Showing posts with label #EU. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #EU. Show all posts

Saturday, 24 May 2025

FISHING INDUSTRY: UK ELITE BETRAYS THE PEOPLE IN EU TRADE DEAL

UK Fishing Industey and The New EU Deal

24 May 2025

A reader writes, "Perhaps we have the government we deserve. Take fishing. The government cares nothing about it. Grimsby? Places like that. Who cares. I think the British consumer doesn't care either where our fish comes from. Fishing is an opportunity to grow a British industry, have a strategic plan, local jobs, processing and canning factories, exports, etc. All of that. The government is metrocentric. None of that would occur to them. They buy Portuguese sardines in a fancy tin. And the ordinary voters acquiesce. No wonder we are in such a mess. An island nation with hardly any fishing industry!"

That's a powerful and quite sad report! I would file it under the heading *managed decline*....We do the declining, they do the managing - which is essentially a combination of neglect and control and betrayal, to the point where the people in their resignation get landed with a government that does not follow or represent the interests of the British people as a whole. We are no longer outraged by decline and neglect, we adjust to it, we get used to it, we accept it, we expect it.

So let's break down exactly what is happening. We can see the neglect, read 'betrayal', of the fishing industry as an example of the UK losing sovereignty over its affairs. 

Who is doing the betraying? It is the urban elite pursing their own interests, which are more often than not globalist, at the expense of national and local communities, devesting real local assets to reinvest in financials and global outsourcing. 

The result is that ordinary people come to expect no better than neglect from their governors.... it feels almost feudal.

Perhaps this makes tactical sense in some way at the level of the ruling elite, but it is missing a longer term strategic opportunity for Britain. Instead of MBGA, we have neglect of our local communities, of the diversity of our economic interests, and most importantly neglect of our culture, in this case of Britain as a maritime nation.

1. Fishing as an example of loss of Sovereignty 

It isn’t just economic, it’s symbolic too. 

Control over our own waters.... (and beaches of course, ha ha)

Local industry is important, isn't this obvious? Or does the urban elite not care about further marginalising already marginalised communities? This sounds a little like the shutdown of the mining industry in the 1980s, or deindustrialisation more generally - selling real assets and reinvesting financial products and services.

Maritime independence is not just economic, it's part of our culture. We don't want that changed. We are a maritime nation.

Post-Brexit, many expected the UK to reclaim and rebuild its fishing fleet, but the reality has been neglect. With this deal we have lost the opportunity to enhance a part of our economy and our culture. 

2. Metrocentrism and the Policy Class 

"Metro centric" is a pretty damning term. It means policy is written by and for the urban elite, while regional voices like Grimsby, Hull or Fleetwood are excluded or simply forgotten.

The Whitehall bubble buys sardines from Lisbon, while British boats rot in harbour.

3. The Silent Acquiescence of the Voter

“The ordinary voters acquiesce” ... sad and tragic. society has become so fragmented that one community cares a little for another. Have we lost a sense of national identity?

Is there any anger, any fight, left in us? Or is it just complacency and resignation? We take to the streets, we are kettled and imprisoned. Where is the popular uprising? For that matter, where is the local reinvention? For all the independent press we listen to, where are the alternative political groups - what is the fishing lobby doing? Is Farage our only hope? Where are the bottom up alternative visions?

4. Strategic Industry, Wasted Opportunity 

Fishing it is a national asset and could be a strategic national industry if properly mapped into a national strategy. Perhaps no longer economically very significant, but these arenot just strategic assets, rhey are our border communities. 

The govt should be thinking about job creation and revitalisation in coastal communities.... Not just fishing, but hospitality and tourism, and I'm sure there are many other industries peculiar to the coast. 

Fishing also falls under the remit of domestic food security. There's work in processing, canning, and export value-add supply chains.... It's a huge industry in southeast asia, for example, and it could be in uk waters, if they were kept for uk-registered fishing vessels, contributing to our own food security and the balance of payments surplus.

