EU and Chinese officials agreed a series of trade concessions covering electric cars, rare earths and tariffs that dragged them away from a damaging trade war on Friday (9 October), following two days of crisis talks.
Following two days of talks in Beijing, EU trade commissioner Maroš Šefčovič said that he and China’s commerce secretary Wang Wentao had made a “crucial first step” towards rebalancing EU-China trade relations.
Europe can point to progress on hybrid vehicles, stronger assurances over the supply of critical raw materials, and continued engagement on market access issues in China.
Hours before Šefčovič arrived, Beijing rejected an EU demand for so-called “voluntary export restrictions” on its electric vehicles (EVs). However, in a joint statement on Friday, the two sides said that they had reached an “understanding on trade in hybrid vehicles in a WTO compliant manner”, but without providing further details.
They added that further negotiations on reducing tariffs and minimum pricing deals would allow Chinese EVs to enter the EU at a lower duty rate.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
The European Commission has added 46 projects to its list of critical raw materials investments, but its own figures show little EU money has reached similar schemes it selected last year.
The new projects are to be spread across 16 EU countries and cover all but two of the EU’s list of 17 strategic raw materials, said the commission on Friday (9 October).
The priority is copper, used in power grids, which featured in 19 of the 46 new initiatives.
Battery materials also top the list: with 12 projects involving nickel, 10 cobalt, seven lithium, five manganese, and four graphite.
Only four of the new projects concern rare earths used in magnets, wind turbines, and electric motors, for which the EU relies almost entirely on imports, mainly from China.
The new projects suggest the commission sees recycling as a core pillar in its quest to reduce dependency on Chinese imports. Of the 46 new ones, 19 focus on recycling, 11 on processing and eight on extraction.
“The results are very tangible,” EU industry commissioner Stéphane Séjourné told reporters in Brussels on Friday, pointing to the impact of the first list of strategic investments, selected in March 2025.
He mentioned Keliber in Finland, which he said is now extracting and processing lithium, and the French company Carester’s plant in Lacq, which recycles magnets and separates heavy rare earths.
He said Carester could eventually account for around 15 percent of global production of dysprosium and terbium oxides, used in the powerful magnets in electric car motors and wind turbines, and that Greek company Metlen is already producing gallium, important for semiconductors and defence equipment.
He didn’t mention that all three projects were already well advanced before they received strategic status in March 2025.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
Last week, EU member states reached a common position on the European Commission Omnibus X ‘Food and Feed’ proposal, in a bid to simplify regulation of pesticides. In reality, however, it will weaken protection against pesticides’ negative effects in Europe. The proposal pleases the chemical industry but goes against the wishes of a vast majority of citizens and many scientists who value people’s health, clean drinking water and biodiversity.
A hearing in the European Parliament on 3 September highlighted the real problem. Under the guise of a ‘discussion with experts’ in the field of health and environment, the parliament handed the megaphone to lobbyists representing a broken, toxic agricultural model.
Representatives of industrial agriculture – sugar beet, apple and cereal growers – parroted industry arguments, justifying their demands to stop banning pesticides that are toxic to public health, the environment and pollute our water resources.
Despite Europe witnessing massive droughts, extreme heatwaves leading to countless deaths, wildfires destroying biodiversity, and devastating crop losses, it seems that a significant share of MEPs are ready and willing to accelerate the degradation of European’s wellbeing and natural resources.
Listening to them raises a fundamental question: Do farmers truly want to rely on a cocktail of toxic chemicals to maximise yields at low market prices, destroying their own health and local ecosystems in the process? Or do they wish to make an honest living, producing quality food in balance with nature for a fair income?
To better grasp this contradiction, we must look at what is actually at stake here.
Agrochemical corporations seek their share of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) cake – a colossal €58bn budget, accounting for one third of the EU’s total budget.
Their own survival is reliant on keeping as many farmers as possible dependent on pesticides, fertilisers and industrial seeds. By diverting public CAP funds through farmers into the pockets of their shareholders, these companies ensure their long-term profitability.
Many farmers’ unions also represent agri-cooperatives that profit significantly from selling pesticides, which raises questions about whether they truly represent farmers’ long-term interests, or those of the pesticide industry.
