I have just seen this from the Washington Post, from yesterday:
European and Slovak authorities believe that an investigative reporter who was shot to death Sunday in Slovakia was killed because of his reporting on fraud in the central European country.
Ján Kuciak, a 27-year-old investigative reporter, and his partner, Marina Kusnirova, were found dead in their apartment Sunday in Velka Maca, a village east of the capital of Bratislava.
Kuciak worked on reports about tax evasion among Slovak elites and had received threats last year from Marian Kocner, a businessman about whom Kuciak had written. The police did nothing.
Sunday's killings left Kuciak's colleagues in fear and confusion.
For the second time in six months a journalist investigating tax fraud in the EU has been killed.
We live in very frightening times.
My thoughts are with the families of those who died.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Forwarded with ‘flag’.
“My thoughts are with the families of those who died.” Amen. So it goes.
My own thoughts are also with those still living.
Once the shock at these disgusting murders has passed a related topic comes to mind. For context this is what the BBC News says today:
“Several newspapers in Slovakia have printed Kuciak’s last article, which links the Italian mafia to high-level political corruption….. he (alleged) that businessmen in eastern Slovakia – with links to Calabria’s notorious ‘Ndrangheta mafia – are embezzling EU structural funds. He also (claimed) that they have political ties in the country. According to earlier media reports, Maria Toroskova, a senior advisor to PM Fico, was among those being probed…. The (Police President) has said the motive [for the murders] was “most likely” related to Kuciak’s investigative journalism”
“Mr Fico held a press conference on Tuesday, where he stood by piles of banknotes that the government is promising in exchange for information about the killings.”
This story presents what some might reasonably consider a strong argument for Brexit. I appreciate voters focussed largely on immigration, the UK’s financial contributions to the EU, and fears over a ‘federal Europe’, but I believe the issues are interlinked.
Opposition to immigration is at least partly based on concerns about this sort of corruption, violence and organised crime. Objections to paying money to the EU are largely based on concerns around misappropriation. And people can reasonably object that the EU is legitimising politicians linked to organised crime (and other things) through closer political ties.
I anticipate the counter arguments: people in glass houses; we should try to reform the EU from within; we have a moral duty to support less developed countries in Europe; the cause of these particular murders is not proven; don’t hi-jack these tragic events to score a political point; wait and see what action the EU takes. However, I maintain the argument is a valid and important one, and I don’t think it has been adequately countered.
In this particular case, I’m horrified by these wicked murders and my reaction (admittedly in part an emotional one) is that we should be contemplating sanctioning the Slovakian Government, not validating it.
I think there are issues to take up with Slovakia, very clearly
I think the UK perfectly capable of corruption all on its own account
Read Private Eye, I suggest
I do not think this has an iota to do with Brexit and to say so is deeply misleading
Similar issues (e.g. Polish and Hungarian authoritarianism, rampant Bulgarian corruption) were a significant factor in my vote and a few other people I know. I doubt we were alone.
I subscribe to Private Eye. There’s much in the UK to be appalled about, but I think the institutionally-sanctioned murder of journalists is not a problem we face or are likelty to face any time soon. Harrassment perhaps, but murder no. Diversion of Government funds to tax avoiders yes, but institutionalised looting no. And I trust our democratic instititutions to defend that post-Brexit, despite the unsavoury prospect of four more years of a Conservative Government.
We had a civil war in this country for thirty years in my lifetime
I’m sorry Matt, but your argument is ridiculous. To vote to leave the EU, with all it’s very serious consequences for this country, on the basis that there are criminals with possible links to politicians in some EU countries who are abusing systems of EU funding, is illogical.
The damage done to Britain by Brexit ,and the industrial scale of the lying and manipulation of the Leave campaign is what you should be worrying about.
Does the fact that a few people cheat the social security system mean we shouldn’t have any at all? On the same basis, the fact that there is, and has been, some embezzlement of EU funds doesn’t mean the whole idea of the EU is wrong. It’s just a stupid little Englander UKIP trope to try and make out we’re morally superior to those ‘nasty foreigners’.
And we’ve had an MP murdered and other anti Brexit people receive death threats from the hard right anti EU fanatics. Has that happened in these other EU countries? I can’t recall it.
And as for your last sentence…..really? You trust a government containing proven liars and fantasists like Johnson, Gove, Fox, and so on to run a proper democracy?
And, given that on current form we’re moving towards a divided Ireland and a likely resumption of the Troubles thanks to this mad Brexit, which will provide a huge opportunity for organised crime (since that’s how the paramilitaries of both sides raised funds for their operations), your Leave vote is going to lead to a massive increase in precisely the kind of corruption and crime you complain about.
I stand by what I’ve said sickoftaxdodgers. To claim my position is illogical is, well, illogical. All you’ve done is disagreed with my interpretation and analysis of the facts and, to some extent, misrepresented my position. Please don’t pretend that I am self-evidently wrong. I might be wrong, and you and Richard have made some fair points, but I am not convinced.
