Nationalist EU political activist claims bank account shut
Goncalves, 24, is the founder of Reconquista, a right-wing nationalist movement established in 2023, who describes his association as a 'metapolitical' initiative aimed at reshaping Portugal's cultural and political landscape.
The activist said Novobanco, a major Portuguese bank, closed his account without explanation and did not respond to requests for answers.
'I asked them to send me a reason in writing. They simply said 'no',' Goncalves said a video posted to YouTube on Friday.
The activist is known for his vocal support of financial transparency and freedom of speech. In his video, he appeared to link the closure to his political views, though he did not provide evidence for this claim. He stated, 'This is what happens when you speak the truth. You get shut down.'
Account closures by banks in Portugal are legally allowed under certain conditions, such as suspected fraud or compliance with anti-money laundering laws. However, financial institutions are typically required to provide a reason upon request. Goncalves did not say whether he intends to file a formal complaint.
No court proceedings or legal actions related to the closure have been reported so far. Goncalves concluded his video by saying he would continue to 'fight for financial freedom' and encouraged others to be aware of what he described as 'systemic censorship.'
Bank account closures have become increasingly common in the West. In Britain, right-wing Reform UK party leader Nigel Farage said in June 2023 that private bank Coutts closed his account. Parent company NatWest first cited financial grounds, but internal documents later reportedly showed his political views influenced the decision.
In Canada, authorities froze the bank accounts of Freedom Convoy protesters in 2022 under emergency powers. Then-Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland said the measure targeted those funding the anti-government protests.
The most recent case took place in Germany last month when former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder faced payment blocks from Sparkasse Hannover over concerns about Russian ties. The bank reportedly blocked nearly €500,000 in annual transfers linked to Schroeder's role on the board of Nord Stream 2, a pipeline project owned by Russian energy giant Gazprom, despite him not being under sanctions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
3 days ago
- Russia Today
EU citizens see political corruption as the norm
Across the European Union, 69% of citizens believe that corruption is widespread in their country, according to a new Eurobarometer survey published this week. Despite efforts by the bloc's authorities, more than half of EU citizens do not believe anti-corruption measures are effective and doubt their impartiality, according to the poll; 51% say the problem is prevalent among political parties. Distrust was particularly high in Greece, Croatia and Portugal, where perceptions of widespread corruption were also the most common. Greece reported the highest rate at 97%, followed by Croatia at 92% and Portugal at 91%. At the opposite end of the scale, Finland and Denmark recorded the lowest levels, at 21% and 28%, respectively. The most notable increases since 2024 were observed in Luxembourg, up nine percentage points, and Ireland, up six points, the report said. Among respondents, 80% say it is never acceptable to give money to public services for a favor, with Portugal (98%), France (90%), and Spain (90%) leading that view. Over 70% oppose doing favors in exchange, while only 5% believe it is always acceptable. Roughly three‑quarters say giving gifts to get services is never acceptable. Older respondents, aged 55 and over, are more likely than younger ones to reject corruption. The survey also explores perceptions of corruption by institution and region. More than half believe corruption is common among political parties, and 46% say it's widespread among politicians at all levels. Two‑thirds of EU citizens say high‑level corruption cases are not pursued sufficiently, and more than half consider government anti‑corruption efforts ineffective. Nearly half doubt that measures are applied impartially. Only 5% of respondents reported experiencing or witnessing corruption in the past 12 months, and just one in five of them filed a report. In addition, fewer than half of those surveyed know where to report corruption cases. The survey also shows that men are more likely than women to personally know someone involved in bribery.
Russia Today
16-07-2025
- Russia Today
Soft power, hard cash: How the UK secretly buys influencers
There is something profoundly grotesque about a government that funds 'freedom campaigns' through secret payments to social media stars, complete with non-disclosure agreements forbidding them to reveal who's really pulling the strings. Yet that's precisely what Britain's Foreign Office has been caught doing. A recent investigation by Declassified UK revealed that the UK government covertly paid dozens of foreign YouTube influencers to promote messages aligned with British foreign policy – under the familiar, pious banners of 'democracy support' and 'combating disinformation.' Of course, those slogans sound wholesome enough. Who wouldn't be in favour of democracy or against lies online? But this framing is the point: it launders raw geopolitical interests into the comforting language of values. In reality, this is simply propaganda. Slick, decentralised, modernised – but propaganda nonetheless. This covert campaign didn't happen in a vacuum. It's merely the latest incarnation of Britain's longstanding approach to managing inconvenient narratives abroad. During the Cold War, the UK ran the notorious Information Research Department (IRD) from the bowels of the Foreign Office, quietly subsidising global news wires, encouraging friendly academics, even feeding scripts to George Orwell himself. Back then, it was about containing Soviet influence. Today, the rhetorical targets have shifted – 'Russian disinformation,' 'violent extremism,' 'authoritarian propaganda' – but the machinery is strikingly similar. Only now, it's all camouflaged beneath glossy behavioural science reports and 'evidence-based interventions.' Enter Zinc Network and a clutch of similar contractors. These are the new psy-ops specialists, rebranded for the digital age. Zinc, in particular, has become a darling of the UK Foreign Office, winning