Greek parliament set to probe agency linked to EU farm-aid fraud
European prosecutors have found indications that farmers and state officials allegedly defrauded the European Union of subsidies for the use of pastureland at least since 2019.
In June, they referred the case to parliament - the only body that can investigate politicians - on suspicion that two former agriculture ministers from the ruling, centre-right New Democracy party, were involved in the case. They have both denied wrongdoing.
The case is hurting the popularity of Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis' government, which came to power in 2019 and was re-elected in 2023 with a majority, polls show. Greek media reports have pointed to clientelism, or the trading of resources for political loyalty, as possibly motivating the fraud.
Late on Tuesday, parliament approved the government's proposal to set up the committee to investigate the agency OPEKEPE, founded in 1998. The government controls 155 lawmakers in the 300-seat parliament.
The main opposition, the Socialist PASOK party, which has 33 seats, and other leftist parties rejected the plan, accusing the government of stalling and digging up the past to cover up its responsibility.
They want a more powerful committee set up, that can directly charge ex-ministers and will focus on the European prosecutors' case, instead of OPEKEPE's operations over the years. They fear that delays could lead to the write-off of potential crimes under a statute of limitations.
Mitsotakis told parliament Greece has paid nearly 3 billion euros in EU fines related to the misuse of the farm subsidies over the past decades, calling OPEKEPE an "open wound" whose ills were timeless.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
14 minutes ago
- The Sun
For the BBC to survive it must radically change its culture… from top to bottom
Beeb's mess WHAT a sorry mess the BBC has now got itself into. Nothing sums up its self-inflicted plight more than deciding to last night broadcast MasterChef featuring Gregg Wallace and John Torode. 1 After some frantic editing, they stripped the show of all 'jokes' — but still managed to put two stars who were sacked in disgrace just two weeks ago on screen 100 times. Little wonder Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy refused to watch. Meanwhile, as we report today, the probe into allegations of a toxic culture at BBC Breakfast is set to be widened. And the furore over the Corporation's broadcasting of an antisemitic rant by the rapper Bob Vylan continues. It's deeply disturbing that Beeb bosses have been unable to convince Ms Nandy the scandal could not be repeated. From Strictly to Huw Edwards, Auntie lurches from one fiasco to another — with angry viewers fobbed off with that tired old excuse about 'lessons being learned'. This matters because licence-fee payers are forced by law to fund the Corporation — and so have little option but to suck up the mayhem and mismanagement. For the BBC to survive, it must radically change its culture….from top to bottom. Sinking plans LABOUR has unveiled a raft of policies this week aimed at stopping the boats. Each shallow gimmick has already quickly unravelled. John Torode sacked by BBC after being accused of using N-word while singing along to Kanye West song Gold Digger How can ministers catch the people-smugglers 'illegally' advertising crossings on social media given they mostly operate from abroad? How will prosecutors identify those committing a 'criminal offence' by causing overcrowding on the dinghies? Is it the first person on the boat . . . or should it be the last? Labour's one-in-one-out deal with France also looks doomed already as migrants can use human rights laws to fight deportation — while the French have power of veto over any swap. Certainly, the migrants — who arrived by the boatload again yesterday — aren't taking any notice. Kinnock knock DESPERATE patients trapped on endless NHS lists are increasingly turning to private healthcare to get treatment. Many are not rich but use hard-earned savings to do so. Former Labour leader Neil Kinnock — on a massive EU pension and no stranger to paying privately himself — now says they should cough up VAT, too.
