
London pushes to take Saudis off EU dirty money blacklist - glassworm
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-saudi-moneylaundering/london-pushes-to-take-saudis-off-eu-dirty-money-blacklist-sources-idUSKCN1PX13V
======
kartan
> that pose money-laundering and terrorism financing threats

So, Uk is fine with a country that finances terrorism in the UK itself as long
as the elite gets a good chunk of money. At the same time, the UK wants to
leave the European Union because immigration is "bad".

What about letting immigrants in, but keeping state-sponsored terrorism out?

All discussions have become so monetary centric that politicians publicly
support the vilest of actions if there is money to gain (see Khashoggi torture
and murder). The public should bring back some idealism and fight for a better
world, not just for money. Otherwise, one day, we will wake up in the Middle
Ages.

~~~
dingaling
> because immigration is "bad".

The malicious simplification of argument.

Immigration will continue after Brexit, just like it does today for Canadians
or Thais or Ukrainians or whomever non-EU moving is to the UK. No-one pretends
otherwise except sneering anti-Brexiters.

Look, we're going into this together. It's time to stop being dickish and work
out what we're going to do in the new reality whether we like it or not.
Ridiculing half the population as uneducated xenophobes isn't going to achieve
anything.

~~~
Ntrails
Half the reason we are in this mess is because politicians are too stupid to
properly discuss this without resorting to straw men and personal attacks.

Free movement is not without consequence, address it honestly, attempt to
solve real issues and maybe people come around.

~~~
NotAnEconomist
> Free movement is not without consequence, address it honestly, attempt to
> solve real issues and maybe people come around.

The problem is that unrestricted movement disrupts culture and lowers a lot of
social statistics all at once - in a way that can be really disruptive to the
host culture.

Similarly, no matter how you explain it, the deal in practice is "We'll take a
lot of money from the middle class and give it to the globally impoverished."

Understandably, the people who are just being taken from don't seem to like
that deal very much; and cultures which are rapidly disrupted by low-class
migrants don't seem to do well.

Never mind that "free movement" is usually just political cover for people
looking to import more workers after their leadership and the society they
built is so toxic, it's killing the indigenous population. Naturally, the
people being fed into the meat grinder and replaced aren't particularly fond
of paying for their replacements to be imported.

Talking about "free movement" in that context has about the same tone as
"right sizing" your business, while off-shoring.

~~~
arethuza
But Brexit probably won't reduce immigration - it might well increase total
numbers. All that will change is where people are coming from.

~~~
NotAnEconomist
I didn't mean to imply Brexit was a solution to anything - just that people
can understand what the deal with free movement is, but be against it for
perfectly rational reasons.

------
entity345
Relevant article excerpt to balance the title:

"The list needs the endorsement of a majority of the 28 EU nations but Britain
and other heavyweights of the bloc, including Germany, France, Italy and
Spain, are raising concerns, three EU officials told Reuters."

~~~
nolok
The other countries have concerns with the list overall but it seems the main
detractor to specifically SA being in it is the UK, seeing this quote:

"Britain is the country that is pushing more openly not to include Riyadh in
the list, one official said, while Spain is insisting it excludes Panama."

~~~
makomk
Ah, so Spain only wants to exclude one of the main money laundering locations
from this anti-money laundering blacklist. What about the other major EU
states like Germany and France - what are their objections?

------
westinghouse
It's almost like we're desperate for any financial institution to find us
relevant post Brexit.

~~~
kitd
Well, that plus we're desperate not to be cut off from Saudi intelligence
gathering.

------
glitchc
Hear, hear! Post-Brexit London will act as the financial intermediary (read:
laundromat) between the Saudis and the EU.

~~~
sven773
The Panama Papers showed this is how London (or the 'The City of London' to be
precise) has stayed financially relevant since the fall of the British Empire.

~~~
bogomipz
Do you have a citation for this? How would this be possible?

The fall of the British Empire begins with World War 2 and is mostly finished
by the independence movements of the early 1960s. Yet "The City" was only
deregulated in 1986 under Thatcher.

~~~
jacobdx
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np_ylvc8Zj8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np_ylvc8Zj8)

~~~
bogomipz
Thanks this looks interesting. Unfortunately I don't have time watch this now
in it's entirety. I will later however. Cheers.

------
lisper
Am I the only one struck by the colossal irony (to say nothing of hypocrisy)
of trying to influence EU policy while simultaneously trying to leave it?

~~~
swarnie_
Maybe - We're still a member and still have MEPs who vote for now. I see no
reason to waste the time and influence while its here.

Since this is annoying some people would you care to reply and explain why the
UK should not be represented when it continues to fund the EU?

~~~
lisper
> I see no reason to waste the time and influence while its here.

