six nations are training side by side in barracks in Northern Italy, to be welded into a single force, with allegiance only to the EU.
We in Britain have just managed to get out in time. A few more years down the road, and we would have had EGF units stationed on our soil. Our referendum would have been called “secessionist” and would have been dealt with as a criminal rebellion by Brussels, as Madrid is dealing now with Catalonia’s. Romano Prodi, when President of the Commission, said in a letter to Nigel Farage, that any attempt to withdraw from the Union without following the procedures laid down in the Treaty would be considered a “breach of law”, ie a criminal act.
And to think that only in 2012 an ill-advised British Home Secretary told Parliament that “of course” we would call on “special intervention units” from our EU allies, “if needed”. They did not realise that once on British soil, the EGF would not leave if merely asked to be a British authority, for they would owe allegiance only to Brussels. We would have been under military occupation, as Catalonia now is.
That Home Secretary’s name was Theresa May.
It seems that the UK government passed an Act in 1998 which made it possible for the later Scottish Parliament to establish a referendum.
The Scottish Parliament website states that their Bill was passed by the Scottish Parliament on 14 November 2013 and received Royal Assent on 17 December 2013.
As far as I know the Spanish central government has not passed a similar act and so Catalonia doesn’t have the right to hold a referendum, and if memory serves they announced it originally as ‘unofficial’ as if it were a mere opinion survey, but dressed up as a referendum.
I wonder what would happen if the City of London declared that it was having a referendum about leaving Britain and staying in the EU.
Would HM Government smile on this or tell them they had no right to do this?
Absolutely. That is Napoleonic Law ( Napolenans Law ) ( Rule by the emperor ) ( No different from the Koran ). Whatever it is ,it is certainly not ” The Will of the People ” …And this was to have been imposed on us. By talking abouts “Courts of Human Rights ” . Now there’s “Virtue signalling “, in spades.
You should all have look at this video. “A Groovy Plan for White Genocide.”
https://youtu.be/9MNQrDT7jrM
It talks about the transformation on London in only fifty years and the dreaded Coudenhove-Kalergi plan.
Theresa May has just signed us up for more of the same, it won’t just be London it’ll be all of the UK.
A case against the “intended only” would probably be ignored by the Police as they serve halal meals to all detainees without asking them if they object.
Roger, thankyou for this info.
It is a sorry state we are in when even the police are ignoring the law.
Actually, I think that the EU couldn’t care less. As the EU power will only grow because of it.
Spain thinks it matters.
They don’t realise that with no border controls, currency under someone else’s control, much of its regulations, law book, and soon defence – Spain is no longer Spain. It’s not really sovereign at all. It SOLD itself. Like all the others that sold themselves.
It’s a small stone in an avalanche that could bring down the eu.
I pray to God, (and NIgel) that we are well clear of this ‘sinking ship’?
(Also to reply to John Carins, below).
Of course the EU ultimately wants its component nation-states to break up into bite-sized regions, more easily controlled from the centre. My point is that once the United State of Europe has been erected in all its glory, following the Napoleonic philosophy of the State, it will not tolerate any part of it breaking way and will react with extreme severity against anybody who tries to promote this, as the Spanish govt has reacted now to events in Catalonia.
“We in Britain have just managed to get out in time.”
We haven’t yet and, even if we do, May’s plans for military “cooperation” will see the threat continuing.
I quite agree JackT. This is why I keep banging on about the European Arrest Warrant, which Amber Rudd, and May and apparently Davis, all want to keep us in and under, even after Brexit. They also wish to keep us as members of Europol. The MainStream Media are not talking about this, but they should!
Davis is playing good cop. He is part of the sham Tory party and the cultural Marxist conspiracy.
Countries that stay in the EU are going to find that regional break-up will be “encouraged”. It is not just in Spain that long remembered regional and cultural differences exist. Go to Venice, Bavaria or Brittany and you will find secessionists. As for the UK, support for the SNP and “independence” is on the wain, mainly because of Brexit. However, Mrs May’s dithering may just give the likes of the SNP a final chance.
