Who Represents America? Paul Craig Roberts Mail-in voting, along with street corner drop boxes, has proved to be one of […]

The United Kingdom criminalized support for the direct action network, Palestine Action, at a minute after midnight, Saturday July 5, 2025. Hours later, Pink Floyd star Roger Waters shared a video clip to his Facebook page of him writing on a piece of cardboard, the words: “I support Palestine Action… ”Waters then declared “I am […]

During a recent “State of the Space Force” address in Maryland, Chief of Space Operations Gen. Douglas Schiess stated frankly that the US has at least non-kinetic weapons positioned in space, and that these capabilities were used in the war on Iran. “Let me be crystal clear: today, Guardians operate on-orbit weapons that can defend […]

Reprinted with permission from The Kucinich Report. Thank you, GOP Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, for courageously drafting and presenting Tuesday in Congress eight Articles of Impeachment which demonstrated that Secretary Hegseth has pursued war, death and destruction at his own instance. He has, in the name of the United States, illegally swept aside the Constitution […]

MEPs give overwhelming backing to a new EU cardiovascular strategy, placing alcohol, food and tobacco policy at the heart of a wider drive to tackle Europe’s biggest killer

The European Parliament has given overwhelming backing to a new EU cardiovascular diseases strategy, with 545 MEPs voting in favour of a report that places prevention at the centre of Europe’s response to its biggest cause of death.

The vote marks a significant political endorsement of a broader approach to cardiovascular health, addressing not only diagnosis and treatment but also the major lifestyle and consumer-related risk factors associated with cardiovascular disease.

Three sectors feature prominently in that debate: alcohol, food and tobacco and nicotine products.

Rather than relying on a single regulatory approach, Parliament’s position points towards a combination of education, consumer information, prevention, proportionate regulation and measures targeted at clearly identified health risks.

Cardiovascular diseases remain the leading cause of mortality in the European Union, accounting for around 1.7 million deaths every year. Around 62 million people are living with cardiovascular disease in the EU, while close to 13 million new cases occur annually.

An estimated 80% of cardiovascular disease, including many cases of heart disease and stroke, is considered preventable.

Those figures have transformed cardiovascular disease from primarily a healthcare issue into a much broader European policy challenge.

The adopted report therefore addresses prevention alongside screening, early detection, treatment and care.

Alcohol: focusing on harmful consumption

Alcohol is one of the major modifiable risk factors identified in cardiovascular prevention.

A central issue in the European debate is how to distinguish between policies aimed at harmful alcohol consumption and measures that treat all drinking patterns in essentially the same way.

That distinction matters in a European Union where national traditions, consumption patterns and regulatory approaches vary considerably.

Measures under discussion include greater public awareness of alcohol-related health risks and better consumer information.

The cardiovascular debate consequently reinforces a wider movement towards giving consumers clearer information about the possible health consequences associated with excessive alcohol consumption.

At the same time, Parliament’s approach leaves room for the principle of proportionality.

The policy challenge is not simply whether alcohol consumption can contribute to cardiovascular risk — the scientific relationship is well established — but which regulatory measures are most effective in reducing harmful consumption without imposing measures that are disproportionate to the objective.

That distinction is likely to remain important as the EU develops its wider strategy on non-communicable diseases.

Food: healthier choices rather than simplistic classifications

Food and nutrition represent another major strand of cardiovascular prevention.

Obesity, excessive salt intake, poor diet and high consumption of certain highly processed foods can all contribute to cardiovascular risk.

That has inevitably placed the food industry at the centre of the debate.

But regulating food is fundamentally different from regulating products whose consumption is inherently associated with health risk.

Individual foods form part of much broader diets, while quantity, frequency of consumption, nutritional composition and lifestyle all influence health outcomes.

The Parliament report therefore places considerable emphasis on enabling Europeans to make better-informed choices.

Public-health education and clearer nutritional information are among the principal tools available.

