Tuesday, 13 May 2014

Ashley Mote's entry for the IEA BREXIT prize 2014




Ashley Mote's entry for the IEA BREXIT prize 2014 
failed to make the short-list...

(100,000 euro prize was won by a dismal entry from a British civil servant)



You decide for yourself....

Contents
Summary
Beware the Honey Trap
Sovereignty
A Declining Shambles
Economic Realities
Now - and Then…

Summary

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is a honey trap carefully laid by the EU to make the process of leaving as difficult as possible. 

The UK can and should exercise its absolute and entrenched sovereignty to leave on its own terms.

Negotiations between equals will maximise the prospects of an outcome all parties can live with and allow the UK to thrive again as a global trading nation acting in its own legitimate interests.

Long-standing UK common and statute law can and should be used to ensure the process of removing EU legislation from the UK statute book is both orderly and fair.

Potential for the creation of a flourishing nation once again is limited only by the vision and courage of the government then in office.



Beware the Honey Trap

The opening scenario inviting entries for the IEA Brexit prize assumes a UK referendum has resulted in an “Out” vote and Her Majesty’s Government has triggered Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.  Big mistake.

Such an unnecessary, dangerous and potentially catastrophic decision would fall straight into the EU bureaucrats’ carefully laid honey trap, as one of them was honest enough to admit to me during negotiation of the Lisbon Treaty.

Article 50 provides for the UK being told, after two years of discussions exclusively amongst other EU member states, what our terms of leaving would be.  We would then have to accept the EU’s terms or withdraw the application to leave.  Whether the EU would strictly enforce such terms is, of course, an open question.

What is certain, however, is that the two year window would be used by the bureaucrats to mount a huge and sustained PR campaign in the UK to “warn” of the terrible consequences of leaving.  Our own taxpayer’s money would be used against us in a sustained campaign to undermine the then UK government’s objective. 

Every incident, problem, crisis would be ‘spun’ to the BBC and the other pro-EU media as being the direct and inescapable result of the UK’s decision to leave.  

Secondly, any and every EU regulation and directive which has been passed into UK law would be nit-picked over and reinforced with threats of fines and prosecution.  Any interim activity planned by the British government would be examined microscopically for any apparent unlawful activity, and again policed with threats.  It would be a logistical and administrative nightmare for the then UK government. 

Given the pathetic weakness of recent prime ministers when faced with the EU the then incumbent might easily buckle.  That, of course, would be the EU’s purpose.  They would do everything they could - legal or illegal, moral or immoral, truthful or not - to have the notice to withdraw itself withdrawn. 

There is only one way to leave.  As a sovereign country we are free to repeal the European Communities Act, 1972, which took us in.  With sovereignty immediately restored, as a free and independent country we can then negotiate consequential practicalities as equals – and that is the point!


Sovereignty

Sovereignty must - by definition - be absolute and unqualified.  Like the word “unique” it cannot be limited.  Either a country is sovereign or it is not.  Either a monarch is sovereign or not.  The title, rank and style “King” is recognition of the physical embodiment of the nation’s sovereignty.  It bears no compromise. 

In law, we can either have The Queen as the constitutional head of a sovereign country, or we can have a president of the European Union.  But, by definition - and despite John Major’s claim after Maastricht that The Queen was henceforth a citizen of Europe - we cannot have both. 

The 37th of the 39 Articles of Religion passed during the reign of Elizabeth I, which still has legal force and which can be seen in any book of common prayer, says:

"The Queen's Majesty ... is not, and ought not to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction".

Both Magna Carta, 1215, and the Declaration of Rights, 1688, were contracts made directly between the Crown and the people.  Both were and still are beyond the reach of parliament.  Any repeal of statutes leaves the original contracts untouched.(*)

Magna Carta recognises the rights of subjects of the Crown to hold government to account. This is sometimes described as the right to ‘lawful rebellion’, and was specifically confirmed in the oath sworn by Henry III at his coronation on 28 October 1216.

The Declaration of Rights went further.  It explicitly forbids the recognition of power over what is now the UK by any “foreign person, prelate, state or potentate”.  In other words our joining what was then the Common Market was prima facie unlawful, and our membership of the EU remains unlawful.  Passing information to Brussels to assist governance of the UK is most certainly illegal.

Our constitution is fragmented but clear.  It provides that the state answers to the people.  We, the people, do not answer to the state.  There is no such legal entity as a British state. 