Since the European Commission published its ‘simplification’ proposal in December 2025, proponents of pesticide-intensive farming have presented a series of flawed arguments that in fact reveal the dead-end to which intensive agriculture has led us.
Firstly, farmers’ organisations complain about a “lack of pesticide substances” on the market.
Currently around 450 different pesticide active substances are approved in the EU, from insecticides to fungicides, and herbicides. If 450 different options are insufficient, does this not signal an unhealthy addiction rather than a shortage?
Lobbyist groups, furthermore, claim that pest resistance to synthetic pesticides would inevitably lead to dramatic yield losses and hunger, arguing for even more pesticides with diverse modes of action.
And yet, according to scientific research, the multiple chemical strategy that has been applied for more than 40 years is the very cause of the appearance of resistance. This problem cannot be solved with the mindset that caused it. The only scientific solution is, therefore, not more chemistry but prevention, and the use of alternative methods.
Thousands of farmers across the EU and the rest of the world are already proving this by switching towards Integrated Pest Management (a strategy for low-pesticide-input pest management) or organic practices to reduce pesticide inputs.
The call to keep all pesticides on the market – and potentially even use some of the banned ones – serves only the short-term interests of the pesticide industry, not of the farmers.
Destroying soil life – the basis of soil fertility – with chemicals, and killing insect populations that naturally control pests and pollinate crops, jeopardises the very basis of farming and long-term food security.
The societal costs of this pesticide-dependent model are staggering. Citizens are the ones who bear the healthcare costs for chronic diseases such as cancer and Parkinson’s, which impact not only farmers but also residents of agricultural areas.
We face water pollution that has become nearly impossible to remediate. Fewer pollinators means fewer healthy fruit and vegetables. These ‘externalities’ far outweigh any short-term benefits.
This is the reason why the Paris and Munich water companies financially support farmers in protecting the groundwater, because doing so is up to 45 times cheaper than depollution.
In the meantime, the agrochemical industry enjoys huge profits from pesticide sales, largely supported by CAP subsidies, while society foots the bill for the damage. It is indeed a perfect business model…for them.
The spectacle witnessed in the alleged House of European Democracy is testament to the state of our political world; one that is dominated by corporate interests over citizens and farmers’ wellbeing.
We witnessed the desperate battle of a toxic agricultural model that struggles to survive, and resists being replaced by sustainable farming methods.
The lobbyist speakers in the European Parliament hearing more or less gave the diagnosis to the current pesticide-intensive agricultural system: it is simply broken.
Citizens have repeatedly expressed their concern on the impact of pesticides on their health and biodiversity. They have also expressed the need that public support for agriculture serves the common good.
The pesticide Omnibus X proposal is merely an attempt to maintain a detrimental status quo that favours the pesticides industry.
With the 1968 Mansholt Plan Europe created a blueprint for the intensification of agriculture.
What is needed now is a new blueprint for a system which financially supports farmers to implement practices that improve soil and plant health, favour beneficial insects, accelerate the availability of alternatives to pesticides such as biocontrol products, and rapidly phase out toxic synthetic pesticides to protect our health, water resources and biodiversity.
Only then can we ensure a sustainable future for European agriculture and our children. Only then, will a greater share of the CAP remain in the hands of farmers who feed us and protect our nature.
EU governments were allowed to water down targets in their post-Covid pandemic recovery plans after they had already asked Brussels for the money, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) said on Thursday (8 October).
Of 20 milestones and targets the auditors examined, 13 were amended after the member state had already submitted its payment request. In nine of those cases, the change itself was requested after the payment application had already been made.
The revised targets were “aligned with actual achieved outputs, which made the payment possible,” the auditors wrote in their annual report on the 2025 EU budget.
Ireland, for example, asked for a payment in December 2024. But in January 2025 it requested to cut the target for ICT graduates down from 12,450 to 10,900, citing a high administrative burden.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
When certain governments discuss the EU’s next seven-year budget, their first reflex seems to be: what can we cut? That is the wrong question. The real question is not how much the EU budget costs, but how much an insufficient budget will cost us all.
Economic benefits of EU membership are estimated to be two to six times the financial contribution of individual member states. For every euro we contribute to the EU budget, we can receive up to six euros in return.
