Politics: Le Pen mightier than the sword?

By Richard North - April 1, 2025

It doesn’t really matter how the French authorities seek to justify the prosecution and conviction of Marine Le Pen for the so-called “embezzlement” of European Parliament funds, this has all the hallmarks of a stitch-up, aimed at knocking her out of the French presidential race.

The point here is that the use of European Parliament funds for national political activities is widespread throughout the EU. Almost every single party is guilty of the same practice for which Le Pen has been prosecuted. Ukip certainly did it, as did every other party in our group.

At the time I was there, Ukip was part of the then EDD group, and each of the national groups was entitled to nominate staff to work on group activities, who then went on the EP payroll. I was one of two staff in 1999 paid by the parliament. In theory, I worked for the group, even to the point of having an office separate from the national MEPs.

In fact, I worked exclusively for Ukip, notionally in breach of my contract of employment, but then every party was doing the same with its group staff. We had a much larger Dutch delegation which was part of the EDD, and their group staff didn’t even bother showing up in either Brussels or Strasbourg. I gather they had an office in Rotterdam where they worked exclusively for their party.

Within the group, we had all sorts of funding for a diverse range of activities, including a massive “information” fund, which was effectively handed out to the parties in proportion to the number of MEPs they had. In my day, I used some of those funds to produce Ukip pamphlets, with a distinctly Eurosceptic tinge. But as long as they had an EDD reference on the cover, that was deemed permissible.

To my certain knowledge, the Tories and other UK parties were at it, funding “jollies” throughout Europe, which were little more than party political bases. But as long as they had an EU flag in the corner of the room where they had their meetings – something which never worried the Tories – anything went.

As for the parliamentary authorities (or “services” as we called them), they were fully aware of what was going on and consistently turned a blind eye to it. Even a superficial audit of group funds would have provided chapter and verse as to what was going on.

It was said of the attitude of the EU that they were quite content to see the rules being “bent” by MEPs as this gave the services some leverage over the members, allowing what amounted to “disciplinary” action to be taken to keep the extremes of behaviour in check. In that event, it was rare for there to be a prosecution.

One might recall that, in 2018, Farage was sanctioned by the EP for using his expenses to pay the salary of an assistant who, it later transpired, was not working on EU matters – as was the case for virtually every MEP assistant in the parliament.

In this event, the authorities acted by docking Farage’s pay to the tune of £35,000, an action which was condemned by his group spokesman as part of “a vindictive campaign by the European Parliament of selective persecution of Eurosceptic MEPs, parties and groups”.

Therein lies another important element of the Le Pen prosecution. Most of the action taken against MEPs is handled in-house, typified by the way Farage was treated. Only in respect of outright theft for personal gain are national authorities involved, as was the case with Ukip MEP Tom Wise who was jailed for siphoning a secretarial assistance allowance into his own account.

Normally, when it comes to the financing of the EU institutions, what goes on in Brussels tends to stay in Brussels. The writ of the national authorities does not cover the EU, which has diplomatic privileges and indemnities, as indeed do the MEPs, which normally keep their activities at arms-length

Therefore, the only way the French authorities could have gathered the evidence to mount a successful prosecution of Le Pen was if they had the active collusion and assistance of the EU authorities, and the agreement of the European Parliament in stripping her of her parliamentary immunity.

In court for a trial lasting two-months, it turns out that Le Pen has been prosecuted for exactly the conduct widespread throughout the EP. When she took over the party leadership in 2011, as an MEP she inherited the system that had been started by Jean-Marie Le Pen.

Her National Rally staff, working at their headquarters, were accused of signing “fictional contracts” for parliamentary work but it was established that all these people “were in reality working for the party and not for the MEP to which they were theoretically attached”.

Even the BBC seems to allow that the prosecution is unwarranted. “No-one likely to vote for the RN seriously holds it against Marine Le Pen for illegally financing her party using EU parliament funds”, it says. “They all know that practically every French political party has resorted to similar underhand methods in the past”.

By the same token, the broadcaster remarks. her “draconian” punishment will be interpreted as a badge of honour: proof that she alone is standing up to the powers-that-be.

As it stands, Le Pen has been handed down a four-year prison sentence, with two years suspended, while the other two will be spent with an electronic tag rather than in custody. On top of that, she has been fined €100,000 (£82,635), but what is particularly damaging is a ban on running for office for five years.,

At the start of the reading of the verdict, the judge, Bénédicte de Perthuis, said Le Pen had been at the “heart of the system” which saw what he termed the “embezzlement” of €2.9 million-worth of EU funds. Two dozen RN figures were also found guilty and the party was ordered to pay a €2 million fine, with half the amount suspended.

What is particularly suspicious about Le Pen’s penalty is that while the prison sentence and fine are held in abeyance pending appeals – as she has already signalled her intention to pursue – the judge has ruled that the ban on holding office should be implemented with immediate effect.

With the appeal process possibly running into years, this will effectively prevent her running in the next presidential elections in 2027, in a move which Le Pen slams as a “political decision”, declaring that the rule of law has been “completely violated”.

“Millions of French people are outraged. In France, the country of human rights, judges have applied the laws of an authoritarian regime”, she says, calling the judgement a “tragic day for our democracy”.

Understandably, Le Pen is refusing to quit politics and warned the ruling does not just affect her as a politician, arguing that millions of voters are also affected. “Let’s be clear”, she says, “I am eliminated but in reality it’s millions of French people whose voices have been eliminated”.

With typical pomposity, though, the Guardian is on the case, delivering its view on the verdict, declaring that: “no politician is above the law”.

“Having been found guilty of systematic embezzlement”, the sub-head proclaims, “the far-right leader cannot claim to be a political martyr”. “At a time when the rule of law is being undermined by populist leaders who view an independent judiciary as a threat”, the editorial goes on to day, “the judges’ verdict has drawn a necessary and salutary line in the sand”.

Yet, Le Pen has a valid point about the rule of law, the quintessential elements of which include equality under the law, and freedom from arbitrary prosecution. If the law is to be applied, it should be applied uniformly, and not – as is self-evidently the case here – for political reasons.

And despite the Guardian’s wibbling, the Telegraph has no doubts that Le Pen will be made a martyr, with Europe’s “far right” set to cast her as a modern-day Joan of Arc.

One can only hope that this isn’t taken too literally as the fate of the original was to be burnt at the stake by the English, but then the “globalist elites” were not much in evidence.

While Le Pen’s European allies are keen to paint her as a martyr sacrificed on the orders of globalist elites who are determined to prevent her becoming the leader of one the EU’s most influential countries, they tend not to resort to burning fair maidens – leaving that to random Islamists.

And, for all that this is a local affair, it does have international implications. US president Trump has been quick to comment, calling the decision to ban Le Pen from office, “a very big deal”.

“She was banned for five years, and she was the leading candidate”, Trump added, offering a reflection on his own experience, saying: “That sounds like this country, that sounds very much like this country”.

Earlier, we are told, a United States official, Tammy Bruce, when asked about the court decision, expressed concern about people being excluded from politics. “Exclusion of people from the political process is particularly concerning given the aggressive and corrupt lawfare waged against President [Donald] Trump here in the United States”, she said.

For the moment, though, with the [French] sword of justice hanging over her, Le Pen must now prove which is mightier: her or the sword.