Siol nan Gaidheal

Brathair Mor an Eorpa II

To my Friends at S.n.G.
On the 19th September 2000 I wrote the article 'Brathair Mor an Eorpa' to alert Patriots everywhere of the real dangers of further European Integration plans. Since then, more facts have come to light and it is now imperative that this article is updated, especially as we now see many members of the SNP questioning their party's position regarding Europe. I was happy that the original article generated much heated debate in SNP circles and this updated article is in direct response to the dozens of e_mails from SNP members up and down Scotland for an upto the minute article. Be Warned! this article is much longer.

The Maastricht Treaty introduced little known aspects of EU integration referred to as 'co-operation between member states in justice and home affairs'. These were reinforced by the Amsterdam Treaty. (The UK was the first EU member state to ratify the EUROPOL Convention on 10 December 1996. This was not surprising as it passed through parliament under the 'Ponsonby rules' via the Royal Prerogative, a 390 year old relic of monarchical government, so there was no debate or examination by MPs in committee.) Under these provisions Europol, a Europe wide police force came into being on the 1st July 1999 under the oversight of its first director Jurgen Storbeck. Europol is based in the little town of Sheveringen near the Hague, in a former Monastery converted into an SS Barracks in 1941.

It has very wide powers but is not answerable to any elected body. It reports to a special committee appointed by the Council of Ministers. It exists ostensibly to fight crime, but it has a much wider remit and function. Not only does it collect and store information on known and suspected criminals, but also on anyone's political and religious beliefs and activities. There are three large databases already in being and a Europe wide Database of Fingerprints is being created now. Recently the UK Home secretary (I wrote, last year, indicated that the Laws on retaining Fingerprints would be changed) has placed UK wide laws on the statute books via the guillotine that ALL UK Fingerprints are placed on a central database with a direct link to the Europol Database. E.U. Commissioners are pressing for an E.U. Wide Database of Fingerprints throughout the EU and the Countries wishing to join on enlargement. They have also legislated for a Database of DNA Samples to be created and held by Europol. Any Baby born in Europe after the 1st August 2002 will have a swab taken and a DNA profile made to be placed on the database. The setting up of such large databases is specifically allowed and provided for under the Maastricht Treaty.

The amendment to Section 64 of PACE (the Police and Criminal Evidence Act) will permit the police to keep and check all profiles that are given voluntarily and which should be destroyed under current rules. PACE was previously amended in 1994 (by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act) to allow DNA samples to be taken under largely the same circumstances as fingerprints from anyone suspected, charged or convicted of a recordable offence. However, profiles from people who are not prosecuted or are acquitted must be destroyed (unless the investigation with which they were connected results in a conviction, in which case the sample can be kept in case the matter is subsequently reviewed). Samples taken from anyone convicted of a recordable offence are put into the national DNA database. With the introduction of 'Corpus Juris' it will have the authority to arrest Scottish citizens on SCOTTISH SOIL on the grounds of a EUROPEAN WARRANT issued in another country. In fact the Europol organisation has all the hallmarks of THE TOTALITARIAN POLICE STATE!

For further sources on the DNA EU Legislation please consult the following:

1999; Co-operation on DNA technology, 11853/1/96 ENFOPOL 195 rev 1, 11 February 1996; EU Council resolution on the exchange of DNA analysis results, 8247/97 ENFOPOL 122, 28 May 1997; Reports to the Council on the implementation of the resolution of 9.6.1997 on the exchange of DNA analysis results, 7471/98 ENFOPOL 47, 7 April 1998 & 10763/99 ENFOPOL 59, 8 September 1999; Draft framework decision on the exchange of DNA analysis results,11634/99, 7 October 1999.

The same co-operation provisions are also resulting in a massive EU wide increase in the use of surveillance cameras in towns and cities again supposedly to reduce crime. May I quote the (Guardian 25/1/99 little known EU proposals could soon lead to massive expansion of surveillance). This is enthusiastically endorsed by local councils and the public for protection against crime, but for the authorities, these can also be used to identify anyone and monitor their activities and movements. With the introduction of driving licences with photographs and passport photographs which are duplicated in central computer banks, it will be possible through image comparison to identify anyone in seconds.

