This shows that ESG needs updating. Investing in arms manufacturers is no longer just code for "support the bombing of brown people to enrich the MIC", it can also mean "ensure sovereignty and defend democracies against a hostile, desperate dictator" - treating the two as equivalent, and both as immoral, is outdated.
Violating the E (Environment) should lead to fines to make up for environmental clean up. If severe enough there should be prison time for the responsible higher ups.
Drop the S and G. There are existing laws to for most of these.
Governments can use weapons embargoes to stop their defense contractors from selling to specific countries.
The problem is that it's not a binary choice, and the current situation in Israel is making it extremely difficult for regular institutions to work with defence businesses without avoiding damaging associations in public perception.
OTOH, arms are arms, and when the Ukraine war will (hopefully, someday) be over, the startups that are springing up now, some of which will become established companies by then, will start looking for new markets for their (defensive and offensive) arms developed and tested in Ukraine.
> Successive UK governments have made the case for more and better defence spending, encouraging British start-ups to invest in this fast-growing ...sector.
War, invasions, occupations - it's a growth business apparently. The UK government approves.
In many cases banks decide the account is not worth the hastle of regulation and compliance. In some countries US citizens have difficulty getting an account due to US regulations being more hassle than worth.
Indeed i personally know the guy who tried to open a bank account in Cyprus on his US passport and after many attempts was denied; he ended up opening an account on his Russian passport easily.
Sure, but lying to a bank while opening an account can have certain really annoying consequences for the rest of your life if you want to continue participating in the banking system.
IANAL but AFAIK no matter which other passports do you have if you are an US person (a citizen or a tax resident) you must notify you bank in any country to comply with the US laws (but having another passport makes it possible to hide that one is an US person).
If the US and China were secretly conspiring to sabotage Europe it would look indistinguishable from the EU SFDR and other EU "ESG accountability" acts.
The SFDR and similar EU regulations were originally designed to tackle greenwashing, but has now made it almost impossible to raise money for nuclear, aerospace, and defense startups and ventures in the EU (and by network effects also in the UK).
Since 2025/2026 the EU has promised to find ways ease up these regulations because of the war in Ukraine.
Yesterday in the news there was a picture of a known ISIS terrorist being funded by the state shopping in Windsor while SAS members were being chased in court for spurious charges.
Something is really, really wrong in Europe. There will be books written about this in the future.
We live in times. There is always something: just in Europe, in the 50s and 60s we had the Cold War (and on the other side of the Iron Curtain, outright invasions); in the 70s we had terrorism and economic shocks; in the '80s we had Libya, Lebanon, heroin, AIDS, Chernobyl; in the '90s we had genocide in Yugoslavia, big market crashes and sovereign debt crisis, the war in Kuwait; in the '00s we had 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq; you can go on and on...
The reality is that, as long as we don't start firing nukes, we'll all be alright in the end.
On the contrary during every decade above there were regions in Europe with prosperity, driving premium German cars, and benefiting from cheap workforce and "entertainment" services from impacted other European regions. Some remained prosperous through all of these decades.
Sure, but there was also Baader-Meinhof, Munich '72, plenty of robberies and car theft (which are comparably pretty rare now)...
My point is that no decade is particularly "good" or "bad" even in peacetime - shit happens all the time. And of course, only 80 years ago most of Europe was in rubbles.
The idea that "a known ISIS terrorist" could roam the UK without US consent is rather amusing. But yes, something is really, really wrong in Europe. /s
The funny thing about that is you can frame lots of things that way.
For example, "if China were secretly conspiring to sabotage the US, they would goad the US into a war with Iran".
Anyway, as far as Europe's self-sabotage goes, I don't think China has much to do with it. The US however does. Trump browbeating NATO countries to spend 5% of GDP on defense is both a gift to US weapons manufacturers and a foil to dismantle the social welfare states in Europe. Because of different versions of austerity, those defense dollars come directly at the expensive of the social safety net and the tenets of European social democracy. I really don't think that's an accident either.