We are a sovereign people and we elect individuals for a maximum of five years to look after our best interests.  Any future parliament has an absolute right to repeal any Acts passed by previous governments.  Thus, they answer to us.

Clause four of The Act of Succession confirmed the power of the sovereign, the role of parliament, the common law rights and liberties of the people, and the relationship between them. 

The Act of Supremacy 1559 included the words:

“…all usurped and foreign power and authority…may forever be clearly extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm….

The Act of Supremacy is now largely repealed, but its central intentions live on through similar words 129 years later, in The Declaration of Rights of 1688.  This, too, is a settlement treaty between the sovereign and the people, and not an Act of Parliament.  It too, therefore, cannot be repealed by parliament. 

Both the Declaration of Rights, February 1688 and the Bill of Rights, December 1689, include the same clause.  "...no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm." 

Both may be argued to form a constitutional entrenchment severely limiting parliament’s ability to make changes.  

The Queen summed up the historical reality of our constitutional arrangements in an address to both Houses of Parliament on 20th July 1988 to mark the 300th anniversary of the ‘Glorious Revolution’;   Her speech included these words:  “The Revolution Settlement put into practice the cardinal principles of the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament and the separation of powers, ushering in an epoch of freedom under the law … Experience has taught that peoples can enjoy the full fruits of liberty, security and justice only when they are represented in a sovereign legislature whose laws are interpreted by an independent judiciary. The Bill of Rights and the Scottish Claim of Right 1689, still part of statute law, are the sure foundation on which the whole edifice of parliamentary democracy rests …”

The Sovereign retains the power and the duty to dissolve Parliament, refuse assent to Bills that conflict with the Constitution and/or are contrary to the national interest.  The Sovereign is not bound to accept the advice of Her politically motivated ministers.  During the swearing of the Coronation Oath in June 1953 Her Majesty swore to govern “according to law.”

As the great Elizabethan jurist Sir Edward Coke is said to have put it : “No one, be he king or commoner, is above the law”. The supremacy of the law is our essential safeguard against tyranny.  It has also been widely argued that the rule of law is even more important than the law itself.


A Declining Shambles

It can be seen, therefore, that repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 does more than regularise the constitutional and legal situation of the UK.  It removes a major constitutional blunder which has stood largely unchallenged for more than 40 years, despite the overwhelming consequences.

They do not need to be detailed again here.  But the catalogue includes a multi-speed shambles.  The Euro-Mediterranean Assembly, European Parliament, European Commission, European Council, ECHR, to say nothing of Schengen and the Eurozone area have various combinations of membership.  Some create and all apply different components of “European” legislation. 

Additionally, the EEA shares agreed terms on trade and other issues with the EU, while Mexico and many other countries around the world enjoy favourable trade deals.  However, not one Anglo-Saxon country anywhere in the world enjoys such a trade agreement with the EU.  

The free movement of goods, capital, services and people - the four freedoms - were the great, visionary, cosmopolitan and libertarian idea adopted by the EU.  Reality has proved totally different.  A free trade in services has never been fully implemented and the free movement of people has created upheaval, unmanageable costs and profound anger amongst indigenous populations.  

Axel Weber, former Bundesbank president and ECB governor, has admitted that the “EU will become more and more insignificant in the global economy”. 


Economic Realities

The UK’s enormous economic burden of EU membership now exceeds some £200 billion a year, according to a recent (highly conservative) Treasury calculation.  Serious damage has been done to countless industries and sectors of the economy – fishing and agriculture being prime examples, but not the only ones by a long way.  

We import far more than they buy from us.  The EU needs us £865 billion times more than we need them – the cumulative total of our trade deficit.  Out of the EU, Britain would not be saddled with costs of over-regulation, variously estimated close to £50 billions annually.

Little wonder British bureaucrats distort our trade imbalance with the EU, in an attempt to minimise it.  By including exports via Rotterdam and Antwerp container ports to the rest of the world they exaggerate the level of our exports to the EU.  But even after this wilful distortion of the facts, we continue to show a net deficit.  Trade is not a good reason for membership. 

The UK buys a fifth of everything the other EU countries export. Would BMW stop selling us cars if we were a self-governing nation again? Could it afford to?  Would the French refuse to sell us Champagne, camembert and their awful apples, or the Danes their bacon?  Of course not. Would the Spanish refuse us holidays in their sunshine? No chance.

