DAVID McEwan Hill (Letters, March 28) complains that some who have commented on the situation in Spain and Catalonia “don’t want the EU to have power to intervene in the affairs of its constituent members but they want the EU to interfere in the affairs of its constituent members”, posing the question, “which is it?”

What he forgets is that membership of the European Union attracts certain rights but also brings with it certain obligations. Since its inception in 1952, case law at the European Court of Justice has treated fundamental rights as unwritten “general principles of community law”, thereby granting them the status of primary law.

The court has identified as sources of these general principles the common constitutional traditions of the member states, and international treaties to which at least a majority of member states were party, in particular the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) of 1950, which Spain signed in 1977.

All of this is codified in the Maastricht Treaty, which established the European Union and was supplemented in 2009 by a binding legal act, the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Spain is thus committed, by virtue of being a signatory of the convention and a member of the EU, to maintaining the standards of the ECHR, including protection of freedom of conscience and social and political activity.

In short, all that this commentator wants the EU to do is to remind Spain that as a member of the EU it enjoys certain privileges, but that these bring with them obligations under the Treaty of Maastricht and if there is no correcting action to remedy their failure to fulfil these obligations, then to suspend Spain from at least some of its membership privileges. Contrary to Mr McEwan Hill’s view, this is not a matter of intervening in the internal affairs of a member state, but of a member state acting against its own citizens in breach of its obligations as a member state.

Sadly, the inaction of the EU with regard to analogous breaches of human rights in Poland and Hungary (including curtailing media freedom and eroding the freedom of the judiciary) probably means it would be a bad idea to hold one’s breath while waiting.

Alasdair Galloway
Dumbarton

IT is pleasing to see so many come to the defence of Professor Clara Ponsati, the former minister in the now-deposed Catalan Government and an academic at the University of St Andrews.

While the Spanish Government is seeking her extradition over her role in Catalonia’s independence referendum, charged with rebellion and violence against the unity of the Spanish state, this is no more than a political prosecution of someone who promoted a peaceful referendum. Indeed, the only violence around that particular event was that which came from Spanish forces.

It should be noted, however, that her chances of successfully fighting extradition are good. Scotland is bound by the Extradition Act 2003 and is a party to the European Arrest Warrant system.

The sheriff is entitled to look at bars to extradition as set out in the Extradition Act and to consider whether extradition is proportionate and compatible with the Human Rights Act. The criminal offence for which extradition is sought must be a criminal offence in the requested state (Scotland) and the requesting state (Spain). If it is not, then extradition cannot be ordered for that offence.

If Ms Ponsati’s extradition is sought for the offence of sedition, this offence was abolished in Scotland in 2011 so there is no dual criminality. Secondly, the sheriff can refuse extradition if he or she believes that the extradition is politically motivated.

For Ms Ponsati to be targeted for standing up to her political beliefs is deeply alarming, and there is a clear duty on us all to protect and support her.

Alex Orr
Edinburgh

THE detention of Carles Puigdemont and Clara Ponsati is a major step toward the development of a police state in Europe.

The charges against Puigdemont and Ponsati are as hypocritical as they are fraudulent. The “crime” consists of nothing more than advancing the demand, which has a long political history, for the independence of Catalonia from Spain. They have neither called for nor threatened violence to achieve this goal.

The Catalan independence movement (like the Scottish one) has relied on peaceful and democratic means: elections, parliamentary motions and demonstrations.

The Spanish judge resorted to completely specious arguments to claim the Catalonian leader was guilty of violent activities. He accused Puigdemont, absurdly, of accepting that there was a risk of violence during protests against raids on Catalan ministries by Spanish security forces.

When democratically elected politicians are pursued in the EU for high treason, it is not hard to imagine how the leaders of mass protests or a general strike calling capitalist rule into question would be treated.

The goal of the arrest of Puigdemont is to intimidate and smother all forms of opposition, resistance and protest. Europe’s rulers are responding to this growth of social and political opposition by moving ever more openly toward authoritarian and dictatorial forms of rule.

Alan Hinnrichs
Dundee

LET’S remember that the last time Spain asked Germany for help and assistance in Catalonia, they bombed Guernica for them.

Richard Easson
Dornoch