On Monday, a group of students from the University of Chicago stood outside the Chicago Mercantile Exchange—one of the world's largest and most diverse derivatives marketplaces—and called for the repeal of an obscure 1958 law that bans onions as futures products traded on U.S. exchanges.
Attracting an audience with a humorous jingle and amusing signs that included "Onions Deserve a Future," "Honk If You Want Free Onions," "Hot Girls Hedge Onions," and "Free Markets Feed Families," the student group, named For Our Futures, has a simple platform: a repeal of the 1958 Onion Futures Act, which prohibits anyone from trading in onion futures on commodity exchanges. (The law was amended in 2010 to ban motion picture box office receipts from being traded on commodity exchanges.) The viral campaign drew enough attention that Mike Selig—chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and a proponent of expanding the list of commodities traded on futures markets—was asked about the law in a media appearance.
American farmers produce about 6.75 billion pounds of onions a year, according to the National Onion Association, an industry trade group. While peers who grow cotton, wheat, corn, and soybeans can hedge against price swings by trading futures contracts, onion farmers have no such recourse under federal law. But, as the Agriculture Department's daily National Potato and Onion Report shows, onion prices are highly volatile and subject to wild swings, making them an ideal market for futures trading.
In its latest report, released Monday, the agency shows that onion prices have roughly doubled since this time last year. If onion futures contracts were legal, farmers could rely on market expectations instead of planting crops based on last year's prices. It would also let buyers potentially cut costs by locking in lower prices to protect against spikes. Trading onion futures contracts would give the industry a useful price-discovery tool, one that the student group aptly notes is "crucial for price stability and for hedging risks associated with weather and market fluctuations."
It's not For Our Futures' first time trying this gambit. The student group staged similar protests at college campuses in April and May, armed with bags of raw onions to entice passersby into signing their petition to legalize onion futures. The students' crusade might be comical, but after a recent Gallup poll found that 57 percent of Americans age 18–34 have a positive image of socialism, it's encouraging to see college-age students stand up for free markets.
A protest over onions sounds absurd, but it's a viral reminder to others in that age cohort of how far governments can go when given the slightest leeway to regulate an industry.
Instead of relying on outdated price points when planning future harvests, American onion producers could use resources like futures contracts that offer real-time market signals. All that would require—as the college kids state—is for federal lawmakers to "let the free market reign supreme."
Hello and welcome to another edition of Free Agent! Be careful when you're behind the wheel this week.
College football is great! Surely you want even more of it, right? We'll get into the problems with a 24-team College Football Playoff (CFP), then talk about the NBA's new betting restrictions, and close with thoughts about President Donald Trump's new government golf course plans. And just in case you don't make it to the end, here's a shortcut to our survey on who you're rooting for in the World Series.
But first, many congratulations to "Gary's 1st Entry" on outlasting everyone else in our NFL Survivor group. There's no prize other than this shoutout, so be sure to print out today's newsletter, highlight this paragraph, and frame it in gold. Perhaps Gary can keep going and challenge Primetime Paulie Rothrock's 13-game winning streak from last season.
Locker Room Links
Both teams in the WNBA Finals left the court for the National Anthem—unclear if this was a protest or just part of the pregame routine. WNBA policy doesn't require teams to be on the court for the anthem, but does require a "dignified posture" if they are.
In the thick of a playoff race, three Zambian women's soccer players are separated from their National Women's Soccer League teams because they played in Uganda, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a three-week restriction on reentry due to Ebola. (There are zero active Ebola cases in Uganda and Zambia.)
This is the kind of excessively nerdy fantasy football content I live for. (Yahoo remains the best fantasy sports system. ESPN's is trash, relying on name recognition to get by.)
I figured out how ESPN calculates fantasy football win percentage, it's bad!
ESPN made a stats 101 error when calculating their win percentage which leads to horribly miscalibrated numbers. ( thread) pic.twitter.com/bDypgjelKj
Saturday was one of the best days of college football ever—or perhaps it could have been, if we thought any of the five top-10 teams who took a loss were now certainly out of playoff contention. Instead, Georgia, Notre Dame, Indiana, Alabama, and Texas are all still very much alive in the championship hunt.
Today was one of the craziest days in college football history:
- First time ever five teams ranked in the top 7 lose in a single week - First time the No. 1-ranked team loses to an unranked team in consecutive weeks since 1990 - First time Texas, Alabama, and Georgia all lose… pic.twitter.com/psVRoM5s5b
With two losses, Alabama and Texas are at least on the edge of the playoff bubble with perhaps no more room for error. But that's only true under this year's CFP format. Next year, the playoff is almost officially set to balloon to 24 teams, making the chaos of a day like Saturday matter even less.
Fans will always celebrate a huge upset or major rivalry win, of course—Tennessee fans don't need playoff stakes as an excuse to get drunk when they beat Alabama. But the joy of a rivalry win in the past was always bigger because of the off-field stakes, too—the first loss for your rival meant they probably wouldn't be national champions, the second meant they'd be out of the Rose Bowl, a third meant you could be proud your team sent them packing for the Alamo Bowl. Winning is great; ruining your rival's season is even better.
With 24 teams in the playoff, the joy is a bit diminished because it will take four or possibly five losses to knock a powerhouse program out of the CFP (Iowa, at 8–4, was ranked 23rd by the committee before last year's playoffs). It'll be a bit like a rivalry win in college basketball—we win, you suck, congrats on getting a slightly worse NCAA Tournament seed.
In the business of sports, more inventory for TV is king, and the powers that be think more teams playing more playoff games will make more money. At Free Agent, we don't begrudge institutions for trying to make more money—we all do the same every day. But it's not clear abandoning conference championship games will be the answer, especially when the Big Ten and SEC championships apparently outdraw many playoff games.
ESPN and the power conferences know fans aren't happy about it—just look at allthechatteronline, and how the crowd at BYU reacted when College GameDay discussed expansion on Saturday (especially when BYU would probably benefit from expansion!). They're betting enough people will watch to make the expansion profitable anyway. The last hope is that fans get loud enough to bully them into abandoning expansion—which only occasionally works, sometimes on things small (putting the trophy logo on the court for the NBA Finals) and large (soccer's European Super League). If any powerhouse considers going independent, that might shock leaders into a rethink too.
Almost every sport I know is adding more: more teams, bigger playoffs, more for TV. As fans, we still eat it up, of course—much to the excitement of the TV executives who are selling commercial time to the people trying to reach us, the viewing public. (The only counterexample is the MLB proposal to cut eight games from the regular season—I'd love to see each sport I follow cut its season by about 25 percent to make regular season games matter more, so I'm interested to see how this goes.)
Perhaps I'm biased because my favorite team, Michigan State, is a dumpster fire—they could expand the playoff to 64 teams and the Spartans still wouldn't deserve a bid. I personally don't have a whole lot at stake in the playoff format now or anytime soon. But as a neutral, the chaos of Saturday might have been viewed with my full attention in the past—instead, this year I just had it on in the background while I played video games.
Sports Are Regulating Bets Without Politicians, Part 3
After last year's major betting scandal, the NBA asked sportsbooks late last week to stop offering certain types of potentially problematic bets. The sportsbooks, which the NBA says handle roughly 99 percent of the U.S. betting market, agreed. No politician or regulation was necessary to solve the problem.
No longer can bettors bet on unders for a bit player who likely won't get more than 12 minutes of playtime. Bettors also can't wager on the opening tip or on players to miss specific shots. Parlays that string together under bets on the same player's statistics are also out (this one seems a bit harsh—if you just want to bet on a certain major player to have an off night, you can bet on stats separately, but not in a big multiplier parlay). Bets on players who have two-way contracts between the NBA and G League were already banned.
