iftttwall

Did the UAE just trigger a once in a century shift in global energy markets?  The United Arab Emirates on Tuesday said it was quitting OPEC by May 1st after 60 years as a member, dealing a blow to the cartel ​as the Iran war exposes discord among Gulf nations and Iran.

The exit of the UAE, one of the group’s biggest producers with 15% of total exports, weakens ‌OPEC’s control over global oil supplies and widens a rift between the UAE and Saudi Arabia.  Furthermore, the dissolution of OPEC greatly hinders Iran’s ability to wield oil exports as economic leverage in the future.  

The name of the game for OPEC is zero competition and artificial supply scarcity.  OPEC was formed in the 1960s as a trade consortium of oil producers but it became an economic weapon in the 1970s to maintain pressure on the US and any other nations providing aid to Israel.  This led to a stranglehold on 40% of the global oil supply and an initial explosion in gas inflation.  Prices quadrupling at the pump, feeding into a decade long stagflation event.

Restricted exports became the status quo, and higher prices the norm in the decades since (with brief moments of relief).  Iran, by extension, has long benefited from this bottleneck as an OPEC member.  But the world of energy just changed dramatically. 

An independent UAE no longer constrained by OPEC limits now has the ability to increase production from 3 million barrels a day to over 5 million barrels per day.  The introduction of renewed competition is likely to inspire higher production rates in Saudi Arabia as well.    

In his first public comments since the announcement, UAE Energy Minister Suhail Mohamed al-Mazrouei told Reuters in ​a telephone interview that the decision was taken after examining the country’s energy strategies. He said the UAE had not discussed the issue with any other country. “This ​is a policy decision, it has been done after a careful look at current and future policies related to level of production,” ⁠Mazrouei said.

He also said the world would demand more energy, implying the UAE would be positioned to meet that need.  Meaning, the UAE is attempting to strategically jump ahead of the competition in a bid to flood markets with oil as the situation in the Hormuz winds down.  Saudi Arabia has also stated intentions to boost production into 2027.  

This suggests that the post-Iran war era will be a supply side bonanza with far lower energy prices over the course of the next two years.  It could be a complete upending of the last 50 years of throttled markets.  

The UAE is well positioned to weather the crisis in in the Hormuz with its Habshan–Fujairah (ADCOP) pipeline, which bypasses the Hormuz entirely and moves around 2 million barrels per day.  The advantage allows them to lead the export pack when the war ends.  

An inevitable ramp up in competitive production in the Gulf as well as fading opposition to increased drilling and refinement in the US will lead to long term energy security for the west.  However, the short term view is less rosy.  In the best case scenario, with the Hormuz reopened within the next two months, shipping through the strait will still need to recover until the end of 2026.  

Gas prices would fall to around $3.50 per gallon by the end of the year, with prices dropping below $3 per gallon in 2027.  Beyond 2027, the drop in prices will be significant; the breakup of OPEC’s largest contributing members is an unprecedented market event with world changing ramifications.

The Iran war is a primary contributor to this shift, but in order to gain any benefits the Hormuz will have to reopen sooner rather than later.  The greater strategic picture is the end of Iran’s oil leverage, which the regime will seek to resist as much as possible. 

Recent reports of a “tank top” and Iran’s dwindling storage capacity make negotiations a priority for the regime, otherwise, the loss of oil wells caused by shutdowns and pressure damage could ruin their ability to export for years to come.  It would seem that the UAE and other Gulf exporters are positioning for this eventuality.    

Authored by Kit Knightly via OffGuardian.org,

While embattled PM Sir Keir Starmer takes a pointless grilling on the even more pointless existence of Peter Mandelson, other members of his cabinet were busily paving the way for the next construction phase of our increasingly dystopian society.

Speaking to Sky News earlier today, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson promised…

“more action to keep young people safe online, including around social media”.

Which is delightfully vague.

Education Minister Olivia Bailey kept her cards similarly close to her chest, whilst trying to sound forceful:

“It is a question of how we act, not if, but to put this beyond any doubt, we are placing a clear statutory requirement that the Secretary of State ‘must’, rather than ‘may’, act […] We are clear that under any outcome, we will impose some form of age or functionality restrictions for children under 16.”

So we know they’re going to do something…we just don’t know what. And, if I had to guess, neither do Bridget or Olivia. Neither seems like the kind of people that get kept in the loop, and that flavour of waffle is usually the reserve of those who have no idea what’s going on.

Many commenters – both for and against – have interpreted this promised action as an Australia-style social media ban for children. Certainly, that’s what Conservative MP Laura Trott seems to think in her champagne-popping tweet:

…but the signs might be pointing in another direction.

After all, the Social Media Ban is practically on the books. It was introduced as an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools bill, and has already passed the Lords four times. It could have become law already, but Ministers and MPs have repeatedly overturned the vote, declaring the need for further consultation.

Then, earlier today and coinciding with this government pledge to take action, the Independent published a report that suggests Australia’s social media ban doesn’t work.

Two thirds of Australian teens still using social media despite under-16s ban

The article quotes the head of the Molly Rose Foundation, who warns “an Australia-style ban would not deliver the improvements in online safety that parents and children deserved”:

“These results raise major questions about the effectiveness of Australia’s social media ban and show it would be a high stakes gamble for the UK to follow suit now,” the foundation’s head Andy Burrows said.

“Proponents of a ban argue it offers an immediate and decisive firebreak but the early evidence from Australia shows it only lets tech firms off the hook and fails to give children the step change in online safety and wellbeing they need.”

That’s interestingly timed, don’t you think? Why discredit the ban if the plan is to follow suit?