What does our government do? They put it on the table as a bargaining chip in EU trade negotiations.

5. Conclusion: A Betrayal of Place

Anyone who looks at this more closely would feel a genuine sense of betrayal.

An island nation that has abandoned the sea is a nation that has lost a policy battle, or never had one; but more importantly, it's a nation that has lost an entire layer of its cultural and economic identity, given away in exchange for elite interests in major industries. This is an abandonment and neglect of a community, one amongst many that make up the UK people.

What can we do about it? Seemingly nothing except for a few shouty headlines in last week's papers. It is so obviously disrespectful of democracy and the interest of the British people. We are left numbed into inaction, despondent, resigned to the neglect and betrayal. What can we do about this?

In conclusion, the British coast is not a quaint tourist trail. It’s a national asset - and a strategic blind spot. If we can't build policy for our periphery, we will lose the centre too.

Metrocentrism is not just lazy. It’s lethal.

Wednesday, 7 May 2025

BRUSSELS IS USING RUSSIA AND TRUMP TO CENTRALISE POWER

7 May 2025
 

A clueless EU whose only thought is how to hang on to power and get rich with manipulative stories about forces ranged against Europe.
No positive vision, no realistic solutions. It's classic losers' politics.

SUMMARY

1. Introduction

1.1 Trump as a Useful Enemy


Trump is the boogeyman the EU loves to hate.

He’s used as a cover story to justify just about anything - militarisation, power centralisation, and defeating democracy.

If it’s not Trump, it’s Russia. The narrative writes itself.

1.2 The Distraction Game


Citizens are told the US is no longer reliable - defensively or economically.

The solution? Shift more power to Brussels, slash social spending, and pour billions into weapons and finance.

2. Hypocrisy in EU Strategy

2.1 Talking Independence, Acting Dependency

The EU says it's becoming “independent” from the US.

Yet it:

Continues to buy US arms and energy,

Aligns with US foreign policy goals.

2.2 Brexit Theatre

Even Brexit is being spun as a pro-EU triumph.

London and Brussels now talk of “free and open trade”—including defence cooperation. So much for sovereignty.

3. Militarisation by Decree

3.1 Article 122—The Loophole

The European Commission is using Article 122 emergency powers.

This bypasses normal parliamentary checks.

Only a qualified majority vote is needed—no need for full consensus.

3.2 SAFE: The EU’s New War Fund

March 2025: The Commission unveils “SAFE”—Security Action for Europe.

It’s a €150bn opening shot in a planned €900bn rearmament fund.

Parliament's role? Reduced to mere suggestions and symbolic protest.

4. Who’s Really Opposing This?

4.1 Not the Peoples' Champions

The EU Parliament’s legal committee objected - unanimously.

But this wasn’t about democracy or peace.

It was about dividing the pie - who gets which contracts.

4.2 The Lure of Lobby Money

EU arms industry lobbyists are swarming Brussels.

Opposition revolves around “Buy European” clauses—not peace or public interest.

The current SAFE clause allows 65% of purchases from the EU, Ukraine, or EFTA states.

5. Manufactured Consent

5.1 The Justifications

Russia’s aggression is framed as existential.

The US is seen as retreating.

These are used to justify the €900bn war fund.

5.2 But Are These Threats Real?

Why ignore diplomacy?

Why sabotage Kiev-Moscow peace talks?

Why escalate when Europe benefits more from peace with Russia than war and sanctions and acts of sabotage?

6. The Jazz Band Metaphor

6.1 Carnegie’s Rose-Tinted View

Rosa Balfour (Carnegie Europe) describes the EU’s reaction to Trump as a “jazz band” in creative chaos.

Her metaphor is meant to inspire - but it reveals chaos and improvisation at the top.

6.2 What’s Missing?

Curiosity - a core jazz value - is absent.

No one’s asking the real questions:

Is this the best use of €900bn?

Could peace bring more security than tanks?

Why build a war economy rather than a welfare economy?