This all comes on the heels of similar developments last year in the NFL and MLB. While some people want to ban prop bets altogether, the NFL asked sportsbooks to eliminate bets in four different categories. Sportsbooks largely agreed or weren't offering those bets anyway. MLB, in light of some pitching-related scandals, asked for a $200 limit on pitch-specific bets and to keep them out of parlays—sportsbooks agreed to that too.
As I wrote last year, "Ideally, this is how the regulation of the sports betting industry should go….These approaches are catching the nuances of what works for both the leagues and for sportsbooks without the heavy-handed approaches of politicians who would use an axe to ban all prop bets instead of a scalpel to limit problematic bets."
It's important to note leagues are able to do this because they have commercial partnerships with the sportsbooks. Otherwise, the leagues would have no direct leverage over a sportsbook offering a bet the league doesn't like. Keep that in mind the next time you see people bemoaning a league partnership with a sportsbook or a prediction market.
Trump's Golf Course Plans Have People Teed Off
President Donald Trump has new plans for the National Park Service golf course at East Potomac—again. Last time new plans were announced, the site plan still had its historic miniature golf course, a par-3 course, and the existing road still ringing the property for bicycling, running, etc. Much of the public didn't like that plan anyway—now, none of that remains in the latest plans, just 18 holes of golf and a driving range.
What's really going on here seems quite clear to me: Like so many other things going on in the second Trump administration, this is a scheme to enrich the Trump family. The plan?
Step 2: Use taxpayer dollars to pay for renovation of the course into, allegedly, a championship-level course capable of hosting major golf tournaments (no matter that the area has next to zero parking, is a mile from the nearest Metro station, and only accessible by narrow roads not meant to handle tens of thousands of spectators).
Step 3: Have the federal government sign a sweetheart deal with, who else, the golf division of the Trump Organization to operate the course on extremely favorable and profitable terms.
If you're wondering why the Trump administration is doing something, corruption is usually a good guess.
The arguments for the course don't make much sense. There are plenty of adequate, competitively priced golf courses in the broader Washington, D.C., area. Several of them are already capable of hosting professional golf tournaments. Between LIV Golf and the PGA Tour, there were three tournaments at three different courses in the last couple years. The 2030 PGA Championship and 2037 Ryder Cup will happen just over the D.C. line in Bethesda, Maryland.
East Potomac is not the nicest course around, no thanks to the legal limbo it's been in for the past year. But if the National Park Service is going to, for some reason, be in the business of running a golf course, it should be a course that emphasizes and teaches its history instead of the pipe dream of a corrupt madman.
Who Ya Got? 2026 World Series Edition
For the first time in 46 years, we've got a World Series contested by two teams that have never won it before. Brewers against Rays is also a rare instance of the top seeds from each league outlasting the randomness of the MLB playoffs to make the World Series. And before you trot out the tired line that "TV executives must be seething about the small market teams" remember that they care much more about getting a playoff series that goes seven games with close results in each game (What did I say above? Inventory rules all!).
Ukraine is counting on buying part of Lockheed Martin’s growing output of ballistic missile interceptors, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said. He met the US company’s team in Kyiv on 19 October and also raised servicing and repairing F-16 fighter jets inside Ukraine.
Russia keeps striking Ukraine’s power grid with ballistic missiles, and interceptor supplies fall short of that threat. Kyiv is working every route to more Patriot missiles, from US deliveries to allies’ stocks, and some have stalled. Greece, for one, has not confirmed it will hand any over, citing its own defense needs. A purchase from the missiles’ maker would add one more route.
Growing output, F-16 repairs in Ukraine
Lockheed Martin builds the PAC-3 MSE interceptors fired by Patriot air defense systems, as well as the F-16. Zelenskyy said both matter against Russian ballistic missiles and jet-powered Shahed drones. Neither area is easy right now, he added.
“We count on the opportunity to purchase some of them to protect more lives,” he wrote.
On 28 July, Zelenskyy met the company in Washington to discuss joint production. That came weeks after US President Donald Trump pledged Ukraine a license to manufacture Patriots.
A batch reportedly stuck in Washington
Meanwhile, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has not signed off on a “significant” batch of Patriot missiles, Ukrainian officials told the Kyiv Independent. One official said allies had already paid for them. A US government official called the claims untrue, and the Pentagon did not respond. A NATO official said allied-funded deliveries, including air defense, continue. A second NATO official said some shipments could be delayed, but likely not for political reasons.
Zelenskyy told Bloomberg on 18 October that the US delivers only 12 Patriot interceptors a month. On 20 October, interceptors topped his list in a call with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
No purchase was announced, so new interceptors from this route remain a prospect. Meanwhile, partners’ early warnings of Russian ballistic launches have gone missing three times recently, Zelenskyy wrote. Those warnings give air defenses extra minutes to prepare.
The European Commission is checking whether laws Ukraine’s parliament passed last week earn it a €3.7 billion ($4.3 billion) EU payment, spokesperson Balázs Ujvári told reporters in Brussels on 19 October. He also said Ukraine’s 2027 funding gap stands at about €70 billion, and that the EU “cannot do this all alone.” How Ukraine pays for Russia’s war next year now depends on reforms in Kyiv and on money from Europe and beyond.
Russia keeps striking Ukraine’s power grid and cities, and Kyiv already faces a hole in next year’s war budget before any new military spending. Foreign money keeps salaries, pensions, and repairs flowing while Ukraine spends its own revenue on defense. So each delayed payment is felt at home while Russia hits the energy system again.
Brussels reads Kyiv’s new laws before paying
The payment is the second tranche of the EU’s macro-financial assistance to Ukraine, and each one depends on reforms, Ujvári said at the Commission’s midday briefing.
“We saw that last week some important laws were adopted in the Rada, and we are in the process of analyzing these laws and we will formulate our assessment thereafter,” he said.
On its third attempt, parliament passed a law on 15 October ending the VAT exemption for foreign parcels worth up to €150 from 1 July 2027, and making online marketplaces collect the tax. The Commission had warned the law was one of 12 conditions for the tranche. Fewer than 1% of the 75 million parcels Ukrainians receive each year were taxed, and lawmakers had rejected the measure twice despite IMF pressure.
About €30 billion is in the pipeline for Ukraine this year, mostly under the EU’s €90 billion support loan, if reforms continue, Ujvári said.
Explore further
EU announced funding shortfall for Ukraine in 2027
A €70 billion gap for 2027
Current pledges leave a gap of about €70 billion for 2027, Ujvári said, even counting the €45 billion ($52 billion) the EU has set aside for next year and some partners’ commitments.
“We cannot do this all alone. Therefore, our partners in general must step up,” he said. “They have to come forward with pledges, and they have to deliver on those commitments.”
On 16 October, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy asked EU leaders for at least €70 billion more for 2027. They tasked the Commission with a proposal but set no deadline. Asked whether it would revisit using frozen Russian assets, Ujvári said it was “a little bit early” to discuss options in that detail. New EU borrowing has also grown costlier: 10-year rates rose from 3.2% to just above 4% in six months, he said.
The €90 billion loan was designed on the assumption that the war would end in 2026. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico said Slovakia and Hungary would opt out of new aid but would not block others.
European Union governments have agreed a negotiating position on new agricultural market rules intended to take effect under the bloc’s 2028–2034 budget, advancing reforms to support arrangements for farmers while leaving the most contentious financial questions unresolved.
