Are Payments To and From EU Lawful? A Follow-UP
New information, following my first letter to the Court of Auditors, has prompted a second letter to the president of the European Union’s Court of Auditors, this time with copies to the two Commissioners responsible for the EU´s Budget.and a copy to Alistair Darling, the UK´s Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA,
president, Court of Auditors,
Luxembourg
November 2008
Sir
I write further to my letter of 19 September about the legality of payments from and to statutory organisations which have had their accounts qualified. I asked whether - in those circumstances - any paying authority might be open to the charge of negligence and/or malfeasance.
Since that letter I have had my attention drawn to a ruling of the European Court of Justice when Italy attempted to impose a turnover tax. The ECJ upheld a challenge on the grounds that the treaties permitted VAT only. The treaties were found not even to permit such an additional tax by derogation.
Does this not indicate that any tax raised by an institution under EU law, and which can be held to be unlawful, is legally uncollectible? Certainly that would appear to be the case in the UK.
Across the EU as a whole, if institutions are held to be acting unlawfully - as my first letter argued - then the earlier ECJ ruling clearly indicates that they are not covered by the treaties. Therefore the collection and distribution of VAT is itself unlawful.
This is clearly an issue of substance and one of great importance. The consequential implications are obvious.
The facts that have now come to light bring into question the EU’s authority to empower member states to raise any tax revenues, whether VAT, customs duties or anything else. They also reinforce my contention that it subsequently has no authority to receive and then distribute such public monies
In view of these new considerations, I am additionally copying Mr Kallas, Mrs Grybauskaite and the chairman of the Budget Control Committee.
I await your reply to both my letters with great interest.
Ashley Mote MEP
Independent, South-East England
SEEDA Not Fit For Purpose
J E Braithwaite CBE
Chairman
SEEDA
Guildford
12 November 2008
Your circular of 6 November [about the economy of south-east England] yet again underlines the absurdity of public money being used to fund the South East England Development Agency.
You should be abolished and public funds put to much better use.
Ashley Mote MEP
Letter to Sunday Times
27 October 2008
Sir
Simon Jenkins’ splendid final article did not mention two crucial points in support of his argument.
First, in the UK the state answers to us - not the other way around as in so many EU countries. Every five years we can throw the rascals out and elect another lot who have absolute power to repeal or amend any law passed by previous governments.
Secondly, we have tragically lost the vital stabilising role of unambitious back-benchers in the House of Commons. Middle-aged men “wanting to put something back into society” have been replaced by hopelessly inexperienced youngsters embarking on a career in politics.
Unlike their predecessors, they do as they are told. Climbing the greasy pole depends on it, and we, the people, are much the poorer for it.
Ashley Mote MEP
author Vigilance - A Defence of British Liberty
(not published)
Letter to the Editor - Daily Telegraph
11 Nov 08
Sir
The chances of the EU meeting the entirely proper demands of the nine taxpayers’ alliances (letters 9 November) are as close to zero as makes no difference.
Yet again, yesterday, we heard from the Court of Auditors in Brussels a catalogue of good intentions wholly unequal to stopping the misplaced flow of billions of euros and their unaccountability.
The EU has been shifting the deck-chairs on a this particular Titanic for years. It stays afloat largely because of public indifference to the waste of their taxes.
Crucially, the concept of ’shared management’ which leaves accountability in the hands of recipients of public funds is not widely understood. Yet it is the primary cause of the failure of the Court to sign off the accounts for the last 14 years.
Nor will they ever, until the root cause is addressed.
Ashley Mote MEP
Independent, SE England
Member, Budget Control Committee of the European Parliament
Brussels
Federalist MEP Attempts to Change Lisbon and Insults Czech President
While the Lisbon Treaty has still not been ratified, and the chances are looking poorer by the day, at least one federalist in the European Parliament, Andrew Duff MEP, is already trying to introduce changes in it, and establish the election of “European MEPs? instead of national MEPs in elections from 2014 onwards.
Andrew Duff is the lib-dim MEP for East Anglia. When asked to introduce himself he refuses to say he is British. He describes himself as a European federalist. Just as well he was not born two centuries or so ago, when treason was still taken seriously.
In Prague recently with a European parliamentary delegation, Mr Duff insulted the Czech Republic’s president, Vasclav Klaus, in a public meeting. He described President Klaus’ application to the Czech Republic’s Constitutional Court to consider the legality of the Lisbon Treaty if his country were to ratify it, as meriting “only a Beta-minus” if Mr Duff had received it from a student. Fortunately Mr Klaus was not present, otherwise a diplomatic incident might quickly have followed .
To respond to, or comment on this Email, please email ashley.mote@btconnect.com
Posts