The Guardian
37 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The US supreme court paved the way for Texas's gerrymandering mess
With Texas Republicans rushing to fulfil Donald Trump's wish to gerrymander to the max, many Americans are no doubt wondering why there isn't some referee to stop this hyperpartisan race to the bottom that is poisoning our democracy. The supreme court should be the referee that puts a halt to this ugly, undemocratic mess, but in a shortsighted, 5-4 ruling in 2019, the court's conservative majority essentially told state legislatures that anything goes when it comes to gerrymandering. Their message was: no matter how extreme the gerrymandering, we'll look the other way. Writing the majority opinion in that case, Rucho v Common Cause, chief justice John Roberts declared that gerrymandering was a political matter that federal courts shouldn't intervene in (unless it involves racial discrimination). Many legal experts said the conservative justices were defaulting on the court's responsibility to prevent absurdly unfair, undemocratic elections, where the fix is in even before people vote. In a prescient dissent, justice Elena Kagan warned that the huge permission slip the court was giving to gerrymandering would encourage 'a politics of polarization and dysfunction' and might 'irreparably damage our system of government'. Trump and his team have been shrewd enough and shameless enough to seek to take maximum advantage of that ruling, and in doing so, they're showing how right Kagan was. Trump and company are seriously damaging our system of government and our democracy by seeking to insulate Trump from the majority's will, an expected Democratic-leaning vote in the 2026 congressional elections. Trump and team are also ratcheting up the 'polarization and dysfunction' Kagan warned us about. Democratic lawmakers have fled Texas to prevent a GOP power grab, while Texas governor Greg Abbott has called for their arrest and removal from office. Gerrymandering further fuels polarization because November elections become largely irrelevant for choosing candidates. With gerrymandering, what counts are the party primaries, and there, the extremes, rather than moderate swing voters, determine who the winning candidate is. This in turn leads to increasingly polarized, dysfunctional legislative bodies, like the House of Representatives, where there's plenty of performative, partisan showboating and very little legislation passed. In Rucho, the conservative majority declined to overturn a gerrymander in which the North Carolina GOP had rigged congressional districts so that Republicans would win 10 of the state's 13 House seats even when the GOP won a bare majority of the statewide vote. (The case also involved some flagrant gerrymandering by Maryland's Democrats.) It's thanks to Roberts and the conservative justices' indifference to gerrymandering that a person close to Trump could say that the administration's attitude was 'Maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time'. Seeking to maximize the chances of maintaining Republican control of the House, where the GOP has a mere three-seat majority, many Republicans also want GOP-led legislatures in Missouri, Florida, Ohio and Indiana to gerrymander to the max. In Texas alone, Trump hopes the GOP can pick up five House seats through redistricting. Even though Trump beat former vice-president Kamala Harris by 56% to 42% in Texas in 2024, the newly unveiled gerrymander aims to guarantee Republicans 30 out of Texas's 38 House seats (a 79% to 21% ratio). Democrats accuse Trump and the Texas GOP of cheating, and it should be no surprise that they want to respond to fire with fire, with the Democratic governors of California, Illinois and New York saying that they, too, will push through gerrymanders. This unseemly electoral arms race results directly from the supreme court's dodging of responsibility. In Rucho, chief justice Roberts shrugged at gerrymandering, saying that redistricting shenanigans were part and parcel of US history. Pointing to examples of gerrymandering from the 1780s and early 1800s, Roberts pooh-poohed this phenomenon, writing: 'Partisan gerrymandering is nothing new. Nor is frustration with it.' He also voiced skepticism and snark about judges' use of standards and election experts' predictions to determine when partisan redistricting crosses the line into unconstitutional gerrymandering that violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. In contrast to Roberts' who-cares casualness, justice Kagan was an I'm-warning-you Cassandra. In a stinging dissent joined by justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, she correctly predicted that terrible things would result from Roberts's decision. She wrote that his opinion showed 'a saddening nonchalance about the threat that such [extreme] redistricting posts to self-governance'. Kagan didn't mince her words about how Roberts's decision threatened our democracy and undermined the ability of Americans to elect a government of their choosing. 'For the first time ever,' she wrote, 'this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities. And not just any constitutional violation. The partisan gerrymanders in these cases deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights: the rights to participate equally in the political process, to join with others to advance political beliefs, and to choose their political representatives. In so doing, the partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy, turning upside down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people.' In Rucho, Roberts wrote that the constitution neither expressly bans gerrymandering, nor points to a standard to determine when partisan redistricting is so unfair that it becomes unconstitutional. He suggested it would be a grievous, arbitrary wrong to select some legal or mathematical standard to determine when gerrymanders are illegal. Roberts