The Council approved its partial negotiating mandate on Monday, 19 October, covering changes to the Common Market Organisation regulation, which governs agricultural markets across the European Union.
The proposals include new arrangements for wine producers, protein crops and oilseeds, revised marketing standards, changes to the EU school food programme and provisions intended to improve preparedness for agricultural market disruptions.
However, the agreement does not settle future funding allocations or the broader structure of agricultural subsidies, which remain under negotiation as EU governments attempt to reconcile farming expenditure with competing demands for defence, industrial investment and regional development.
Agricultural markets under review
The Council’s negotiating position retains much of the European Commission’s original proposal while introducing amendments intended to accommodate national differences in agricultural production.
Under the proposed arrangements, sector-specific interventions would become mandatory in several areas, including beekeeping, fruit and vegetables and, under certain circumstances, wine production.
The Council has also proposed flexibility for countries where particular sectors are absent or relatively undeveloped.
For the wine industry, governments would be able to seek exemptions from certain obligations where national circumstances justify different arrangements.
This would allow the framework to retain common European rules while avoiding requirements that would be inappropriate for member states with little or no domestic wine production.
Sectoral interventions form part of the mechanisms through which the EU supports agricultural markets and producer organisations. They can cover measures intended to improve competitiveness, manage production and strengthen farmers’ commercial position.
New provisions for protein crops
The Council has endorsed the establishment of a separate sector for protein crops and oilseeds, replacing existing provisions covering dried fodder.
The objective is to encourage domestic production and reduce dependence on imported agricultural inputs, particularly crops used in animal feed and food production.
European livestock producers rely on protein-rich feed ingredients, including soyabeans, that are often sourced internationally.
Greater domestic production could reduce exposure to fluctuations in global commodity prices, transport costs and disruptions to international supply chains.
Under the Council’s proposal, member states would be encouraged to recognise producer organisations specialising in protein crops and oilseeds.
Such organisations can help farmers coordinate production, marketing and investment, although the effectiveness of the proposed measures will depend on how they are implemented nationally.
The proposals follow broader EU efforts to improve supply security in sectors extending from agricultural inputs to critical industrial materials.
School food and product labelling
The negotiating mandate also preserves the EU school scheme, which provides support for the distribution of fruit, vegetables and milk to schoolchildren.
Under the proposed framework, the programme would move from a school-year financing cycle to a calendar-year system, with transitional provisions intended to prevent disruption during implementation.
The Council has maintained the Commission’s objective of encouraging healthier eating habits by limiting products containing high levels of free sugars and fats.
The proposal also opens the possibility of additional marketing standards for several agricultural products, including protein crops, beef, pork, sheepmeat, goatmeat and rice.
These standards could provide consumers with more detailed information about product origins, subject to the final legislation.
Such measures would also have implications for producers and food businesses, which would need to comply with any new requirements concerning classification, marketing and labelling.
The Council additionally supports the harmonisation of rules covering industrial hemp, while retaining safeguards concerning seed certification and the permitted level of tetrahydrocannabinol.
Farming subsidies remain contested
The agricultural market agreement forms part of negotiations over the next Common Agricultural Policy, which will operate within the EU’s new seven-year financial framework.
Under the Commission’s proposed budget structure, several funding streams, including agricultural and cohesion programmes, would be brought together within national and regional partnership plans.
The restructuring has encountered opposition from governments and agricultural interests concerned that farming could lose protected access to EU funding.
As EU Today previously reported, 17 member states have called for agricultural and regional development expenditure to be protected against further reductions.
The Council’s latest position addresses how agricultural markets should operate rather than determining the size of the financial support available to them.
A separate debate concerns the conditions for receiving direct farm payments, including the definition of an active farmer and the degree of discretion granted to national governments.
Those questions remain central to the continuing CAP negotiations, which are due to return to the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 26–27 October.
Negotiations move to Parliament
The Council’s partial mandate now provides a basis for negotiations with the European Parliament on the agricultural market provisions.
The legislation will still require agreement between the institutions, while its financing will depend on the eventual settlement of the 2028–2034 budget.
Governments must also complete negotiations on the wider CAP framework, including direct income support and the distribution of responsibility between Brussels and national administrations.
The market agreement reached on 19 October therefore establishes important elements of the proposed agricultural rules, but leaves unresolved the level of financial support available to European farmers after 2027.
Dutch-Belgian supermarket group Ahold Delhaize has confirmed that malicious activity was responsible for the cybersecurity incident that disrupted its operations across Europe and the United States, forcing the company to take websites, applications and other computer systems offline.
In an official statement issued on Monday, 19 October, the company announced that it had filed a formal complaint with Dutch police and was cooperating with national cybersecurity authorities. Although physical supermarkets have remained open, the disruption has affected online shopping, deliveries and some distribution operations.
The company said investigators had so far found no evidence that sensitive information belonging to customers, employees or business partners had been taken. However, its investigation remains open, and the identity and objectives of those responsible have not been publicly established.
Online services interrupted across several countries
The disruption began on 12 October, when Ahold Delhaize detected suspicious activity within its information technology infrastructure.
The group responded by taking a number of systems offline as a precaution, affecting most of its retail brands in Europe and the United States. The consequences varied considerably between businesses, with some experiencing prolonged interruption to digital services while others were able to restore operations more quickly.
Albert Heijn, the Netherlands’ largest supermarket chain, has been particularly affected. Its website and mobile application have returned online, but home grocery deliveries are not expected to resume until Friday, 23 October.
Orders scheduled before that date have been cancelled, while the company continues preparations for a gradual restoration of its online delivery service.
The incident also interrupted some supply and distribution arrangements, resulting in shortages on supermarket shelves in parts of the Netherlands and Belgium.
In Belgium, Delhaize has restored its online shopping operations. Certain promotional and personalised services were still experiencing difficulties, although the parent company confirmed that its Belgian e-commerce business was operational again.
Dutch retailers Etos and Gall & Gall have also restored their websites. Meanwhile, several American supermarket brands owned by Ahold Delhaize have continued to experience service interruptions.
The group said it expected additional online services in the United States to become available over the coming days.
Dutch authorities investigate
Ahold Delhaize said it notified the Netherlands’ National Cyber Security Centre within 24 hours of detecting the malicious activity.
The company has subsequently provided updates to the authorities and, on Monday, confirmed that a formal police report had been submitted.
Chief executive Frans Muller defended the decision to shut down digital systems, arguing that the investigation had demonstrated the necessity of taking preventive action.
The company has not identified the perpetrators, confirmed whether ransomware was involved or disclosed the technical method used to gain access to its infrastructure.
These distinctions are important because malicious activity does not necessarily establish that information was stolen or that attackers obtained control over every system subsequently taken offline.
The retailer has instead described a controlled restoration process intended to ensure that affected systems can be brought back into operation without exposing the business to further risks.
Ahold Delhaize operates thousands of supermarkets and related retail businesses, including Albert Heijn, Delhaize, Food Lion, Giant Food, Hannaford and Stop & Shop.
Its geographical reach means that a disruption originating within shared corporate infrastructure can affect several national markets, even where individual retail chains maintain separate commercial operations.
Cybersecurity becomes a supply-chain concern
The attack comes amid increasing scrutiny of the vulnerability of European food retailers to digital disruption.
Earlier this month, investigators in France began examining cyberattacks against refrigeration control systems used by hundreds of supermarkets.
Those incidents reportedly affected equipment at chains including Carrefour, Intermarché and Monoprix, with some retailers forced to discard products after refrigeration systems malfunctioned.
There is no established connection between the French incidents and the attack affecting Ahold Delhaize.
