You're Next

We are publishing this piece in full, without a paywall.
Please share widely.

“I can't impart it to anybody who hasn't been there. Standing in the security line in the airport. If you want to know what it's like to be in the Soviet Union, you are in the Soviet Union. In that moment, you are in the Soviet Union. You're in a line waiting for something, and at the end of that line, a lot of bad things can happen to you. People don't think that way. But in reality though...” – Simon Mikhailovich

In the British parliamentary system, elected politicians are bestowed with significant privileges while executing their service to the public. Among the most notable is a far more expansive definition of freedom of speech than average citizens enjoy, a valuable allowance given the country’s notoriously strict libel laws. Members can say practically anything within the confines of parliament without fear of civil or criminal consequences.

While the intent of parliamentary privilege is to insulate politicians from undue interference by outside actors—especially those of the wealthy and litigious variety—the advantage is regularly abused to score cheap political points using dirty tricks. Provided you have a poorly calibrated moral compass, it is a simple enough task to stand on the floor of parliament, falsely accuse your political opponent of having committed a dastardly act, and then observe the resulting media frenzy with a knowing smirk. “I dare you to repeat that outside of parliament” is a common challenge issued by victims of such smears, but one that is rarely accepted by the cowards who make them.

In the weeks after Putin launched his illegitimate invasion of Ukraine, having had any prior business associations with Russia suddenly became a potential liability. In the rush to sanction all things Russian, several politicians hurried to take cynical advantage of the developments. Among the more enthusiastic opportunists was Chris Bryant, Member of the House of Commons from the Labour Party and chair of the Committees on Standards and Privileges. In mid-March of 2022, Bryant took to the floor of the House to launch a vindictive missile at an old rival (emphasis added throughout):

“I am mystified at why some people are still missing from the [imposed sanctions] list, including some of the broadcasters… I simply point out that Nigel Farage received £548,573 from Russia Today in 2018 alone—this is from the Russian state.”

Profile in courage | Getty

The problem? All evidence indicates this was a bold and knowing lie. Bryant offered zero proof to back up his curiously specific (and easily falsifiable) assertion. He has since steadfastly refused to comment on the affair, let alone repeat his accusations outside of parliamentary protection. For his sake, Farage loudly denied the allegations from the moment they were uttered. The apparent libel remains in the parliamentary record to this day.

Whatever your thoughts on Nigel Farage may be, his substantial impact on British politics is undeniable. Known as a prominent Eurosceptic since the early 1990s, he is widely credited with being the main political force behind the Brexit movement that culminated in the UK’s historic vote to leave the European Union (EU) in 2016. As charismatic as he is controversial, Farage has long been a particularly effective thorn in the side of the British political establishment. Call him what you will, but with more than half of British voters siding with him in that historic referendum, he is anything but a member of a “fringe minority” with “unacceptable views.”

Farage celebrating the Brexit vote | Associated Press

It seems Bryant’s smear may have at last achieved his goal of levying financial repercussions. In an unsettling six-minute video posted to Twitter last week, Farage broke his silence on what he claims has been a months-long campaign on the part of the British banking system to make him a financial “unperson.” Without explanation, his longtime banking partner abruptly informed him they would close all his accounts, and no other bank seems willing to accept his business. This is from a follow-up column Farage published in The Telegraph shortly after he posted his Tweet:

“In my case, I was told by the banking group with whom I’ve been a customer since 1980 – and with which all of my business and personal accounts have been held – that a letter would follow the call I received. It would offer a full explanation. The letter arrived, but it merely re-stated the impending closure and supplied the date by which I should remove my money.

I kept this to myself while I sought a different bank. After many hours of trying, this has come to nothing. I’ve been rejected by seven other banks. Apparently, I am a ‘politically exposed person’ and carry too much risk and too many compliance costs.