And the threat to UK jobs if we left?  Even former EU Commissioner Neil Kinnock denied it on the BBC’s Today programme.  He said “If the UK leaves the EU there will be no trade recriminations.” So the often repeated threat to three million British jobs is a lie as well.  Lord Kinnock says so!

Leaving the EU would enable us, free of EU regulations, to revert to what we have done for centuries without any help from Europe - trade profitably and freely and in our own best interests with the rest of the world. At the same time, our growth in GDP, and that of other countries especially in the English-speaking world, would be boosted far beyond the miserly levels it is enjoying (if that is the word) currently.

The UK would also be free to restore its agricultural and fishing industries – based on two of our greatest natural assets – instead of being vulnerably dependent upon the EU for most of our basic foodstuffs.

The rest of the world is a much bigger market, and the UK is a truly global trading nation. Being in the EU prevents Britain from negotiating trade deals with other countries which would be far more beneficial to our interests, to say nothing of our balance of payments. It also deprives the second largest international trading nation of a seat at the WTO.

Out of the EU, Britain would be better placed to negotiate better terms for trade deals with EU countries.

We would be better placed to do trade deals with emerging economies like China, India and Brazil, and much better placed to do trade deals with the USA and the Commonwealth countries where they ALL speak English.

It is a striking fact, little understood by the bureaucrats in Brussels, that after Britain leaves the EU it will become the EU’s biggest export market, outranking both the USA and China.   The threat that the EU would haggle over a Free Trade Agreement with the UK is fanciful in the extreme.  The EU will be desperate for a trade deal with its largest net customer.


Now – and Then…

In a nutshell, the EU is a 1950’s solution to the problems of the 1930s. 

If we were starting again - trying to create a form of democratic government to legislate and lead in today's fast-moving global hi-tech economic environment - we would not invent the EU.  It is a cumbersome, profoundly undemocratic, endemically corrupt, unitary system of government by unelected bureaucrats.  

President Gorbachev was right.  The EU is the old Soviet Union dressed in western clothes.

So, assuming no foreseeable British government has either the courage or a mandate simply to walk away from the EU by repealing the European Communities Act 1972, how does it proceed?

i.  The government announces a ruthless cost:benefit analysis of British membership of the EU – not just currently, but cumulatively – to be conducted by an impeccable independent institution. 

ii.  It guarantees to publish the findings in full, to be followed be a short period for public debate.

iii.  The government then honours its pledge to hold a referendum on UK membership.

iv.  The government ensures a fully funded campaign.

v.  Assuming a win for the No vote, parliament is invited to repeal of ECA 1972, which guarantees that all secondary legislation (Statutory Instruments) fall as well.

vi.  To avoid legal chaos, extensive government-funded publicity ensures that two key pieces of ancient legislation become better known and understood as providing immediate stability.  Contract law (since 1297) can and will protect existing contracts framed under EU ‘law’.  Further, the Indemnity Act 1766 is invoked to provide – say – a two year moratorium allowing time for willing parties to renegotiate freely their existing contracts.

vii.  Total or partial repeal of all UK primary law based on EU directives is scheduled into the parliamentary timetable.  Human Rights, Health and Safety, Data Protection, Race Relations, Extradition, and many others imposed by Brussels go under the microscope.

Lobbyists and special interest groups wishing to re-create EU ‘law’ either abolished or now under close scrutiny are thus obliged to make their case again in the context of the best interests of the British people.  These EU-inspired Acts of Parliament cannot be allowed to continue by default. 

viii.  Abolish all quangos involved in administering EU ‘legislation’ 

On the plus side, what better than the government turning the UK as a whole, and the City of London in particular, into the most substantial, safe and open tax haven on the planet?  Tax havens act as a discipline on profligate governments, our own included.  No wonder they regard the phrase as a stigma!

Therein lies the key to a thriving future – the lowest possible taxation for individuals and businesses, minimal legal interference, and the UK open to enterprise and initiatives from all over the world.

At home, the government’s immediate priorities should be to:

i. Restore the right of employers to employ the best candidate for any job.

ii. Restore Habeas Corpus and the protection of British law whenever a foreign country seeks extradition of a British national.  The prima facie case against him or her must be heard and decided by a British court.

iii. Restore British ownership of essential public services and protect our vital national interests using Mrs Thatcher’s famous golden share principle.  There can be no foreign majority ownership of essential British utilities.   

iv. Restore the right of British farmers to grow whatever they like.

v. Ban all foreign fishing vessels in a 200 miles area around UK coasts

vi. Restore spending on defence to at least five per cent of total public spending to ensure the armed forces have the capabilities and resources to defend this country and assist where needed in peace-keeping duties around the globe. 

vii. Re-establish clear difference between economic migration and genuine pleas for asylum.  Britain should accept its share of genuine refugees but without necessarily offering British nationality. 