Nevertheless, both episodes illustrate the dependence of modern retail operations on interconnected digital systems supporting stock management, refrigeration, logistics, payments and customer services.
The consequences of a serious cyber incident can extend beyond the loss of access to websites. Interruptions to inventory systems, warehouse operations or communications with suppliers can affect the availability of physical products.
This creates particular difficulties for food retailers, where delays in transport and storage can result in the loss of perishable goods.
European regulatory implications
The incident also draws attention to the European Union’s NIS2 cybersecurity framework, which establishes stricter risk-management and incident-reporting obligations for organisations operating in designated sectors.
Food production, processing and distribution are among the activities covered by the directive, although its application to particular companies and operations depends on the relevant legal definitions and national implementing arrangements.
The legislation requires organisations within its scope to establish appropriate cybersecurity protections, address supply-chain risks and notify competent authorities of significant incidents.
Separately, the General Data Protection Regulation establishes notification requirements where personal-data breaches meet the relevant reporting threshold.
Ahold Delhaize’s statement that it has found no evidence of sensitive data being taken does not conclude the technical investigation, but it means that a confirmed theft of personal information should not presently be presented as a fact.
For the company, the immediate challenge remains restoring online services while maintaining normal supermarket operations. The wider commercial consequences, including the cost of the interruption and its effect on sales, have not yet been quantified publicly.
A cyberattack affecting approximately 700 supermarkets in France has exposed serious weaknesses in the digital systems used to control commercial refrigeration, raising concerns about the vulnerability of European food distribution networks and other essential infrastructure.
The attack began overnight on 11–12th October, when intruders gained access to remotely managed refrigeration equipment and altered operating settings, causing refrigerators and freezers to overheat.
Stores belonging to several major supermarket chains were affected, including Intermarché, Netto, Coopérative U, Carrefour and Monoprix. Some were forced to discard substantial quantities of fresh and frozen food.
French Finance Minister Roland Lescure confirmed that approximately 700 of the country’s 10,000 supermarkets had been affected, although the severity of the disruption varied between locations.
The Paris prosecutor’s office has opened an investigation into the attack, including the damage caused by destroyed merchandise and reported fires.
The incident has drawn attention to industrial control systems that are routinely connected to the internet but may receive less cybersecurity protection than corporate networks and customer databases.
Refrigeration systems remotely manipulated
Investigators have established that refrigeration equipment was targeted through vulnerabilities associated with remote monitoring and control systems.
Some of the affected systems used older equipment that no longer received regular security updates.
According to information released by the companies and cybersecurity specialists, certain industrial controllers had been accessible through public internet connections, creating opportunities for unauthorised access.
Hackers reportedly manipulated defrost cycles and increased temperature settings, preventing equipment from maintaining the cold conditions required to preserve food.
The attack affected approximately 300 Intermarché and Netto stores, while Coopérative U reported disruption at around 80 outlets.
Several retailers managed to contain the damage, but others lost substantial quantities of stock.
The consequences extended beyond malfunctioning equipment. Businesses faced the cost of replacing spoiled food, repairing refrigeration systems and restoring normal operations.
The precise financial damage is still being assessed, although estimates from the retail sector indicate that losses across France could amount to tens of millions of euros.
Vulnerabilities in connected equipment
The incident illustrates the security problems created by the growing use of internet-connected industrial equipment.
Modern refrigeration installations allow contractors and maintenance specialists to monitor temperatures, adjust settings and diagnose faults remotely.
These arrangements can reduce operating costs and improve efficiency, but they also create additional access points that attackers may exploit.
Cybersecurity specialists have identified vulnerabilities in commercial refrigeration platforms manufactured by Danfoss and Copeland.
The manufacturers subsequently addressed identified flaws, although older or unsupported equipment remained a concern.
A critical problem for businesses is that industrial machinery often remains operational for many years after its original software has become obsolete.
Replacing entire refrigeration installations can involve substantial expense and operational disruption, encouraging operators to retain equipment that may no longer meet contemporary cybersecurity standards.
The risks are particularly difficult to manage when responsibility for maintenance, software updates and network security is divided between retailers, equipment suppliers and external contractors.
France’s delayed cybersecurity legislation
The attack has renewed scrutiny of France’s implementation of the European Union’s NIS2 Directive, which is intended to strengthen cybersecurity across sectors providing important economic and public services.
Its scope extends beyond traditional critical infrastructure such as energy, telecommunications and transport to include certain businesses involved in food production, processing and distribution.
EU member states were required to incorporate the directive into national legislation by 17 October 2024.
French cybersecurity specialists have since warned that delays have complicated efforts to establish consistent obligations for organisations operating industrial and commercial systems.
However, NIS2 does not automatically cover every supermarket. Its application depends on the nature and size of an organisation and the provisions of national implementing legislation.
The incident therefore raises questions not only about the pace of legislative implementation but also about the practical protection of equipment already in use.
Wider implications for European infrastructure
The disruption demonstrates how a cyberattack can cause physical damage without directly targeting a conventional industrial facility.
Unlike breaches intended to steal customer information, the French incident interfered with machinery responsible for preserving essential products.
The distinction is important for European policymakers, who increasingly face threats to infrastructure that combines digital controls with physical operations.
The European Union’s cybersecurity agency ENISA has organised cross-border exercises to test how authorities and companies would respond to disruption affecting essential services.
The attack itself has been established, but responsibility for it has not been publicly attributed.
French authorities have said there is no immediate threat to national food supplies. Nevertheless, the destruction of merchandise and interruption of ordinary retail operations have demonstrated the potential economic consequences of weaknesses in relatively commonplace equipment.
The continuing investigation must establish how access was obtained, which systems were compromised and whether the vulnerabilities were known to operators before the attack.
For Brussels and national regulators, the case provides a practical test of whether European cybersecurity legislation can translate into effective protection for the connected equipment on which ordinary commercial activities increasingly depend.
Andy Burnham has announced "big changes" to welfare to get one million NEETs back into work – but only once he's "rebuilt the education system". Sounds expensive, says Mary Gilleece. It’s clearly never going to happen.
With little more than two weeks to go until the midterm elections, it seems increasingly possible that the Democrats, already a big favorite to win control of the House of Representatives, will also take charge of the planet's most elite nursing home, the United States Senate, where the median age is 64 years old. RealClearPolitics' poll aggregator has moved control of "the world's greatest deliberative body" (as its members are grandiosely wont to call it) to "toss up," status and prediction markets are now breaking big toward a blue wave. As of this writing, Kalshi has its Senate odds at 63 percent for the Dems vs. 37 percent for the GOP; Polymarket is at 62 percent vs. 39 percent.
As gratifying as it might be to see unprincipled Trump enablers reduced to minority status after signing off on economy-wrecking tariffs, inhumane immigration detentions, and wars of choice, there's at least one good reason to dread a Democratic majority too: Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts progressive who is spending the run-up to the midterms freaking out over possible consolidation in the condiments business and accusing private equity firms of gutting such shopping-mall favorites as Claire's and Toys R Us. There's every reason to believe that a Senate run by Warren and other economic interventionists will waste time, money, and resources trying to prevent a world in which, per the X wag Iowahawkblog, "a panopticon conglomerate owns two brands of hot sauce."
On October 13, Warren posted this dire warning to X:
Hellmann's mayo McCormick spices Cholula hot sauce Frank's RedHot
What do these products have in common? One company could soon control them all.
I have concerns that McCormick and Unilever's $45 billion merger could increase YOUR grocery prices.
