Here are a few apparently disconnected thoughts on the rule of law, at a time when it appears to me that international law is about to be broken by my country (beyond that statement of fact I do not venture into other arguments for and against attacking Iraq). Proposition 3 touches on whether it is legal for us to be bound by the E.U. Metrication Directive 80/181/EEC or indeed by any other E.U. Directive.


Propositon 1: British law does not permit direction signs on roads in the United Kingdom with metres on them; they must be in miles or yards

Propositon 2: International law does not sanction the invasion of Iraq by either the United States or the United Kingdom; Resolution 1441 does not authorise war in Iraq

Propositon 3: When the Queen swore before the nation in 1953 to govern the United Kingdom 'according to our laws and customs', she was not subsequently authorised to give her Royal Assent to an Act of Parliament placing us under the authority of laws and customs decided on the continent of Europe

Propositon 4: The right to jury trial (and accompanying right of a jury to acquit the guilty if they think the law is wrong) and 'habeas corpus' (the duty of the Police to prove a prima facie case against you in Court within 24 hours of detaining you) are the two best protections known to mankind against state power over the individual [the European Constitution will remove these rights if it is adopted]

Proposition 5: Nobody should be above the law [officers of the E.U.'s European Police Force (EUROPOL) are above the law; they have lifetime immunity from prosecution for any act they carry out in the execution of their duties, including murder]

In regard to proposition 2, the following is from UN Resolution 1441 paragraph 13:

"Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations"

If there are continued violations of the obligations as outlined in Resolution 1441, there are serious consequences promised. Having any kind of weapon that is not allowed by the UN and then not telling the world about it, is a "violation," and thus there are serious consequences.

Serious consequences do not rule out war.

Tony: "Proposition 5: Nobody should be above the law [officers of the E.U.'s European Police Force (EUROPOL) are above the law; they have lifetime immunity from prosecution for any act they carry out in the execution of their duties, including murder]"

I cannot believe this is true. This simply doesn't make sense ! We live in a world where even former presidents and ministers can be tried for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide,... The world is evolving towards a situation where absolutely nobody is standing above the law. So why would that be the case for some bunch of policemen ???

Conrad,

I am greatly heartened by your message in which you say "this cannot be true" of my assertion that EUROPOL Officers have been given lifetime immunity from prosecution.

I'm heartened because this *is* so shocking that it should cause every one of us momentary shock as we consider the awful consequencs.

It's a subject I've personally researched in depth and there is indeed a British Statutory Instrument (i.e. Regulation) which puts this legal immunity into effect. I think it's dated around 1997 or 1998 but I will find out and post the details on this board.

EUROPOL incidentally has its headquarters in the former German Waffen S.S. headquarters in The Hague (formerly a Roman Catholic convent), and currently has a staff believed to be around 1,000, every single one of them with the legal immunity I have mentioned. Rapid expansion of their force is planned by the European Union.

I will certainly provide proof of this outrageous immunity fro prosecution which places powerful people beyond the reach of the law - and once again Conrad *thank you* for registering your shock - so many folk just dismiss one as 'anti-European' for even daring to mention these things

Further Information on EUROPOL and the fact that its officers are *above the law*:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The relevant U.K. legislation is Statutory Instrument 1997 No. 2973: "The European Communities (Immunities and Privileges of the European Police Office) Order 1997" (made on 17 December 1997).

The whole Statutory Instrument can be viewed at:

http://...97297301.htm&STEMMER=en&WORDS=europol+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=

Under PART II, 'ORGANISATION', we come across:

Regulation 6: "Europol shall have immunity from suit and legal process, except to the extent that the Director [of Europol] shall have waived such immunity in a particular case.."

Regulation 7: "Europol shall have the like inviolability in respect of its official archives and premises..."


On 26 July 2002, the left-wing magazine 'Tribune' published an article by Marc Glendenning of the Democracy Movement which began with these words:

"How do you think Tony Blair, Peter Hain, Denis McShane and other leading New Labour figures would have responded had the last Tory government announced they were planning to...grant immunity from prosecution to Police Officers?"