Front-of-pack food labelling is also part of the wider European discussion over how consumers can be given easily understandable nutritional information.

However, that issue remains politically sensitive.

Any European system must operate across very different national diets and food traditions while avoiding labels that oversimplify nutritional science or inadvertently discourage otherwise balanced eating patterns.

The economic implications are equally significant.

Europe’s food and agricultural sectors are major employers and central components of the Single Market.

Future cardiovascular policy therefore has to reconcile public health, consumer information, agricultural interests, competitiveness and Europe’s diverse food cultures.

Tobacco and nicotine: prevention alongside risk differentiation

The third major area covered by the cardiovascular debate is tobacco and nicotine.

Smoking is a significant preventable contributor to cardiovascular disease, and Parliament’s report supports measures aimed at reducing smoking and preventing young people from beginning to use tobacco and nicotine products.

There is particularly strong emphasis on protecting minors.

The report supports effective enforcement of minimum-age-of-sale requirements and appropriate identification checks whether products are purchased in physical shops or online.

At the same time, Parliament has introduced an important element of differentiation into the debate.

The adopted approach recognises that different nicotine products may have differentiated risk profiles, rather than automatically treating every tobacco and nicotine product as presenting an identical risk.

The supplied policy material also records Parliament’s support for appropriate and differentiated excise taxation between different product categories.  It combines calls for tighter rules with an explicit nod to the idea that regulation need not be one-size-fits-all across the nicotine market.

That distinction could have consequences beyond cardiovascular policy.

The European Commission is already examining the future of the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) and Tobacco Advertising Directive (TAD), meaning EP’s approach to differentiated risks is likely to be closely watched as the EU considers regulation of cigarettes, heated tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, nicotine pouches and other products.

But the cardiovascular report simultaneously makes clear that protecting children and young people remains an overarching objective irrespective of the particular product involved.

The question of consistency

The debate will not end with the cardiovascular vote.

Parliament is simultaneously considering other major health-policy files, particularly those associated with Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan (BECA).

That creates an important question of policy consistency.

Alcohol, food and tobacco appear repeatedly in European strategies dealing with non-communicable disease.

Positions adopted in one parliamentary report will inevitably therefore be compared with those adopted in another.

The briefing accompanying the cardiovascular debate already highlights this issue, arguing that potentially contradictory approaches between the cardiovascular and cancer files could create uncertainty about Parliament’s wider regulatory direction.

That discussion is likely to intensify as Parliament and the Commission move from broad public-health strategies towards individual regulatory measures.

For the alcohol, food and tobacco sectors alike, the key question will be whether Europe develops policies that are evidence-based, proportionate and tailored to the particular risks involved, rather than attempting to impose identical regulatory solutions across fundamentally different industries.

After two clear defeats, the TED opinion and the CVD Report, the EC is seeking a comeback through BECA, despite the EP's opposition to extreme prohibitionist measures. With EP’S SANT Committee vote due on 28 September, BECA is rapidly becoming the next political battleground.

Prevention becomes mainstream EU policy

Cardiovascular disease imposes immense human and economic costs on Europe through premature deaths, long-term illness, disability, hospital treatment and lost productivity.

Reducing that burden will require healthcare systems to diagnose and treat disease earlier.

But Parliament’s vote also sends a wider message.

Improving cardiovascular health will require action long before people reach hospitals or doctors’ surgeries.

The debate over alcohol, food and tobacco is therefore part of a much larger European question: how public authorities can help citizens reduce preventable health risks while preserving proportionality, informed consumer choice and regulatory coherence.