Exactly, what better way to crush the ‘nation state’ by breaking them up into ‘regions’?
You only have to look at the new ‘combined authorities’ in England, to see how eventually England will be ‘carved up’ into bite-size chunks.
“That Home Secretary’s name was Theresa May.”
I’d normally comment, but I’ve decided not to out of respect for the moderators (Viv & Debbie), it’d be all four letter words.
Torquil, many thanks for this article, events in Catalonia are concerning indeed. The Napoleonic system is alien to us. “No essential loss of sovereignty”? Pull the other one Mr Heath.
As you have a good understanding of legal matters (it is not my area of knowledge) could you please give your thoughts regarding this matter:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/welfare-of-animals-at-the-time-of-killing
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/halal-and-kosher-slaughter
“the meat must be intended for consumption by Jews or Muslims”
Presumably this clause indicates that it would be illegal for supermarkets to sell the meat to other than the intended consumers? Do you agree?
If so, then the supermarkets are breaking the law, just as they would be if selling alcohol or cigarettes to under-age customers.
Who should be enforcing the current law? Is there a public prosecutor whose remit would cover this area? How could they be persuaded to act?
Thankyou.
Reading those links that you give to government instructions on how to kill animals without hurting them is almost enough to make me a vegetarian…
The bit about “How to legally carry out religious slaughter, including how to restrain and bleed the animal” is presumably a derogation from the general rules, in that the authorities do no want to antagonise the religious groups in question, so they allow them to make the animals suffer more than otherwise.
The line “must be intended for consumption by…” is not the same as “may only be consumed by…”. Presumably the law prohibiting the sale of alcohol to minors has wording like the latter which forbids an act. An intention, however, exists only in the mind of the person concerned. To prosecute you would have to prove that a shop-keeper or supplier actually supplied the halal or kosher meat to someone with the positive intention for it to be consumed by non Jews or non Muslims. Offering it for general sale without enquiring as to the religion of each customer would not be enough to prove that intention.
There could be circumstances… if you think that supplying this sort of meat to a school where the children are not all Muslims or Jews but they all have to eat the same food constitutes an “intention”, you could lay an information before the police or the local magistrate. I’d guess they would probably say it is not in the public interest to prosecute. You could then try to bring a private prosecution, all costs on you.
However, before taking any such steps you would be well advised to consult a professional lawyer. I am not a professional lawyer.
In any case, I would think it more worth while to devote energies, time and money to a campaign to bring prosecutions for female genital mutilations, of which we hear there are thousands in the UK, but no prosecutions despite it being a specific criminal offence for a number of years now.
Giving a religious motive for acts which are otherwise criminal seems to make the authorities cringe and pussyfoot around when dealing with them.
I would suggest a law where committing a crime with a religious motive actually carries a higher penalty than otherwise. We must discourage religions which impose or allow criminal behaviour by their devotees.
Torquil, thankyou for the detailed reply.
I can understand your point regarding the example of a school serving Halal meat to non-Muslim pupils.
I am not so clear about the remedy in the case of a supermarket. As far as I can tell, they currently make little or no effort to fulfill the requirement to meet the intention rule. What do you suggest would be the minimum practical action they should do to enable it? I would suggest a separate, clearly labeled refrigerator, with each item labeled in large letters “Halal – intended only for Muslims”, and a notice on the refrigerator stating the relevant part of the legislation.
I do not have deep pockets unfortunately. If money were not an issue, what type of lawyer would be most suited to this task?
FGM is a terrible thing. I am also concerned by marriage between first cousins, which is clearly permitted within the Koran. The risk of recessive genetic disorders is thirteen times higher than for the general population, but the MPs seem too gutless to address it. We can do more than one thing at a time, if separate teams were set up to pursue each issue.