It's hard to think of a more competitive and varied market than the one for hot sauces, which is expected to more than double over the next decade. The barriers to entry are generally low, as are the key ingredients, and new entrants can easily market and sell online, avoiding the costs of buying shelf space in conventional supermarkets. Yet Warren is urging regulators at the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to halt mergers of both product makers like McCormick and Unilever and grocery stores like Kroger and Giant Eagle.
The latter complaint is particularly picayune. Kroger is one of the country's largest supermarket chains, operating around 2,800 stores under its own name as well as Harris Teeter, Ralph's, and others. Giant Eagle operates about 170 stores. This merger is no more the stuff of nightmares than a single company producing both Cholula and Frank's RedHot. If Warren gains more clout from being in the majority, expect her to butt in more and more on such mergers.
Making it harder for businesses to adapt is not a recipe for making goods and services more affordable. But Warren is keen to blame economic creative destruction not on "new forms of industrial organization that capitalist enterprise creates" (as Joseph Schumpeter would have it), but on pure greed. In a TikTok released earlier this month, she shows a poster board with corporate logos from once-thriving companies that she says have been "gutted" by "private equity" firms.
"Here's your local mall," she piously intones. "Now, private equity wants you to believe that Red Lobster went bankrupt because of their endless shrimp….They want you to believe that Claire's went bankrupt because teens stopped shopping at the mall." In Warren's telling, private equity firms magically take over thriving businesses and then strip them bare. The typical pattern is that private equity enters the picture after a business is failing.
Virtually all accounts of the decline of, for example, Red Lobster, note that the chain had been spiraling for several reasons before the private equity firm Golden Gate Capital got involved in 2014. As this CNN article notes, the chain, which started in 1968, had seen drops in sales as customer desires changed. Management compounded the difficulties with a series of bad decisions, including continuing various all-you-can-eat menu specials, before coming out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy last year.
Similarly, it's true that some teens still go to malls and get their ears pierced at Claire's. But anyone who has spent time in retail America over the past few decades knows that malls are no longer the destination that they once were. As CapitalOne Shopping Research documents, "in 1986, there were 25,000 malls, large and small, nationwide." By 2023, that number had shrunk to just 1,200. While some malls are coming back, most are not, and for reasons that have nothing to do with private equity. Online retails plays a role (though a smaller one than usually imagined, with e-commerce accounting for less than 20 percent of all retail sales). But mostly, it's that people today tend to want a different sort of retail environment. Anchor stores—think Macy's and J.C. Penney—are shadows of themselves, and younger people have less unstructured time in which to prowl food courts and arcades.
For politicians like Elizabeth Warren, though, there can be no financial gains or losses that aren't the result of shadowy, conspiratorial forces. If her party takes control of the Senate, her words will carry more weight. But it will be American consumers that ultimately shoulder the burden of an even-more-regulated economy. The market for hot sauces will almost certainly stay spicy, but many other parts will surely suffer.
Difference between French and German borrowing costs widens after public buildings burned and shops looted
France has been hit by a fresh wave of selling in its bond and stock markets after violent protests over the weekend led to thousands of arrests and left public buildings burned and hundreds of shops looted across the country.
The chaos has spooked investors as analysts worried that it would undermine Paris’s efforts to cut spending and reduce its debt.
Christine Lagarde says rising government borrowing costs are tightening financial conditions across the eurozone, complicating efforts to contain inflation without undermining economic growth.
European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde has warned that a sharp sell-off in government bonds is tightening financial conditions across the eurozone, threatening to weaken economic growth at a time when European governments are already struggling with mounting debt and higher energy prices.
Speaking during the International Monetary Fund’s annual meetings on Saturday, 17 October, Lagarde said rising bond yields were imposing additional pressure on the European economy, potentially reducing demand and helping to bring inflation down.
Her comments came as investors demanded higher returns on government debt across major developed economies, reflecting concerns about persistent inflation, widening budget deficits and the substantial borrowing requirements associated with investment in artificial intelligence.
The development presents a complicated situation for the ECB, which has already raised its key interest rate twice this year in response to renewed inflationary pressure following the conflict in the Middle East.
Higher government bond yields effectively tighten monetary conditions even without a further decision by the central bank to increase official interest rates.
Bond markets tighten financial conditions
The latest sell-off has pushed borrowing costs higher across Europe, although the pressure is particularly acute in countries with large public debts and persistent budget deficits.
When investors sell government bonds, their market prices fall and yields rise. Those higher yields eventually feed into the costs of borrowing for governments, businesses and households.
Lagarde indicated that financial conditions had become tighter than assumed in the ECB’s September economic forecasts.
According to her latest assessment of the bond market, the resulting slowdown in demand could help moderate inflation, but would also place additional pressure on an economy whose growth prospects remain limited.
The ECB’s September projections forecast eurozone economic growth of just 0.9 per cent in 2026, followed by 1.4 per cent in 2027 and 1.5 per cent in 2028.
Inflation was expected to average 3.0 per cent this year before declining to 2.5 per cent in 2027 and 2.1 per cent in 2028.
Those forecasts were based on assumptions about financial conditions and energy prices that may no longer fully reflect developments in international markets.
France faces particularly acute pressure
France has emerged as one of the most vulnerable major eurozone economies because of its high public debt, persistent deficits and political disagreements over fiscal consolidation.
French government bond yields have risen sharply as investors question whether Paris can deliver the spending reductions required to stabilise its finances.
As EU Today reported earlier this month, eurozone finance ministers have been pressing France to produce a credible budget that would restore confidence in the country’s fiscal position.
The borrowing premium demanded on French debt relative to German government bonds has also widened, reflecting investors’ concerns about the financial outlook and the political difficulties surrounding the 2027 budget.
The IMF has warned that continued increases in borrowing costs could eventually force the French government to undertake more substantial fiscal adjustments.
In its assessment of French bond yields, the Fund said the immediate pressures remained manageable, partly because France benefits from established debt markets and relatively long borrowing maturities.
Nevertheless, persistently elevated yields would increase the cost of refinancing government debt as existing bonds mature.
The wider concern is that higher borrowing costs could reduce the room available for public investment and other expenditure across several European economies simultaneously.
IMF warns governments over rising debt
Lagarde’s intervention coincided with renewed warnings from the IMF about the sustainability of European public finances.
In its latest European economic assessment, the Fund argued that governments must either accelerate economic growth or reduce borrowing to prevent debt burdens from becoming increasingly difficult to manage.
The IMF expects eurozone growth of approximately 1.1 per cent in 2026 and 1.2 per cent in 2027, with continuing pressure from energy costs, demographic changes and weak productivity.
The European Commission’s forecasts indicate that eurozone government debt could rise from 88.7 per cent of GDP in 2025 to 91.2 per cent in 2027.
The IMF has also identified structural weaknesses, including barriers within the European single market, which restrict investment and productivity growth.
These problems are becoming more difficult to address as European governments face demands for greater defence expenditure, infrastructure investment and support for industries affected by higher energy prices.
ECB faces difficult interest-rate decision
The ECB has already increased its deposit rate to 2.5 per cent following successive increases in June and September.
As EU Today reported after September’s decision, the central bank has been attempting to contain inflation generated by rising energy costs without causing a more substantial economic slowdown.
The IMF now expects at least one additional quarter-percentage-point increase before the end of 2026.
Such a decision would bring the deposit rate to 2.75 per cent, although the ECB has not committed itself to that outcome.
The challenge is that tighter monetary policy would coincide with financial restrictions already being imposed by bond markets.
At the same time, higher energy prices continue to affect household purchasing power and business operating costs.
