Comments on: Do We Need to be Part of the EU ? http://baldysblog.co.uk/2009/05/31/do-we-need-to-be-part-of-the-eu/ Mainly Political, Right of Centre and Personal, not Party Political Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:31:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Alfred http://baldysblog.co.uk/2009/05/31/do-we-need-to-be-part-of-the-eu/comment-page-1/#comment-1871 Alfred Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:13:46 +0000 http://baldysblog.co.uk/?p=1057#comment-1871 2) I have tried and failed, to find evidence for this 3m or 3.5 million claim. I did find 20 people in the Ministry of Justice who are there purely to transpose EU Directives etc into UK legal code. There must be plenty more like that, paid for by the taxpayer, that we could do without, but 3 million? 2) I have tried and failed, to find evidence for this 3m or 3.5 million claim. I did find 20 people in the Ministry of Justice who are there purely to transpose EU Directives etc into UK legal code. There must be plenty more like that, paid for by the taxpayer, that we could do without, but 3 million?

]]> By: Alfred http://baldysblog.co.uk/2009/05/31/do-we-need-to-be-part-of-the-eu/comment-page-1/#comment-1870 Alfred Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:10:57 +0000 http://baldysblog.co.uk/?p=1057#comment-1870 1) You are forgetting the initiatives to bring all the EU under one legal code eg the horrors of the European Arrest Warrant. Common Law, as used in Britain, is fundamentally different from the Civil or Roman law used almost throughout the EU. Common law gives us a sense of individual freedoms and constrains the executive whilst Civil law is the tool of the executive that can be used to control the population. Few seem to understand how the Common law has given individuals a very different character to citizens of other EU States. As Sir Winston said: <i>"A man can only be accused of a civil or criminal offense which is clearly defined and known to the law. The judge is an umpire. He adjudicates on such evidence as the parties choose to produce. Witnesses must testify in public and on oath. They are examined and cross-examined, not by the judge, but by the litigants themselves or their legally qualified and privately hired representatives. The truth of their testimony is weighed not by the judge by [sic] by twelve good men and true, and it is only when this jury has determined the facts that the judge is empowered to impose sentence, punishment, or penalty according to law. All might seem very obvious, even a platitude, until one contemplates the alternative system which still dominates a large portion of the world. Under Roman law, and systems derived from it, a trial in those turbulent centuries, and in some countries even today, is often an inquisition. The judge makes his own investigation into the civil wrong or the public crime, and such investigation is largely uncontrolled. The suspect can be interrogated in private. He must answer all questions put to him. His right to be represented by a legal adviser is restricted. The witness against him can testify in secret and in his absence. And only when these processes have been accomplished is the accusation or charge against him formulated and published. Thus often arises secret intimidation, enforced confessions, torture, and blackmailed pleas of guilty. These sinister dangers were extinguished from the Common Law of England more than six centuries ago."</i> (The Birth of Britain, vol 1, Winston S. Churchill, Dodd, Mead & Co, New York 1956, page 222) 1) You are forgetting the initiatives to bring all the EU under one legal code eg the horrors of the European Arrest Warrant.

Common Law, as used in Britain, is fundamentally different from the Civil or Roman law used almost throughout the EU. Common law gives us a sense of individual freedoms and constrains the executive whilst Civil law is the tool of the executive that can be used to control the population. Few seem to understand how the Common law has given individuals a very different character to citizens of other EU States.

As Sir Winston said: “A man can only be accused of a civil or criminal offense which is clearly defined and known to the law. The judge is an umpire. He adjudicates on such evidence as the parties choose to produce. Witnesses must testify in public and on oath. They are examined and cross-examined, not by the judge, but by the litigants themselves or their legally qualified and privately hired representatives. The truth of their testimony is weighed not by the judge by [sic] by twelve good men and true, and it is only when this jury has determined the facts that the judge is empowered to impose sentence, punishment, or penalty according to law. All might seem very obvious, even a platitude, until one contemplates the alternative system which still dominates a large portion of the world. Under Roman law, and systems derived from it, a trial in those turbulent centuries, and in some countries even today, is often an inquisition. The judge makes his own investigation into the civil wrong or the public crime, and such investigation is largely uncontrolled. The suspect can be interrogated in private. He must answer all questions put to him. His right to be represented by a legal adviser is restricted. The witness against him can testify in secret and in his absence. And only when these processes have been accomplished is the accusation or charge against him formulated and published. Thus often arises secret intimidation, enforced confessions, torture, and blackmailed pleas of guilty. These sinister dangers were extinguished from the Common Law of England more than six centuries ago.” (The Birth of Britain, vol 1, Winston S. Churchill, Dodd, Mead & Co, New York 1956, page 222)

]]>