That is the power of investing together: European investment delivers more than fragmented national spending. And it does so with a budget of just one percent of EU GNI, while national budgets can reach 50 percent.
The EU budget is not simply money transferred from national capitals to Brussels: it is an investment that creates value benefiting citizens through stronger economies, better infrastructure, food security, cutting-edge research, educational opportunities, regional development, and security.
Ultimately, all member states benefit from the added value created by the EU, making the concept of ‘net contributors’ obsolete.
Easing the pressure on national contributions is a legitimate objective, and it has a clear solution: an EU revenue reform.
The European Parliament supports the basket approach of the European Commission on new own resources and its proposals. It also proposed three additional options capable of generating substantial revenue by 1 January 2028: a digital service levy on major platforms (€25.2bn per year), a levy on online gambling (€3.9bn per year) and a crypto-assets-based own resource (€3bn per year).
Our position is clear: large global companies that benefit most from Europe’s single market should contribute fairly to the EU budget that makes those benefits possible.
Cutting the EU budget may look like saving money. But if it means weaker competitiveness, less social investment and a less secure Europe, we save nothing and taxpayers foot the bill.
The European Union’s common budget has not grown in real terms for 40 years. On the contrary, its purchasing power has been steadily eroded due to high inflation. The current EU budget has lost around 10 percent of its purchasing power compared to when it was adopted in 2020.
A more ambitious EU budget does not automatically mean that member states will have to contribute substantially more from their national budgets. When amounts are compared in constant prices and as a share of the size of the European economy – like with like – a more realistic picture emerges.
In terms of spending capacity, and without counting repayment of the Covid-19 recovery fund (NextGenerationEU), the commission’s proposal for the 2028-2034 budget would be below the relative size of the current 2021-2027 MFF at the time of its adoption.
Even with parliament’s proposed increase for key EU programmes, member states’ contributions would still not substantially increase.
Let us not forget: Europeans benefit considerably more than their countries’ headline contributions suggest. The single market is the clearest example. By removing barriers between 27 economies, it creates opportunities and delivers growth that no country could generate alone.
By reducing the budget, the EU and its member states will have less capacity to deliver the economic and social benefits that citizens expect. We’ll have less cohesion, less competitiveness, a weaker agricultural sector, less global influence, reduced social investment and a much less secure Europe. And this also comes at a cost. A big one.
Instead of “what can we cut” we should be asking ourselves, “how can we finance a budget that delivers more for all”.
If we genuinely want to use limited public resources efficiently, we must invest together. Economies of scale work for successful businesses, and they work for Europe.
Siegfried Mureşan (EPP, Romania) and Carla Tavares (S&D, Portugal) are the parliament’s co-rapporteurs on the EU budget, also known as the multiannual financial framework (MFF)
In the cover image: Asmodeus / The Devil at Rennes-le-Château, by Andy Hay, and his worshipper on the US city council
by Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio
Europeans owe a debt of gratitude to Gospa News International for the ability to discover what is happening around the world in real time.
Not because we are better than others, but because we pay attention to RT (formerly Russia Today)—a broadcaster offering exceptional investigative content that, prior to the war in Ukraine (triggered by the 2014 NATO coup—a fact that must always be remembered), maintained newsrooms across Europe.
Yet, despite producing highly verified and well-documented content with an approach that was as objective as possible (unlike Sputnik International, which is controlled by the Kremlin), RT was banned from the web in EU by the European Commission under the criminal President Ursula von der Leyen and in the United Kingdom under the heretical Freemason King Charles.
If you Europeans are able to read about a sensational event almost in real time today, you have Gospa News to thank—and perhaps you might consider making a small donation.
“US city council opens session with prayer to Satan”—this is the simple headline of an article posted last night by RT at 12:37 AM Moscow time in its “Top Stories” section, referencing a video published on the official website of the city of Ottumwa (Iowa, USA).
The RT article you are about to read highlights a massive problem—one previously addressed in another Gospa News investigation that proved highly embarrassing for the Catholic Church…
It states that the invocation of Lucifer was permitted under a new law recently passed by the City Council, which allows any faith group to offer a “prayer.”
One member of the assembly had warned of the risk that satanic invocations might occur and voted against the measure.
