Saturday, 16 May 2015

Statement following verdicts Southwark Crown Court 15 May 2015

 

 
The verdicts against me, delivered after the jury’s lunch and deliberations lasting a mere 90 minutes or so, surprised and shocked me and my legal team. 
 
The trial lasted a full four weeks.  It was overwhelmed by hundreds of pages of detailed numerical analysis, much of it disputed.  In the end, my five successive days of cross-examination and all the defence evidence and rebuttal counted for nothing.  It was obviously ignored.
 
I am advised we have good grounds for an appeal, and work is starting on it immediately.   Meanwhile, the judge has called for reports.
 
As my many supporters already know, I spent five years after my unexpected election to the European Parliament in 2004 fighting tirelessly towards the UK leaving the EU lunatic asylum, and meanwhile trying to protect the interests of constituents in SE England.  Millions of Brits want the UK’s independence and freedom as a global trading nation restored.  That was my aim, too. 
 
As my eBook memoirs A Mote in Brussels’ Eye prove in great detail, I was increasingly supported in Brussels by a growing number of bureaucrats turned whistle-blowers, and others, who wanted the EU’s institutionalised corruption and mismanagement cleaned up.  During those five years I spent enormous amounts of time and money pursuing that aim.  The jury heard little of it.
 
Despite being based on my daily diary, the book itself was not allowed as evidence in court, except a few specific extracts relating to previous evidence. 
 
This was a huge handicap, as were two other obstacles put in my way by the current judicial system.  Despite being 79 and with serious, medically diagnosed, memory problems, I was not permitted to use notes in the witness box.  Even worse was the prosecution’s freedom to use my court case in 2007, when the EU tried to exploit a legal situation to unseat me, as evidence against me in this case, too.  I have effectively been tried twice on the issue of my benefit claim when I was out of work 20 years ago.
 
Together with the understandable current climate of cynicism against anyone in politics, with hindsight these factors combined to make a successful defence virtually impossible.
 
Surprised at the outcome?  Yes.  Bitter at the current judicial system?  Yes.   Beaten?  No.
 
 
 

Thursday, 16 April 2015

Statement after Legal Argument Hearing, Southwark Crown Court, 15 April 2015



Statement by Ashley Mote.
Independent MEP for SE England, 2004-09

Legal Argument Hearing, Southwark Crown Court, 15 April 2015

The timing of the charges against me - alleging deception, false accounting and fraud – is no accident.  At the trial starting on Monday 20 April 2015 at Southwark Crown Court they will be strongly disputed. 

The trial has been set to run throughout the election campaign and is clearly intended to damage UKIP’s prospects.  The timing is blatant politics.

The charges follow over ten years of continuous investigation by the EU into my political activities while a MEP (2004-09), and since. 
  
On instructions from the EU, the British police raided my home without warning in March 2013, a month after publication of my whistle-blowing memoirs A Mote in Brussels’ Eye.    
Now, over two years later, I am finally charged right in the middle of a UK general election. 

The allegations made against me are rejected without qualification. 

The EU’s bureaucrats have unlawfully pursued a vigorous and deliberate policy of harassment against all anti-EU MEPs for over two decades.  It must stop.

Meanwhile, the CPS and Hampshire police have some serious questions to answer.  The freedom of MEPs to act according to the mandate on which they were elected is protected by law – the EU’s own treaties.  Furthermore, officials have no right to interfere with those activities, however distasteful and inconvenient they may be to pro-EU bureaucrats. 

My meticulous accusations against the EU stand.  They include incontrovertible evidence of institutionalised corruption by EU officials; proof of systematic looting of taxpayers’ money; the deliberate dilution of national identities by mass immigration; the EU’s funding of illegal raw uranium exports to Iran; the establishment of the EU’s Global Security Fund – essentially a private slush fund: and European taxpayers’ money used to finance Hamas terrorists in Gaza.  (Hamas recently became an approved EU organisation.)

My collective investigations into EU fraud and corruption resulted in two visits to the Serious Fraud Office with boxes of documents and evidence accumulated with the aid of a leading forensic accountant, and the former Chief Accountant of the European Commission. Another visit was made to Scotland Yard with documents and evidence of malfeasance against members and officials of the British government.  All were ignored.

The Government Resources Act 2000 calls for public accounts to ‘present a true and fair view’, and demands ‘that money provided by parliament has been expended for the purposes intended by parliament’.  Why has the law never yet been applied to funds sent to the EU? 

My memoirs, A Mote in Brussels’ Eye, encapsulate my defence.  The contents have long been in the public domain and the book itself has been selling well all over the world since publication over two years ago.   Memoirs link :  
http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-Mote-Brussels-Eye-Ashley-ebook/dp/B00B40DWMS

My website :  http://amoteinbrusselseye.blogspot.co.uk/   has a full statement rebutting these latest allegations.  It will be updated as events unfold.                                                    (ends)

Saturday, 21 March 2015

The EU is interfering in the British general election




The EU is interfering in the British general election


Does the EU have the right to interfere in the British general election, let alone try to influence the outcome?  Right now that’s a very good question because that is what it is doing.

