Hacker News Reader

Comment by flexie | Hacker News Reader

Very disturbing. EU needs a "federal" police force to investigate such things. Regardless of what the prime minister says, and we should assume his innocence, we cannot assume that his government will investigate it when he's an obvious suspect.

To make matters worse, Malta is a tiny island state where "everybody knows everybody". I was there just a few months ago and you can comfortably walk around the (stunningly beautiful) capital in a few hours and see the entire nation in a matter of days.

While Malta supposedly has a great deal of corruption, it's not considered more corrupt than so many other member states in Southern and Eastern Europe, and quite frankly, it would be nice also in Western and Northern Europe to have a supranational investigative body in stead of or in addition to parliamentary hearings, commissions etc. that often require parliament majority which rests with the government parties anyways.

View on HN

This is the type of crime, that by definition, nobody who has the power to investigate wants to investigate.

This most likely was payback for exposing someone's offshore holdings, and the response was chosen to send a message: "Do not expose", and was done in such a bald-faced way that this crime's occurrence presupposes the existence of the very corruption needed to facilitate getting away with it, that any investigation would need to uncover.

TL;DR - that a crime like this, which requires corruption to execute and get away with, can happen, presupposes the investigative apparatus is unable to investigate it, with high probability.

Isn't the message more like "expose, but anonymously"? Well, I mean, hopefully that's how people would understand it.

Anonymous exposure doesn't carry the same weight and can easily get lost in shuffle. No one cares about a random page buried in Wikileaks until some journalist highlights its existence and starts making a lot of noise about it. I mean, from what I understand, this journalist was 'just' reporting on information that was already readily available to anyone willing to go through all the Panama Papers.

And yet somehow we have Fake Steve Jobs, The Grugq, and the Shadow Brokers.

Pretty sure pseudonymity is just as effective for investigative reporting bylines as using an identifier tied to the address at which your family sleeps.

Pretty sure pseudonymity is just as effective for investigative reporting bylines as using an identifier tied to the address at which your family sleeps.

I'm just not sure I believe that. Do you think the Snowden leaks, for example, would have had the same spread and impact if it was just an pseudonymous data dump and without someone like Glenn Greenwald and The Guardian adding a 'face' and legitimacy to the information?

The face doesn’t need to be his face.

pseudonymity != anonymity.

Most pseudonyms give away plenty of information to be able to be tracked by an assassin or other kind of "influencer".

This'll be the last we ever hear of this story. The half-hearted investigation will fizzle away to nothing, and everything stays the way it is.

Yes, a supranational organization which draws its executive leadership from unelected politicians certainly needs to create an armed force with broad-stroke investigative powers in order to prevent corruption. That sounds like a fantastic idea!

Exactly part of the EU meisterplan - 1st economic union, then, oh wait, that doesn't actually work without sacrificing national sovereignty.. guess we need to have a federal european government afte rall, and all the better if noone is elected.

Heil das Heiliges Römisches Reich!

Maybe not so far fetched http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/59067

Oh come on. Do you take those guys seriously?

>draws its executive leadership from unelected politicians

Eh?

They work at the whim of the parliament don't they?

EU parliament is lame duck, the commission can ignore any resolution if they so please.

Democracy in EU is only second order because commission is made up government representatives of each member.

What's with the funny German? Are you saying you are an EU sceptic or are you mainly a germanophobe?

You know that different dialects of German were just some of the many languages spoken in the Holy Roman Empire, and not the official ones, right?

I agree that democracy in EU is far from perfect but no EU institution is beyond democratic control. All answer to democratly elected politicians.

Not a germanophobe; but that the trajectory of a single autocratic western empire (what would result from this police force in my view) is not a new idea, and infact the EU is to some extent simply an economic-focused philosophical follower-on of the holy roman empire, which in turn was the philosophical follower-on of the actual western roman empire.. The fact that the german central bank dominates the economic discussion does make for a bit of fun double entendre however.. which is not to say that this is either good nor bad - i'm of mixed feelings as concerns our view of historical systems.. it's just rediculous that it pretends to be some sort of 'free market democracy'

> All answer to democratly elected politicians.