* (References:  Speaker Betty Boothroyd, Hansard 21 July 1993, and a letter from the House of Lords Archives Office to author, September 2000.)

Tuesday, 6 August 2013

Why Did Police Deliberately Mislead a Member of Parliament?



After several weeks delay, Hampshire police have finally replied the Member of Parliament for East Hampshire, Damian Hinds, who raised questions about their investigations into my affairs, following the police raid on our home shortly after publication of my memoirs. 

The reply, signed by a female detective inspector who was not even on the team that invaded us, included four provable inaccuracies which my MP is now putting to Hampshire police.

It has been protocol in the UK for many generations that a serving Member of Parliament asking questions of a private organisation receives a reply from the managing director, chief executive or chairman.  Equally, all questions to government departments are answered by ministers, not civil servants. 

So was the discourtesy shown to Damian Hinds MP deliberate, or sheer ignorance on the part of the Chief Constable, Andy Marsh?  Perhaps Simon Hayes, the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire, who appointed Mr Marsh immediately after his own election in 2013, can explain. 

Much more crucial than such a discourtesy, however, were the serious inaccuracies in the detective inspector’s letter to Mr Hinds.  Was its purpose to mislead a serving Member of Parliament?  If so, that raises some fundamental questions about senior police management in Hampshire.

Facts are facts and the letter to Mr Hinds has four of them wrong. 

1. The letter refers to the officers present during the police raid explaining why they were there, and ends with the words “relating to the misuse of Mr Mote’s parliamentary allowances”.   Not true.  They did not.  Nor was DI who signed the letter present.  At the time, the officers present were evasive and vague, as my contemporaneous notes confirm.  Either those on the team lied to the DI, or she made a wrong assumption.

2. The search warrant the police waved on their arrival in March made several references to activities which took place – and ended – well before I was elected an MEP.  For example, one of Britain’s top constitutional lawyers, Leolin Price, QC (sadly now deceased) is named on the search warrant.  My work with him, concerning the way in which the British constitution was being undermined by the EU, went back over a decade.

Such speculative fishing for information confirms that my parliamentary allowances were not the only alleged reason for the search warrant.  My past political activities were also of interest, but they were ignored in the DI’s reply. 

So a new question arises : why are the EU bureaucrats, who obviously briefed the UK police, interested in tracking my political activities several years before my election in 2004?  There are only two possible – and equally cynical – explanations. 

Either the EU’s investigative arm, (known by the acronym OLAF) has stretched the use of its powers to the limit, or MI5 and/or GCHQ might just have been following my activities as a known anti-EU activist.  Unlikely, but possible.

Paragraph 5 of EU regulation 1073/1999, which extended the role of OLAF, reads : “…the responsibility of the Office as set up by the Commission extends beyond the protection of financial interests [of the EU] to include all activities relating to safeguarding Community interests against irregular conduct…” (There is no definition of “irregular”.)

This sweeping power, which the EU gave itself, to investigate anyone and any organisation before, during or since their having any direct involvement with the EU, is awesome.  It has been used before against activists in the UK, and abroad.  There is also good reason to believe that that part of OLAF is more akin to a secret service than to an accountable EU institution.

How else would Hampshire police, right now, be asking questions – by letter - of some of my friends and political acquaintances about their activities more than a decade ago?

If the DI’s letter to Mr Hinds had been correct in its assertions those individuals would not now be under investigation themselves.  And how did the police acquire their addresses?     Only their phone numbers were on my mobile phone directory seized during the raid.

3.  The police’s reply also claimed that questions relating to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 could not be answered “without more detail as to what was not followed”.  Yet full details were set out in my own letter to the Chief Constable on 23 April.  Again, the DI had either been misled or the police were being evasive.  Either way, their obfuscation can only have been deliberate. 

4. Finally, the letter’s author argues that there were no “unspecified offences”.  Such a reply was obviously written without reference to the original search warrant which mentions only “offences”.  If “offences” exist at all, they were all “unspecified”.  The words used in the warrant were “relating to the offences”.  Nowhere were they specified, and nowhere was the word “alleged” used - in qualification, or at all.  