multi-million-pound tenders to craft campaigns in Russia's near abroad, the Balkans, Myanmar and beyond. Their operational blueprint is remarkably consistent: conduct meticulous audience research to understand local grievances, find or build trusted social media voices, funnel them resources and content, and ensure they sign binding agreements not to disclose their British backers. A few years ago, leaked FCDO documents exposed exactly this approach in the Baltics. There, the British government paid for contractors to develop Russian-language media platforms that would counter Moscow's narratives – all under the pretext of strengthening independent journalism. They weren't setting up local BBC World Service equivalents, proudly branded and transparent. They were building subtle, local-looking channels designed to mask their sponsorship. The goal was not to encourage robust pluralistic debate, but to ensure the debate didn't wander into critiques of NATO or London's chosen regional allies. This is the moral sleight-of-hand at the core of such projects: democracy is not the intrinsic end, it's the vehicle for achieving Western policy objectives. When the UK says it's 'building resilience against disinformation,' it means reinforcing narratives that advance British strategic interests, whether that's undermining Moscow, insulating Kiev, or keeping critical questions off the table in Tbilisi. Meanwhile, any rival framing is instantly demonised as dangerous foreign meddling – because only some meddling counts, apparently. It is deeply revealing that the YouTubers enlisted by the Foreign Office were compelled to sign NDAs preventing them from disclosing the ultimate source of their funding. If this were truly about open civic engagement, wouldn't the UK proudly brand these campaigns? Wouldn't London stand behind the principles it professes to teach? Instead, it resorts to precisely the covert playbook it decries when wielded by adversaries. In truth, 'disinformation' has become an incredibly convenient term for Western governments. It carries an aura of technical objectivity — as if there's a universal ledger of truth to consult, rather than a constantly contested arena of competing narratives and interests. Once something is labelled disinformation, it can be suppressed, countered, or ridiculed with minimal scrutiny. It is the modern equivalent of calling ideas subversive or communist in the 1950s. Likewise, 'freedom' in these projects means nothing more than the freedom to align with Britain's worldview. This is a freedom to be curated, not genuinely chosen. And so local influencers are groomed to shape perceptions, not to foster independent judgment. The fact that these influencers look indigenous to their societies is the whole point – it's what gives the campaigns a deceptive organic legitimacy. This is why Zinc's approach hinges on meticulous audience segmentation and iterative testing to find precisely which messages will most effectively shift attitudes. The aim is to secure agreement without debate, to achieve consent without the messy business of authentic local deliberation. This should worry us. When liberal democracies resort to covert influence, they hollow out their own moral authority. They also undermine public trust at home and abroad. If London can so easily rationalise deception in Tallinn or Tashkent, why not someday in Manchester or Birmingham? Already, parts of the behavioural 'nudge' industry that grew out of these foreign adventures have found eager domestic clients in public health and law enforcement. The biggest casualty in all of this is genuine democratic discourse – the thing that such operations claim to protect. Because what these programmes actually protect is a carefully policed marketplace of ideas, where uncomfortable questions are outflanked by well-funded, astroturfed consensus. And so long as Britain continues to cloak its strategic propaganda efforts in the soft language of freedom and resilience, citizens everywhere will remain less informed, less empowered, and more easily manipulated. If that's what modern democracy promotion looks like, maybe we should be honest and call it what it is: camouflage propaganda, draped in the rhetoric of liberty, but designed to ensure populations think exactly what Whitehall wants them to think.
Russia Today
09-07-2025
- Russia Today
Senior EU diplomat blames global crises for being late to parliament
Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani has lamented that he is overwhelmed by international crises, calling himself 'the unluckiest minister in history.' Tajani said that on Tuesday after arriving late to a conference being held in the Italian parliament devoted to democracy and parliamentarism in the Mediterranean region. Apologizing to participants, he said it had been a difficult day: 'The foreign minister is the unluckiest in history – there's always something happening: two wars plus the trade one,' in an apparent reference to the Ukraine conflict, the Middle East escalation, and trade tensions with the US. This week, Tajani reaffirmed Italy's role in Ukraine's post-war recovery in an article published by the outlet Formiche. Rome is preparing to unveil financial support for firms involved in the rebuilding process, Reuters reported. The war in Gaza remains another major source of diplomatic strain for EU governments – including Italy – caught between calls for a ceasefire and continued Western arms deals with Israel. Tajani's remarks also come as the EU – the US' single biggest trading partner – braces for the possibility that President Donald Trump may follow through on his 'Liberation Day' global tariffs, first announced on April 2. Trump has repeatedly described the bloc as 'very difficult to deal with' and the US trade deficit with it as 'totally unacceptable.' He imposed a 20% tariff on all EU goods, along with a 25% duty on cars and metals. The 20% levy was suspended on April 9 for a 90-day period, with a 10% baseline duty remaining in place. The tariffs were initially set to take effect on July 9 and rise to 50% unless a deal was reached. However, this week Trump extended the deadline to August 1 and began issuing formal tariff notices to trading partners. Brussels, which has repeatedly warned of retaliation, said it hopes to reach a deal 'in the coming days.' However, Italian Economy Minister Giancarlo Giorgetti was quoted by the BBC as saying the talks remain 'very complicated' and could go right to the wire.