7. Economic Fallout for Citizens

7.1 Social Austerity Persists

Sixteen EU states want fiscal leeway, but only for defence, never for healthcare or pensions.

The public is told: this is necessary for competitiveness.

7.2 Declining Living Standards

Expect living standards to keep falling.

But don’t worry as more EU enlargement and defence spending will fix it.

8. Conclusion

8.1 The Real Agenda

Trump is the excuse, not the cause.

Brussels wants centralised power and a permanent war economy.

Parliament and voters just get in the way.

8.2 A Wake-Up Call

Gallagher’s piece is a rebellion against passive acceptance.

He challenges us to ask why the EU elite want war so badly.

And whether democracy is just a performance piece in the Brussels theatre.

9. References and Further Reading

Carnegie Europe – Rosa Balfour: “Europe Tried to Trump-Proof Itself”

EU Commission SAFE Proposal – Official documents on Article 122 and defence funding

ARTICLE


The EU Zombie uses Trump as Cover to Further Feed on Citizens 

Donald Trump is the gift that keeps on giving for the western misleadership class. Any anti-democratic swindle on the EU wish list is now being sold as a remedy to the Orange Man. (And if it’s not Trump, it’s Russia).

The US is no longer a reliable defense partner, they say. We must give more power to Brussels and send untold billions to weapons companies.

The US is no longer a reliable economic partner, they say. We must increase competitiveness by weakening labor and empowering finance.

The UK voters may have opted for Brexit, but London and Brussels are “defying Trump” with a “free and open trade” declaration that includes negotiations ‘on defense and security, fishing and energy, as well as a “common understanding” of which topics will be covered by intensive Brexit reset negotiations this year.’

The strange thing about these plans, however, is that they include reliance on US weapons and energy and alignment with US geopolitical and geoeconomic goals.

Let’s focus here on how the EU is pressing ahead with plans to dramatically increase defense spending due to Trump Abandonment Syndrome.

The EU Jazz Band 

Recent commentary by Rosa Balfour, director of Carnegie Europe, perfectly sums up these arguments. In a piece titled “Europe Tried to Trump-Proof Itself. Now It’s Crafting a Plan B” she explains why the EU has no choice but to redirect social spending towards the arms industry.

Balfour’s romantic version of recent history starts on February 28. That’s when “the televised humiliation of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky” took place, and “Europe realized it could no longer rely on its longtime ally, the United States.” And here she is on the jazzy wreckage:

The shocking depth and breadth of this realization cannot be overemphasized. Political leaders in European states, the European Union, and NATO displayed composure and coordination, but behind the scenes, the soundtrack was a frantic free jazz jam session with dramatic thuds and a long pause—the silence at the realization that the European comfort zone was over.

And now, what are these composed and coordinated “political leaders” doing? They announce that Ukraine is Europe’s first line of defense, make grand plans for a “coalition of the willing,” and declare that Ukraine will become a “steel porcupine

The coalition of the willing has fallen apart. The steel porcupine was ridiculed.  And while those in the Kremlin likely aren’t losing any sleep, Europeans should be. That’s because, as Balfour writes, the European Commission “can play supporting roles by mobilizing financial resources and handling complicated in-house horse trading.”

That’s one way of putting it.

The Commission is inching its way towards invoking emergency powers to push through parts of its rearmament slush fund. It’s getting pushback from the European Parliament, but the fact is Ursula can do it anyways with minimal support from EU governments. She’s likely just waiting for the right moment. Let’s look at the status of the European militarization billions.

On March 19, the Commission introduced a 150 billion euro proposal — a first installment of what’s to be at least $900 billion— for establishing the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) through the reinforcement of European defence industry Instrument.

It wants to move forward with it under Article 122 emergency powers which need only a qualified majority in the Council —as opposed to the usual consensus— which allows Ursula and friends to get around pesky vetoes from member countries. The procedure for 122 is as follows:

1) the Commission proposes a Council measure; following which 2) the Council adopts the measure in line with [qualified majority voting]. No additional elements or participants are envisaged.