Sky’s article has their Technology Reporter list potential alternatives, including bans on infinite scrolling, or “digital curfews” that lock children’s accounts after a certain time.

It would be reasonable to assume, based on this, that whatever the UK government eventually does will be somehow…different. Perhaps stricter or enforced differently, perhaps centered on devices rather than platforms.

There are plenty of possibilities.

The head-scratching question is “why?”, and the only answer I can see that makes any sense is that Independent is telling the truth and Australia’s ban doesn’t work –  i.e for its real intended purpose (mass surveillance).

Maybe, and this is rampant speculation, but maybe the inevitable uptick in VPN usage actually made it harder to track people’s data and activity to the extent it offset the utility of and effort required in enforcing the ban.

Like I said, speculation, but we have an explanandum in need of an explanation.

Of course, it could be argued the specifics don’t really matter – because no matter the legislation or regulation, it can only be enforced one way: By mandating age verification for everybody, and using that to introduce digital IDs.

If it’s all heading in the same direction in the end, maybe picking apart the details is a waste of our time, maybe the differences only exist to create the illusion of variety or impression of dissenting views.

But it could be there’s something to learn, and perhaps in reading the wrinkles there’s insights to be gained that could help us resist when the government finally tell us what “restrictions” they’re putting in place.

What people take pride in says a lot about how they see their country.

Across Europe, those sources range from culture and history to political systems and personal freedoms. But in some countries, a notable share of people say they feel little pride at all.

This visualization via Visual Capitalist, by The European Correspondent, based on Pew Research Center data, breaks down the top three sources of national pride in each country surveyed.

Top Sources of National Pride, by Country

Here’s a closer look at the top three sources of national pride cited by adults in each country:

Culture dominates in countries like Italy (38%) and France (26%), while history plays a major role in Greece (37%). Meanwhile, Sweden stands out with 53% citing politics—by far the highest single-category share.

The Core Drivers of Pride Across Europe

In much of Europe, national pride is rooted in shared identity and heritage. Southern European countries like Italy and Greece emphasize culture and history, reflecting their deep historical legacies and global cultural influence.

Elsewhere, people themselves are a key source of pride. Spain (32%) and France (24%) rank highly in this category, suggesting a strong sense of national community and social cohesion.

Where National Pride Is Weakest

Not all sentiment is positive. In the UK, 29% of respondents cite “negative feeling” when describing their country, which is higher than any single positive category. Hungary (23%) and Spain (25%) also show notable shares of dissatisfaction.

This aligns with broader research. According to Pew, individuals who express less pride are often those who do not identify with the governing political parties. In the UK specifically, findings from British Social Attitudes surveys suggest national identity has become more fragmented in recent years, often tied to political divisions.

These dynamics help explain why politics can be both a source of pride—as in Sweden—and frustration, as seen elsewhere.

Politics as a Source of Pride—and Division

Sweden stands out sharply, with 53% of respondents citing politics as a source of pride, which is the highest share of any single category in the dataset.

Germany (36%) follows at a distance. Meanwhile, in other countries, political dissatisfaction helps explain rising negative sentiment, particularly among those who feel disconnected from leadership.

Via Remix News,

Two German cities, Berlin and Hamburg, have spent at least €4 billion to house migrants since 2022, with the cost of hotels proving to be especially high.

In Hamburg, the cost to house asylum seekers alone has amounted to €597 million. In 2025 alone, the costs of hotel accommodation and meals for asylum seekers in Hamburg was €160 million, which does not include security and administrative costs.

However, that is just for hotels. It costs Hamburg approximately €1 billion per year when other accommodations are factored in, such as container villages, asylum centers, and state-run units.

The data on hotel costs was released in a Senate response to a parliamentary inquiry by the AfD, according to Nius news outlet.

The Senate noted that the city first utilized hotels for refugee housing in late February 2022, but the figures are drawing the ire of the AfD. Thomas Reich, the AfD parliamentary group’s budget policy spokesman, pointed out that asylum seekers are creating “ever larger budget holes.”

The Hamburg Senate cited Russia’s war in Ukraine, which required the rapid and significant creation of asylum seeker spots, but the goal, according to the Senate, is to move them out of hotels and into other forms of housing.

Notably, hotels are not the only accommodations that taxpayers are paying for, which means the total cost of housing is far higher than the €593 million figure, which only pertains to hotel costs.

Berlin

Hotel rentals for asylum seekers are perhaps the most expensive housing solution in all Western countries. While a container village costs approximately €20 per person per day, the average price for a hotel or hostel spot is €60. As a result, Berlin has sought to move away from hotel rentals. As of 2025, Berlin’s State Office for Refugee Affairs (LAF) reported housing between 3,300 and 3,500 people in hotels or hostels.

The total figures for Berlin regarding only hotel places are not currently available, but the total cost for the accommodation, care, and integration of refugees in the capital between 2022 and 2025 has reached an incredible €2.24 billion. As Remix News reported last year, the cost for housing migrants in the city had reached nearly €1 billion a year.

Berlin’s senator for integration, Cansel Kiziltepe, confirmed that the city had rented 20 hotels but advocated for a change in strategy:

“I have said again and again: It is more cost-effective for the state of Berlin if we accommodate people in decentralized accommodation – whether in containers or in buildings…I fear that accommodation in hotels and hostels could become a case for the State Audit Office.“

When the Berlin and Hamburg expenses are totaled since 2022, they equal at least €4 billion, but the true cost is actually higher when administrative and security are factored in, not to mention education, welfare transfers, and healthcare.

In total, Germany spends over €50 billion a year on migrants, including accommodation, education, integration, social welfare, and other costs.

Read more here…