Sunday, April 29, 2007

Now what can he mean by that?

Last weeks proceedings in Strasbourg were enlivened by these comments by Ashley Mote MEP.
It must be remembered that Mr Mote was turfed out of UKIP after he had failed to reveal that, only a month or so before the 2004 election he had been summonsed to a committal hearing due to a large benefit fraud case in which he is the defendant.

Ashley Mote (ITS).Mr President, I must draw the attention of this House to a threat to its integrity. A ruling last week in the British courts held that after granting an application to lift the immunity of a
Member who faces specific charges, the European Parliament can be assumed simultaneously and implicitly also to have lifted immunity against any other charges without further examination of the facts. Such a ruling is prima facie contempt of this House. It opens the way for blanket applications from Member States and implies the possibility of applications against any and all Members to be exercised by any future government at its discretion. If unchallenged,
this ruling would profoundly undermine the Rules of this House and its
procedures. I appreciate that this issue comes to light from a Member whose scepticism of this institution is well known, but I respectfully remind you that I am also an advocate of the rule of law wherever it is to be found.
Today, Mr President, I have sent you, the Secretary-General of Parliament and the Chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee details of the situation, inviting examination of the implications of this ruling.


These comments couldn't have anything to do with the three weeks planned court time in Chichester during June could they, perchance?
And I particularly like the comment, "I respectfully remind you that I am also an advocate of the rule of law wherever it is to be found".
Of course you do Ashley. Which is why you first frivolously applied for Parliamentary immunity when you knew that offences committed before being elected are not covered. Not only that as a staunch defender of British constitutional rights you could never have thought that elected politicians should be immune from criminal activity, no never. And having lost you case in the Parliament, you wouldn't have moved heaven and earth to keep your name out of the papers by applying for and being granted anonymity even when you case was heard. And you wouldn't have taken this frivolous immunity case all the way to the Court of the First Instance in Strasbourg. There too it wouldn't have been under anonymity (We know who you are Mr V) and you would not have threatened to sue journalists who were reporting on a politician in a corruption case. Shame youir case in Strasbourg was thrown out but you wouldn't be talking about yourelf in this way would you. No it must a 'friend of yours' who is in these dire straights.


Of course it wouldn't be you Ashley, because you believe in the Rule of Law.

2 comments:

Aunty Marianne said...

I hope people actually laughed at him when he said this.

Elaib said...

There were a few chortles, but to be frank at 5pm on a Monday, do you really think that there are more than ten poeple in the chamber?

Twitter