This article allows the proposal to bypass parliamentary negotiations and go straight to the Council for negotiation and adoption. The Parliament’s role is reduced to submitting suggestions and requesting debates.

How’s that for your democratic rules-based order?

In an April 23 secret vote, the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affair unanimously backed a legal opinion rejecting the Commission’s attempt to bypass it on a 150 billion euro rearmament fund.

While it is a non-binding vote, it does signal opposition to Ursula’s plan, but it’s not some principled stand for the will of the people or any romantic notion like that.

No, it’s more about dividing up slices of the pie as European weapons industry lobbyists are increasingly active in Brussels and are trying to make sure their clients are rewarded. And so much of the feeble opposition is over getting a stronger “buy European” clause in SAFE (it currently requires 65 percent of war consumables and complex systems to come from within the EU, Ukraine, or EEA/EFTA states, which includes Turkiye and Norway.

Why must Ursula’s commission sideline the Parliament and some member states in order to spend 900 billion on military purchases? They lay it out in their proposal. There’s the usual nonsense about Russia:

The EU and its Member States now face an intensifying Russian aggression against Ukraine and a growing security threat from Russia. It is also now clear that this threat will persist in the foreseeable future, considering that Russia has shifted to a war-time economy enabling a rapid scaleup of its military capabilities and replenishment of its stocks. The European Council therefore underlined, in its conclusions of 6 March 2025, that “Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and its repercussions for European and global security in a changing environment constitute an existential challenge for the European Union”.

There’s also the Trump abandonment syndrome:

At the same time, the United States, traditionally a strong ally, is clear that it believes it is over-committed in Europe and needs to rebalance, reducing its historical role as a primary security guarantor.

One itching question is what happens to this latter selling point now that the Trump administration has tied itself to Ukraine through the so-called minerals deal, but surely if the European powers have made it this far on manufactured crises, they’ll be able to overcome that hurdle by pointing to Trump’s insistence on what they call an unjust peace for Ukraine.

And so “rearmament” by supranational emergency decree it must be—with Balfour from Carnegie and all the other plutocrat court jesters at the transatlantic think tanks cheering this on as a victory against the autocratic hordes outside the garden walls. Here’s Balfour again summarizing the mood among this crowd:

…a trajectory of change has been charted, and it has transformative potential—not just for the European continent, but also for the global reordering of post-American international relations. The jazz band has picked up rhythm, even if the melody is not fully harmonic.

I’m not sure if that’s music Balfour is listening to or the jangle of gold and silver. While it can be difficult to hear anything over the din coming from the elite ‘Spirit of 1914,’ there’s always one chord missing from the militarization genre. Surely Balfour, the jazz aficionado, must know that curiosity was considered one of the essential ingredients to the music. If we apply that to her extended jazz metaphor we might start asking some questions like:

  • Why does the EU need to perform this whole militarization song and dance routine at all?
  • Why can’t there be peace with Russia?
  • Why did European nations help sabotage past Kiev-Moscow peace negotiations?
  • Why did the EU help the US overthrow the government of Ukraine and use the country as a battering ram against Russia?
  • Why does the EU elite so crave war with Russia?
  • Is the EU not more secure and prosperous through friendly ties and trade with Russia?

And why must the EU, which collectively already ranks second in the world in defense expenditures, spend boatloads more? How much will make it safe, competitive, and independent?

These questions are never addressed. It’s simply treated as the natural order of things that Russia is the EU’s enemy and it must get big expensive weapons because Trump bad. The sad thing is, this relentless messaging pumped out of European media is working — at least according to the EU’s own polls. That wouldn’t be entirely surprising considering this message is endlessly pumped out of EU media.

Either way, European governments are running with it. Sixteen countries are asking the EU for fiscal leeway to spend big on defense — requests that are never made during the endless social austerity.

Yes, the citizens of the bloc will continue to see their standard of living fall, but don’t worry, EU enlargement and spending more on militarisation will lead to more “competitiveness.” Can’t you feel it already...