To this day I still have not the faintest idea what the raid on our home was all about.  I left the European Parliament in 2009 and published my memoirs in 2013.   At the time of writing, the police are still not willing to explain themselves - even to my lawyers.

They complain that they need more time.  I’ll bet they do!

Thursday, 18 July 2013

Latest Curious Developments following Police Raid



 Three more clues…following the police raid on my home after publication of my book (details left) 

* No denials.

* Alarm amongst EU bureaucrats? 

* The police investigation has expanded.  They are now asking about events even before I was elected a Member of the European Parliament.


1. No denials

Since publication of A Mote in Brussels’ Eye earlier this year not one EU institution or bureaucrat has made any denial whatsoever of any statement, fact, claim or criticism levelled against them as EU institutions or individuals.

It is now clear that the book has been scrutinised in Brussels for many weeks and the only response has been the police raid.


2.  Alarm amongst EU Bureaucrats? 

During my time in Brussels the European Investment Bank – an institution of the EU financed by European taxpayers - financed the BBC with a string of soft loans totalling over 200 million euros in barely four years.   To the best of my knowledge to this day none of it has been repaid by the BBC. 

Requests to the EIB for specific information were never answered, written Parliamentary Questions routinely evaded.  In my experience, the EIB was one of the most secretive institutions of the EU. 

Attempts to question the EIB’s senior officials during my time on the European Parliament’s Budget Control Committee were always thwarted by the socialist chairman.  On one famous occasion he managed to ignore me until the EIB officials were preparing to go, when he finally turned and asked if I had any questions.  As I started to speak they packed their briefcases and walked out. 

Well, it seems that publication of my memoirs, A Mote in Brussels’ Eye has suddenly and unexpectedly produced a change of heart at the EIB.  This week I received an email from the bank’s PR department offering me a “free” bi-monthly e-newsletter to “keep you abreast of the EIB’s recent activities in Europe and around the world”.

I declined on the grounds that I had no time to waste reading yet more EU propaganda.  I was already thoroughly familiar with it, thank you.


3.  Police Investigation has Expanded

Since they still have it, it seems the police are now going through the extensive list of numbers on my mobile phone.  Are they contacting each person listed?  Are they tracing every call or text message?   And how have they now acquired the private addresses of some of those individuals?  Spooky.  And all this is taking months and adding to the British taxpayers’ ever-growing bill. 

Two of my closest political associates have already been contacted by Hampshire police who apparently now feel free to investigate my affairs BEFORE I was elected.  Originally, it seemed, they were interested only in what I did whilst in Brussels as a Member of the European Parliament.

Not any more.  This may be turning into a witch hunt…

Quite what my private life and political activities before I stood as a candidate in 2004 have got to do with the British police some ten years later is proving to be yet another mystery.

The trigger is obviously publication of my memoirs, but what could possibly have happened before my election to interest the police?

Perhaps I should remind them that they too, as individuals, were and still are subject to EU regulations and endless interference in their private lives.  Furthermore, as former constituents of mine they might view my (now very public) record in Brussels as a real effort to protect their interests, especially as taxpayers. But we shall doubtless come to that soon enough – once they have questioned all my contacts.

Who says we don’t live in a police state?

One of the many anti-EU projects I was involved in a decade or so ago, and which now appears to interest the British police, was launched – but failed to spark sufficient interest at the time – under the acronym DARTT

This was the action plan which launched DARTT :

All potential supporters and activists were asked to make a list of all local business areas – shops, offices, industrial estates, business parks, market traders, commercial areas, high streets, main roads, and nooks and crannies out of town.

Visit the owners or managers of all the small and medium-sized businesses in your area. Visit every business you can find. Don’t worry if it takes a few weeks.

Even churches and village halls are now covered by regulations – so visit the vicar and chairman of the parish council, too.

Give each and every one a copy of [this project] and the standard letter.

TELL THEM:

a) tens of thousands of business owners will be writing similar letters to their local trading standards offices and other agencies.

b) sending this letter may protect their business in future. The very act of sending it, regardless of the reply, may be defence evidence if they were ever prosecuted.

FINALLY - ask them to let us have copies of any replies they receive.

You could even write to some of these agencies yourself, saying you are
thinking of starting a business.