In much the same way that when acting in cabinet, the 'prince electors' were still subject to their local populace.. it is a second tier.

Bureaucracies grow larger and gain more power over time!?

Can the EU be stopped? Nations will plead the 50th slowly over time.

That's the only answer I believe is feasible.

How do you propose handling this assassination?

No clear answers unfortunately..

Increased effort to fight corruption on a local level and dismantle the tax loopholes which facillitate such things would probably be the right path..

It is completely inconsistent to complain about the EC not being directly elected (it is nominated by the member governments) yet also complain about "sacrificing national sovereignty" to the EU.

The entire reason that the EC is controlled by the member governments rather than by the directly-elected parliament is because that arrangement maintains national sovereignty of the member states. A directly elected European executive would have a competing mandate with the national governments; an EC controlled by the member governments is naturally subservient to them.

when a consortium of other state leaders can meet to enact legislation that is binding on my country it is not sovereignty, even if my leaders have a vote..

I understand this is by treaty currently so your points tsnds; my argument is that creating standing armed bodies such as this is a step down the path to a change in such arrangements (as basically all of history will demonstrate)...

I, personally, do not think that European countries that already harass other European countries should have even more power by creating a new supranational investigative body which they will consist of, that will only further assert their power over other member states.

Can't they consist of people from all countries?

The original comment suggested countries only from Western and Northern Europe, thus my comment. I find it disturbing that this subtle discrimination is supported. I do not oppose the idea of all countries being involved.

That's not what the original comment was suggesting - the line about Western and Northern Europe was that the author feels that such a supranational instigative body would also be helpful there.

Got it, sorry. I misinterpreted it. My apologies.

I believe you misread the post. I think what it meant to say was that such a police force would also be nice in Western and Northern Europe, where big cases of corruption usually lead to long winded hearings and commission processes and take years and years to investigate often ending with few concrete results.

You are correct sir, my bad. That makes more sense now, thanks for clarifying. Sorry!

No, the original comment by <flexie> did not suggest "countries only from Western and Northern Europe". Therefore, your allegations of subtle discrimination are based on your own mistaken reading of the comment:

> ...quite frankly, it would be nice also in Western and Northern Europe to have a supranational investigative body in stead of or in addition to parliamentary hearings, commissions etc. that often require parliament majority which rests with the government parties anyways.<

Alleging discrimination is serious, so you should at least make sure to actually read and think aobut a comment before accusing it's author of being discriminatory.

I have read it, obviously, since I have made a comment. I could have misinterpret it due to wording, commas and ideas inwrought in the other part of the comment, which has actually happened.

Okay, I'm sorry for being overly critical. It was first thing in the morning where I am, must have woken up on the wrong side of the bed!

No need to be sorry, my downvoted comment was overly defensive in the first place, so I take the blame for that :) I have misread it and that goes on me!

What kind of harassment do you mean? Could you give examples?

The solution to government corruption is more government!

Man, this thread is great for a chuckle. The same people saying that wouldn't say, "The solution to police brutality, is more police to watch the police." Then we'll need more police to watch the police to watch the police. Then we'll need police to watch the police to watch the police to watch the police. ad nauseam.

How about we all agree that international politics and corruption in government is not a simple topic with easy catchphrase answers? What's government consist of? People. And money/power. The two hardest things on the planet to keep from becoming corrupt. Anywhere you have lots of ONE of them, it's a nightmare of security, regulations, and social engineering. Government has both. Limitless nameless faces all trying to climb over each other to get ahead. It's Hollywood without the talent or the regulation.

Thats why you build constructs that gets all the people climbing over each other, to be busy backstabbing?

So what is your solution? you haven't made an argument that there is an alternative choice other than 'more government'. Sure, bureaucracies are sprawling beasts of inertia, but what's the alternative here? Less government hasn't exactly proven to be less corrupt - it might just look like that because less corruption is outright visible.

It’s not that hard.

Like most problems, the defense is isolation and segmentation.

