Trump acts like a tinpot Caesar demanding tribute from his vassals
Trump, that oafish imbecile, that blustering buffoon, conducts himself not as a statesman but as a swaggering mob boss, squeezing concessions from his subordinates with all the subtlety of a knee-capping enforcer.
His meeting with Ursula von der Leyen was less a negotiation than a ritual humiliation, as the European Commission president prostrated herself before the whims of an American imperialist regime that views trade not as mutual exchange but as plunder.
READ MORE: Scottish Labour councillor suspended for 'bullying' member of the public
The resulting 'deal' is a grotesque farce – Europe, trembling before its mercantile overlord, agrees to higher tariffs, coerced purchases of US goods, and the funnelling of billions into the maw of the American war machine. This is not diplomacy; it is tribute exacted by a gangster.
And what of Keir Starmer, that eager supplicant, scurrying to Turnberry to kiss the ring of his transatlantic patron? His obsequiousness was met with the usual Trumpian blend of ignorance and malice – vague platitudes on Ukraine, half-brained mutterings on Gaza, and the usual litany of lies about stolen aid and imaginary victories. Starmer, ever the loyal vassal, could do little but nod along, his own political fortunes tethered to the whims of a man who views international relations as a protection racket.
But let us not mistake this for mere farce. The stakes are dire. The European bourgeoisie, though seething at their subjugation, dare not defy their American paymasters, for fear of provoking an all-out trade war – or worse, losing the military backing that sustains their own imperialist ventures in Ukraine.
They are trapped in a spiral of their own making, forced to bankroll US arms shipments, to prop up Nato's blood-soaked adventures, all while their own workers face the coming storm of economic devastation.
History teaches us that empires built on extortion do not endure. The Roman tax farmers, the Habsburg enforcers, the British East India Company – all eventually crumbled beneath the weight of their own rapacity. Trump's gangster diplomacy is no different. It will end the same way.
Alan Hinnrichs
Dundee
ON Monday, we were informed on BBC Scotland that a celebration had taken place in respect of the 70th anniversary of the opening of the Dounreay nuclear power plant. In attendance was a chap calling himself King Charles and a non-Scottish manager of the site who made me feel squeamish as I listened to his sycophantic fawning over the said King's attendance.
Can I just clarify the background to this development back in 1955? The idea of developing nuclear energy at that time was filled with the possibility of a major disaster happening. The year, 1955, was just a decade after the horrific Hiroshima and Nagasaki tragedies. Nuclear weapons and power production were issues of dread for the general population.
So, if this development was going to happen, where should it go? Obviously, Westminster decided that it should be located as far away from London as possible.
Look at your map and you will see that Dounreay is as far from London as you can get without ending up in the Pentland Firth. The residents of Thurso and Wick would be obliterated if anything untoward happened, but they were expendable. In fact, probably most of Scotland would end up the same way.
I was a wee boy in a small rural Highland primary school back in the mid-50s. I well remember the gift we were all given at that school. It was a glossy magazine with the front cover showing the impressive Dounreay dome. It was designed at deflecting attention from the dangers and promoting the idea that we were at the cutting edge of technology.
I believe all schoolkids up here would have been given a copy too, so that our minds would be shaped to accept this thing that terrified those down south. A few jobs were created for workers at Dounreay but that was insignificant compared to the perceived dangers.
Along with the nonsensical Protect And Survive booklet that was distributed at that time regarding saving yourself in the event of a nuclear attack, this magazine that we children received was just government propaganda to influence, lie to and control the population. Officials must have been laughing to themselves as they prepared them.
Today, they still use the same methods and our voters are still inclined to believe them. Without truth, what hope is there for Scotland or even society at large?
Alasdair Forbes
Farr, Inverness-shire
THE statement by Keir Starmer that the UK would move to recognise a Palestinian state, if Israel did not agree to a ceasefire and take steps to end the war, is more than a little contradictory given previous statements.