In her statement to the International Monetary and Financial Committee, Lagarde acknowledged that the eurozone had proved more resilient than expected, while warning that risks to growth remained tilted to the downside and risks to inflation to the upside.
The duration of the Middle East conflict, developments in energy markets and changes in investor confidence will be important in determining the economic outlook.
For the ECB, a bond-market slowdown could reduce the need for further interest-rate increases by weakening demand. But if energy-driven inflation remains elevated, the central bank may still face pressure to tighten policy.
Europe’s governments, meanwhile, have considerably less control over the borrowing costs demanded by international investors.
The next ECB interest-rate decision will therefore take place against an increasingly difficult combination of sluggish growth, persistent inflation and financial markets imposing their own constraints on public and private borrowing.
Russia has placed five foreign-owned businesses under compulsory administration, including Belgian manufacturer Ontex and French flooring group Tarkett. The latest seizures deepen the confrontation over sanctions, frozen Russian assets and the future of European investment in Russia.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered the transfer of five Western-owned businesses into compulsory Russian management, extending a campaign of asset seizures targeting European companies that continued operating in Russia after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
The decree, signed on 15 October, affects businesses with combined annual revenues exceeding 53 billion roubles, approximately €530 million. They include French flooring manufacturer Tarkett, Belgian hygiene products group Ontex, German packaging producer Menshen, Kappa Rus and Eviosys Packaging Kuban, now linked to American group Sonoco.
Under Presidential Decree No. 738, operational control has been transferred to Centre Capital, a little-known Moscow company established in February 2026 with registered share capital of just 10,000 roubles.
The decision follows similar interventions against Nestlé, Auchan, FM Logistic and Metro in September. Together, the measures demonstrate how Moscow is using foreign-owned businesses as instruments of economic retaliation against countries supporting Ukraine.
Foreign businesses placed under Russian control
Centre Capital is headed by Marat Mirkhaydarov, a former senior official in Russia’s Zabaykalsky region who reportedly served with the Akhmat military formation during Russia’s war against Ukraine.
The scale of the companies placed under his management contrasts sharply with the financial standing of the administrator.
Tarkett’s Russian operations generated approximately 19.3 billion roubles in revenue during 2025, while Kappa Rus recorded 16.5 billion roubles and Ontex RU another 10.3 billion. Eviosys Packaging Kuban and Menshen Packaging CIS reported approximately 6.1 billion and 1.4 billion roubles respectively.
The decree does not formally transfer ownership of the companies to Centre Capital. It does, however, remove the foreign shareholders’ effective control over management, operations and commercial decisions.
For Belgian manufacturer Ontex, the consequences are immediate.
In an official statement issued on 16 October, the Aalst-based company confirmed that a government-appointed administrator had assumed operational control of its Russian subsidiary.
Ontex Russia employs approximately 350 people, operates a manufacturing facility in Noginsk and maintains a sales office in Moscow. The subsidiary accounts for around five per cent of the group’s total revenue and between seven and eight per cent of adjusted EBITDA.
The company said it was examining measures to protect its assets and maintain business continuity.
Tarkett likewise confirmed that it was losing effective control of its Russian operations.
A mechanism established in 2023
The legal framework for such interventions dates to April 2023, when Putin introduced Decree No. 302, allowing the Russian authorities to place assets associated with countries designated as unfriendly under temporary external management.
The appointed administrator can exercise extensive ownership-related powers, although the formal right to dispose of the assets remains excluded.
Crucially, the arrangement can be terminated only by presidential decision. There is no automatic deadline for returning operational control to the original owners.
Moscow maintains that the measures are reversible. Nevertheless, the loss of management authority raises questions about whether businesses could eventually be returned with their financial position, organisational structure and commercial value intact.
The Kremlin’s approach also serves domestic economic objectives. Keeping factories, retail networks and distribution facilities operating under Russian management helps preserve employment, production capacity and established supply chains.
At the same time, appointing Russian administrators allows the authorities to exercise greater influence over businesses originally developed through foreign capital, technology and expertise.
European companies caught in sanctions confrontation
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has explicitly linked the seizures to the nationality of the affected companies and the policies of their governments.
He accused European states of participating in the unlawful seizure of Russian property through sanctions and financial restrictions.
Moscow’s argument centres partly on approximately €210 billion in Russian sovereign assets immobilised in the European Union, most of them held through Belgium-based securities depository Euroclear.
The European Union has used extraordinary revenues generated by those assets to support Ukraine, while further proposals involving the underlying funds remain subject to legal and political debate.
Belgium has been particularly concerned about potential financial exposure and legal claims. As EU Today reported in September, a Belgian Council of State judgment raised additional questions about the administrative procedures governing certain frozen assets.
Moscow’s treatment of European businesses adds another dimension to this confrontation. By retaining control over foreign-owned industrial and commercial assets, Russia possesses a means of exerting pressure on companies whose governments support sanctions and military assistance to Ukraine.
The implications are particularly serious for Western banks that still maintain substantial Russian operations.
Austria’s Raiffeisen Bank International and Italy’s UniCredit remain exposed to Russia through local subsidiaries. Any extension of compulsory administration to financial institutions could create additional difficulties involving deposits, capital and banking supervision.
The cost of remaining in Russia
The seizures also expose the financial risks faced by Western companies that delayed their withdrawal after February 2022.
Many initially sought to protect their investments, employees and commercial infrastructure. Others reduced operations but retained ownership, expecting that conditions might eventually permit an orderly sale or renewed business activity.
Russian restrictions have progressively complicated that calculation, requiring foreign investors from designated countries to accept substantial discounts on asset sales and obtain official approval for transactions.
Companies remaining in the country now face the additional possibility that the government will appoint administrators without their consent.
The consequences extend beyond the businesses immediately affected. Russia is establishing a precedent under which foreign investment can remain legally owned by its original shareholders while its economic benefits and operational management are placed beyond their control.
For European governments, the latest decree illustrates the increasing connection between commercial interests and geopolitical decisions.
The Kremlin has demonstrated that sanctions imposed over its invasion of Ukraine can be answered not only through diplomatic or financial measures, but also through direct intervention in European-owned businesses operating on Russian territory.
Any eventual negotiation over sanctions relief and the restoration of economic relations will consequently have to address the status of these assets, the rights of their original shareholders and the question of compensation.
Until then, Western companies remaining in Russia face an investment environment in which the ultimate authority over their businesses rests increasingly with the Kremlin rather than their shareholders.
Endless illegal immigration, unaffordable energy, draconian speech policing – we're being conditioned to accept outrageous things as normal, says Nick Rendell. Now add to that economic crashes.
EU finance ministers have approved a compromise that would expand the European Securities and Markets Authority’s powers while exempting some major trading venues from centralised oversight. The agreement reflects continuing resistance to transferring financial supervision from national authorities to Brussels.
European Union finance ministers have reached an agreement to expand centralised supervision of financial markets, but Germany has secured provisions allowing important parts of Deutsche Börse to remain under national oversight, substantially narrowing the European Commission’s original reform proposals.
The compromise, agreed at a meeting in Luxembourg on 9 October, would transfer responsibility for supervising selected trading venues, clearing houses and securities settlement institutions to the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).
However, the agreement introduces exemptions and thresholds that reduce the number of institutions automatically subject to direct European supervision.
The result is a significant political compromise between governments seeking deeper financial integration and those reluctant to surrender oversight of nationally important market operators.
Berlin secures its exemption
The most contentious element of the negotiations concerned Deutsche Börse, the German financial-market group that operates the Frankfurt stock exchange and provides trading, clearing and other financial infrastructure services.