Some are connected to a computer that has software that then records your face. So that if you drive by a camera in Aberdeen's Union Street, it can record your image for a database of facial images. There are two software systems, 'Face It' or 'Viisage' that can do this. And that's exactly what George Orwell had in mind in his work 1984, that a machine will match (faces to databases), not a person. In Germany now you can open your mail, and you could find a picture of yourself taken by a surveillance camera. Your face, Your licence plate number, a picture of the radar gun and a notice saying, 'You were speeding,' and that 'You owe us a hundred deutschemarks. 'That's total surveillance. They can also put your passport number on the notice as if to say, 'We know exactly who you are and if you leave the country without paying this, the EU will still be able to find you.'

Germany now, the rest of the EU and the UK in the next few years. Speed check cameras, now common on many roads, linked to Europol traffic Computers can keep track of an individual by reading a number plate can track the movement of any vehicle across the EU from Finland to greece. The recent stushie over 'SCO' + Saltire flag number plates was all about this ability to read number plates. Apparently the SCO and the saltire Flag give the computer software heebie jeebies and can cause it to crash. Hence the outright Ban! (I'm still showing my plate with ALBA on it!)

If you go on any sort of protest march or demonstration you can and will be filmed on video cameras by police or security personnel. Big Brother is watching you more and more. and he can also listen to you via the Echelon communications monitoring system run by the American 'National Security Agency' operating out of bases at Morwenstow, Cornwall and RAF Menwith Hill, near Harrogate, North Yorkshire. This system monitors telephone, fax and e_mail communications throughout Europe and elsewhere. It is programmed to lock on to a particular communication for analysis if certain 'key' words are used in that communication. If you carry a mobile phone, even when switched off it emits a radio signal to the nearest base station. With the co_operation of the mobile phone companies, your movements can be tracked. As a matter of interest a mans body was found on Beinn Eighe recently by triangulating the signal from a switched off mobile phone.

Another quote, The Observer (6/12/98 EU hatches plan to tap internet and mobile phones) reported on Enfopol 98, a plan requiring telecommunications companies to build tapping connections into every kind of communications system including mobile phones, the internet, fax machines, pagers and interactive cable TV services. (On the 19th September 2000, I wrote, No doubt arising out of this, using a fast track bill and its huge majority in parliament, the government is rushing through the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill.) Last month this became an accomplished fact which gives the police and security services the power to monitor internet mailing lists. They will be able to order internet service providers to give them access to peoples private E_mail. All this is claimed to be targeted at organised crime such as drug trafficking, paedophilia, terrorism, etc., but it takes little imagination to see how this could be applied to any form of dissent or protest movements. Including the members of this forum Big Brother is listening to all of us right now.

We now have legislation that limits the right of people to gather peaceably, (e.g. the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2000) and intrudes into privacy with increased powers of bugging and burgling for the security services, and even provides for detention without trial. The first example of this in Britain are detention provisions for those said to be 'mentally disturbed' and as a result 'a danger to themselves or the public' Who decides what is meant by these terms and what is a threat to the public? or perhaps the powers running the state. The new Terrorism bill recently passed through parliament widens the definition of terrorism enormously to include the threat of 'serious violence' against any person or property. How will this definition be interpreted? Ostensibly aimed at the likes of people who tear up genetically modified crops, could these provisions be used against, for example protesting farmers as well? Especially where scuffles and damage to property has occurred occasionally? The bill goes further, organisations can be 'outlawed' addressing a meeting at which there is a member of such an organisation will be an offence. There are draconian additional stop and search powers for the police, and expressing support can be treated as 'incitement' (Even calling out, 'That guys innocent! or you've got the wrong guy! will land you in Gaol for incitement.) All newly created terrorist offences will carry very severe penalties, as part of a process (Including Diplock style Courts) which seems set to create a state in which no dissent of any description will be tolerated. The co_operation in justice and home affairs provisions of recent EU treaties reveals such measures are being implemented as policy throughout the EU.

As well as this increase in repressive legislation, far reaching changes have already taken place in our criminal justice system itself, which is fundamentally different to that employed throughout the rest of the EU (except Ireland). As part of the continuing emergence of the single European state, the European Commission and the European Parliament are pressing ahead with the imposition of a uniform system throughout the EU known as Corpus Juris. When Corpus Juris is fully implemented in Scotland and England, all criminal prosecutions would be heard solely by judges or other professional paid officials appointed by the state.