I smell a rat and am certain something much bigger is going on. For years, I have been falsely accused of having financial links to Russian funding. Even though this is nonsense, MPs have used parliamentary privilege to accuse various people associated with the Brexit campaign of the same thing. Last year, the Labour MP Sir Chris Bryant claimed in the Commons chamber that I received £548,573 in one calendar year ‘from the Russian state.’ Despite my pleas to him and the Speaker to correct this assertion, there has been no retraction.”

Three members of Farage’s family have also seen their accounts targeted for closure, along with at least two other members of the Brexit Party—both of whom are former Members of the European Parliament (MEP).

Left with few options, Farage decided to use his formidable social media platform to fight back, and his public stand may pay off. The Financial Times reported yesterday that the UK government is investigating the blacklisting—which is great for Farage & Co., but hardly comfort for similarly maligned individuals without Farage’s megaphone. (Conversely, Farage tweeted yesterday that he faced his ninth bank rejection, so the hit order is still apparently active.)

Longtime readers of Doomberg will know that we have been warning of this drift toward totalitarianism since our earliest days. In a recent example, despite our predominantly skeptical views on the cryptocurrency market and its many shady players, we have expressed significant discomfort with several of the tactics normalized by this recent wave of crackdowns. This is from “Pandora’s Precedent,” published in early March:

“If your business has ‘crypto’ in its name or you are considered a high-profile individual associated with the industry, prepare for possible ejection from the traditional banking system. Even having done nothing wrong, you can expect numerous lengthy background check calls from your existing bankers, random account closure letters with minimal explanation and even less recourse, and extreme difficulties opening new accounts. Like our de-banked poker-playing friend, your patronage simply won’t be worth the risk for many institutions. While there is certainly no shortage of fraud occurring in the crypto sector (and we are all for cleaning it up), is association enough for otherwise innocent businesses and citizens to be punished so harshly without a whiff of due process? Are “shotgun approaches” to be normalized?

Given the incredible impact the loss of banking access can have on people and companies, it hardly surprises that partisans would deploy this weapon for raw political gain. Perhaps nowhere do the flames of partisanship burn hotter than in the energy sector, where the finance world finds itself caught between vocal members of the progressive environmental movement on one side and powerful conservatives who support the traditional energy companies on the other. Unsurprisingly, both parties are now leaning on bankers to bend to their ideological demands and angling to use the same tactics honed since the days of Bharara’s poker maneuvers. If history is any guide, the size of the pot is about to get much bigger.”

Even if it emerges that Farage did something to provoke this seemingly coordinated action by the banks, it will hardly diminish the profound nature of this developing scandal. By punishing Farage, his family, and his political allies without detailing specific allegations against which they can defend themselves, centuries of Western jurisprudence will have been upturned. The concept of “innocent until proven guilty” traces back to the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215. Are we truly ready to give up foundational rights so flippantly?

Signing of the Magna Carta | Britannica

While some would argue that banks are private enterprises and should be free to do business with whomever they choose, in modern times they have become thinly-veiled arms of the state. At the same time, the war on cash has made banking access requisite to everyday life. One simply cannot function in modern society without access to banking, and politicians have proven themselves unable to resist the temptation to exploit this awesome power.

We close by preempting the notion that Bitcoin—or any other so-called decentralized currency—will somehow solve this problem. During Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s dictatorial crackdown on the truckers protesting his Covid-19 policies in early 2022, financial institutions were ordered to blacklist several cryptocurrency wallets tied to citizens who had merely donated to the movement. The banks obeyed, proving where the real power lies in our society. We concluded “What Canada Means for Crypto” with a warning that seems an appropriate way to end today’s essay as well:

“And therein lies the critical conundrum: alternative forms of money require a benign government to allow for their proliferation, but a benign government negates the need for alternative forms of money. This is a political problem, and no amount of Bitcoin or Gold Eagles will help when the political eye turns against you. Money is what the government says it is, and we just got a glimpse that our views—political, cultural…personal—form a relevant condition to being allowed to spend it.”

Press the “♡ Like” button or we’ll close your bank accounts.