Banking confidentiality is still important

Austria shows the way.

In a world where financial privacy is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain, it’s heartening to hear that Austria is toughing it out alone and refusing to relinquish its constitutionally protected banking confidentiality.

It is now the only EU country to take this stance, after Luxembourg, another historic centre of financial discretion, this week agreed to disclose its foreign residents’ financial details with the governments in their home countries. HNWs who originally chose Luxembourg for its banking confidentiality must be encouraged to hear that, at least for the time being, there is one other European country that does not seem intent on blabbing about its citizens’ private matters in the interests of fighting tax evasion.

When European finance ministers meet this weekend in Dublin, Maria Fekter, Austria’s finance minister, will make the important point that fighting tax evasion is not mutually incompatible with preserving financial confidentiality. She has said today that Austria will "stick to bank secrecy", at the same time as doing everything it can to prevent tax evaders and money launders storing their money there. How long Austria can hold out, however, is uncertain, as she will no doubt come under heavy fire from her European counterparts.

As I wrote last week when the Guardian unveiled its investigation into offshore banking on the British Virgin Islands, not everyone who chooses to place their money in a jurisdiction other than that in which they live or do business is involved in nefarious goings-on. Clients have a right to expect privacy in their financial matters when they are doing nothing wrong.

But this distinction — between criminality and legitimate, private, offshore banking — is increasingly being blurred by the media and governments. Austria’s commitment to retaining banking confidentiality proves its commitment to the latter, rather than constituting an invitation to those who have something to hide.

This piece first appeared in Spear's magazine

City of London. Photograph: Getty Images

Mark Nayler is a senior researcher at Spear's magazine.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.