Press Statement by Ashley Mote
(UKIP/Independent MEP for SE England, 2004-09)
13 October 2014
Rebuttal of Criminal Prosecution Service allegations that...
Ashley Mote “obtained a money transfer by deception, fraud by false representation,
false accounting, receiving the proceeds of crime
and misconduct in public office”.
The timing of these charges cannot be accidental. They come immediately after UKIP has won its first seat in the House of Commons. In barely seven months a general election will see UKIP dramatically upset the political apple-cart.
How better to undermine UKIP than to silence and discredit one of the EU’s fiercest and longest-standing critics? A political trial of a well-known former UKIP member in the run-up to polling day must be irresistible to the British government. It has willingly caved in to the demands of the European Union. It has agreed to become the EU’s stooge as Brussels’ bureaucrats continue their vendetta against me which started over a decade ago. A show trial will suit Cameron’s government very well. Any damage to UKIP will benefit the Tories next May.
This latest round of attacks started with a demand for over £200,000 spent by the EU in 2006-07, when the British government tested the EU’s claim that MEPs had immunity from prosecution. I made no such claim – nor did I wish to. But the British government insisted that my alleged immunity be tested through the EU’s legal processes.
My costs were met by the EU – but now they want them back! I refused, and don’t have that kind of money anyway. The EU has never attempted recovery through the English civil courts. Instead, their bureaucrats have decided to use English criminal law in retribution – a blatant case of malicious intent.
The allegations made against me are rejected without qualification. As for the EU’s devious and evil 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 in, or with, those activities, however distasteful and inconvenient they may be to pro-EU bureaucrats.
Why else did the European Parliament refuse to allow the EU's anti-fraud office, OLAF, to conduct an investigation into the alleged misconduct of four MEPs in March 2011? So why not in my case?
Did the CPS complete a thorough check on the legal powers of OLAF (or any other EU institution) to investigate MEPs? I believe not. OLAF had no authority to intervene, and officials of the European Parliament had no authority to ask them to do so. The EU has openly attempted to flout MEP’s legal protection.
I have evidence 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 follows that the CPO, and Hampshire police, were briefed unlawfully. The bureaucrats in the European Parliament grossly exceeded their authority. But that is nothing new.
If the past 15 years have taught me anything it is that the 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. This is true across all EU institutions. Their jobs are permanent. They answer to no-one. The EU belongs to them. They are the self-appointed guardians of ‘the project’, as they like to call it. They also have the keys to the safe.
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.
These latest accusations against me are merely more of the same.
For the record I should add that, during my term of office (2004-09), a report by internal auditors showed the management of MEPs allowances and expenses to be in a state of “perpetual legal and administrative chaos”. So on what, exactly, is the CPS relying? And how credible will it prove to be when EU bureaucrats stand in an open English court to face cross-examination?
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.
All these submissions were ignored, the first to the SFO without the boxes so much as being opened. Any trial calling my activities into question will provide an ideal opportunity to cross-examine the officials responsible for such negligence at length and in public. It will also provide an opportunity to cross-examine EU bureaucrats, if necessary subpoenaed as hostile defence witnesses, in an English court of law, possibly for the first time.
My fight with OLAF started almost immediately after my election in 2004. At an open meeting of the EP’s Budget Control Committee that year, I directly challenged the German director-general, Dr F-H Bruner, about his organisation’s lack of investigative vigour into corruption inside EU institutions. Dr Bruner declared “It is not up to OLAF to snoop around our friends”. Almost five years later I publically questioned the extraordinary decision to re-appoint OLAF’s now discredited director-general, after a new and far better qualified candidate had been found in Sweden.
My researches also established that the EU was funding the BBC through the European Investment Bank via a series of soft loans to buy editorial support. That dubious practice apparently came to an end after I left the European Parliament.
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.
A fuller statement rebutting these latest allegations will be on this website shortly:
http://amoteinbrusselseye.blogspot.co.uk/ It will also be updated as events unfold.