Germany opposed arrangements that would place all major market operators under direct ESMA supervision, arguing that institutions with predominantly domestic activities should continue to be regulated nationally.
The agreed compromise refines the criteria for determining which trading venues qualify for centralised oversight.
These conditions allow certain Deutsche Börse operations to remain outside the new supervisory regime.
The exemption had already become a point of contention during negotiations among European governments.
As EU Today reported in June, Berlin had sought to protect Deutsche Börse from mandatory European supervision despite Germany’s broader support for integrating EU capital markets.
The October agreement formalises a narrower approach within the Council’s negotiating position, although the legislation remains subject to approval by the European Parliament.
Europe’s fragmented financial markets
The European Commission has repeatedly argued that fragmented national supervision weakens the EU’s ability to compete with financial markets in the United States.
Although the Union operates a single market, many financial institutions continue to face differing regulatory interpretations, procedures and supervisory relationships across member states.
These differences can increase operating costs and discourage financial businesses from expanding across borders.
The Market Integration and Supervision Package is intended to simplify those arrangements and strengthen common oversight of financial infrastructure with significant cross-border activity.
Under the Council’s position, ESMA would assume direct supervision of selected trading platforms and institutions involved in clearing and securities settlement.
Such institutions perform essential functions in financial markets, including managing transactions, transferring securities and controlling risks between counterparties.
Differences in supervisory arrangements can complicate the operation of financial services that increasingly function across national borders.
The Commission argues that greater consistency would allow European capital to move more efficiently between member states and provide businesses with improved access to investment.
Compromise reduces original ambitions
The Commission’s original approach envisaged broader centralisation of supervisory responsibilities.
The Council agreement of 9 October introduces more restrictive criteria governing the institutions that would fall under ESMA’s direct authority.
In addition to the treatment of trading venues, ministers agreed that direct supervision of crypto-asset service providers should initially concentrate on businesses with the most significant cross-border operations.
The Council also supported changes to ESMA’s governance arrangements, including the creation of a full-time executive board.
The proposed board would strengthen the authority’s ability to make supervisory decisions independently of individual national regulators, while preserving mechanisms for cooperation with those authorities.
The compromise also introduces arrangements allowing national supervisors collectively to challenge certain decisions.
These provisions reflect concerns about concentrating regulatory powers within an institution that must oversee financial businesses operating under different national legal systems.
Why capital markets matter for European investment
The supervision reforms form part of the EU’s broader Savings and Investments Union initiative.
European policymakers want to increase the availability of private capital for companies investing in technology, defence, infrastructure and industrial development.
The Union has substantial household savings, but much of that money remains in bank deposits or is invested outside the European economy.
Companies seeking capital for expansion may consequently face higher financing costs or more limited investment opportunities than comparable businesses operating in larger and more integrated markets.
Financial-market supervision represents only one element of that programme.
Differences in taxation, insolvency law, national investment products and corporate governance requirements also influence where investors allocate their money.
Nevertheless, regulators regard consistent supervision as an important condition for reducing fragmentation.
Parliament faces a political decision
The agreement reached by finance ministers does not conclude the legislative process.
The European Parliament must adopt its position before negotiations can determine the final provisions.
Parliamentary discussions could revisit the exemptions secured by Germany and the criteria determining which institutions fall under direct ESMA supervision.
The debate will expose differences over whether European financial integration should proceed through incremental reforms or a more substantial transfer of regulatory authority.
Governments supporting national exemptions argue that supervision should reflect the actual geographic scope of a company’s activities.
Supporters of broader European oversight contend that major trading businesses can influence financial markets beyond their home jurisdictions even when individual operations appear predominantly domestic.
The Deutsche Börse exemption has become a prominent example of the conflict between those positions.
Europe’s largest economies broadly support the objective of deeper capital markets, but remain divided over the institutional powers needed to achieve it.
The final legislation will determine whether the expanded responsibilities granted to ESMA are sufficient to reduce fragmentation or leave important parts of Europe’s financial infrastructure operating under substantially different national supervisory systems.
The European Parliament has delivered a sharp rebuke to Ireland’s proposals for the EU’s next seven-year budget, warning that cuts to competitiveness, security and regional development could leave Europe dangerously ill-equipped to confront mounting geopolitical and economic challenges.
The European Union is heading towards a potentially bruising institutional confrontation over its next long-term budget, after senior Members of the European Parliament rejected proposals from the Irish Presidency of the Council to reduce the European Commission’s spending plans by eight per cent.
The dispute concerns the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2028–2034, which will determine not merely how much Brussels spends, but the extent to which Europe can deliver on its increasingly ambitious political, economic and security objectives.
At stake is a fundamental question: can the European Union realistically aspire to become a more competitive, strategically independent global power while its member states resist providing the financial resources necessary to achieve those ambitions?
Parliament Draws a Red Line
In a statement published on 10th October, Parliament’s principal budget negotiators, Siegfried Mureșan of the European People’s Party and Carla Tavares of the Socialists and Democrats, firmly rejected the Irish negotiating framework.
They were joined by Danuše Nerudová and Sandra Gómez López, Parliament’s co-rapporteurs responsible for developing new sources of EU revenue.
Their objections centre on the proposed reduction of approximately €141 billion from the Commission’s original spending plans.
Mureșan warned that the reductions would undermine Europe’s ability to respond to growing demands for defence, economic competitiveness and security.
He also highlighted the erosion of the EU budget’s purchasing power, which Parliament estimates has declined by approximately ten per cent because of inflation.
The implication is uncomfortable for national governments: maintaining apparently substantial expenditure figures does not necessarily translate into maintaining Europe’s capacity to act.
Ireland’s Difficult Balancing Act
Ireland, currently holding the rotating Council Presidency, has attempted to reconcile two increasingly contradictory political demands.
On one side stand governments seeking greater investment in defence, technological innovation, economic resilience and geopolitical influence.
On the other are national finance ministries confronting constrained public finances, mounting borrowing costs and electorates increasingly resistant to additional expenditure.
The Irish Presidency’s proposal envisages approximately €1.62 trillion in commitments, expressed in 2025 prices, representing a substantial increase over the existing seven-year framework.
Dublin argues that its negotiating position offers an ambitious but financially realistic compromise, preserving traditional agricultural and cohesion spending while accommodating emerging priorities.
Yet the European Parliament remains unconvinced.
Particularly contentious are proposed reductions of 12.8 per cent in competitiveness expenditure and 17.4 per cent in external action compared with the Commission’s plans.
These are precisely the areas in which Brussels has repeatedly promised greater international influence.
Defence Ambitions Meet Financial Reality
The timing could scarcely be more awkward. Russia’s continuing aggression against Ukraine has exposed Europe’s dependence on American military capabilities, while mounting geopolitical uncertainty has reinforced demands for greater European strategic autonomy.
Meanwhile, competition from China and the United States is placing European industries under unprecedented pressure.
Brussels regularly speaks of technological sovereignty, stronger defence industries and reduced dependence on external suppliers, however, those objectives require sustained investment.
Cutting expenditure intended to strengthen competitiveness while simultaneously demanding that European companies compete more effectively internationally risks becoming an exercise in political contradiction.
Nevertheless, Parliament’s position deserves scrutiny too. Greater expenditure does not automatically produce better outcomes. Europe’s problems with fragmented defence procurement, regulatory complexity and slow implementation cannot simply be resolved by increasing budget allocations.
A credible financial settlement must therefore combine sufficient resources with demonstrably improved efficiency and accountability.
The Battle Over Europe’s Own Resources
Perhaps the most consequential disagreement concerns how the Union should finance its expenditure.
