MEP Raises Concerns over Bill giving EU Bureaucrats Immunity

mkpdavies · 05-01-2005, 03:47 PM

http://ukip.org/abc_news/gen12.php?t=1&id=1167

Quote:

Jeffrey Titford, the UK Independence Party MEP for the Eastern Region has been raising concerns about the International Organisations Bill, which reached second reading stage in the House of Lords just before Christmas (16.12.04). Mr Titford has been pointing out that the Bill, if adopted as law, will confer diplomatic immunity from prosecution on EU officials working in a wide variety of institutions.

Do any of the other parties MEP's actually do anything? The only people who seem to be looking out for Britain, is UKIP! No change there then!

Quote:

As usual, the national press in this country completely missed this iniquitous Bill as it was totally preoccupied with the David Blunkett saga at the time. There is no doubt that the EU bureaucracy, aided and abetted by this Government, is turning itself INTO phpbb_a highly privileged elite which is above and beyond the law. Not content with that, they also want all their sons and daughters included! It is rapidly becoming one law for ordinary hard working British citizens and their families but quite another for those civil servants and their offspring who are fortunate enough to be on the EU gravy train

Yes, tell it how it is. IT IS THIS SERIOUS. The people have to wake up to what is being done to them!

Aardvark · 10-01-2005, 11:26 AM

Problem - sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander! Only one UK MEP is hiding behind his Parliamentary immunity and he was elected on a UKIP ticket. A German MEP recently raised no objection to his immunity being waived so that he could be prosecuted for a RTA. If said MEP contests the waiver of his immunity, as he is entitled to do, then UKIP will be branded as hypocrites. If you live in the SE write to the MEP in question and urge him, for the sake of all of us, to allow his immunity to be waived otherwise no UKIP supporter can ever again raise the issue in any debating chamber without the matter being thrown back in his face. Let's face it, an innocent man has nothing to fear from the waiver of immunity. This is a serious problem.

Bluemerle · 10-01-2005, 12:12 PM

Hello Aardvark,

Can you tell us who the MEP in question is please?

mkpdavies · 10-01-2005, 02:23 PM

I guess he means Ashley Mote, but I would want to see proof that he is doing this. Not from Coles blog though as that is suspect. If it is true though, then Mote needs to go I am afraid!

Bluemerle · 10-01-2005, 03:27 PM

I would need to see proof too. I went to a meeting about a month ago at which Ashley spoke and I was very impressed. Although he is now an Independent MEP, he is doing a great job uncovering the corruption and fraud going on in the EU.

from http://www.ashleymote.co.uk/news2.php?TB=home47

Speech in Strasbourg 13 December 04 - Freedom of Speech on the European Parliament
Mr President, at our last part-session in Strasbourg, Mr Farage was warned of the legal consequences when he spoke about Mr Barrot. The clear implication was that he could not speak his mind without fear of arrest or prosecution. Amongst others, Mr Watson said so, although he himself had previously been rude about Marta Andreasen. Many of us objected to this, but we did not object to Mr Watson's right to speak his mind.

I understood this House to provide immunity from prosecution or from reprisals for words uttered in this Chamber during a plenary session. How else can a genuine parliament function, or is this not a genuine parliament?

After Mr Farage spoke, the question of French law was invoked. We are on French soil but the relevance of French law is questionable, as we are endlessly reminded that EU law takes precedence over national law. So my question is this: had Mr Farage the right to speak his mind as he did and, if not, how and on what authority is Members' freedom of speech in this House curtailed?"

The President of the Parliament, Spanish socialist Mr Borrell Fontelles, immediatley confirmed that the European Parliament is an extra-territorial organisation, and that when it meets local law does not apply. Freedom of expression is possible for all MEPs...except that (he said) they must respect the honour and vulnerability of colleagues.

Then he went on "It is possible for French law to limit freedom of expression."

Confused? Join the club!