On the website www.eco-action.org, you can find an article: "Europol", reprinted from 'Do or Die', Issue No. 7, which includes these two sentences:

"In Europol, European ministers and intelligence chiefs are creating a secret, unaccountable and powerful operational body to police the new European superstate. Already, Europol officers carry their own diplomatic passes".

The full article may be viewed at: http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no7/europol.html


On the website: www.pmckenna.com is an article titled: "Amsterdam Treaty: The Road to an Undemocratic and Military Superstate: Justice and Home Affairs: Europol - Above the Law", which begins with the words:

"Europol Officers will, in effect, be above the law. This is not scaremongering but a statement of fact".

The full article may be viewed at:

http://www.pmckenna.com/agenda/treaty/amsterdam/justice4.tml


[I got these references by typing these 3 words into 'Google': europol, immunity, prosection. There's a lot more information to view there if anyone wants to]

Conrad - will it also shock you to know that Chirac, as presd of France, can murder and not be tried for it?

Take a look at the French Constitution in relation to it's president.

The whole immunity issue has always been sketchy and will always be.

>EUROPOL incidentally has its headquarters in the
>former German Waffen S.S. headquarters in The Hague

Tony, in order to be taken seriously, you should cut out that "The Sun" crap.

Ralf

"Conrad - will it also shock you to know that Chirac, as presd of France, can murder and not be tried for it?

Take a look at the French Constitution in relation to it's president."

Her Majesty also has such immunity of course.

re (Ralf): "Tony, in order to be taken seriously..."

_____________________________________________________________________

On the European Union's own website, one can read the following, reproduced verbatim:

"Europol is housed in a red-bricked building on the outskirts of the city [The Hague], that was, somewhat ironically, used as the headquarters of the Gestapo during the Second World War".

If you want to check out that this is an accurate quotation, please visit:

europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/14005b.htm
______________________________________________________________________

In a report filed on 15 April 2002 by Humphrey Hawksley, a European correspondent for the BBC, and still on the BBC's website today, he referred to Europol in the context of the trial of five Islamic terrorists for attempting to blow up the European Parliament building in Strasbourg [actually, he would have been more accurate to say 'one of the two European Parliament buildings', since they have half their meetings in Strasbourg and half in Brussels as the Belgians and French couldn't agree where to site it].

Referring to Europol's role, he wrote:

"The focal point [of the enquiry] is Europol, housed in a former Gestapo headquarters in The Hague".
_____________________________________________________________________

I'm not sure that either the European Union or the BBC could fairly be described as issuing forth
'Sun 'crap'', to use your expression, nor do I think that anyone would take either of these two august and esteemed organisations any less seriously as a result of what they wrote.

For the record, the building is in Raamstraat, and EUROPOL was officially established in its new headquarters in 1999, although it began life as the Europol Drugs Unit, launched on 3 January 1994.

I could have chosen to mention that the Head of EUROPOL since January 1994 was a German Police Officer, Jorgen Storbeck, but elected not to.

Thousands of buildings across Europe could have been used to house EUROPOL's headquarters. It's interesting to speculate on why the E.U.'s political elite chose the former S.S. building to site what is intended to become its Europe-wide premier law enforcement agency. I don't know the answer

Proposition (6)
Britain does not have a tradition of freedom of choice in units used for trade ivolving goods sold at price/unit of measure. The type of legislation enforcing this was not invented by the EU nor is it unique to EU member states.

Proposition (7)
The Metric Martyrs campaign relies for its popularity on the fact that people are not generally aware that the types of law referred to in proposition 6 are quite normal in Britain and elsewhere.

Someone on another bulletin board has coincidentally posted details of the equally handy immunity from prosecution enjoyed by European Union officials. I quote from his e-mail:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Under Article 12 of Chapter 5 of the Protocol on the Priveleges and Immunities of the European Union, a blanket, life-time immunity has been extended to all officials and their servants of the European institutions, which reads as follows:

"'In the territory of each Member State and whatever their nationality, officials and other servants of the Communities shall...be immune from legal proceedings in respect of acts performed by them in their official capacity, including their words (spoken or written). They shall continue to enjoy this immunity after they have ceased to hold office'.