You build a bureaucracy where the folks running said bureaucracy are disconnected from meddling by the people at the top. When you go to DMV, there isn’t significant corruption in that process. It’s equally painful for everyone. There’s some reshuffling of appointees between administrations, but the bureaucracy does what it does.

It has some already. But they need real teeth to investigate crimes like this.

But having unleashed, powerful agencies they do not control is hard to swallow for many politicians, so international anti crime agencies are often limited to advisory roles.

>EU needs a "federal" police force to investigate such things.

So, something like the Europol? (And there's also Interpol).

Europol budget is 1/80 of FBI's

FBI uses it's budget to spy on its own citizens (Prism) and interfere with political process. The budget is supposed to be small.

FBI's budget should have been 1/80 of FBI's too -- the US has 25% of the world's prison population, with just 4% of the world's population.

Wow, they are doing such a great job obviously! /s

The FBI is only a small part of the US criminal justice system. 90% of US prisoners are held in state or local prison, not federal ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...

The FBI isn't a large part of the reason the US has so many people in jail & prison. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws are about 3/4 of the cause, along with treating drug addiction as a crime instead of as strictly a health concern is most of the rest of that (with all of it broadly falling under the war on drugs). The get-tough-on-crime (by putting everyone in prison) era, during the Reagan / Bush / Clinton years, is the root.

Do you think the FBI is really driving incarceration? Federal prisoners are only ~10% of the US prison population and tend to be convicted of more serious crimes.

And what does Europol does anyway? Are they actively involved in high profile investigations?

Europol's function is basically just coordination of the police forces in EU countries. It's not even close to a federal police force.

There's the European Public Prosecutor body intended to be established sometime soon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Public_Prosecutor

Malta doesn't seem to be in the list of participating countries, though. It's also only for financial fraud.

Will not happen, German politicians delay everything anti-corruption as long as absolutely possible.

> EU needs a "federal" police force to investigate such things.

As an Eastern European EU citizen...fuuuuck no.

Why not? Most "Eastern European EU citizen" I know support this kind of idea... what is wrong with it? Corruption is bad, and I would not care if a French, German or Bulgarian national uncovers it.

I think a lot of people from the former Eastern Bloc don't like the idea of federal police because it sounds a bit close to some of the communist era policing.

Communist era policing is local, opaque and with tendency for cover-ups. State wants prosecution to make their problems go away quietly.

Federal police by definition has a lot of eyes on the process so it's the opposite.

Because the EU should absolutely not become a superstate like the US, it should remain firmly an economic and political union and the less force it is capable of exerting, the better. That means no army and no police force? How Democratic can such structures be really? Also don't tell me western and northern states won't be privileged in such a scheme. It's us in the south and the east that are corrupt and can't handle our organized crime groups obviously.

To be fair, a lot of EU money does magically disappear in Eastern Europe due to corruption. But I don't disagree with your statement.

That's by design.

These money that did disappear purchase loyalty of locals at the power. It will stop only when these people will be no longer needed to push for EU interests.

> To be fair, a lot of EU money does magically disappear in Eastern Europe due to corruption.

And so the EU police will also be fair.

That's a nice pipe dream. But without force, it'll become irrelevant.

It can be as Democratic as people make it.

Western states are already privileged, they have the population advantage.

Anyway, it's not like corruption (and market efficiency) analyses are just made up.

Case in point, Hungary. Billions of euros went there and at least 30-40% got funneled to "friends and family". The good old Putin model. Dear Leader has nothing, his yearly wealth report is whiter than snow, his friends on the other hand .. well, they are the best businessmen on Earth: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-25/what-s-bo...

The other "interesting" thing is that OLAF (the EU's anti-corruption office) found a lot of irregularities in Hungary, recommended investigations. And nothing happened. (The Prosecutor General of Hungary ... happens to be a good friend of those involved.) See also: https://budapestbeacon.com/olaf-says-hungary-misappropriated...

> It can be as Democratic as people make it.

