Dave Gardner

Recently, an ex MEP ex Reform member, Nathan Gill, was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for the crime of taking a bribe and acting improperly on that basis. He pleaded guilty thus avoiding a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. In this issue of ‘Labour Affairs’ we reprint two of the speeches that he made in the European Parliament allegedly under the influence of bribery by a Russian-oriented Ukrainian oligarch.

Readers will note the reasonableness of the views expressed in Gill’s speech. There is no reason to suppose that he did not make these speeches, and others, in good faith. Neither is there any reason to suppose that he did not act impartially in considering the benefits of free speech. Certainly as an MEP he was acting in a manner consistent with his occupying a position of trust. Why would an MEP belonging to the ‘Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy’ Group not make a speech defending freedom of speech? Obviously what he had to say was not palatable to the Russophobic and pro Ukrainian parliamentary majority in the European Parliament, but parliaments are meant to allow for the expression of diverse opinions. Gill had clearly committed a serious crime in offending European parliamentarians.

The Bribery Act of 2010 certainly merits some attention. Gill committed an offence outside the UK which means that he could be prosecuted within the UK. Furthermore, in considering whether or not he acted improperly the court has to take into account what a ‘reasonable person’ would expect of his actions. If such a ‘reasonable person’ were to consider that accepting money for making a speech were to constitute improper conduct then Gill would undoubtedly be guilty. But apparently ‘reasonable persons’ avert their eyes to other flagrant breaches of the 2010 Act. Most glaringly, accepting lavish hospitality as a ‘friend’ of foreign powers does not appear to excite the concern of reasonable persons. The problem with this legislation is both that it is catch-all in its provisions and that it is selectively applied. If applied consistently many MPs and ex MPs would now be contributing to the overcrowding of Britain’s gaols. But when the right kind of bribes from the right kind of people are involved, ‘reasonable persons’ can find nothing amiss. There are good reasons for thinking that Nathan Gill was prosecuted because he expressed unpopular opinions in an influential public forum and that he was sentenced to a lengthy prison term to strike fear into others who might wish to dissent from the current Russophobic war narrative. 

It is a matter of regret that he is now routinely described as a ‘traitor’ even by people on the traditional left. They should know better. We are but a short step from calling anyone who dissents from current policy towards Russia a ‘security risk’ or even a ‘traitor’. Nigel Farage has said that he felt ‘let down’ by Gill, when Gill was receiving his full support at the time of making his speeches. Instead he has suggested that Labour politicians be investigated for their links to the Communist Party of China, thus exacerbating the parliamentary hysteria. The Bribery Act, along with the Terrorism Act of 2000 is being used to suppress civil liberties and in particular freedom of speech. Apparently all the parties in Parliament are happy about this.