Then let me suggest one: it violates the intent of democracy, which is
government by the consent of the governed. To exert your influence over the
rules that others have to live by when you no longer consent to be governed by
those rules is just a dick move in my book.

~~~
lixtra
Bad example. The EU is not a democracy. It’s a union of democracies. You’re
part of the union until you aren’t.

~~~
lisper
On that view, the United States of America is not a democracy either. Now, I
grant that the proposition that the U.S. is a democracy is arguable nowadays,
but not because it's a union of separate states.

~~~
objektif
Yeah it was not a democracy since politicians were allowed to be bought under
the name of free speech.

------
bryanrasmussen
Why wouldn't the EU just say, hmm, let's wait a couple months before we
finalize this.

~~~
skrebbel
Actually that would be an extremely EU thing to do.

------
Y_Y
Well if selling arms is a large part of your economy you need to have a way to
get the oil and blood stains out of the money you receive.

~~~
JoeSmithson
Arms sales are not a large part of the UK economy

~~~
justin66
(edited for clarity) they're the world's sixth largest arms exporter,
immediately after China on the list: [https://www.businessinsider.com/top-
countries-exporting-weap...](https://www.businessinsider.com/top-countries-
exporting-weapons-arms-sales-2018-3#6-united-kingdom-5)

Interestingly, half of those sales are to Saudi Arabia.

~~~
JoeSmithson
Your point doesn't contradict my point at all...? Are you saying that ~0.5% is
"a large part"?

~~~
justin66
I don't know or care about that 0.5% figure, but five percent of exports is a
significant chunk of the UK's economy, yes. Are we pretending it isn't for
some reason?

It will be an unusually useful flow of money in the months to come because it
doesn't depend on a decent trade relationship with the EU to continue.

~~~
JoeSmithson
How are you calculating that Arms represent 5% of UK exports?

~~~
justin66
I'm a little shocked at how much it is in absolute terms, but I'm not familiar
with this data. Don't have a lot of time to spend on this but, from the UK
government:

 _On a rolling 10 year basis, UK remains the second largest global defence
exporter.

In 2017, the UK won defence orders worth £9 billion, up on the previous year’s
(£5.9 billion) and further illustrative of the ‘volatile’ nature of the global
export market._

[https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defence-and-
secur...](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defence-and-security-
exports-for-2017/uk-defence-and-security-export-statistics-for-2017)

Total 2017 exports were $441 billion USD (call it 340 pounds sterling?).
[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-
world...](https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-
factbook/geos/uk.html)

That looks like about half of what I said in percentage terms. I'd stand by
what I said about it being a sizable chunk, though.

(there are some big picture odd and probably important things about these
numbers which I haven't even thought about, like, the UK exports F-35s to the
United States?!? I'm not sure who gains leverage from that in the trade
relationship, but I suspect it's the US.)

~~~
JoeSmithson
UK exports in 2017 were ~£617bn [0] meaning £9bn in arms exports represented
about 1% of exports and about 0.5% of the UK economy. Personally I would not
describe 0.5% as "a large part" of anything, I would describe it as "a small
part", but if you think otherwise we can agree to disagree

[0]
[https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpay...](https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/ktmw)
m

~~~
justin66
> UK exports in 2017 were ~£617bn

How odd that the CIA World Factbook was so far off. Thanks.

> Personally I would not describe 0.5% as "a large part" of anything, I would
> describe it as "a small part", but if you think otherwise we can agree to
> disagree

I think you're linguistically right, but all this sperging out about the
distinction between being a large part of something versus being a small part
of an extremely large whole is perhaps missing the point a bit. To Y_Y's
original point, which isn't _really_ about the total size of the UK's economy
and was of course a bit harsh: a taste of nine billion pounds is more than
enough money to cause politicians to behave dishonorably or irrationally and
to make some powerful few rich beyond the dreams of avarice. There are some
pretty nasty examples of what happens when a slice of that kind of money is at
stake in the US government's budgeting process, and I imagine the UK is at
least similar.

------
darepublic
Isn't the situation that Germany wanted in WW1/2 now a reality? They are the
main power in Europe and Britain is an isolated has-been. Funny how
differently reality unfolds in contrast to the narratives of meaning we try to
construct around it. Britain won the war.. but lost the war.

~~~
rusk
_> Britain won the war.. _

I think the reality of this is a little more nuanced. By virtue of geography
(it's an island) Britain was the last place Germany were able to overrun. This
bought time for what remained of the European forces to gather and reorganise,
and provided a staging point for further counter-attacks.

The fact is, that _Britain has never been invaded_ , not in modern times
anyway, and outside of bombing raids has never known the true humiliation of
hearing the foreign powers' jackboot marching down the street.

Just about every other nation in Europe has, and understands the value of the
peace that closer union brings about.

 _>.. but lost the war._

Ultimately being able to claim _" they won the war"_ may have done the UK more
harm than good because they were never incentivised to address their _deep_
_deep_ social issues in any kind of a constructive way.

The good that comes out of the brexit fiasco might be that this is an eventual
turning point for them.