I do not wish to appear boastful, but it is an objective fact that, just hours earlier of the RT post, Gospa News had published an exclusive investigation with a telling title: “THE APOCALYPTIC PROPHECIES OF LA SALETTE – 1. The Era of the ANTICHRIST. From Our Lady of Victory at Lepanto to the October 7th of Jihadist, Zionist & Masonic DEMONS.”
For this, I give thanks to the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete; as a Christian journalist, I pray to Him daily for inspiration, including in the choice of topics for my writings.
In the message that the visionary of La Salette (France) nun Mary od Cross reported receiving during the apparition of Our Lady (September 19, 1846—approved by the Catholic Church), the imminent Era of the Antichrist was foretold.
In a message given in 2001 to the visionary Marija Pavlović, the Queen of Peace—who has been appearing in Medjugorje for 45 years—announced that “Satan is now free from his chains.”
The effects are visible not only in the rise of atheism but even in the open adulation of Lucifer!
As Gospa News has noted, respect for other deities was enshrined in an even more significant act—one that the Holy See and certain cardinals stubbornly continue to defend: the Second Vatican Council’s document *Nostra Aetate*.
That document called for respect for every religious faith—and thus, implicitly, for the Goddess Kali (worshipped by the ferocious Thuggee headhunters), the Great Architect of the Universe (of Freemasonry), and the pagan idol Baphomet; and, by extension, for Satan—who is surely more real than the other three mentioned, all of whom were inspired by him…
Naturally, the Catholic Church approved that document to foster interfaith dialogue and, above all, to offer a gift to the Zionist movement—comprising self-styled adherents of Judaism—thereby triggering what we have termed a “license to kill,” which has materialized in the current genocides in the Holy Land.
For too many cardinals—whether out of naivety, as they follow the progressive theological drift that denies Lucifer’s existence, or out of fear, preferring not to speak of him—failed to heed Pope Paul VI’s warning to the clergy about the entry of the “smoke of Satan into the Temple of God.”
Instead, they approved that document, never imagining that one day they might find themselves confronting Satan worshippers.
That day has arrived!
Yet the weapons wielded by the wearers of the cardinal’s red and the bishop’s violet seem to have lost their edge, precisely because of the gradual decline in the struggle against the devil and in the practice of exorcism.
This excludes, of course, those members of the clergy who have already crossed the flimsy barricade to serve the enemy—as prophesied in the Marian messages received by Sister Mary of the Cross (born Melanie Calvat), the visionary of La Salette.
FREEMASONRY & VATICAN – 2. Cardinals, Bishops kneeling before Satan at the Masonic Summit in Italy
Originally published by RT (former Russia Today) – banned in EU and UK
An Iowa city council meeting erupted into controversy after opening with a Satanic invocation that ended with the words “Hail Satan,” prompting a local pastor to demand that officials “reverse this curse.”
Matt Dalbey, an Ottumwa resident and former city council member, delivered the invocation at Tuesday’s meeting (October, 6, 2026) under a policy allowing residents of different religions and belief systems to open council proceedings with a prayer or reflection.
Dalbey began by addressing a “dark father” and invoking what he called the “Luciferian impulse” before concluding: “It is done. Hail Satan.”
The invocation immediately drew objections from New Life Center pastor Rick Bick, who interrupted the proceedings.
“That was a curse put on the city,” he said. “Most of you know that, and we need to just stop and reverse it… ‘Hail Satan’ is not welcome here.”
Mayor Benjamin Foote then called for a 30-second moment of silence “to reflect on whatever it is we need to reflect on at this time.”
Dalbey’s invocation was permitted under a policy adopted by the council in January.
The measure states that Ottumwa, a city of some 25,500 people, seeks to respect “the diversity of both organized and unorganized religious denominations, as well as other faiths, belief systems, or the lack thereof.”
Council member Cara Galloway had specifically warned that a Satanic invocation could happen when she cast the only vote against the policy in January.
Opening with an invocation means allowing viewpoints that may not reflect our own,” she said, warning that selectively objecting to one now could expose taxpayers to legal liability
The city said Wednesday that it had been flooded with calls over the prayer, many of them “rude and full of profanities,” but stressed that officials cannot discriminate between denominations or belief systems.
