| towards a better Europe |
|
CybaCity had intended to organise European-wide voting on the European Constitution even if governments had decided not to. CybaCity were prepared to supply their Internet-based voting technology to any national groups wishing to use it.
Change in the weather
Many governments have now expressed their intention to hold referendums on the Constitution. However, there is a serious challenge facing the people of Europe. This is because the Constitutional document is extremely long and is mainly about the rearrangement and consolidation of relationships between existing European institutions. As a result, many people do not recognize the document as a constitutional document at all. This is because it contains no principles or statements on individual rights which are backed up by practical provisions as to how European citizens can protect themselves from arbitrary decisions by government. Rather than follow the more transparent British constitutional writings of securing the means and rights of individuals to be protected from arbitrary judgements, the European Constitution provides no such guarantees but dwells on the ascendancy of European institutions over national. Therefore in order to really understand what the European Constitution proposes it is necessary to review the track records of several European institutions in this regard. This makes a rational referendum a virtual impossibility.
British voting on the Constitution
A consortium of UK-based organizations have asked CybaCity to organise UK voting and polling on the European Constitution as part of a campaign to increase the awareness of the British public of the implications of the European Constitution. The organizations concerned have no party policial allegiences. This campaign will analyse a range of EU institutional issues which impact the freedoms of the people of Britain. Many such instances are not at first apparent from a reading of the European Constitution. One such issue of important to the people of Britain is independent juries which are likely to be killed off by the Constitution. The campaign to increase the awareness of the British public will be based at Free Britain (website http://www.freebritain.com). Members of the British consortium include, Free Britain, UK Constitution, UK Referendum, UK Independents, EU Independents and the European Campaign for Jury Rights
Hidden dangers
Hector McNeill, the coordinator of the UK-based European Campaign for Jury Rights, from its inception, has considered the European Constitution to be an unfolding tragedy, an outstanding opportunity lost to a mediocre bureaucratic exercise. He considers the final document to be a monument to the degree to which the people of Europe were excluded from the drafting process. Predictably the document upholds codified and inflexible legal processes. It is likely to further consolidate the power of non-performant elite who, by default, push Europe back to its old and failed collectivist habits.
 ECJR Coordinator |
Juries a key issue for the British
The most serious and obvious "oversight", from the standpoint of the British is the lack of reference to, and absence of provision for, any form of trial by jury for appeals on European Law. According to McNeill, British governments, during the last 35 years, have been less than vigilant on the issue of sustaining a practical level of safeguards to protect individual Britons from arbitrary legal decisions. Today over 60% of national statutes now come from proposals made by the unelected European Commission, passed on the nod of some committee with the electorate, more often than not, left in the dark. Most such statutes have no provisions for the involvement of juries on appeals against enforcements. The outcome is that British governments have permitted the jury system to become systematically marginalised by the increasing weight of EU legislation. It isn’t clear whether or not this is part of a hidden agenda against juries or just incompetence, irresponsibility or laziness on the part of all British political parties in not recognizing the dangers. Whatever the cause, it is a trend against which the people of Britain need to react.
British Statutes have been the fifth column for EU codified laws
During the last 35 years, in the area of civil law, the most horrendous fines and arbitrary decisions have been enforced. People have had land and homes confiscated, families’ inheritances have been absconded by “legal” means causing families to be thrown into life long debt, people have been imprisoned and have lost their livelihood as a result of such arbitrary enforcements. For some governments, the law has become an instrument in "control" as opposed to the "defense" of the people. Most people only perceive this on the fateful day that something goes wrong, even although culpability arose without intent. Judges can pass judgement based on their interpretation on the "rule book" influenced by their personal interests and prejudices. Under such circumstances legal decisions can be arbitrary and dangerous. This is why many have advocated trial by jury as the best defense. No one has yet come up with something which is better.
Some have understood the importance of juries
The fundamental motivation which tipped the American colonists into a full revolution against the British was when the Crown proposed to remove the right of trial by jury from the American colonists; this was, for them, the ultimate threat to their freedom and, justifiably, they fought to re-establish that right. Today, in a less contentious and dramatic way, the European Union governments have somewhat irresponsibly drafted a document which will continue to erode this basic freedom, a basic right of Britons.
The jury system should be strengthened not marginalised
Juries are essential for us to defend our freedom. McNeill says that,
"It is important for a major re-assessment of the levels of enforcements and punishments which now exist in British law and statutes. Trial by jury needs to be returned to all situations where appeals are against enforcements which would impose substantive penalties related to fines, possible loss of property and abode or freedom. The measure of what is substantive, in the case of financial penalties needs to be assessed according to the income of the person appealing. Indeed, we should have been increasing the role of juries and advocating more vigorously the introduction of such protection for all European citizens."It's enough to reject the Constitution
It is certainly the case that the European Constitution, as it stands, makes no provision for this basic right. This alone is good reason for rejecting the Constitution.