Please send separate letters to each of the following agencies in your area.  All the addresses are in your local phone book

Trading Standards Office, Health and Safety Executive, Environment Agency and any other national regulatory bodies covering your particular business sector.  For example, food, finance and care homes all have separate government agencies controlling standards.

A Message to all Business Owners

DARTT is a direct action group committed to resisting the increasing control
of the UK from Brussels. We are strictly non-party political. Our strength will be in the numbers of people who participate.

We will devise and manage frequent, nation-wide actions aimed at causing maximum
trouble to the bureaucrats in Brussels and their subordinates in Whitehall.

Each campaign will be lawful, peaceful and cause no damage to people or property.

We are currently asking the owners and managers of all businesses in the UK
to write letters to the various regulatory bodies enforcing EU and UK law on
their commercial enterprises. The text follows.

PLEASE NOTE: the very act of writing such letters may help your defence if –
at some time in the future – you were unfortunate enough to be prosecuted
for a breach of the regulations. You will be able to argue and prove that
you attempted to find out!

DRAFT standard letter:

Dear Sirs,

I understand that there are currently some 30,000 European Union regulations
and directives in force in this country, in addition to the laws of the United Kingdom.

It has also been drawn to my attention that, if I were ever to be in breach of any of them, ignorance of the law is no defence.

Would you therefore be kind enough to let me know which of these laws, directives and regulations affect my business currently or might do so in the future. I should be glad to receive full details.

This will enable me to ensure that I am acting in full compliance.

Yours truly
(signed owner/proprietor)

PS: I would also appreciate regular updates as new regulations and directives are introduced, so that I can keep within the law.

 (Full details of A Mote in Brussels' Eye, and how to get a copy from Amazon and other sellers, are listed in the column on the left)





Saturday, 15 June 2013

The Mystery Deepens and the Silence is Deafening


It is now over three months since the police raid on my home, following publication of my memoirs based on five years in the European Parliament – A Mote in Brussels’ Eye

Despite several letters to the Chief Constable and the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire I still do not know :

·   Why the raid took place at all
·   On what grounds the police were granted a search warrant
·   By whom, and at what court the warrant was signed
·   Why it referred to “the offences” without explanation, clarification or the use of the qualifying  word “alleged”
·   Who or what organisation persuaded the police to act
·   Why they did not talk to me first, assuming there was anything to talk about
·   Why they have kept my mobile phone for so long
·   Why they have retained a few papers since early March, none of which can be of any relevance to anyone else, having returned the rest almost immediately
·   Why they have refused to answer any questions or explain themselves
·   Why their silence has been deafening.

In addition to all that, my entirely reasonable questions seeking an explanation of Chief Constable Andy Marsh’s prima facie breaches of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 also remain unanswered.  So do my questions to Hampshire’s newly-elected Police and Crime Commissioner, Simon Hayes, who seems not to have exercised his own responsibilities to challenge the Chief Constable under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, Section 1(7). 

Since he appointed Andy Marsh as the new Chief Constable only days after his election as Commissioner, Simon Hayes’ apparent conflict of interest raises an important question – why do we need a Police and Crime Commissioner and all the expense of an entirely new level of bureaucracy if the police are not held to account?   
A written question about the police raid on my home was asked in the European Parliament and answered by the Lithuanian Commissioner for Taxation, Customs, Statistics, Audit and Anti-Fraud”, Algirdas Semeta.  He denied any knowledge of my affairs since 2010.  It is always possible, of course, that he was being economical with the truth, as the European Commission so often is.   
A letter from my MP Damian Hinds to the Home Secretary was side-stepped by the junior minister Damian Green who took three pages to say I should complain to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
Evasion at every turn.


What is this really all about?

Over the last decade or so I have devoted the bulk of my professional time and energies, to say nothing of the public money available to me via the EP, researching and exposing the EU’s institutionalised fraud and systemic corruption.

Not only have I recorded much of the detail in my memoirs, but I have twice taken several boxes of carefully documented and thoroughly researched evidence to the Serious Fraud Office (all of which was ignored on both occasions, and dismissed with contempt), to Scotland Yard (ditto), to a committee of the House of Lords (whose europhile chairman chose to turn a blind eye) and numerous MPs on both sides of the House of Commons (who were never able to gather enough support for effective action).

I have also briefed, and provided much detail to several UK - and some foreign - journalists (not one of whom could persuade their respective editors to run a story).

Now I find myself apparently being investigated by the very same people and institutions against whom I blew the whistle, aided and abetted by the British police who chose to ignore the evidence presented to them years ago. 