The recording of the meeting had drawn more than 12,000 views on the city’s YouTube channel by Wednesday afternoon, making it the most-watched video ever posted there.
Dalbey is scheduled to deliver another invocation at the council’s November 3 meeting. He told the Ottumwa Courier that the prayer is used by the Satanic Temple of Iowa, of which he is a member, but “has nothing to do with the belief in a satanic deity.”
The organization describes itself as non-theistic.
Originally published by RT (former Russia Today) – banned in EU and UK
RELATED POSTS by GOSPA NEWS
RELATED POSTS by RT
It’s not often that events in Mumbai reverberate through global markets. But the Reserve Bank of India’s first interest rate hike in almost four years speaks volumes about the chaotic state of play. The inflation slamming Asia’s third-biggest economy and the rupee’s drop to record lows left RBI Governor Sanjay Malhotra with no choice but […]
The post India’s rate hike a loud warning shot for Modinomics appeared first on Asia Times.
Germany’s most promising industries are also among the most tightly connected to Chinese supply chains, found a new study published on Thursday (8 October).
The paper, Industry with a Future, by the Cologne-based ZOE Institute for Future-fit Economies, ranks 62 German industries according to their prospects for future value, links to green technologies, and contribution to the wider German economy.
Small electrical industries come out particularly well, including clean tech sectors, such as battery producers and manufacturers of electric motors, switchboards, and computer equipment.
These areas combine the kind of specialised know-how that is difficult to copy, which can protect high-wage economies, such as Germany, from cheap foreign competition into the future.
But many of those industries still depend on China for components, and in some cases also rely on Chinese buyers to sell their products to.
“China matters to these industries not only as a competitor, but also as a supplier and a buyer,” the ZOE Institute study’s co-author, Marla Schiefeling, told journalists at a briefing on Wednesday.
That leaves Germany with a difficult industrial policy problem: It needs to scale these sectors up while cutting its dependence on China, but the fastest way to scale is with cheap Chinese components.
To solve this predicament, the authors argue for diversifying suppliers and creating more demand in Germany and the EU.
The driver of the troubles is that the German economic model itself isn’t working anymore.
Around 420,000 manufacturing jobs were lost between 2019 and 2025, and German exports to China fell 29 percent from their 2021 peak to 2025, the study notes.
“Production and employment in German industry have been falling for years. This is definitely not a cyclical dip. It is a structural problem,” said co-author Lukas Bertram.
Reliant as it is on exports, Germany’s big export industries, such as car makers or industrial machines, are losing competitiveness, mostly to China, while facing US tariffs abroad and high energy prices at home.
Yet the study argues these industries are also the country’s best hope, and are better placed to create new value than their current troubles suggest.
German carmakers, such as BMW, Mercedes, and Volkswagen, which are in the direct line of fire of China’s EV dominance, already have many of the industrial capabilities to make much of what is needed to build batteries, wind turbines or power grids, from electronics to specialised metal parts.
“From these capabilities, new leading roles can emerge, for instance in electric mobility,” the report’s authors note.
While still associated with fuel and combustion engines, carmaking ranks among the top three industries for eight of the 10 green supply chains the authors examined.
Machinery, metal products and parts of the chemicals industry also do well, which the authors initially found surprising.
“We briefly wondered whether something was off with the methodology. But once we dug deeper, we realised it makes complete sense,” said Schiefeling.
“There’s still a lot of potential and a huge amount of technological know-how there,” she added.
“The task is to translate that into sustainable production structures from which new value can emerge,” she said.
Other sectors, such as coal power, coke ovens, oil refining, and fertiliser production, by contrast, have little future in Germany, the study finds.
But rather than letting them collapse, the authors argue they should be wound down gradually, which they call “strategic de-scaling.”
Meanwhile in Brussels, the debate about the EU’s Industrial Accelerator Act is heating up.
The first version of the plan was circulated by the commission in March, but it is still being redrafted, with a new version presented on Wednesday.
At the heart of the plan is the ‘Made in EU’ clause. This would require governments to favour European-made (low-carbon) goods, starting with steel, cement, aluminium, cars, and clean technologies.