Trial by jury will be phased out, to be replaced by a single judge sitting alone. Jack Straw when he was Home secretary made several attempts to get legislation through Parliament reducing those cases where an accused can demand trial by jury. These moves should be seen as the start of this process. In addition a Home Office report has recommended that lay magistrates or depute Sheriffs should be replaced by stipendiary (i.e. professional paid) magistrates or depute Sheriffs, another measure that clearly fits in with the Corpus Juris plan. In both cases the government claims the measures are simply in the interests of efficiency and cost effectiveness, which is very misleading. The involvement of ordinary people in the judicial process as magistrates and jurors is fundamental to our system and goes back hundreds of years it was designed to protect the citizen against the risk of arbitrary or malicious prosecution, and is a healthy feature in any democracy.

Corpus Juris would also introduce detention without trial, since under this continental system, a person suspected of an offence can be arrested and held in custody for a period of six months or more, pending such further investigations and enquiries as the public prosecutor sees fit, before being brought before a court. (The recent case of an English Football supporter spending 10 and a half months in a Brussels Gaol This is radically different from our own Scottish system whereby an accused person must be brought before a court within a very short period of arrest, and evidence against the arrested person produced. Also a Trial must take place with 110 days! or the case falls. Furthermore, our current system incorporates the rule against double jeopardy, whereby an accused person once acquitted cannot be brought before a court again for the same offence. The government have already taken the first steps that this safeguard shall be removed perhaps reasonable in certain very carefully defined instances, but the proposal must be seen as a further part of the introduction of Corpus Juris and the Big brother society.

This excerpt from the London Evening Standard leader of January 2001 explains all. ALTHOUGH THE Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, had his measure to limit jury trials thrown out last year, it is now evident that he plans to return to the fray with bigger guns in his support. On Monday, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, while praising the principle of the jury system as a safeguard to the public, advanced his own serious criticisms of it. He believes that too many defendants are able to opt for jury trial simply to put off the day when they plead guilty - and that jury trial itself often causes delays which can be damaging to young offenders. No doubt with some notorious recent acquittals in mind - Bruce Grobbelaar, the GM crop vandals --Lord Woolf also muses on the 'disadvantage,' that juries do not give reasons for their decisions. Meanwhile, the review of the criminal justice system being undertaken by Lord Justice Auld is expected implicitly to support the Home Secretary's determination to remove the right to jury trial from some 18,500 defendants a year, by recommending that many cases which now qualify for jury trial should be heard by a new kind of court consisting of a Single judge assisted by 2 other judges. Both of these eminent lawyers will have before them research which shows that during the 1990s juries' acquittal rates shot up from about 32 per cent to 43 per cent. Acquittal rates for criminal damage, where defendants plead not guilty, are running at 79 per cent, in robbery cases at 61 per cent and in charges of violence against the person at 69 per cent.

A European public prosecutor has already been appointed and does have authority in Britain and throughout the EU, initially only in respect of cases involving fraud against the EU budget (e.g. people who make dishonest claims for EU grants and subsidies, etc.) but this is just the start.

Under proposals to be incorporated in the new treaty signed at the heads of governments summit at Nice just before Christmas 2000, an old European defence pact known as Western European Union is being incorporated into the European union itself. It will lay the foundation for a European Army, hailed by German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer as another pillar in the process of European unification. Previously at the Helsinki summit in December 1999, agreement was reached for such an army of 60,000 soldiers to be set up along with command, planning and intelligence bases. This is claimed to be the basis of a rapid intervention force, but French PM Lionel Jospin has stated that 'by pooling its armies, Europe will be able to maintain internal security as well as prevent conflicts throughout the world.' This basically means that foreign troops can be stationed on our soil to stifle civil dissent or disorder. The good news is that British troops are going to be killed, or placed p in harms way at the dictate of UNELECTED EUROPEAN COMMISSIONERS! The bad news is that the European Union has demanded that we dedicate our forces to it, that half the Royal Navy, a half of the army and a half of the Royal Air Force, and we have responded generously. How kind of us.

Our former unlamented foreign secretary, Robin Cook, probably after a particularly violent drinking binge – or has he got rid of this along with his Euro-scepticism – said that the creation of a Euro state was 'the biggest myth about Europe' So why, foreign secretary, are we devoting half our navy to this myth? To disprove it? The fact is that a trade association no more needs an army than it needs a flag. Oops, the EU already has one of those. OK, it no more needs an army than it needs its own currency. Or a common passport. Or a single criminal code. Or an anthem. After all, it's not a superstate, is it?