The EU was responsible for much of the funding of three programmes recently broadcast on two British television channels.  All three attempted to demean anti-EU opinion in the UK.  Two also set out specifically to undermine support for UKIP.  Not their business at any time, you might think, let alone in the run-up to a general election.

But the bureaucrats in Brussels clearly don’t care a fig about what is right and acceptable, and what is not.

Anyone who saw the two programmes broadcast on Channel 4 earlier this month (March 2015) mocking UKIP, or the one on the BBC a week later claiming that leaving the EU would be a disaster for the UK, will know the viciousness of the scorn poured over British anti-EU opinion on prime-time television.

Only in the small print of the closing credits was there any indication that the EU was directly behind such outrageous interference in Britain’s internal affairs at a crucial time in our democratic process.

Channel Four’s UKIP: The First 100 Days was funded by Culture, an EU funding agency which is, and always has been, an integral part of the European Commission’s long-term financial programme to gain public support.   

As recently as last December Culture was openly advertising the provision of up to 500,000 Euros each from the EU’s bottomless pit of taxpayers’ funds to any “creative and cultural organisations” needing to fund the “co-development, co-production and programming” of new ventures.  

Of course, funding of the BBC via the EU’s Investment Bank has been known for many years.  In my memoirs as an MEP (A Mote in Brussels’ Eye) I reported the admission by Margot Wallstrom, the Swedish Commissioner for Communications, finally prised out of her after years of obfuscation, that the BBC had received over 100 million Euros from the EU up to 2009.  

I have no reason today to think anything much has changed.  Indeed, the EU made no attempt to hide its funding of the BBC’s The Great European Disaster Movie. The producer Annalisa Piras, a left-wing Italian journalist based in London, advises both the BBC and The Guardian on European affairs.  She has worked closely with Bill Emmott, formerly editor of The Economist, on other films produced by Emmott’s Springshot Productions, as indeed was this one. 

According to the credits, funding came from a least half-a-dozen public service broadcasters in Europe.  The leading financial backer was Arte, the Franco-German Euro TV Channel founded in 1991 in Strasbourg (were else?) by Helmet Kohl, Francois Mitterrand and others.  They have been busy ever since peddling pro-EU rhetoric all over the continent.  The BBC’s programme was merely the latest.

Then, even more recently, Channel 5 broadcast a supposed documentary, Farage Fans and UKIP Lovers.  The credits appeared to suggest this was an internal production, but the content suggested an EU finger in the pie somewhere.  The programme’s research team had gone to great lengths to find a handful of truly odd-ball nutters, including an overweight nurse into bondage and self-flagellation, an arrogant old bachelor with verbal diarrhoea, a lesbian couple with four children, and a heavily tattooed toy soldier fanatic of truly weird appearance.  Yes, we also heard from a London cabbie, a blind ex-serviceman, a classics graduate, and two Asian businessmen - all in the name of what producers call ‘balance’. 

But Channel 5’s purpose was obvious.  Most UKIP supporters are extremists and weird-dos.  Only a trawler fisherman and his crew provided any serious – and valid – contribution to UKIP’s case for leaving the EU.  And they did it well.  More like that and the programme might have been worth watching.  Instead it was a worthless lampoon.

So was the EU involved?  Could Channel 5’s producers have resisted the EU Culture fund’s offer of half-a-million Euros to help finance a programme ridiculing UKIP?  No chance.  Channel 5 is a commercial channel after all.  Apart from anything else, lower costs equal higher profits.  

Three major UK television channels – Channel Four, the BBC and Channel 5 – all setting out to ridicule UKIP.  And the EU openly funding at least two, and probably all three of them.

The question stands.  What business is it of the EU, either directly or via one of its many funding vehicles, to seek to interfere in, let alone influence, the outcome of a general election in a sovereign state?

Answers on a postcard please, to  :  

 Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, Brussels.


Don’t expect an answer – not even a lying denial.  The EU regards itself as above criticism and answerable to no-one.

(end) 

Monday, 26 January 2015

Proof of my work in Brussels on behalf of British taxpayers  

 
 
Below are the links to several videos of my speeches in the European Parliament over the years 2004-09, which are all on the public record.  I was normally allowed one minute only – so they are mercifully short.
 
You Tube also carries a great many more of these short speeches, and many other longer speeches shot at public meetings around the country.
 
These clips demonstrate my straightforward and uncompromising stance on matters concerning British taxpayers funds. 
 
They were also dreaded – and ignored whenever possible – by officials and commissioners. 
 
NEVER ONCE was anything I said in the EP ever challenged or disputed by any official or Commissioner.  Not once.
 
I believe any juror (or judge for that matter) seeing these few minutes of material would recognise my work for what it was – say what needed to be said and to hell with the consequences. 
 
(I hope their reaction to my memoirs A Mote in Brussels’ Eye would be the same.)
 