President Donald Trump may have discovered a new opportunity to provoke a NATO ally.  Last year, the White House created a brouhaha with Denmark (and other European countries) by insisting that Copenhagen sell Greenland to the United States. This time, Washington’s agitation involves a chain of islands off the east coast of Argentina that Great […]

“Peace Through Strength” has been a Republican mantra for decades. The slogan holds that peace can be achieved by maintaining a powerful military capable of deterring potential adversaries. It is said that sufficient military power – occasionally showcased by stomping on those who would seek to question its overarching authority – instills fear in America’s […]

The Road to Armageddon Paul Craig Roberts The world is faced with two major war fronts, both of which are […]

The European Commission has approved a €52 million (RON 277 million) Romanian state aid scheme for cattle farmers facing increased fuel and fertiliser prices due to the Middle East crisis.

The scheme was approved under the Middle East Crisis Temporary State Aid Framework (METSAF) adopted by the Commission on 29 April 2026.

The Romanian scheme

Romania notified to the Commission a €52 million scheme to support companies active in the cattle farming sector. The scheme, which will run until 31 December 2026, aims to mitigate the impact of the increase in agricultural fuel and fertiliser prices.

The aid will take the form of direct grants, with a maximum of €50,000 per company.

The Commission assessed the scheme under EU state aid rules, in particular Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, which enables member states to support the development of certain economic activities subject to certain conditions, as well as Sections 1 and 2.1 of the METSAF.

The Commission found that the scheme is in line with the conditions set out in the METSAF. In particular, the aid will be granted based on a scheme with a clear estimated budget and will be provided to temporarily support the development of companies active in the primary production of agricultural products. The Commission concluded that the scheme is necessary, appropriate and proportionate to facilitate the development of an economic activity and does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.

On this basis, the Commission approved the Romanian scheme under EU State aid rules.

Background

On 29 April 2026, the Commission adopted the METSAF to enable member states to support the EU economy in the context of the Middle East crisis. The METSAF is a targeted and temporary framework to address the effects of the crisis on some of the most exposed sectors of the economy: agriculture, fishery, transport and energy-intensive industries. The METSAF will be in place until 31 December 2026. During its period of application, the Commission will keep the content, scope and duration of the framework under review in the light of developments in the Middle East and of the general economic situation.

While the transition towards a clean economy remains the long-term solution to shield EU companies from the effects of global energy shocks, the METSAF allows Member States to act immediately to make sure that the growth of the most exposed companies is not irreparably hampered by the current crisis.

To this end, support can take various forms for companies active in the agriculture, fishery and transport sectors. This includes aid based on actual consumption to cover part of the price increases for fuel or fertilisers, and a simplified approach for small amounts of aid.

The METSAF also includes a temporary adjustment to the Clean Industrial Deal State aid Framework allowing for further flexibility and higher aid intensities to address electricity price spikes.

More information on the METSAF can be found online.

For more information

The non-confidential versions of today's decisions will be made available under case number SA.124647, in the state aid register on the Commission's competition website. New publications of state aid decisions on the internet and in the Official Journal are listed in the Competition Weekly e-News.

Related topics

Competition

State aid

In California, gas stations are facing a unique challenge. The station signs are only configured to go up to $9.99 per gallon and at several stations the price of diesel has reached that maximum. Diesel prices are higher than they have ever been in history. Worse, according to some news reports the advertising of the […]

To examine the unyielding multi-billionaire dollar shield that the United States provides Israel is to confront the coarse mechanics of modern empire. Washington has, for decades, maintained a posture of absolute defense, supplying advanced weaponry, providing diplomatic immunity, and rationalizing actions that human rights organizations and international courts characterize as war crimes, apartheid and genocide. […]

Reprinted with permission from Trita Parsi’s Substack. If you’ve followed my interviews, you know I’ve been warning about the high likelihood of a third round of the war – one that would almost certainly be far more intense than the previous two. I’ve also argued that, given Trump’s erroneous reading of the current balance, perhaps […]

Three days after terrorists killed almost 3,000 people in the United States on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush stood behind a pulpit at the Washington National Cathedral and spoke to a nation in shock. “Our responsibility to history is already clear,” he proclaimed, “to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil.” […]