By the way, I’m not asking to be convinced or looking for a deep engagement. I just want to make the point that there were reasonable arguments for a Brexit vote and it wasn’t necessarily just about ‘stupid little Englander UKIP tropes’. In this case I evidently failed.
Matt says:
“I just want to make the point that there were reasonable arguments for a Brexit vote and it wasn’t necessarily just about ‘stupid little Englander UKIP tropes’. In this case I evidently failed.”
Well we agree about that. Definitely a fail.
Andy, I’m a passionate advocate of the core message behind this blog – tax justice. I only raised Brexit because I’m frustrated that people who voted Leave are frequently belittled here. You may deny that happens, but two people on this page have implied I’m a ‘stupid little-Englander’. You may admit it happens and perhaps consider that fair. Whatever the case, I would urge you to contemplate that a lot of Leave voters are more intelligent than you give them credit for, and perhaps all your assumptions about the pros and cons of Brexit don’t rest on such rock solid foundations. But, obviously, continue to disagree with me.
I’ll keep advocating tax justice, but crikey, it would be nice to think that my fellow travellers in this didn’t hold me in utter contempt.
It is very, very hard to see how a belief in tax justice and Brexit can be reconciled in my opinion, and that of many others
Matt, your position is illogical I’m afraid. You’re condemning the EU as an institution due to abuse by some criminals who may have links to politicians in some EU countries. Is that in itself all the fault of the EU? As I said, does the fact that some people cheat the benefit system mean all social security should be abolished? None of that is logical.
And if, as a lot of evidence shows, the UK leaving the EU is likely to cause a lot of damage to the UK, leaving the EU on the basis that there is some abuse of it’s systems elsewhere doesn’t make much sense to me.
Of course the EU isn’t perfect – show me any human organisation that is. You can certainly argue that the way the Euro has worked has had some pretty bad economic effects in some EU countries. Overall however, given Europe’s disastrous history of conflict, it is a force for good.
There are reasonable criticisms that can be made, but that’s not the same as there being reasonable arguments to leave the EU. The rationale behind the Leave campaign is toxic mixture of right wing English nationalism, and free market fundamentalism. Neither of which is the least bit reasonable, as the behaviour of the Brexiters shows every day.
Sorry sickoftaxdodgers, I’m not being illogical. To compare the institutions of a state (e.g. the Slovakian Government) with individuals (e.g. UK benefit cheats) as you do is to compare apples and oranges. You could reasonably argue that the UK Government is capable of similar murderous wickedness, but I’d argue there are reasons why it is not (and no, I don’t believe that David Kelly was killed by the UK Government).
You put a lot of weight on the EU’s supposed success in preventing miltary conflict. I expect it is factor in that, but I believe a small one. I don’t think the break up of the EU would cause a descent into a pan-European war. In fact it could be argued that the EU encourages civil war due to its undermining of national democratic institutions. I think the risk is limited, but I consider the argument as valid as yours.
At this point I don’t particularly care what the rationale was behind the Leave campaign. I trust that Leave voters were as well informed and as altruistic as Remain voters – my personal experience certainly suggests so. I know you can point to research showing that Brexiteers have lower academic qualifications, but that is not the same thing.
Matt says:
(and no, I don’t believe that David Kelly was killed by the UK Government).
I’m not sure I do either, but I find it more plausible than the lame pretence that he committed suicide. yeah, right. So bloody arrogant they didn’t even bother to make up a cover story. But that’s by the bye.
“….Whatever the case, I would urge you to contemplate that a lot of Leave voters are more intelligent than you give them credit for,…..”
I have to accept that, Matt. Otherwise they wouldn’t even be able to tie shoelaces 🙂
I assume Brexit is reconciled with tax justice in the same way it is reconciled with all forms of progressive movements. It assumes the possibility of the election of a progressive UK Government. In that case Britain would at least align with EU transparency standards, and possibly exceed them. There would also be no race to the bottom when it came to tax rates. If it was certain the UK was going to be governed by hardened neo-liberals for the forseeable future I would have voted Remain.
But democracy cannot guarnatee that
EU membership has been a powerful force for common standards for beating tax injustice
That is why the vast majority that I know of in tax justice are pro-Remain
Richard, if you say the EU has been on the side of the angels in this, naturally I’m convinced. But I suspect a deep dive would show that is not a dominant factor in the correlation between tax campaigners and Remainers. I imagine many (most?) at the forefront of tax justice are relatively unaffacted by cheap imported labour and tend to consider the ability to work and study overseas a high priority.
I think most will think tax justice first
ANd the EU has, in my opinion, been incredibly effective at beating it
OK, I’ve taken enough of people’s time on this diversion. Thanks for the food for thought.
I haven’t lost sight that this was prompted by the murder of two young people.