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.

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.

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.

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...

> 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.

> 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.

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.

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.