Ashley Mote upsets Auditors and is publicly invited to examine the accounts of the EU !
The president of the European Union's Court of Auditors, Mr Valles, reacted angrily in the European Parliament on 2 December, during a debate of the Court's 2003 report, which - for the tenth year running - failed to sign off the EU's accounts as a true and fair records.

He responded to the speech of Ashley Mote MEP by publicly inviting Mr Mote to visit the Court's offices in Luxembourg with his team of professional accountant advisers to examine the records in detail.
Mr Mote immediately accepted the invitation, and now awaits a letter of confirmation.

Earlier, during the one minute he was allowed, Mr Mote had told the Parliament:

Mr President...the Court of Auditors is a charade. The misappropriation of public funds starts with their paymasters. So it's impossible for them to be effective.

The few honest, experienced, professional accountants ever allowed near the heart of the Commission's treasury function have all spoken out about institutionalised malpractice.

The accounting system is not secure, changes in the financial records are untraceable, and the new system will be little better.

The new financial regulations, which are supposed to strengthen controls actually increase the risk of fraud.

The Court and OLAF focus on problems after public funds leave Brussels. That takes the heat off the Commission - where the real problems lie.

Why else have professional accountants, and those with a lawful duty, been denied access under a mysterious "duty of discretion"?

Why else has the treasury not been subject to an independent audit in more than 14 years?

It is scandalous.

This is taxpayers' money. They want an end to unaccountability. They want an end to institutionalised EU corruption. That's why a quarter of a million people voted me this seat.

I will not let them down.

Aardvark · 10-01-2005, 08:33 PM

Indeed Ashley has been working very hard, but that is why it is important that he gets on with the process of clearing his name. His immunity has to be waived by the other MEPs; he is not allowed to do this on his own. He is, however, allowed to contest the waiver and my concern is that he shouldn't do that. Watson, the leader of the Liberals is on the committee that considers the issue (19th Jan I think). The last thing that is needed is to give material to the man who congratulated Prodi for sacking Marta Andreasen. There is a need for Eurorealists to be above board in everything that is done, otherwise, as the Tories demonstrated during the sleaze years, every minor transgression is used to attack the honest, hard working members.

Sciurus · 11-01-2005, 12:14 PM

Interesting, this:

www.europeanvoice.com/archive/issue.asp?id=427 Subscription only, unfortunately, but the DWP appears to be behind the request to waive Ashley Mote's immunity.

My understanding is that they would only be allowed to apply to the EP if the presiding judge thought there was an extremely good reason for the application. This, however, is not the same things as incontrovertible proof.

Of course, we can't discuss this without prejudicing Mr Mote's chance of a fair trial, so no further comments on how this would look to our enemies.

I also note that Mr Mote has expunged his researcher's details from both the accredited assistants list on Europarl, and from his own website, so it looks like they've parted company.

Would this have been because of Mr Mote's decision to waive his own immunity, or would this be because his researcher is an intelligent and honourable individual who knows more than he finds comfortable regarding Mr Mote? Pure conjecture at this stage and again, discussion would not be fair to Mr Mote until he has sorted out his numerous problems.

Presumably we'll find out once Ashley Mote has put the court case behind him.

It should be noted that Mr Mote's work so far has been so effective because of his researcher and the other members of his 'team', including Ms Andreasen and others. It will be interesting to see how he fares in the forthcoming months. :?

chikrodah · 11-01-2005, 04:11 PM

Aardvark said:

Quote:

that is why it is important that he gets on with the process of clearing his name.

I couldn't agree more. However, on 16 December 2004, Graham Watson swapped his seat on the Legal Affairs Committee with Victoria Bernathne Mohacsi (a Hungarian) so he could be on the Economic & Monetary Affairs committee instead.

Unfortunately, of the other UK members on the JURI committee, Diana Wallace practised as a solicitor and Theresa Villiers is a barrister (Lincoln's Inn); Ashley can't rely on a fellow-eurosceptic to support him when she must be well aware of all the legal ramifications.