Over the last several weeks in the lead up to the 25th anniversary of al Qaeda’s attack on the U.S., I’ve had American and foreign journalists ask me the same question: how did 9/11 change America? My answer has generally been some version of this: 9/11 didn’t change us, we allowed it to change us, […]

“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in  –  and the West in general  –  into an unbearable hell and a choking life.” – Osama bin Laden (October 2001) “GIVE THEM NIGHTMARES.” – President Donald Trump (September 2026) Days before the 25th anniversary […]

U.S. ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, a staunch zionist, recently made waves when he referred to Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank as “terrorists.” “It’s an act of terror,” Huckabee said. “I’ve been criticized a little bit for calling that terror, but terror is when a person is forced to change his or her […]

A failed war does not end when the drones stop flying. It creates a new danger: A government that refuses to admit defeat and a president who, having failed abroad, seeks muscular victories elsewhere. The war against Iran is a case study in the limits of military power, the dangers of presidential overreach and the […]

As Israel’s war on Gaza enters a grim third year, the prevailing narrative developed by mainstream Western media serves as a masterclass in institutional complicity; filtering genocide through a lens of manufactured neutrality. Since October 2025, when the so-called ceasefire – which Israel has repeatedly violated – began, the tragedy in Gaza has been effectively […]

Public records show that businesses associated with Tavira have undergone changes to their custody operations following regulatory intervention in Dubai and Monaco. Separately, Tavira Monaco is a defendant in English civil proceedings concerning shares provided as collateral for a stock-backed loan.

The civil allegations remain disputed, and the public judgments reviewed for this article do not establish that Tavira knowingly participated in fraud. Neither Tavira nor its founder, Eliot Goodfellow, is charged in the related United States criminal case.

An international financial group

Tavira was founded in London in 2005 as Tavira Securities. It has since expanded into areas including agency brokerage, asset management, corporate broking and custody.

The group has operated through regulated businesses in several jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, Monaco, Dubai, Australia and the United States.

Goodfellow remains Tavira Financial Limited’s controlling shareholder. Companies House records state that he owns at least 75 per cent of its shares and voting rights and has the right to appoint or remove directors.

Tavira Financial’s accounts for the year ending 31 March 2025 reported increased revenue alongside a wider annual loss. The accounts also referred to the closure of its contracts-for-difference business and restructuring of its custody activities as the group concentrated on agency brokerage, asset management and corporate broking.

The Salinas civil proceedings

Tavira Monaco is one of six defendants in English civil proceedings brought by Mexican businessman Ricardo Salinas Pliego and Corporacion RBS.

According to the claimants’ case, as summarised in a 2024 High Court judgment, Salinas transferred Grupo Elektra shares worth more than $400 million to two custodians, Weiser Global Capital Markets and Tavira Monaco. The shares were provided as security for loans under a stock-loan agreement concluded in July 2021.

The claimants allege that they entered the transaction after being led to believe that the lender was associated with the prominent American Astor family and that the shares would not be sold unless an event of default occurred.

They further allege that Vladimir Sklarov, who used the name “Gregory Mitchell” in connection with the transaction, caused the shares to be transferred and sold without their authority and used part of the proceeds to fund the loans themselves.

Financial Mail reported in June 2025, citing trading logs reviewed by Salinas’s team, that some of the disputed shares were sold through transactions involving Morgan Stanley, BBVA and Merrill Lynch. The report did not allege that those banks knew of or participated in the alleged fraud. Their appearance in a transaction chain does not, by itself, establish misconduct or knowledge of any underlying dispute.

These remain allegations in continuing civil litigation. In the interlocutory proceedings, the Sklarov defendants maintained that the transaction documents entitled them to trade the collateral and that Salinas’s advisers had been told this. The public decisions reviewed for this article do not amount to a final determination of Tavira Monaco’s liability.

The High Court granted freezing and proprietary injunctions in August 2024. An application by the Sklarov defendants to discharge those injunctions was rejected in October 2024. Later appellate proceedings concerned procedural and evidential issues rather than a final trial of the underlying claims. Tavira Monaco was not involved in the most recent appeal.

