I don’t even understand what you are talking about there Peter.

The German Federal Intelligence Service ( BND ) did a deal and the Federal Ministry of Finance paid a thief millions of EUR for stolen goods.

Do you now seen the deep irony that Germans wont co-operate with request from
Liechtenstein for Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement over the theft.

” Concerns have been voiced that the actions taken by BND were outside the agency’s national security (and constitutional) remit, with attention also focusing on the wider ethical debate as to whether BND was justified in paying a €4m bribe to a bank official in a foreign country (with financing and approval from both the German chancellery and finance ministry).

In March 2009 Germany announced that it will not grant judicial assistance to Liechtenstein in the prosecution of the assumed perpetrator, claiming Ordre public overrides its duty to do so under the European Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement. ”

Yet this is exactly the criticism given to Liechtenstein. Sheer hypocracy from German Financial Minister here.

I will save you that and once I get some time give you some fair use quotes from the book then you will understand why his ideas are worth looking into if you care about localism and the citizen centric democracy.

They are catching people for tax evasion, which has always been a crime.

When you have a contract, if its illegal, it not enforcable. Following that, if you are committing a crime you have no legal right to hide it. So taking, and selling information about criminal activity is not criminal.

Nice to see you taking the side of banking criminals, Fishy.

It seems that tax avoidance and giving advice on that is now a crime in Germany. But paying a thief millions of EUR for clearly stolen information is not.

If a country has proof of tax avasion that one thing. But avoidance should always be prefectly legal. If taxes are too high then people avoid them. If there are loop holes then close them but avoidance is and should be perfecrtly legal.

“The Prince’s other authorities include exercising the right to mitigate and commute punishments that have been imposed with legal force and the abolition — i.e., the dismissal — of investigations that have been initiated. All judgments are issued in the name of the Prince.’

This means that the prince can interfere with legal proceedings, a very serious thing which does not exist in other european monarchies. This man has not even been elected!

I would also like to mention that Liechtenstein’s efforts to stay away from the EU are not just based on fears that the undemocratic EU will destroy the democratic structure of Liechtenstein: it is mostly fear that the country will have to give up its tax secret.
Harbouring criminal money is the main source of wealth of both country and prince (who is the owner of the biggest bank in his country).
Recently Germany has put a lot of pressure on Liechtenstein because it is helping rich germans to avoid taxes.

I would also like to mention that untill a few years ago the prince did not allow his subjects to visit Czechoslovakia.
Reason: the prince was pissed because the authorities in that country had confiscated one of his castles after WW2.

This country is just not a good example of democracy.

As tends happen here at IceNews my other reply giving details was posted before you reply was moderated to be readable.

No irony. Liechtenstein is a principality but you really must look into in more details. Local democracy is very strong in Liechtenstein *because* of Hans-Adam II ideas.

They do have stonger local democracy than even Switzerland.