"So, in 1999, when the entire E.U. Commission resigned, having been exposed for fraud, not one individual could be prosecuted.

"Another article in the same Treaty (Article 1, Chapter One, Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Community) states that: '...premises and buildings of the Communities shall be exempt from search, requisition, confiscation or expropriation, and their archives shall be inviolable'.

"Thus no buildings or offices, filing cabinets, archives or bottom drawers belonging to the European Union, wherever they are located, can ever be searched or inspected.

"These two exemptions alone place the people and premises of the European Union completely above the law, which flies in the face of the basic principles of British or any decent democracy that 'no-one is above the law'."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No-one on this board has yet defended EUROPOL's immunity from prosecution; indeed they could not do so. Neither could anyone possibly defend the above, not even the most rabid pro-E.U. fanatic. These people that gave themselves immuntiy from prosecution are the very same ones who stuffed compulsory metrication down British throats

"These people that gave themselves immuntiy from prosecution are the very same ones who stuffed compulsory metrication down British throats"

Hardly. Britian joined the EEC as long ago as 1973. It has taken all this time to get as far as we have and which still falls short of complete metrication. What remains has no time limit on it.

Furthermore the decision metricate was taken in 1965 for reasons not connected specifically with Europe, as did other countries like Canada, Australia and South Africa, none of which are subject to EU directives.

Parliament often binds itself yet, parliamentary supremacy essentially means that for all the bills that may bind parliament or claim to make it no longer supreme, it is, still, supreme. In short: bring back handing, shillings and the Imperial system. Anyone here read the English bill of rights? Very interesting and quite relevent.

I don't know what that is... hanging... g

"Conrad - will it also shock you to know that Chirac, as presd of France, can murder and not be tried for it?

>>Take a look at the French Constitution in relation
>>to it's president."

>>Her Majesty also has such immunity of course.

Response: In France the lefties and socialists *had* to go out and vote for a rightwing corrupt politician to stop LePen. Can you imagine these socialists saying that democracy was working for them? It made me laugh, that's for sure!

Incidentally we live in a "constitutional monarchy" - if the Queen went out and murdered someone on the street I think parliament would have something to say (and act) about it - this cannot happen in France

quote
"So, in 1999, when the entire E.U. Commission resigned, having been exposed for fraud, not one individual could be prosecuted."
end quote.

Maybe its worth also considering the plight of Niel Hamilton the former MP for Tatton.

His parliamentary career was ended in disgrace of an internal inquiry established (to its satisfaction) his corrupt behaviour.

He was never prosecuted by the crown for any of his deeds. But should he?

I am not really interested in defending the EU in such matters but I wonder if it as black and white as it is being made out.

"Response: In France the lefties and socialists *had* to go out and vote for a rightwing corrupt politician to stop LePen. Can you imagine these socialists saying that democracy was working for them? It made me laugh, that's for sure!

Incidentally we live in a "constitutional monarchy" - if the Queen went out and murdered someone on the street I think parliament would have something to say (and act) about it - this cannot happen in France"

As I understand it, the State could not bring a prosecution against the Crown and any action of Parliament of course includes The Queen as one of its three elements, ie Her consent would be required for Her own indictment.

As I understood it, wouldn't the Magna Carta guarentee that the citizens (i.e. Parlaiment) would be able to bring some kind of indictment against the Crown in the event of wrongdoing?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Most public officials have immunity in the excercise of their constitutional duties. The Queen is no exception.

However, murder is not part of the monarch's official capacity. I'm reasonably certain the Queen could be prosecuted or impeached for such a crime.

But that's just my guess.

Trust me: our system works.

Didn't Princess Ann have to go to court due to her unruly dog?

And then had to pay a fine?

That doesn't sound like "the crown being immune" to me

The Princess Royal is not the Crown, only The Queen has such immunity.

As far as I can see, there is no properly legal constitutional procedure which can see the monarch impeached without Her consent.

However, this was done in 1649 which seems to have been declared lawful after the event.