Yes and no; the current EU is put together with accountability structures that make sense for a trade body (which is after all what it evolved from) - as a Brit it reminds me of our (deliberately apolitical) civil service. In principle it could be possible to reform the EU into something with the kind of accountability structure appropriate to a political body, sure, but it's an enormous institution with a lot of cultural inertia.

It already has better foundations and processes than a lot of member states' internal ones.

Sure, the failure case of a strong EU is much worse than the current situation (EU-dystopia), but the current situation is very much like a limbo, it's kind of like an opportunity, and it won't exists forever. (Poorer states will be left behind, because even though they are subsidized by the EU, without structural changes, the whole system will break into pieces.)

It is so nice when the rich civilized European states decide what poor states should do. After all the rich European states know more than the poor states what's good for them. After all, Africa is grateful for the European colonialism. Just ask any Sudanese or Liberian.

> That's a nice pipe dream. But without force, it'll become irrelevant.

Transnational authority is extremely terrifying and western Europe has an extremely horrible and tragic track record when allowed to decide the fate of other people.

> It can be as Democratic as people make it.

That's a nice pipe dream.

> Western states are already privileged, they have the population advantage.

I meant that force would be used disproportionately against poorer states

> Case in point, Hungary. Billions of euros went there and at least 30-40% got funneled to "friends and family".

I have opinions about the wisdom of subsidies in general.

Less privacy, once again. If you look at all the legislation that has been put into place over the last two decades to combat money laundering and terrorism financing -- was this really necessary? Did it really have an impact? I still hear about terrorists blowing themselves up every day.

Yes, high level political corruption is bad and this assassination is tragic. It should be fought. But do you think that by just introducing another body, things will be much better?

People will be people. Corruption, dealmaking and scheming, together with greed, is as old as mankind. It will happen regardless, and it happens in Western countries as well (Belgium, France, the UK, etc); just in a different way.

Less privacy? Privacy is already lost. It'd be much better if we'd gain something for this loss.

Currently there is at least one EU member state that is playing dirty, basically stealing money from its people. (State guaranteed profits for friends' companies.) And unsurprisingly Hungary doesn't want to participate in the EU Prosecution ( http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/... )

So, how do you know there wouldn't be more terrorist acts without those regulations? Of course, the burden of proof should be on those who proposed the regulations in the first place to argue for the effectiveness of the regulations, but your framing of the problem remains inefficient.

Furthermore, yes, people are people, and greed is universal. But we can measure corruption (and fraud), and we see that in states/countries with certain institutions failing (or absent) result in more fraud/corruption.

And it's very much like herd immunity. Our banking privacy is already lost ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Reporting_Standard ) it'd be good to have something keeping those tax authorities in check. (And who will watch the watchers, yes. I know.)

Yes, obviously in countries with absent or failing institutions there is more fraud and corruption. But high level political corruption is literally everywhere. You're right on low level corruption, though.

Do you think there is less high level political corruption in France, Belgium, the UK or Germany? There is definitely less fraud going on, and the corruption is less obvious, but it's still there.

One simple example: go to any western EU country. Take an entrepreneurial family that, say, employs 500+ people in a country. It is almost certain they will get 1) better tax rulings, and 2) the tax authority will be more lenient when dealing with them. They will get away with more.

And if an overeager civil servant doesn't understand that, the case will likely be taken away from him and moved to someone who does. Because political connections matter and that's what happens. If you're part of the "elite" of any country, there's a lot that can be done by knowing the right people.

> Do you think there is less high level political corruption in France, Belgium, the UK or Germany?

I don't know, but it's not "unknowable".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index#R...

There are known ways to minimize corruption. Transparency and public accountability, public tenders, well documented public procurement workflow, mandatory conflict of interest disclosures, and so on.

It's not rocket science.

And yes, I know. There are always favorites, friends, family. That's the thing that a well functioning judiciary should be able to post-correct. (Similarly how EU market liberalization must be coupled with enforcement of no-most-favored-nation, the same treatment should apply to local family owned and non-local non-family owned companies.)

Of course, the populace has to be the driving force, to elect people who promulgate these equality ideas from the top.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com