Separate US criminal case

A US federal indictment filed on 30 April 2026 and unsealed in May charges Sklarov with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

The US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York alleges that Sklarov operated an entity presented as an established stock-backed lender associated with the Astor family. Prosecutors allege that he used aliases and false representations to obtain control of shares worth approximately $450 million.

Sklarov has not been convicted in that case. The charges are allegations, and he is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

The publicly available indictment charges Sklarov, not Tavira Financial, Tavira Monaco, Goodfellow, Morgan Stanley, BBVA or Merrill Lynch. The existence of the criminal case should therefore not be taken as establishing criminal conduct by any of those companies or individuals.

Restrictions in Dubai

On 10 September 2024, the Dubai Financial Services Authority imposed restrictions on Tavira Financial Limited’s Dubai branch.

According to the DFSA public register, the firm was restricted from soliciting or conducting specified regulated financial-services business with new clients. It was also restricted from soliciting or onboarding new clients in connection with financial promotions.

The public register does not state the reason for the restrictions and does not connect them to the Salinas litigation.

Tavira’s accounts subsequently referred to a decision to close the Dubai branch’s custody operation and to restructure custody activities across the group. The DFSA register nevertheless continues to list Tavira Financial as an authorised firm, subject to the published restrictions.

Companies House records show that Goodfellow ceased to be a Tavira Financial director on 13 September 2024, three days after the restrictions were imposed. Neither the DFSA entry nor the Companies House filing gives a reason for his departure or establishes that it was connected to the restrictions or the Salinas proceedings.

Monaco sanction suspended pending challenge

Tavira Monaco has also been the subject of regulatory action.

On 12 February 2026, Monaco’s Commission de Contrôle des Activités Financières ordered the withdrawal of Tavira Monaco’s authorisation after upholding four regulatory breaches.

The published CCAF decision found that the company had failed to submit required accounts, activity reports and auditors’ reports within statutory deadlines. It also found that the company had not continuously maintained two people responsible for its strategic direction and management, had lacked a bank account in its own name with a Monaco credit institution since July 2023, and had lacked sufficient human and technical resources since 2023.

Tavira Monaco challenged the decision. On 21 May 2026, the President of Monaco’s Supreme Court suspended its execution. According to the CCAF’s current case notice, Tavira Monaco’s application to annul the decision remains pending.

The withdrawal decision should therefore not be described as presently effective without also reporting the suspension and continuing challenge.

Questions about custody controls

The Dubai restrictions, restructuring of custody operations and Monaco proceedings raise legitimate questions about governance and operational controls. They do not, by themselves, prove any connection to the alleged misconduct in the Salinas transaction.

The English civil case raises separate, disputed questions about the instructions received by Tavira Monaco, the authority it understood the relevant parties to possess, the movement of the collateral and the custody records maintained during the transaction. Those matters remain for determination in the civil proceedings.

Right of reply

EU Reporter sent Tavira Financial, Tavira Monaco and Eliot Goodfellow a detailed summary of the matters in this article and asked for their responses concerning the civil allegations, regulatory decisions, custody restructuring and Goodfellow’s departure from the board. EU Reporter has received no replies from Tavira Financial, Tavira Monaco and Eliot Goodfellow

EU Reporter also asked Morgan Stanley, BBVA and Bank of America, the parent company of Merrill Lynch, whether they could confirm the reported transactions and whether they wished to comment.  Morgan Stanley replied, saying “no comment”. The others,  BBVA and Bank of America, the parent company of Merrill Lynch, have not replied at all.

Reprinted from The Realist Review. Washington is more united than is often thought. Despite the ruptures with an imagined past that have been said to have been caused by the chaos agent in the White House, the foreign policy consensus (underwritten by the national religion of American exceptionalism) has shown itself to possess a remarkable […]