In a joint non-paper sent to the commission on Monday, German chancellor Friedrich Merz and French president Emmanuel Macron similarly called for a “European preference” in strategic sectors and to “derisk” from Chinese supply chains, notably in batteries and clean energy equipment.
But the ZOE Institute’s Bertram said that while ‘made in Europe’ criteria could help create demand for EU and Germany fledgeling industries, this might not help all sectors concerned.
For a German battery or switchboard maker that can only source its parts from China, such rules might “initially raise prices rather than genuinely create local production capacity,” he said.
This piece was amended for clarity.
This article originally appeared on Dean Baker’s Patreon. It is reprinted here with permission.
Virtually everyone who is not a billionaire, or owned by one, agrees that we have to limit the ability of the rich to buy elections. While the Republican Party has taken “policy for sale” politics to a new level, there are plenty of Democrats who have been happy to support obviously awful policy in exchange for contributions from the AI industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the crypto industry, and Wall Street more generally. It costs a lot of money to run a competitive campaign and it’s hard to raise that from small contributions, so there will always be a temptation to bend policy positions to get some serious money.
While most people favor limits on campaign contributions, the current Supreme Court has made this very difficult. They have ruled that campaign contributions are speech and therefore any effort to limit campaign contributions is an unconstitutional restriction on speech.
There are some promising alternative paths that focus on making small donors matter. Seattle has a system of “democracy vouchers” that give every voter in local elections a modest sum that they can contribute to a candidate(s) of their choice. To qualify to get the vouchers, candidates must agree to limits on spending and large contributions.
Super-matches are a comparable system. Under this system, small dollar contributions can be matched up to 8 to 1, which means that even a $50 contribution can make a difference to a campaign. New York City, along with several other cities, have gone this route.
While these paths for amplifying the voice of ordinary people are promising, it will take much more to match the power of the billionaires. It is important to realize they exercise their political power in ways other than campaign contributions, primarily through their ownership of the media.
The importance of billionaire ownership goes far beyond the constant stream of lies and right-wing propaganda from Fox News. Last year, the very Trumpy Ellison family took control of CBS and immediately began to shift its news to the right. They are now taking control of CNN through the merger of Paramount and Warner Brothers. They also got control over TikTok, after Trump wrestled it away from a Chinese company for them.
Trumper Mark Zuckerberg owns Facebook and Instagram and is not shy about banning political material he doesn’t like. And Elon Musk bought Twitter, explicitly to advance his right-wing agenda. The rest of the media landscape doesn’t look much better. The rich and very rich own the countries’ newspapers and broadcast outlets, and most of these people lean right, even if they have not yet joined the Trump Reich.
And let’s just be clear. The idea that the campaign ads bought by the rich can influence votes, but not the material that people see between the ads, is beyond absurd. Even if we banned all political contributions from rich people and corporations, the rich could still control elections by showing us nothing but their propaganda on television, in newspapers, and on social media.
This is why the Community News Act that Governor Gavin Newsom just signed is so important. The measure provides $20,000 each for up to five journalists per news outlet covering local news. This subsidy can keep newspapers and news sites across the state in business and help to support new ones that might start up. It is similar to other programs that have been started in Illinois, New York, and New Mexico.
This might seem like small change in a world with multi-billion dollar media empires, but it is not realistic to imagine matching the super-rich dollar for dollar; the goal is to sustain reality-based reporting that people can rely upon. (Repealing Section 230 protection for the mega-platforms like Facebook and X would be a big step towards leveling the playing field.) And support for local news reporting is likely to also lead to better national and international reporting, both by training more reporters and also increasing the comfort level with public funding, perhaps opening the door for a national system.
To be clear, there are no political conditions attached to this funding. Conservative news outlets are as eligible for this subsidy as more liberal ones. The point is to support local journalism, not to favor a particular political perspective.
To my view, this system is not ideal. I prefer support coming through an individual refundable tax credit to support local news. This would allow people to have a more direct attachment to the news outlets being supported with public money. Ideally, this would give them a sense of ownership that many feel towards other community organizations.
But whether or not this is the best approach, there is no doubt that the California bill, along with the ones already passed in other states, are big steps forward. It will help to reverse the collapse of local news reporting, which is giving corruption free rein in many areas. We need to build on the positive and make it better, rather than reject a plan because it may not be ideal. Progressive opponents of California’s wealth tax initiative may want to give that point some thought.
