How the EIO could be used to silence EU dissenters

This linked item in asking if the EIO is anything to be alarmed about, dated yesterday, raises the problem of holocaust deniers, a crime in some EU ex-states but not others. A more likely aim of the directive IMO is to stifle further criticism of the EU as this fatally flawed institution continues to mutate into a full-blown tyranny.

The justification for this terrifying instrument may be read from this link.

The EU has consistently demonstrated that those who control its direction abhor criticism. (Note the strange absence of links to this blog by EU bloggers portal and many others). Hating democracy, dissent or even mild criticism (witness the attitude towards national referenda giving the "wrong" answers) will eventually require a means to silence those who predicted the fault lines as they steadily become obvious to all (increasingly the case over the ERM and now the Euro currency).

With the EIO in force it will be a very simple matter to persuade one of the smaller but heavily indebted former member ex-states to enact harsh legislation against any criticism of the EU or its institutions. The EIO can then be used to disrupt the personal or even business life of any EU critics in any other country of the EU with actual charges and a request for a European Arrest Warrant only becoming necessary as a last resort, hence keeping such activities outside of public knowledge. (A Greek Island could, I half-jokingly suggest, be re-named Sceptos, in return for foregivness of debts which in any event cannot ever possible be repaid) and the few brave individuals, uncowed by such harassment could be taken and left there to rot).

One wonders if the Home Secretary, Theresa May, considered such a possibility before putting the UK citizens at risk of such abuses by foreign police powers, subject to only a majority vote from economically distressed (and therefore pressure vulnerable) fellow EU member former nations. One wonders if the entire UK Coalition Cabinet has any grasp of the undeniable fact that their main purpose is the "protection" of British subjects?