Parliament has repeatedly argued that the EU must develop additional independent revenue streams rather than relying excessively on contributions from national governments.
Its proposals include levies associated with digital services, online gambling and cryptocurrency capital gains. MEPs believe these measures could generate approximately €30 billion beyond the additional revenue already envisaged by the Commission.
The Irish Presidency has advanced a revenue package that it estimates could eventually raise around €55 billion annually, but agreement among member states remains elusive.
This disagreement exposes an enduring weakness in European integration.
Governments frequently demand collective European action while remaining reluctant to surrender control over the financial mechanisms necessary to support it.
A Political Confrontation With Serious Consequences
The institutional arithmetic makes Parliament’s opposition particularly significant. Although member states must unanimously approve the long-term financial framework, the European Parliament must also provide its consent by an absolute majority of MEPs. Consequently, national governments cannot simply impose a settlement over parliamentary objections.
Equally, the European Parliament cannot compel governments to finance its preferred spending programme. Both institutions therefore possess considerable negotiating leverage, raising the possibility of prolonged political deadlock.
The forthcoming European Council discussions on 15–16th October will provide an important indication of whether governments are prepared to reconsider their positions.
Europe’s Credibility Is on the Line
Ultimately, this dispute extends far beyond accounting. The European Union faces an increasingly hostile strategic environment, persistent economic challenges and growing demands for collective action.
Yet its institutional ambitions continue to outpace agreement on the financial commitments required to fulfil them.
Parliament is justified in questioning whether reducing investment in competitiveness and security represents prudent financial management or potentially damaging short-termism. National governments, however, are equally entitled to demand evidence that additional European expenditure will produce measurable benefits.
The solution cannot be unlimited spending, nor can it be indiscriminate austerity. Europe requires a budget that reflects its strategic responsibilities, backed by rigorous financial discipline and transparent political priorities.
Without such a settlement, the Union risks discovering that its greatest obstacle to becoming a serious geopolitical actor is not opposition from Washington, Moscow or Beijing, but its own inability to agree on the price of its ambitions.
The study challenges prevailing views on the evolution of language A new study conducted by Hungarian researchers reveals that dogs can segment continuous speech into words—a capability previously observed only in humans. Hungarian researchers from Budapest have discovered that human speech changes the way dogs’ brains work, even though the animals cannot speak themselves. The […]
France faces growing pressure from eurozone governments and financial markets to secure its 2027 budget as borrowing costs climb towards levels not seen for more than two decades, raising questions about Paris’s ability to restore control over its public finances.
France is coming under increasingly direct pressure from its eurozone partners to resolve the political dispute surrounding its 2027 budget, with European finance ministers warning that continued uncertainty threatens confidence in the country’s public finances.
The warning follows a sharp increase in French government borrowing costs. Yields on ten-year sovereign bonds have risen by nearly 80 basis points since September, reaching levels last recorded in 2002. Investors are demanding higher returns to finance a government whose debt continues to increase while its capacity to impose spending restraint remains constrained by parliamentary divisions.
At the Eurogroup’s October discussions, finance ministers and European Central Bank officials pressed Paris to demonstrate that it can adopt a credible budget and comply with its commitments under the EU’s fiscal framework.
France’s difficulties have implications beyond its domestic politics. As the eurozone’s second-largest economy, France occupies a position fundamentally different from smaller countries that experienced sovereign debt crises during the previous decade.
Borrowing costs expose political weakness
The French government expects to borrow approximately €340 billion in 2027, making continued access to financial markets at sustainable rates an essential element of its fiscal strategy.
That financing requirement reflects both the need to cover the annual deficit and to refinance existing debt as government securities mature.
France’s public debt is already approaching 120 per cent of gross domestic product. As EU Today previously reported, official projections indicated that the debt ratio could reach 121.7 per cent in 2027, up from 115.7 per cent at the end of 2025.
The latest increase in yields adds another complication. Higher interest costs do not affect the entire stock of debt immediately because much of it was issued at earlier rates. They do, however, increase the cost of new borrowing and refinancing, progressively reducing the money available for other government commitments.
France also faces a difficult political timetable. With the presidential election approaching in 2027, parties are reluctant to accept measures involving spending reductions, higher taxation or changes to public services.
Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu’s government has been attempting to reduce the deficit from an estimated 5.4 per cent of GDP in 2026 towards five per cent. Even that objective remains substantially above the EU’s three per cent reference value.
Brussels has limited room to compromise
Economic Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis has emphasised the importance of predictable fiscal policy and credible deficit reduction.
France is already subject to the EU’s excessive deficit procedure, under which member states must demonstrate progress towards agreed fiscal objectives.
The reformed European fiscal framework permits certain deviations from expenditure commitments in exceptional circumstances, but it does not provide an unrestricted exemption from debt sustainability requirements.
Paris therefore faces a double constraint. It must convince domestic political forces to support a budget while demonstrating to Brussels that its spending plans are sufficiently credible.
The danger is not necessarily an immediate financing crisis. France retains a large, diversified economy, deep financial markets and substantial tax-raising capacity.
The more immediate risk is that prolonged political deadlock produces progressively higher borrowing costs, making future fiscal adjustments more expensive.
Why the ECB cannot simply intervene
The European Central Bank has instruments designed to counter destabilising market conditions, but these are not intended to finance governments that are unwilling or unable to implement sustainable fiscal policies.
Bank of France Governor Emmanuel Moulin said on 7 October that France did not currently require ECB assistance. He argued that the solution lay in adopting a credible budget rather than expecting monetary intervention.
His position follows increasing speculation about whether the ECB could intervene if French bond yields continue rising.
Such intervention would raise difficult questions about the relationship between monetary policy and national fiscal responsibility. The ECB must consider financial stability across the entire eurozone, but it cannot remove the political obligations of individual governments.
France’s existing excessive deficit procedure also complicates its eligibility for certain forms of exceptional support.
The wider European consequences
France’s problems are developing at a particularly difficult moment for European public finances.
Governments are confronting higher defence commitments, expensive measures to protect households against energy inflation and demands for greater investment in industrial competitiveness.
Italy, another heavily indebted eurozone economy, is facing related pressures. The combination places additional importance on the credibility of the EU’s fiscal rules.
Those competing programmes illustrate the difficulty of securing a parliamentary consensus capable of reassuring markets.
The approaching presidential election reduces the likelihood of a durable settlement before voters choose France’s next head of state.
Eurozone partners cannot resolve that impasse from Brussels or Frankfurt. They can insist on fiscal commitments and provide a framework for adjustment, but the political decisions remain with Paris.
France’s immediate challenge is to prevent its budget dispute from becoming a broader loss of confidence in the government’s capacity to manage its finances.
The Hittite generals posted in western Anatolia (the Asian part of modern Turkey) did not mince words. They told their king that the territory was surrounded by enemies. They asked for soldiers, horses and war chariots, and warned that without help the army could be destroyed. They also made it clear that they would not […]
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.
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.
Invocation to Satan Confirms the Era of the Antichrist (VIDEO with subtitles)
“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.
In the message thatthe 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.
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…
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.
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.
US City Council opens with ‘Hail Satan’ Prayer (VIDEO)
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
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.”
Invocation was permitted under a new policy adopted by the council
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
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.”
For more than three centuries, astronomers asking whether the Solar System is stable have received ever more comforting answers. Isaac Newton was not so sure. He suspected that the mutual tugs between Jupiter and Saturn would eventually wreck the planetary order, and that only divine intervention could prevent it. By the late 1700s, Laplace and […]
Login