Europe’s Green party has called on the European Commission to exercise the powers it previously used during the Ukraine war to tax the exceptional profits made by big oil and gas companies during the ongoing conflict in Iran.
“There are models in Europe that we can use to tax these super profits,” German MEP Rasmus Andresen told a European Parliament debate in Strasbourg on Wednesday (7 October), in his call to crack down on Iran-crisis profiteering.
The Strasbourg debate came after Austria, Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal, and Spain wrote to Ireland’s finance minister in August calling for an EU-wide framework to tax windfall profits.
Ireland holds the rotating EU presidency and can set agendas in the EU Council until the end of the year.
Several of those in the group of six EU states already put in place energy windfall taxes since this summer, ranging from 60 percent levies on excess fuel profits in Poland to 33 percent in Portugal.
Many other EU countries oppose introducing another tax at European level, which would require unanimity among all 27 member states to put in place.
But for his part, the Greens’ Andresen told MEPs in the hemicycle on Wednesday: “I don’t understand how despite the fact that there is this initiative from these six member states, that the commission is not taking action.”
Estimates from NGO Transport and Environment found that excess profits of €7.5bn were seen by eight oil companies alone in the first half of 2026 in Europe.
The figures were twice what they had made in the previous quarter.
The EU had reacted to soaring energy prices after Russia’s full invasion of Ukraine in 2022 with a special “solidarity” tax on oil and gas firms, said groups on the Parliament’s left.
A commission assessment found that the measure raised €28bn in 2022-2023.
A senior official representing the Irish presidency, Thomas Byrne, said on Wednesday that windfall taxes “could be considered to respond to the concern related to the rising cost of living“.
But energy commissioner Dan Jørgensen poured cold water on appeals for EU-level action, saying “corporate taxation falls mainly in the realm of national competence” in legal terms.
Andresen’s fellow Green MEP, Marie Toussaint, said taxing Iran profits could be used “to pay for the energy transformation” in Europe, in the context of difficult talks on the EU’s next multi-annual European budget.
If they were not taxed, “how can they be exonerated from all responsibility in the rise of prices at the gas station?,” said the French vice-president of the Greens group.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
Commenting earlier on reports of plague or another infection in the Irkutsk Region, Russian Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said people should rely on assessments by Rospotrebnadzor, rather than rumors and idle speculation.
For days, many American bloggers and politicians have been sounding an alarm that currently appears unjustified and blown out of proportion.
Excerpt by BMJ (former British Medical Journal)
«The risk of a plague epidemic is low after the death of a laboratory technician who worked at a plague research institute in Russia, the World Health Organization (WHO) has said» BMJ reported today confirming Moscow statements.
However, the United Nations body said that it was closely monitoring the situation and urged Russian authorities to be “transparent” about the death.
Darya Shipilova, 28, worked at the Irkutsk Antiplague Research Institute in the Siberia region of Russia. She died on 2 October, two days after being admitted to hospital and placed on a ventilator.1
Russian authorities have downplayed the incident and said that Shipilova died of “pneumonia of an unknown aetiology.” However, media reports suggested that she died of pneumonic plague and that she may have become infected after an accident in the laboratory.
Nicolas Hulscher, American epidemiologist posted on Social:
«Before everyone panics about the lab-acquired pneumonic plague infection in Russia: This isn’t the 1300s. We now have effective treatments (antibiotics). At least five documented pneumonic plague outbreaks/clusters have occurred since 2011».
«NONE became a pandemic. Multiple lab-acquired plague infections have also occurred in modern history. NONE became a pandemic».
Originally published by TASS News Agency
All the links to previous Gospa News investigations have been added in the aftermath by virtue of the ties with covered topics
A review of compliance with biosafety requirements in the Irkutsk Region has been completed, with no emergencies involving work with pathogens identified, the press service of Russia’s sanitary watchdog – Rospotrebnadzor – said.
The watchdog also noted that the World Health Organization (WHO) had published an assessment indicating no risk associated with a case of community-acquired pneumonia in Irkutsk.
TASS has compiled the key facts about the situation in the region.