It was bad enough that the police failed to provide support, thanks and investigative vigour when I first approached them.  But it is even more intolerable, many years later, for those same British police to have scandalously undertaken the dirty work of the iniquitous bureaucracy in Brussels who are now so obviously desperate to trace my informants within their own ranks.



That is the only credible explanation why, after a delay of some three years, barely a month passed after publication of A Mote in Brussels’ Eye before the arrival of the police, without warning and in force, at my home.

I still await answers… and so will the EU.  I will never reveal my sources.

PS: Amazon has just reduced the price of my book to £3.70.


Tuesday, 7 May 2013

Update on Police Raid - 7 May 2013



After two months, the police still refuse to explain themselves.

Cash and most documents have been returned, without explanation, but I still have no idea why the police chose to invade my home on 5 March.  Nor why they have kept my mobile phone and a few other papers, none of which can be of the slightest interest to the police or anyone else.

The Chief Constable of Hampshire, Andy Marsh, has refused to reply both to a Subject Access Request (which allows individuals to know what data is held on them by official bodies) and to a Freedom of Information Request.   Nor have the police revealed the name of the JP who signed the search warrant, the law court at which he or she sits, nor the information provided to secure the signature.

The newly elected Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire, Simon Hayes, whose website carefully avoids telling the county’s taxpayers how much he and his new office cost every year, has not so much as acknowledged my three letters asking for his assistance.

Only possible explanation for both the police raid and the deafening official silence ever since is that the EU is furious at the contents of my memoirs A Mote in Brussels’ Eye.  Has Brussels persuaded the UK authorities to try to find out who my sources were?  If so, serious questions about due legal process and the rule of law will emerge later.

Meanwhile, I’m not telling.

Leverson or not, a confidential source is just that.  Having started professional life decades ago as an investigative journalist I well understand the principle and am committed to it.

Elsewhere in Brussels, a Member of the European Parliament has put down a written question to the European Commission asking if any EU institutions were involved in briefing the UK police and, if so, why?  We know part of the answer already.  The EU has demanded a refund of all my parliamentary allowances during my five years as an MEP.  That effectively confirms that the real purpose is to uncover my sources.

The drama continues...

Other Angles

My book has apparently become a source of information about the personality and character of Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP, now that he and his party have emerged as a serious threat to the Tories. 

A Mote in Brussels’ Eye records our work together in the early days, our clashes and separation after the 2004 election, and my first-hand experience of Farage and how he operates.

My earlier book OverCrowded Britain, which started life as a draft UKIP manifesto pledge on uncontrolled EU immigration, has suddenly become a sought-after source of information – for obvious reasons. 

While stocks last, I have reduced the cost on Amazon to £1.99, plus postage.  Each copy is signed, and comes with two free pamphlets – J’Accuse…! and We Want Our Country Back.





Tuesday, 12 March 2013

Publish book - Get turned over by Police

No, I am not making this up.

My memoirs A Mote in Brussels’ Eye describing my five years in the Brussels lunatic asylum came out as an eBook at the end of January.

Barely five weeks later, on March 5 to be precise, nine policemen arrived unannounced at my front door armed with a warrant to search our home.  

Much of my book details my efforts on behalf of the taxpayers of SE England to expose the gross misuse of public funds by the EU, and hold them accountable.

Such an unusually fast reaction by Brussels tells me they are both very angry and terrified. My book is obviously causing them trouble.

The police team were from the Economic Crime Investigation Team based in Netley, Hampshire. The Chief Constable of Hampshire has already been asked to explain himself.

The search warrant the police carried had been indecipherably signed only the day before by a Justice of the Peace. It was apparently based on an EU accusation that I used public funds to investigate them!

No, I am still not making this up.

It seems I should not have paid anyone to assist my work - not anti-EU organisations, whistleblowers, current and former members of EU staff, forensic accountants, one of the UK’s most pre-eminent constitutional lawyers (Leolin Price QC, no less) or any other lawyers – to say nothing of the scores of individuals with knowledge of wrong-doing who sought me out over the years.

The police took away a few documents which they thought relevant – but one was from the EU itself, demanding money with ill-disguised menaces! 

But they also took every penny of cash they found in the house on the grounds that this was a “money-laundering” exercise! That afternoon I couldn’t even pay the milkman!

Happily my book was already doing well. Now it’s doing even better. If you haven’t seen it yet, this blogspot has all the details.