It's also true that Europe has been asleep at the wheel, perfectly happy to outsource their defense to the US. I am skeptical that the political will exists to replace foreign military hardware with homegrown industries but I believe that Europe needs to be responsible for its own security if it's to survive long term.
I've anecdotally heard that, as a reaction to that kind of issue, they've shifted all the way towards the other end of the spectrum. But who knows if it's actually true at all levels.
Hearsay from a single person about being denied a Barclays account for who knows what reason (banks never give a reason, to stop you from re-applying and getting round their KYC rules). From a suspect publication I've never heard of and very little info on the internet, linking to another 'Originally Published In' similar unheard of with little info publication. Submitted by OP with little post history and only from this site?
I'd take this article with a large pinch of salt.
Did you even read it? They did give a reason ("due to the nature of your business") and it's been brought up in the house of lords precisely because it isn't a single person.
I've commented below but "due to the nature of your business" can be because its a newly formed company with few employees and no trading history trying to deposit £700K getting to many points on the banks "is this possibly a terrorist/money laundering/drug dealer" system and getting overzealously denied.
It's currently far more damaging to a bank to give someone an account to perform illegal activities than it is to deny one to a legitimate company. And accounts that are in the gray zone (where transactions keep getting flagged and have to be checked by compliance) are likely to cost far more than they make the bank.
>Morris tried approaching several other established UK banks as well as app-based digital banks. All refused to provide Eyebrook with an account, despite the primarily defensive nature of the systems it is developing.
>Eyebrook is far from the only defence company to be debanked
I know there's similar regulatory hurdles in the Netherlands. Up 'till recently it made some amount of sense not to finance defense, presumably because a lot of it would almost certainly end up in funny places. Not so much anymore of course.
> presumably because a lot of it would almost certainly end up in funny places
In cars, real estate, then into private helicopters and airplanes. In that order. In eastern Poland light airplanes and helicopters are flying as if the region was some Arab petroleum state. The Dutch can conceal it from peasants much easier in their overseas territories.
This is a well known issue in Europe. Companies operating in the defense industry, even well established ones, can not access regular banking services. This issue affects even countries where ESG is not considered a priority, such as Czechia, because only branches of international banks operate here.
> Having already secured financing of £700,000 and the support of the government, the former British Army officer was confident of being able to open a bank account for his fledgling business.
A very young company with £700,000, a few employees and no trading history would get heavy "Know Your Customer" scrutiny at any bank whether or not it was defence or not. "Due to the nature of your business" could be due to that rather than it being a defence company.
They could well just have ticked to many boxes on Barclays "possibly suspect" checklist and got automatically denied by someone in compliance with hundreds of accounts to check a day.
Matt Levine/Bloomberg has talked about this a lot - where banks can turn the dial from giving everyone an account (and get sued and large fines - Barclays faced litigation due to Epstein), or reject more and get accused of not giving bank accounts to legitimate companies/people.
ratherbefuddled | 12 hours ago
wwdx | 12 hours ago
bvcp | 12 hours ago
hollowonepl | 12 hours ago
m12k | 11 hours ago
draxen | 11 hours ago
Violating the E (Environment) should lead to fines to make up for environmental clean up. If severe enough there should be prison time for the responsible higher ups.
Drop the S and G. There are existing laws to for most of these.
Governments can use weapons embargoes to stop their defense contractors from selling to specific countries.
toyg | 11 hours ago
rob74 | 11 hours ago
einpoklum | 11 hours ago
War, invasions, occupations - it's a growth business apparently. The UK government approves.
notabotiswear | 11 hours ago
anonymous_user9 | 11 hours ago
Glad that's been settled!
IshKebab | 10 hours ago
ivell | 11 hours ago
anovikov | 11 hours ago
gambiting | 11 hours ago
anovikov | 9 hours ago
gambiting | 8 hours ago
anovikov | 6 hours ago
gambiting | 6 hours ago
citrin_ru | 11 hours ago
m000 | 11 hours ago
Good for the British people then, and kudos to ESG. As if the UK doesn't have enough surveillance as it is.