~~~
beerlord
I wouldn't view it as 'this is what Germany wanted from WW2', instead 'this is
how Germany should have carried out WW2'.

You can imagine that if Germany made better use of individual European
countries, made some high-profile infrastructure and regulatory improvements
in the countries that it occupied (as the EU does now), and dramatically toned
down the anti-Pole and anti-Jew activities- it would have been a lot more
successful in its aims. Heck, mass conversions to Christianity of the Jewish
population would probably have been successful, and been supported by many
Christians worldwide, and any staunch Jewish holdouts who refused given the
opportunity to fight against the British and create and mass-migrate to Israel
as a German sub-territory.

Germany could have created a new European identity, and sought new land and
direct expansion of European populations into the Middle East and Africa
against easier opponents, instead of against Russia.

Eventually it would have just outgrown and outlasted Britain and Russia.
Britain as a democracy would have eventually rotated in a set of politicians
willing to make peace.

I say all this as the descendent of a Polish Jew :-)

~~~
rusk
Interesting take, but I'd also suggest that the Germany that fought WW2 was
very different from modern Germany. There was a _madness_ there. It took the
burning shame of such catastrophic failure to put the brains in charge. Again
as I said above, I reckon Brexit will do the same for the UK.

------
mikkom
Good luck leading eu countries when you are leaving the eu in under 2 months.

------
dalbasal
" _Britain is leading a group of European Union states who are trying to..._ "

This seems in bad taste, atm considering the ongoing divorce proceedings.

More seriously, I wonder what this is really about. Money laundering has
become an enormously hairy term. It could mean just about anything.

I suspect this about housing the piles of money officials, oligarchs, warlords
and aristocrats from these countries accumulate. No one wants to keep their
$6bn in Yemen. It's not safe there.

Saudi has a huge, wealthy aristocracy. It's no secret that a lot of them are
heavily invested in the UK, notably London real estate.

Considering the "game of thrones" event where prince MLB locked up half his
own family and extorted... princely sums from them... I imagine the desire to
get your loot away from the middle east has just gotten keener.

------
elliekelly
For anyone curious, Saudi Arabia has been on the list but has effectively
managed to dodge most of the requirements through complex corporate & trust
structures. It's not that the U.K. suddenly opposes KSA being _on_ the list
but that recent regulatory changes will now require financial institutions to
obtain "additional information regarding the transaction as well as the
natural and legal persons involved" for entities owned or controlled by
persons from those high-risk countries.

Before the EU's 5th AML Directive the transactions could be attributed to
shell corps and trusts. So long as KSA is on the high-risk jurisdiction list
the transactions will now need to be attributed to both the entity
(corporation/trust/etc.) _and_ the natural person directing the transaction on
behalf of the entity (trustee/corporate director/etc.) _and_ the ultimate
beneficial owner (beneficiary of a trust/majority shareholder of a corp/etc.).
This would understandably make it much easier to track the flow of Saudi funds
and much more difficult for Saudi Arabia to avoid.

------
sudoaza
Well, it's not like they financed the september 11 attacks...

~~~
rusk
or the Paris attacks!

------
yoran
Why does Britain care anyway, as they're leaving the EU?

------
AndyMcConachie
Two relevant links:

[https://thehill.com/policy/defense/428468-us-
investigating-w...](https://thehill.com/policy/defense/428468-us-
investigating-whether-saudi-arabia-gave-al-qaeda-american-made-weapons)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIYfiRyPi3o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIYfiRyPi3o)

------
cannabis_sam
Saudi arabian people are just like everyone else in the world.

The saudi government is horrible and is being supported by the US government
(and financially by EU countries)

Start THERE!

~~~
cannabis_sam
But of course nothing is gonna happen

------
justtopost
Saudi money is no less dirty, so I can really only infer one thing from this.
Wtf uk.

------
Tsubasachan
London becoming the shady Dubai of Europe and free movement for the rich!

Huzzah for Brexit.

------
atomical
This is good for Sam Altman.

------
darkhorn
Would UK support Maduro if Maduro was pro-American dictator like Saudis?

~~~
ionised
They supported the mass-murdering Pinochet because he was pro-free-market.

These people have no integrity.

~~~
growlist
> These people

Who are you talking about here?

~~~
ionised
Lets not pretend like the neoliberal ideologues that supported Pinochet in
spite of his human rights atrocities simply because he was a capitalist aren't
the exact same demographic that now stands by the Saudis becuase of their
financial ties.

~~~
growlist
If you want to get into realpolitik there's plenty of shade to throw around
for virtually any powerful country.