The statement noted that Palestinian statehood is the 'inalienable right of the Palestinian people' and the UK Government is committed to delivering a two-state solution, with a 'safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state'.
It therefore seems rather odd that, despite a previous commitment to recognising a Palestinian state, this should now come with conditions attached.
Alex Orr
Edinburgh
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
8 minutes ago
- Reuters
Nuclear fuels producer Orano does not expect any impact from EU-US deal
PARIS, Aug 1 (Reuters) - The trade deal between the European Union and the United States should not impact the business of French nuclear fuels company Orano, as so far the U.S. has not imposed tariffs on uranium products, its CEO Nicolas Maes told reporters on Friday. Under the deal announced last Sunday, the EU agreed to purchase nuclear energy products along with U.S. liquefied natural gas and oil worth in total $750 billion over the next three years. "We have looked at the material, and for all the deals that have been signed so far between the U.S. and other regions of the world, and isotopes, uranium, enriched uranium are exempted," Maes said. However, he said the deal's provision for exports of nuclear fuel from the U.S. to Europe was surprising, given that the U.S. is an importer, rather than exporter of the fuel it needs for its nuclear power plants. "The U.S. market is structurally importing nuclear material and not exporting," Maes said. He also said Orano's plans to expand the company's nuclear enrichment facilities in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, should not be affected by either the trade deal or U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order deregulating the nuclear sector. Trump signed an executive order In May to reduce regulations and fast-track new licences for nuclear reactors and power plants and reinvigorate uranium production and enrichment in the country. Maes said that Orano will maintain its nuclear safety standards but the order may result in easier dialogue between the nuclear safety authority and the utilities during the permitting process. He repeated an earlier comment that a final investment decision on the project is expected in 2027.
Spectator
8 minutes ago
- Spectator
Can AI prevent prison violence?
The government desperately needs to save the justice system, and it believes that technology might be part of the solution. The Ministry of Justice has announced that it will be using AI to 'stop prison violence before it happens'. The need is urgent. There were over 30,000 assaults in prisons during the 12 months to the end of March 2025, a 9 per cent increase on the previous year. This is now Labour's problem. As Andrew Neilson, Director of Campaigns at the Howard League said yesterday, 'these statistics cover most of the government's first year in power. While action is being taken to reduce pressure on the prison population and stabilise regimes, far more must be done, and urgently, to save lives and ensure prisons work to cut crime, rather than create it.' So how will AI help? Describing a system more like that seen in Minority Report than our crumbling Victorian jails, the government says AI will 'identify dangerous prisoners and bring them under tight supervision'. AI will analyse data on individual prisoners, including their offending history and behaviour in custody in order to allow staff to prevent violence before it happens. Technology has already been deployed to rapidly scan prisoners' seized mobile phones to produce intelligence on crime within jails, including the drugs trade. This is very timely, as this week the government has announced that drone incidents over our prisons are up by 43 per cent. That's the idea anyway. The reality of course is that this will all rely on the data provided by prison staff, which is often of very low quality. This week I attended the ongoing inquest into the death of Rajwinder Singh, a man who died at Wandsworth in 2023. During testimony I heard on Wednesday, it became apparent that the contact logs were not reflective of the visits to Rajwinder's cell shown by the prison's CCTV. This is an extreme example, but anyone who has spent much time in prisons knows that they are often chaotic, badly-organised environments which rely on a huge amount of paperwork. If AI is fed garbage, it will be worse than useless. The government has great hopes for technology in prisons, something which I know is driven by Lord Timpson's personal enthusiasm for it. There are already some excellent examples of Large language models (LLMs) being deployed across the justice system. Probation have been piloting three different systems which take audio recordings of meetings between offenders and probation officers and produce transcripts, saving many hours of work. Even within the probation profession there are doubts about this. Tania Bassett, National Official of NAPO, the probation union, told me that there were concerns about whether LLMs could