OPINION: BBC Bias, Catalonia and The West Lothian Question

I am writing because I think the BBC broadcasting is bias toward statements from politicians who cannot accept that the referendum was won by people who had lost faith in the European Union and others, like me, who never had any faith in it and who have felt betrayed by their own government ever since the Maastricht Treaty was signed and we lost our independence. The population needs to know that we shall be free. We will no longer be forced to accept ECJ rulings which overrule English Common Law and Statute law which we have enjoyed for centuries and upon which all the most successful democratic countries in the world have based their laws.

How can one single judge in Spain, order secessionist Catalan politicians to be imprisoned because they organised a referendum and declared themselves independent? This is Napoleonic Code and Roman Law in practice, which the EU is codified by and which the European Union bases all its’ judgements. This legal judgement would just not happen in the UK because our laws are based upon case law and statute law and we have the courts to arbitrate. The Magna Carta of 1215 became, in 1217, included in English Statute law. Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today. This has guaranteed trial by Jury and other civil liberties to British citizens for century’s. Of course, this will not help Seignior Carles Puigdemont for having the temerity to hold a referendum against the Spanish government’s wishes. He and the other Catalan Separatists now face thirty years in jail. He can be imprisoned legally under EU law for 6 months without charge and another three months without trial. Can you imagine Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish Nationalist leader getting thirty years by one Judges ruling? This kind of authoritarian Roman and Napoleonic law was coming to our shores and people should be made aware of what we will be escaping from and be grateful.

In the UK, the courts decide on contentious matters between the English parliament and the Scottish Parliament. In this case The House of Lords Constitution Committee decided upon procedure. This was put to the test in 2013 after the Scottish parliament demanded a referendum on Scottish independence from the UK. This lead to the ‘Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013,’ following agreement between the Scottish government and the United Kingdom government. Unlike the Spanish who have few democratic tools to use, the UK and Scottish governments agreed to put the legal situation beyond doubt by using ’Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998’. That temporarily lifted any restriction on the Scottish parliaments power to arrange a referendum’ That order was approved by both the UK and Scottish parliaments and the resultant referendum on
18th September 2014 was 55.3% against independence and 44.7% voting in favour. This didn’t stop ‘nutty Nicola’ calling for a second referendum in March 2017 because she didn’t like the result of the first. As we know, she lost 21 seats in the snap General election of 2017 and is now calling for a second referendum after a Brexit deal has been signed with the EU even though she has, in reality, lost her ‘Raison d’etre’.

I remember last year, that immigration dominated the referendum debate and yet, to me the most important issue is the conflict between the ECJ and our own Parliament. I understand that German constitutional law reserves the right to overrule any ECJ ruling that conflicts with its basic law.
Why cannot our Parliament and English Common Law have the same defence against ever more aggressive ECJ rulings that now, thanks to The Lisbon Treaty, can overrule our Parliament on matters such as commerce, defence, foreign affairs, immigration, justice and home affairs?

Personally, I feel it is time to remind people what we have already lost and could still lose if we do not exit the EU, such as; our place on the UN Security Council, Trial by Jury and the introduction of Napoleonic code that already supersedes English Common Law, thanks to the depredations of an aggressive European Court of Justice (ECJ). The notion that a person is innocent until proven guilty will go. The European Arrest Warrant, that can incarcerate an innocent person on suspicion only, for up to 6 months without charge and a further 3 months without trial will prevail. Perhaps it is time to spell out just what loss of Sovereignty means in plain language. Before the Maastricht Treaty was forced upon us, ask yourself who was the last person to have a European Arrest Warrant?
(Ans: For full marks: Adolf Hitler, for half marks: J Stalin)

David Cameron, our PM, told a group of young people at the former Suffolk College in May 2016, that if we left the EU, we would lose our right to fish in European fishing grounds! Presumably he was referring to the fish in our abolished 12 mile fishing limit, containing 70% of all European fish stocks, of which we were allocated 12.5% in 1989. The UK was fined £100m by the ECJ when it pontificated that; the ‘Merchant Shipping Act 1988’ was in conflict with European Community Law and the Common Fisheries Policy. The £100m was paid to Spanish Trawler Owners who then went about sweeping up English-speaking fish with impunity whilst most of our fishing fleet was scrapped and lively-hoods all around our coast were lost. The French and Germans, in particular, were stunned that the UK government paid this fine. I lost all faith in Prime Minister Cameron after I heard him lying to impressionable young people, still at College, and that is why, I like The Rt. Hon Boris Johnson: He is the only living MP from all political colours, who champions what is left of our fishing industry and believes that British fishing boats should fish in British waters and not thousands of Spanish, Dutch, Danish, French and Belgium boats who then sell our fish to us. PM Cameron didn’t seem to know his recent history on the subject.

I hope you will, as our MP and like your predecessor, keep faith with the people of the Tendring area, most of whom have a justifiable distrust of the European Union and support the Government in its efforts to extract us from this moribund, corrupt, former trading block, now morphing into a dysfunctional collection of federal states with a few hundred unelected commissioners demanding absolute power, more money and total subservience from their hapless populations. Instead of learning from our lesson in democracy to them, last year, they chose to ignore it and EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, is now demanding even closer ties between European member countries. He is doing the opposite of what he should be recommending which is; a looser, less binding, more democratic and transparent European governance. He should observe the oldest democracy in the world at work in the Mother of all Parliaments and learn. Our people need to recognise what he is, his dogma and his cronies, an unelected and rejected politician from the smallest state in the world. Napoleonic code and Roman Law, with its perverse ideas, such as the notion that you are guilty until you prove your innocence (impossible from behind bars) is wrong.
Ask Catalan politicians what they think of the EU that cannot protect them. Protection by the power of the courts, Jury trial, the notion that an individual is innocent until proven guilty, case law, common law and statute law which has evolved over nearly 900 years delivers true justice and real democracy which some politicians are all too happy to throw away in a misguided attempt to jump on the run-away train to Brussels with its unlimited expense accounts and fantastical salaries.
All you need to do is betray your country.

Yours Faithfully,

Christopher Paul R Clarke. BSc.

1 Comment

  1. I agree with everything said . What should also be stated here is that complicit, deceptive and treasonous nature that UK politicians from the 3 legacy parties (LIBLABCON) have played throughout 45 years of membership of an organisation, in which constitutionally was unlawful to be in. They of all people had the knowledge to know what they were doing went against hundreds of years of English and Scots law.

    …”I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.”…Declaration of Rights 1688, Claim and Bill of Rights 1688 at the Glorious Revolution of 1688. This part is a restatement from the Act of Supremacy 1559

    Parliament it is said can do many things, but it not allowed by long established conventions, decisions or law to give any sovereign powers away to a foreign power unless we have been defeated in war or to have foreign courts have any jurisdiction within Her Majesty’s Realm. Every 4 or 5 years we the sovereign people represented by the Queen of the United Kingdom lend power to elected representatives (MPs),
    it should be reminded that that power must never again be surrendered and at the end of 5 years all that power is returned to the people to elect their successors. Never let politicians think they are our master or “betters”, they are our public servants who get their mandate from whatever they put in their manifesto. The mandate is a kind of permission form to ask the people what they intend to do when in office. If they go off on a tangent putting in legislation without the people’s permission, then they should be brought to account.
    We the people have been asked if we wish to leave the European Union, in a direct democratic vote. So get on with it.

Leave a Reply