Rainier Wieland, the German MEP mentioned by Aardvark, is/was a member of the Legal Affairs committee, so he must have realised how it would have looked if he had not agreed to his own immunity being waived.

The request to waive a Czech's immunity was discussed before Christmas, but no EU documentation yet re the request to waive Ashley Mote's immunity. Mind you, this is only from the draft minutes of the session on 16 December that Ashley himself attended. Maybe we ought to ask him directly.

If Ashley is as much of a gentleman Cricketer as his non-eurosceptic books make out, he'll know that the time has come to show the rest of the MEPs just what sort of a man he is. After all, he is surely only too aware of the impact of RKS's leadership attempt on both UKIP members and the general public. He wouldn't want to be tarred with the same sort of derogatory comments that Kilroy-Silk's political assistant attracted in late September 2004.

If the request to waive his immunity is still to be voted on, this means that the report back from the JURI committee would most probably be made public in late April or early May. That's too close to the General Election for my liking. The press would be all over UKIP.

Come on Ashley, do the right thing. :roll:

Sheila · 12-01-2005, 03:46 PM

The International Organisations Bill is amending an act which dates way back to the 1960s.

Is the bill actually changing anything other than adding the newer EU agencies to the list of International Organisations? I didn't think that any new provisions or privileges were being added? Has anyone read it and could enlighten us?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-01-2005, 11:26 AM	#2 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,928	Problem - sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander! Only one UK MEP is hiding behind his Parliamentary immunity and he was elected on a UKIP ticket. A German MEP recently raised no objection to his immunity being waived so that he could be prosecuted for a RTA. If said MEP contests the waiver of his immunity, as he is entitled to do, then UKIP will be branded as hypocrites. If you live in the SE write to the MEP in question and urge him, for the sake of all of us, to allow his immunity to be waived otherwise no UKIP supporter can ever again raise the issue in any debating chamber without the matter being thrown back in his face. Let's face it, an innocent man has nothing to fear from the waiver of immunity. This is a serious problem.

10-01-2005, 12:12 PM	#3 (permalink)
Bluemerle Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Dorset. Posts: 3,252	Hello Aardvark, Can you tell us who the MEP in question is please?

10-01-2005, 02:23 PM	#4 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,846 Party: Libertarian Party	I guess he means Ashley Mote, but I would want to see proof that he is doing this. Not from Coles blog though as that is suspect. If it is true though, then Mote needs to go I am afraid!