[To access each video press the Control button and simultaneously press the left of mouse]
 
OLAF DG “does not snoop”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vElfTpE3iI 
 
EIB funds BBC and bought its support
 
US Ambassador to EU knows about fraud
 
Appointment of Competition Commissioner
 
Court of Auditors are a charade

Unexplained deaths of senior EU officials involved in ECB
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6EJ_5lL7I8
 
SFO briefed on EU fraud and corruption
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q6ncZySb3c
 
EU’s secret Global Security Fund
 
 
500 euro banknotes and a new central banker
 
UK contributions to EU unaccounted
 
Lack of Budget Control
 
 
Finally, part of a speech I gave in the UK.  It last about 10 minutes, but contains some important facts about the way the EU operates, hitherto unknown
 
 
Enjoy – and circulate as you please
 

 

Thursday, 23 October 2014

The EU Must Be Very Afraid

On Monday 20 October, 2014, the UK’s Criminal Prosecution Office announced that charges were being brought against Ashley Mote, the Independent MEP for South-East England 2004-09.  The charges allege misconduct in public office, acquiring criminal property, false accounting and deception. 

All these belated allegations follow over ten years of investigation by the EU into Mr Mote’s political activities while a Member of the European Parliament.  All relate to matters which have been in the public domain for many years, following his whistle-blowing activities.

In a public statement immediately after the charges were announced, Ashley Mote said:  

The timing of these charges is no accident. 

On instructions from the EU, the British police raided my home without warning in March 2013, barely a month after publication of my memoirs A Mote in Brussels’ Eye.    

Now, over 18 months later, I am charged within days of UKIP winning its first seat in the House of Commons. 

One coincidence too many.  And much to the benefit of Cameron in the run-up to the general election.

The allegations made against me are rejected without qualification.  As for the EU’s devious attempts to implicate my family, they are beneath contempt. 

Meanwhile, the CPS and Hampshire police have some serious questions to answer.  The freedom of MEPs to act according to the mandate on which they were elected is protected by law – the EU’s own treaties.  Furthermore, officials have no right to interfere with those activities, however distasteful and inconvenient they may be to pro-EU bureaucrats. 

The EU acted outside the law.  They are in breach of Article 28 of the Merger Treaty of 8 April 1965 which was incorporated into later treaties.  The relevant words are : Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties.  Those opinions can, of course, only be formed by investigation of the EU, and votes cast on the basis of knowledge.

It can be no surprise that these same bureaucrats have unlawfully pursued a vigorous and deliberate policy of harassment against all anti-EU MEPs ever since the first few were elected almost two decades ago.

Meanwhile, my accusations against the EU stand.  Amongst many other things, I have published incontrovertible evidence of institutionalised corruption within the EU, proof of the systematic looting of taxpayers’ money, and evidence of the deliberate dilution of national identities by mass immigration and imported criminality. 

Other accusations include the EU’s funding of illegal raw uranium exports to Iran; the establishment of the EU’s Global Security Fund – essentially a private slush fund: and European taxpayers’ money used to finance Hamas terrorists in Gaza.

My collective investigations into EU fraud and corruption resulted in two visits to the Serious Fraud Office with boxes of documents and evidence accumulated with the aid of a leading forensic accountant, and the former Chief Accountant of the European Commission, Marta Andreasen, who had been sacked for her pains. 

Another visit was made to Scotland Yard, also with documents and evidence of malfeasance against members and officials of the British government. 

Finally, I must point out that I have repeatedly asked a crucial question of successive British governments.  Since the United Kingdom's Government Resources Act 2000 calls for public accounts to ‘present a true and fair view’, and demands ‘that money provided by parliament has been expended for the purposes intended by parliament’, why has the law never yet been fully applied to funds sent to the EU?  I still await an answer.

My memoirs, A Mote in Brussels’ Eye, published in January 2013, provide details of all of the above, and much more besides.  I intend to circulate substantial extracts in my defence, and my memoirs will be essential reading for the jury.  All these matters have been in the public domain for years.  There can be no sub judice restrictions on discussion on any of these issues.

Ashley Mote added, “Do I really need to remind people in the UK that the European Union has a flag no one salutes, an anthem no one sings, a president no one can name, a parliament (in Strasbourg) no one wants, a capital (Brussels) full of a bureaucrats no one controls, law-makers no one elected and a currency based on a fiction?

“The past 15 years have proved to me that EU’s bureaucrats will stop at nothing to preserve their own self-interests – even when the euro and the continental economy are crashing down around their ears.  They dominate the EU because there is no mechanism to rein them in.  They answer to no-one.  They also have the keys to the safe.

“It will all end in tears.  The only outstanding question is about the scale of the damage its collapse will leave behind”, he concluded.

Memoirs link   http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-Mote-Brussels-Eye-Ashley-ebook/dp/B00B40DWMS

New statements rebutting these latest allegations will be added to this website :
http://amoteinbrusselseye.blogspot.co.uk/   It will also be updated as events unfold.

 (ends)




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!