Torquil Dick-Erikson explains the threats to civil liberties in the draft Withdrawal Agreement. This article draws on a report that Mr Dick-Erikson has recently authored for The Bruges Group, which can be viewed on their website here.
On 29th March next year, the good ship HMS United Kingdom should be set to sail the seven seas with the British people at the helm, a free, self-governing country once again.
But under the terms of May’s deal, our ship will be under the exclusive command of Brussels bureaucrats whom we did not elect and cannot dismiss. Just consider Article 95.1 of the Agreement:
ARTICLE 95 Binding force and enforceability of decisions
Paragraph 1. Decisions adopted by institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union before the end of the transition period, or adopted in the procedures referred to in Articles 92 and 93 after the end of the transition period, and addressed to the United Kingdom or to natural and legal persons residing or established in the United Kingdom, shall be binding on and in the United Kingdom.
Paragraph 3: The legality of a decision referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be reviewed exclusively by the Court of Justice of the European Union in accordance with Article 263 TFEU.
It has been said that without this Agreement, we will “fall off a cliff edge” and face great uncertainty. But what can be more uncertain than leaving one’s destiny in the hands of others, of forces who do not have our best interests at heart? Indeed, in the hands of those who have said they wish to punish us?
It is not only our national independence and security that will be at risk with this Agreement. So too will our civil liberties and our safeguards against arbitrary arrest and wrongful imprisonment.
The Outline Political Declaration prefacing this “deal” says that we share basic values with other EU nations, and reaffirms our commitment to the ECHR. True, but there are certain essential values that we do not share.
Our personal freedom from arbitrary arrest and wrongful imprisonment is safeguarded by our Habeas Corpus laws. These are not shared by our EU partners and are not protected by the ECHR. My research gives a detailed explanation with reference to the articles of the ECHR and citing cases.
Our system of criminal justice derives from Magna Carta. Theirs derives from the Inquisition as adopted and adapted by Napoleon, whose codes still hold sway on the continent. The two are totally different – chalk and cheese.
The extension of the “transition” period from 2020 until 2022 is up to a Joint Committee (art. 132) which must decide by “mutual consent”. If no such consent is reached, it must defer to arbitration. The Arbitration Panel is subject to the ECJ, where the UK has no representation. During this time – 4 years from now – the EU can pass regulations to cripple us, especially our businesses that compete with theirs.
Mrs May has said she wants to keep indefinitely our membership of Europol, and the European Arrest Warrant, which enables arrest and transportation to lengthy imprisonment in Europe on no evidence. And in a reckless statement to Parliament in 2012, in Hansard, but which passed completely under the radar of the media, she said, “Of course” she would welcome lethally-armed, paramilitary Eurogendarmerie units “onto British soil”.
The EU army, now being set up, can also be used as an enforcement agent. This agreement obliges us to source our military materiel in the EU, so we shall have no control over our military supplies or suppliers.
Mrs May’s Agreement contravenes the Trades Description Act. This is not a Withdrawal Agreement. It is an abject Act of Surrender.
Ed: This article was published by the CIB here and we re-publish with kind permission by the author.
O K we’re all agreed.
What do we DO.? Please Gerard you are our leader. WHAT DO WE DO ?. Please don’t say ” donate, wait, and vote when the time comes.”
The British are slobs. They need a kick. Have you told anyone this plan. ? I know, you’ve got a plan, You’ve written it down somewhere.. That’s not a plan of action. It’s a pious hope for when you leave. if you are in charge of Britain. That’s not a plan, it’s advice. To our opponents when we’ve won ? When they’ve won. ?
But how do we win ? It is quite important.
I’ve made several suggestions so far. Does anybody read comments.? Wearing yellow and purple was one .Switching on the lights at a pre-arranged time was another. There are a million actions available to be taken. Has anybody noticed anything yellow ??.
Dear God are we Stupid ? This is why we have Leaders, committees, Chairpersons, Head offices, This is why we allow them to make endlessly repetitive speeches to each other.
I’ll go back and see if I can find my copy of the plan.
TG Spokes; I feel your sheer desperation; but Batten was a very good justice and home affairs spokesman for UKIP for many years, campaigning with pamphlets and numerous youtubes on all these civil liberties issues- and still does. In particular he warned about May’s true colours when in in Nov 2014 as home secretary she opted out, then immediately back in, to EU Arrest Warrant etc. If voters had heeded his advice- which was given at a time when we had a reasonable chance of turning things round- and turned their backs on mainstream parties, we might not have been in this plight now. Plus our Govt has given away our army just at a time when we may need it to shake off them and the EU: and they’re emasculating our men.