wrote: 'There are no legal standards discernible in the Constitution for making such judgments, let alone limited and precise standards that are clear, manageable, and politically neutral.' Today's headlines make clear that Roberts and his Rucho decision have left us with a far more grievous wrong. It has encouraged ultra-partisan gerrymandering that is sabotaging our democracy and the majority will – in this case with an eye to preventing Democrats from winning back control of the House and serving as a check on Trump, the most authoritarian president in US history. If Texas Republicans prevail and enact their gerrymander, despite Democratic lawmakers' exodus from the state, then the votes of millions of Texas Democrats will become meaningless, their votes in effect erased by the Trump/GOP gerrymander juggernaut. The same thing will happen to many Republican voters in states where Democrats gerrymander. Roberts was dismayingly myopic in failing to realize how his Rucho decision would someday lead to a push for maximum, hyperpartisan redistricting and how new electoral and computer models would make gerrymandering far more sophisticated – and sinister. Roberts was flatly wrong when he wrote that there can't be 'clear, manageable, and politically neutral' standards that define when redistricting crosses the line from mere partisanship to over-the-top, undemocratic, grossly unfair ultra-partisanship. One study put forward a smart standard that says gerrymandering crosses the line into illegality when a certain, high percentage of votes are wasted, deliberately rendered meaningless through partisan redistricting. What we're seeing right now in Texas is one political party seeking to squeeze every last drop out of a filthy gerrymandering sponge – fair play and democracy be damned. Foreseeing ugly episodes like this, Kagan cited the vision of James Madison, the main author of the constitution, who once wrote that the 'power is in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people'. The whole purpose of Trump's gerrymandering power grab is to prevent the people from having power over him and his increasingly unpopular government. Unfortunately, Roberts gave Trump a green light for such a power grab. Like Trump, Roberts hates admitting mistakes, but it's not too late for him to admit how shortsighted and harmful his Rucho ruling was. Nor is it too late for the chief justice to get the court to set some sane, healthy limits on gerrymandering to safeguard our democracy as well as Madison's vision that the 'power is in the people over the Government'. Steven Greenhouse is a journalist and author, focusing on labour and the workplace, as well as economic and legal issues
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
BBC woman presenter ‘showed lewd picture to colleague'
The BBC is facing a fresh crisis over claims a prominent female presenter showed a lewd picture to a colleague. The presenter, who has not been named, was ranked among the corporation's top 50 highest-paid employees this year, according to reports. She is said to have apologised to the junior member of staff for showing them the unsolicited nude photograph of an unknown man. The incident marks the latest blow to the beleaguered broadcaster, which has been plagued by scandals in recent years including ones affecting its Strictly Come Dancing and MasterChef shows. It was also revealed earlier this year that the BBC spent more than £1.3m on the fallout of the Huw Edwards scandal, including £340,000 on legal advice over the decision to suspend the disgraced newscaster on full pay. A source told The Sun newspaper that the latest incident was 'a ticking time bomb' for the broadcaster. They added: 'As soon as the name of this woman – and details of her bad behaviour – are unleashed, it will derail entire departments and mark the first female to be formally swept up into the BBC's wrongdoing roll call.' They went on to say that the release of the presenter's name would be 'seismic'. The source added that the decision to show her junior colleague the indecent photograph was meant to be 'jokey, locker-room type banter'. But the younger employee had been 'completely horrified,' and said she 'cried about it'. 'No one minds a bit of office banter, but this was on another level,' the source added. 'She felt like it was an intentionally shocking move to intimidate, veiled as a joke. It was way too much. The woman had to apologise to the girl.' Meanwhile, Jermaine Jenas, the former Match of the Day presenter, has spoken about the fallout from his sacking by the BBC in August last year. He was dismissed after he was accused of sexting two female employees. Speaking to a podcast on Wednesday, the former Tottenham player claimed former colleagues at the BBC took away his life 'in terms of every deal I had, the jobs that I had at that particular time'. He told the Reece Mennie podcast: 'I said that is never happening to me again, so I've recently set up my own production company.' He added: 'This is not their fault, but when you're in this kind of media bubble where you work for the BBC, there are so many walls in terms of what they want you to do and what you're not allowed to do.' In April, an independent review commissioned in the wake of the Edwards scandal found that the BBC continues to reward 'untouchable' stars by letting their bad behaviour go unpunished. The report found some presenters are so problematic that they are 'man-marked' by BBC managers who act as a buffer between them and more junior staff. 'We heard examples of well-known names not being held to account for poor behaviour,' it said. 'A small number of people can become 'untouchable' in the eyes of colleagues. They are known for getting away with poor behaviour, and their reputation spreads beyond their immediate team.' A BBC spokesman said about the latest incident: 'While we do not comment on individual cases, we take all complaints about conduct at work extremely seriously.'