cope with some regional accents (with Geordie identified as being particularly challenging), and that they are 'approaching it with caution because of the MoJ's history of being bad with technology, and we are concerned that this doesn't become an excuse to replace people and relationships.' All this investment in technology will come at a high price, something NAPO are also concerned about, particularly as they are currently balloting for industrial action. Bassett said 'they're spending all this money on technology but we're in a strike ballot for pay – we're concerned that this £700 million for probation will end up being squandered on technology which doesn't solve the underlying problems' Broadly, this kind of investment in technology is a good thing. The justice system in general, and our prison system in particular, are incredibly backward, with a huge amount of staff time spent manually completing forms and documents. If technology can free staff up to spend time working with inmates, engaging in purposeful activity and making prison actually work, then it could be a huge benefit. There are likely to be challenges though. In particular, if there are perceived racial inequalities in who the systems identify as being likely to commit violence in jail, it is possible that legal challenges may be forthcoming. In the end, a safer prison system will benefit staff, inmates and the public. Jails which are awash with violence can do almost nothing to help people reform. Most prisoners do not want violence on their 'landings'. It might not quite be Minority Report, but if this halts the rising tide of violence in our prisons it will absolutely be worth it.
Spectator
8 minutes ago
- Spectator
Trump hasn't won the trade war
Maybe Trump doesn't always chicken out after all. Rapid trade deals with the UK, Japan, the EU and others in recent weeks may have given the impression that the trade war was essentially over. Today, though, comes Trump's Ardennes offensive, with immediate tariffs of 35 per cent announced for Canada. Other countries have been given a week to prepare for steep increases: India will be subject to 25 per cent tariffs, Taiwan 20 per cent and Switzerland – far from neutral in this particular conflict – 39 per cent. According to Trump, Canada has been singled out for harsh treatment because it has failed to cooperate on the flow of fentanyl across the border. Trump also hinted that he was punishing Canada for recognising Palestine, but then he has just done a trade deal with the EU in spite of France taking the same action, and didn't make any trade threats to Britain in spite of Keir Starmer saying this week that the UK will recognise Palestine in September if Israel does not meet certain conditions. It seems rather more likely that Trump is saying: look, other countries have yielded and agreed to one-sided trade deals with the US – I'm going to carry on beating you about the head until you agree to do the same. But will they? So far, the countries which have agreed to Trump's rather rough and ready trade deals have acted as if the benefits of a trading relationship with the US are one-way – they have more to lose than the US if a deal cannot be struck. But of course that is not always true. Taiwan, for example, produces over 90 per cent of the world's high-end microchips, which are implanted in just about every device manufactured in the US. What benefit does it bring America if those chips are in future taxed at 20 per cent? There is a strange dislocation in attitudes towards Trump's tariffs. Those who insist he has a very clever strategy and is winning tend also to be people who, in any other context, are in favour of low taxes. But a tariff is just a tax like any other – it adds costs to business and so suppresses economic activity. If tariffs are set at modest levels, it may be worth putting up with tariffs' depressing effect in return for the revenue they raise. Raise them above a certain level, however, and revenue will start to decline as business activity is discouraged – the classic Laffer effect. US growth may have proved more resilient than many feared it would be after Liberation Day, but it is certain that tariffs on raw materials and components are a negative influence on US manufacturing industry. A country does not 'win' by taxing its imports more than other countries tax its exports – if it did, the US would be one of the poorest countries in the world while many African countries would be startlingly rich. The US has done brilliantly well out of a regime of low import tariffs – as has Singapore, one of the few countries which, prior to Liberation Day, imposed even lower tariffs than did the US. But even if you do think that imposing higher tariffs than your trading partners amounts to 'victory', it is far from clear that Trump will emerge the eventual winner. Some countries may have yielded to him, but others are clearly holding out, and may well make the calculation that the US has more to lose from a trade war than they do. This war has a long way to run yet.