10-01-2005, 03:27 PM	#5 (permalink)
Bluemerle Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Dorset. Posts: 3,252	I would need to see proof too. I went to a meeting about a month ago at which Ashley spoke and I was very impressed. Although he is now an Independent MEP, he is doing a great job uncovering the corruption and fraud going on in the EU. from http://www.ashleymote.co.uk/news2.php?TB=home47 Speech in Strasbourg 13 December 04 - Freedom of Speech on the European Parliament Mr President, at our last part-session in Strasbourg, Mr Farage was warned of the legal consequences when he spoke about Mr Barrot. The clear implication was that he could not speak his mind without fear of arrest or prosecution. Amongst others, Mr Watson said so, although he himself had previously been rude about Marta Andreasen. Many of us objected to this, but we did not object to Mr Watson's right to speak his mind. I understood this House to provide immunity from prosecution or from reprisals for words uttered in this Chamber during a plenary session. How else can a genuine parliament function, or is this not a genuine parliament? After Mr Farage spoke, the question of French law was invoked. We are on French soil but the relevance of French law is questionable, as we are endlessly reminded that EU law takes precedence over national law. So my question is this: had Mr Farage the right to speak his mind as he did and, if not, how and on what authority is Members' freedom of speech in this House curtailed?" The President of the Parliament, Spanish socialist Mr Borrell Fontelles, immediatley confirmed that the European Parliament is an extra-territorial organisation, and that when it meets local law does not apply. Freedom of expression is possible for all MEPs...except that (he said) they must respect the honour and vulnerability of colleagues. Then he went on "It is possible for French law to limit freedom of expression." Confused? Join the club! Ashley Mote upsets Auditors and is publicly invited to examine the accounts of the EU ! The president of the European Union's Court of Auditors, Mr Valles, reacted angrily in the European Parliament on 2 December, during a debate of the Court's 2003 report, which - for the tenth year running - failed to sign off the EU's accounts as a true and fair records. He responded to the speech of Ashley Mote MEP by publicly inviting Mr Mote to visit the Court's offices in Luxembourg with his team of professional accountant advisers to examine the records in detail. Mr Mote immediately accepted the invitation, and now awaits a letter of confirmation. Earlier, during the one minute he was allowed, Mr Mote had told the Parliament: Mr President...the Court of Auditors is a charade. The misappropriation of public funds starts with their paymasters. So it's impossible for them to be effective. The few honest, experienced, professional accountants ever allowed near the heart of the Commission's treasury function have all spoken out about institutionalised malpractice. The accounting system is not secure, changes in the financial records are untraceable, and the new system will be little better. The new financial regulations, which are supposed to strengthen controls actually increase the risk of fraud. The Court and OLAF focus on problems after public funds leave Brussels. That takes the heat off the Commission - where the real problems lie. Why else have professional accountants, and those with a lawful duty, been denied access under a mysterious "duty of discretion"? Why else has the treasury not been subject to an independent audit in more than 14 years? It is scandalous. This is taxpayers' money. They want an end to unaccountability. They want an end to institutionalised EU corruption. That's why a quarter of a million people voted me this seat. I will not let them down.

10-01-2005, 08:33 PM	#6 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,928	Indeed Ashley has been working very hard, but that is why it is important that he gets on with the process of clearing his name. His immunity has to be waived by the other MEPs; he is not allowed to do this on his own. He is, however, allowed to contest the waiver and my concern is that he shouldn't do that. Watson, the leader of the Liberals is on the committee that considers the issue (19th Jan I think). The last thing that is needed is to give material to the man who congratulated Prodi for sacking Marta Andreasen. There is a need for Eurorealists to be above board in everything that is done, otherwise, as the Tories demonstrated during the sleaze years, every minor transgression is used to attack the honest, hard working members.

11-01-2005, 12:14 PM	#7 (permalink)
Sciurus Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 66	Interesting, this: www.europeanvoice.com/archive/issue.asp?id=427 Subscription only, unfortunately, but the DWP appears to be behind the request to waive Ashley Mote's immunity. My understanding is that they would only be allowed to apply to the EP if the presiding judge thought there was an extremely good reason for the application. This, however, is not the same things as incontrovertible proof. Of course, we can't discuss this without prejudicing Mr Mote's chance of a fair trial, so no further comments on how this would look to our enemies. I also note that Mr Mote has expunged his researcher's details from both the accredited assistants list on Europarl, and from his own website, so it looks like they've parted company. Would this have been because of Mr Mote's decision to waive his own immunity, or would this be because his researcher is an intelligent and honourable individual who knows more than he finds comfortable regarding Mr Mote? Pure conjecture at this stage and again, discussion would not be fair to Mr Mote until he has sorted out his numerous problems. Presumably we'll find out once Ashley Mote has put the court case behind him. It should be noted that Mr Mote's work so far has been so effective because of his researcher and the other members of his 'team', including Ms Andreasen and others. It will be interesting to see how he fares in the forthcoming months. :?

12-01-2005, 03:46 PM	#9 (permalink)
Sheila Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Reading Posts: 579	The International Organisations Bill is amending an act which dates way back to the 1960s. Is the bill actually changing anything other than adding the newer EU agencies to the list of International Organisations? I didn't think that any new provisions or privileges were being added? Has anyone read it and could enlighten us?