I think our only hope now may be “populist” parties here and on the continent, which Batten is trying to set up here. Voters always let things drift until they have to learn the hard way; and even then most of them don’t learn.
Voters have a lot to answer for.
It is well known that British liberties are based on the freedom of the individual which were achieved by the British people against suppression (e.g. the Civil War and deposition of Charles I).
Under Continental practice, the State rules supreme and as the author points out is the opposite of practices in Britangerin.
Every British voter must be made aware that the freedoms our fathers fought for are in grave danger.
My otherwise hopelessly stupid, yes woman, Labour MP Ruth George has said she will vote against this abject surrender. Not for the right reasons of course – she is a Remainer. She has been publicly VERY ACTIVE around her constituency claiming to LISTEN TO HER VOTERS. Was she heck. She has been plugging into every item of the REMAIN media hype. Does it actually make such people feel good about themselves? Or do they admit to themselves, that now they’ve got this job (it’s a marginal seat), extreme effort is worthwhile in order to keep the job.
I’m not sure how I would forward this article or the Bruge Group original to her. If I did it might be counter productive – she might realise that passing the WA would lock us in to her beloved EU! What she actually does probably depends on what her Party tells her to do. And there is the danger – Corbyn will do ANYTHING to get power for himself. He is as willing as May is to betray his country to the EU. In spite of originally NOT WANTING TO BE PART OF THE E.U.
I agree that John Redwood is an excellent guy. Correct in his opinions nearly 100% of the time. Shame we can’t clone him into enough Constituencies to have a good majority in the House!
Grrrr . . . I’m Frustrated.
This cannot be agreed to . It is an abject surrender to an outside authority which is unthinkable . The very fact that our government would even consider such a humiliating agreement is a disgrace and they would be ashamed of themselves if they had any shame at all . The very thought of it goes against everything that I was taught as a child and as a young man . To be ruled by a group of foreign bureaucrats , unelected by anybody let alone the British people is simply unacceptable .
Totally agree
The Surrender and Reparations Agreement
Yep!
-“This is not a Withdrawal Agreement. It is an abject Act of Surrender.”
I agree, it is far from a ‘Withdrawal’ agreement, the amount of legalese used is merely a smokescreen to hide the fact this is essentially a renegotiation of our current membership terms. There is lots of ‘intention’ from Theresa May – “we will be leaving”, “we will endeavour to” etc – but its all very much ‘future tense’ with no definitive timeframe.
And as for the EU, well they have absolutely no motivation to agree on any ‘future relationship’ with the UK outside of the EU, as they already have us exactly where they want us: continuing to pay them money, continuing to obey their rules and regulations, and continuing to have tariff-free access to our market. The ‘negotiations’ will continue fruitlessly for years, the ‘transition period’ will continue to be extended, and we’ll continue to keep paying them money. This is not what I call ‘withdrawal’.
I still find it (almost) unbelievable that that anyone, electorate or MPs actually believe these words. Or expect others to be persuaded by them. Also I find it hard to understand why May utters them.
Surely any sane person with a conscience would have broken down ages ago.
I guessed a while back she got the job because no-one else wanted it but most normal humans would have had a nervous breakdown by now.
The original article published by the Bruges Group is detailed, specific and authoritative. It should be required reading for all MPs before they vote on May’s disastrous WA. All readers here should send a copy, or a link to the Bruges paper, urging their MP to study it before the crucial vote.
I shall send a copy to my MP, Sir John Redwood, though I’m confident he sees all the pitfalls of the WA and is fundamentally and unshakeably opposed to it despite his recent honour.
Our commendations must be offered to Torquil for his valiant efforts. HE deserves a knighthood.
Most MPs have already indicated whether or not they are in favour of the WA.
All those in favour should be asked publicly to explain their position to their own constituency on every point in Torquil’s paper before the day of the crucial vote.
I shall do the same with my MP although I will be kicking a dead horse.
PS Just remembered. I have in fact previously written letters to my (Tory) MP about these topics, especially the EU Arrest Warrant and May’s disgraceful welcome given in 2012 to the Eurogendarmerie to come to UK. His response was to parrot that it “kept us secure from terrorists” and to call me a “racist” because I used the term “corrupt foreign magistrates; ” and has refused to answer any more letters on this topic. So I really would be kicking a dead horse albeit one that is still costing us £72,000 plus per annum and who is determined to rise from the dead for long enough to vote for this appalling WA.