– The review of compliance with biosafety requirements in the Irkutsk Region has been completed, with no emergencies involving work with pathogenic microorganisms identified.
– Comprehensive preventive measures have been implemented in the region, and there are no epidemic risks to the public.
– Monitoring has ended for 90% of those who had contact with the patient, with no health problems caused by infectious diseases identified.
– Rospotrebnadzor has also provided the WHO with information about the situation in the region.
– The WHO, in turn, published an assessment indicating no risk associated with the case of community-acquired pneumonia in Irkutsk, according to Rospotrebnadzor.
– Russian Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the WHO had been duly informed about the case of pneumonia of unknown etiology in the Irkutsk Region.
– He urged the public to rely on Rospotrebnadzor’s statements, noting that the watchdog regularly releases detailed information about the epidemiological situation.
– According to Peskov, the media have published a large amount of information about the epidemiological situation in the Irkutsk Region, most of which is false.
– Commenting earlier on reports of plague or another infection in the region, Peskov urged the public to rely on assessments by highly qualified Rospotrebnadzor specialists rather than rumors and idle speculation.
– An employee of an anti-plague institute in the Irkutsk Region was diagnosed with pneumonia of unknown etiology, Rospotrebnadzor previously reported.
– The watchdog emphasized that a special set of measures had been implemented in response.
– Expanded testing of samples taken from the patient found no microorganisms associated with her professional activities.
– Subsequent testing identified two cases each of COVID-19 and rhinovirus infection among those who had contact with the woman.
– About 16,000 cases of acute respiratory viral infections are recorded in the Irkutsk Region every week, with no increase reported over the past two weeks.
– The sanitary and epidemiological situation in the Irkutsk Region remains calm.
Originally published by TASS News Agency
introduction by Gospa News Editorial Staff
Originally posted on October, 7, 2026 – updated on October, 8, 2026
As the tragic anniversary of October 7, 2023, approaches —the day Hamas terrorists massacred Israelis near the Gaza Strip border, triggering the genocide in Palestine perpetrated by Benjamin Netanyahu’s Zionist regime —we are publishing an exclusive intelligence analysis.
This video marks the launch of a new Gospa News series titled “TOP SECRET Interview” by Fabio G.C. Carisio—founder and director of Gospa News—which will also be republished on the long-standing American site VT UnCensored Foreign Policy (where Carisio hosts a column).
This features an interview with Antonio Evangelista, a top Italian police official and counter-terrorism expert who spent seven years as Interpol official in Jordan, and who is now an author of geopolitical essayes and novels concerning international intrigue.
He confirms that the recent attack in the Holy Land—like the September 11 attack on the Twin Towers in New York—was a horrific “false flag” operations…
A “false flag” operation is one carefully premeditated over a long period by a foreign intelligence entity to implicate an enemy nation and discredit it in the eyes of global public opinion. It is planned down to the finest detail, carrying the risk of causing actual casualties.
In fact, if unforeseen “collateral damage”—such as unexpected deaths beyond the planned injuries or killings—occurs during the operation, the orchestrators are even more pleased, as the resulting bloodshed lends greater credibility to the terrorist attack.
Historically, the CIA (US counter-intelligence) and Mossad (Israeli counter-intelligence) have been recognized masters of such plots, occasionally utilizing partners such as the secret services of other nations or terrorist groups.
In the video, the former Interpol official answers the following questions by Gospa News director Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio:
No summary today. If you want to hear the answers, watch the video to the end.
Below the video, you will find links to the major investigations mentioned in the footage.
“NATO’s LIES ON MEDITERRANEAN WARS FOR GAS”. Exclusive Interview to Former Interpol EU Officer
US Researchers: “Investors may have had Prior Knowledge of Hamas Attack on Israel”
Declassified Guantanamo Court Filing Suggests some 9/11 Hijackers were CIA Agents
It’s getting better all the time (Better, better, better) It’s getting better all the time I admit it’s getting better –The Beatles In an X post, Marko Jukic, senior analyst at Bismarck Analysis, lamented: “Enshittification” is sort of a “safe horny” term for what is really just outright impoverishment and declining living standards due to […]
The post US enshittification vs Chinese involution appeared first on Asia Times.
Login