KingMob | 11 hours ago
What's next, tobacco company bemoans anti-smoking ad restrictions?
weddpros | 11 hours ago
dcl | 11 hours ago
draxen | 11 hours ago
The SFDR and similar EU regulations were originally designed to tackle greenwashing, but has now made it almost impossible to raise money for nuclear, aerospace, and defense startups and ventures in the EU (and by network effects also in the UK).
Since 2025/2026 the EU has promised to find ways ease up these regulations because of the war in Ukraine.
ilikerashers | 11 hours ago
Something is really, really wrong in Europe. There will be books written about this in the future.
lawn | 11 hours ago
Replace Europe with the US and the statement holds just as well. Or China or why not Russia.
We live in bad times.
toyg | 11 hours ago
The reality is that, as long as we don't start firing nukes, we'll all be alright in the end.
lifestyleguru | 11 hours ago
toyg | 9 hours ago
My point is that no decade is particularly "good" or "bad" even in peacetime - shit happens all the time. And of course, only 80 years ago most of Europe was in rubbles.
m000 | 11 hours ago
dcl | 11 hours ago
MrBuddyCasino | 11 hours ago
Otherwise I can recommend basically everything by Curtis Yarvin and Kevin Dolan (https://substack.com/@exitgroup, https://substack.com/@exitgroup).
There is a wide and rich ocean of deep thought and historical knowledge in that corner, for those curious and open-minded enough.
jmyeet | 11 hours ago
For example, "if China were secretly conspiring to sabotage the US, they would goad the US into a war with Iran".
Anyway, as far as Europe's self-sabotage goes, I don't think China has much to do with it. The US however does. Trump browbeating NATO countries to spend 5% of GDP on defense is both a gift to US weapons manufacturers and a foil to dismantle the social welfare states in Europe. Because of different versions of austerity, those defense dollars come directly at the expensive of the social safety net and the tenets of European social democracy. I really don't think that's an accident either.
It's also true that Europe has been asleep at the wheel, perfectly happy to outsource their defense to the US. I am skeptical that the political will exists to replace foreign military hardware with homegrown industries but I believe that Europe needs to be responsible for its own security if it's to survive long term.
GDEpps | 11 hours ago
rwmj | 11 hours ago
toyg | 11 hours ago
gambiting | 11 hours ago
matt-p | 11 hours ago
edh649 | 11 hours ago
m000 | 11 hours ago
martimarkov | 11 hours ago
AI misinformation and slop - should be moderated and not top of HN
martimarkov | 11 hours ago
1:1 copy
rmccue | 11 hours ago
zajio1am | 11 hours ago
IshKebab | 10 hours ago
What a weird response.
helsinkiandrew | 10 hours ago
It's currently far more damaging to a bank to give someone an account to perform illegal activities than it is to deny one to a legitimate company. And accounts that are in the gray zone (where transactions keep getting flagged and have to be checked by compliance) are likely to cost far more than they make the bank.
tim333 | 7 hours ago
>Eyebrook is far from the only defence company to be debanked
dismalpedigree | 11 hours ago
Kim_Bruning | 11 hours ago
lifestyleguru | 10 hours ago
In cars, real estate, then into private helicopters and airplanes. In that order. In eastern Poland light airplanes and helicopters are flying as if the region was some Arab petroleum state. The Dutch can conceal it from peasants much easier in their overseas territories.
toothrot | 11 hours ago
asxndu | 11 hours ago
surfingdino | 11 hours ago
clarionbell | 11 hours ago
helsinkiandrew | 10 hours ago
A very young company with £700,000, a few employees and no trading history would get heavy "Know Your Customer" scrutiny at any bank whether or not it was defence or not. "Due to the nature of your business" could be due to that rather than it being a defence company.
They could well just have ticked to many boxes on Barclays "possibly suspect" checklist and got automatically denied by someone in compliance with hundreds of accounts to check a day.
Matt Levine/Bloomberg has talked about this a lot - where banks can turn the dial from giving everyone an account (and get sued and large fines - Barclays faced litigation due to Epstein), or reject more and get accused of not giving bank accounts to legitimate companies/people.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-10-14/ban...