I am not sure that Rome, during either its rise or its fall, ever rivalled Europe for the clown-like behaviour of its leadership. Take this following quote from Romano Prodi, the President of the European Commission: 'When I was talking about the European army I was not joking. If you don't want to call it a European army, don't call it a European army. You can call it "Margaret,' you can call it 'Mary-Ann,' you can find any name, but it is a joint effort for peacekeeping missions-the first time you have a joint, not bilateral, effort at European level.' Well, that sure got the Yok Finnie existentialist Gotterdammerung vote. Why, if we are not building a superstate, does this non state thingyamajig need an army? This is not a unified command against a common threat, like NATO was. This is an army to project the power of a, well, trade agreement. The fact is that by Tony Blair saying that this is a superpower but not a superstate is taking nuance beyond the point of logical thought and into the extreme.

Now Joschka Fischer speaking to the German–British Forum has sought to convince us that a future European Union superstate is simply a fantasy of the British imagination. But on this issue the German foreign minister lies exposed. We have him on record. A lengthy speech last year to Humbolt University to be precise. There he called for a federal constitution for the EU, a legislative parliament in Brussels, a multinational executive and an elected President. Not forgetting his many other statements covertly made to foreign audiences, such as: 'Transforming the European Union into a single State with one army, one constitution and one foreign policy is the critical challenge of the age' (November 1998).

German Foreign Minister Herr Joschka Fischer has always been honest about his views, there is continuity in his political views, and it appears he opposes the concept of the nation state. (What hope for Scottish Independence here?) Interviewed in the Austrian magazine Profil in June 1997, Fischer declared: 'I realise more and more the extent to which I have remained a Marxist . . . Europe is an objectively Left project'

In his 1998 book Fur einen neuen Gesellschaftsvertrag ('For a New Social Contract') Fischer expounded his views in advance of the election which was to sweep Kohl from office. He referred repeatedly to the Communist Manifesto and the need to adapt historical materialism to today's situation. His new social contract contained the following theses: 'The state will have to say that it can no longer guarantee living standards and social security. It will declare that these are too high for the present and that capitalism is responsible for this state of affairs. 'Globalization must be presented as a historic necessity. It must be organised, canalised and used as a means of securing totalitarian control in all realms of society. Leaving globalization to the capitalists would lead to catastrophe.'

'At special times in history, violence is required to change society.' Are these the words of a man who can be trusted to be the Leader and erstwhile President of Europe His Vision of Europe is diametrically opposed to that of the SNP's, 'Independent Nation State in Europe'

On 13/4/00 The European Parliament approved the Dimitrakopoulos_Leinen Report, article 6 of which makes provision for the setting up of EU wide political parties. However, this is subject to the proviso that 'parties that do not respect human rights and democratic principles as set out in the Treaty of Rome shall be the subject of suspension proceedings in the European Court of Justice' Despite the rhetoric in its preamble, the Treaty of Rome is not based on democratic principles but rather on European integration. The possibility therefore exists that any party opposed to the EU could be subjected to these proceedings. A Good example is the Austrian Fascist Party under Jorg Halder, which is opposed to the E.U. Whereas the Italian fascist party under Mussolini's Granddaughter Allesandro is welcome because it does support the E.U. Steps are afoot to bring in a law of 'Blasphemy' similar to the English law protecting the Church of England. Only in this case to protect the name of the E.U.

Draconian powers are being proposed to stifle any criticism of the E.U. and its Employees, even if its justified in the case of fraud. Mr Van Buitenan the Dutch Accountant who blew the whistle over fraud and corruption would be liable for 5 Years imprisonment. The banning of political parties is a dangerous road to go down in a democracy it is worth noting that the Soviet Union never abolished elections the ruling Communist party simply outlawed all other parties as 'fascist' or 'counter revolutionary' and maintained itself in power that way!

It is well known Scots will never accept the sudden imposition of a totalitarian police state, so if it is to be done, it has to be done gradually by stealth, one step at a time. These various measures should not be seen in isolation. Many people quite close to the top positions of power may not be aware of the full picture MPs and others do not have time to become familiar with the whole range of bills and proposals that are put before parliament. The security and intelligence services are not answerable to Parliament and their activities remain hidden from view in the interests of so called 'national security' Our freedoms are being gradually eroded what will come next? As it is, with real power vested in unelected and unaccountable commissioners bankers and bureaucrats, democratic principles are already alien to the EU. I submit that the building blocks are rapidly being put into place whereby soon we could find ourselves living in a dictatorship or Police state in which protest will become increasingly difficult and ultimately will not even be tolerated. All power tends to corrupt but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Return to TopReturn to Home
On-Line Copyright © Siol nan Gaidheal 1995 - 2019, All Rights Reserved