The Mediterranean archipelago named Europe's most LGBTQ+-friendly country
From safety and discrimination laws to policies around gender recognition, a lot more goes into making a country queer-friendly than an annual Pride festival. Back for its seventeenth year, 2025's edition of the Rainbow Map looks into all these factors and more to name Europe's most (and least) LGBTQ+-friendly countries.
The map, which is an annual project run by LGBTI organisation ILGA-Europe, ranks 49 European countries on their legal and policy practices for LGBTQ+ people on a scale from 0-100 percent.
The categories assessed include equality and non-discrimination, family, hate crime and hate speech, legal gender recognition, intersex bodily integrity, civil society space and asylum.
And, topping the list as the most LGBTQ+-friendly country in Europe for no less than the tenth consecutive year, is the sunny archipelago of Malta. It scored a solid 88.83 percent in total, ranking perfectly in the 'hate crime and speech', 'legal gender recognition' and 'civil society space' categories, improving on its 2024 score by 0.99 percent.
These are the 20 most LGBTQ+-friendly countries in Europe
Malta
Belgium
Iceland
Denmark
Spain
Finland
Greece
Germany
Norway
Luxembourg
Portugal
Sweden
Netherlands
Ireland
France
Austria
Slovenia
Switzerland
Montenegro
Croatia
However, progress wasn't made everywhere. The report also found that Hungary, Georgia and the UK all experienced the biggest falls in their rankings, the UK specifically slipping six positions from 16th to 22nd, which is its lowest rank ever.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Post Office compensation chief steps down after Sir Alan Bates raised 'serious concerns' about schemes
A Post Office boss who backed compensation for Horizon IT scandal victims has left his position as Sir Alan Bates raised 'serious concerns' about schemes. Leader of the Post Office's Remediation Unit, Simon Recaldin, is believed to have opted for voluntary redundancy and left his post this week. It comes as the first part of a public inquiry report into the controversy, analysing the compensation process as well as the affect on victims, is anticipated to be released in the coming weeks. More than 900 sub-postmasters were prosecuted between 1999 and 2015 after faulty accounting software made it look as though money was missing from their accounts. Hundreds are still waiting for payouts despite the previous government announcing that those who have had convictions quashed are eligible for £600,000. A Post Office spokesperson said yesterday Mr Recaldin's departure was a part of an 'organisational design exercise' across the firm. Now Joanne Hanley, who was previously a managing director and global head of client servicing, data and operations for Lloyds', is understood to have taken up a large portion of the former Post Office chief, according to The Telegraph. It comes as Post Office hero Sir Alan Bates accused the government of running a 'quasi kangaroo court' payout system for the scandal's victims last month. More recently, Sir Alan said he would prefer to see the compensation schemes thrown out rather the people working on them. 'We have got serious concerns about the transparency and the parity across the schemes,' he told The Telegraph. Last November, Mr Recaldin giving evidence to the inquiry, apologised after it was unearthed staff who were managing compensation claims had also been embroiled in prosecutions relating to the scandal. When queried about ex Post Office investigators he said: 'So my regret – and it is a genuine regret – is that when I came in, in January 2022, that I didn't do that conflicts check, check back on my inherited team, and challenge that.' It comes as the Sir Alan, who famously won his High Court battle with the Post Office in 2019 revealed that he had been handed a 'take it or leave it' compensation offer of less than half his original claim. Mr Bates, 70, said the first offer, made in January last year, was just one sixth of what he was asking for, adding that it rose to a third in the second offer. He has now been given a 'final take it or leave it offer' - which he said amounts to 49.2 per cent of his original claim. He, alongside 500 other sub-postmasters, will now have to lodge their bid for compensation via the Group Litigation order, managed by the Government. Bates, who led the sub-postmasters' campaign for justice, attacked the government for reneging on assurances given when the compensation schemes were set up The Post Office currently manages the Horizon Shortfall Scheme, which is seperate to the aforementioned. This scheme was organised for victims who have not been compensated but believe they experienced financial loses due to the IT scandal. A Post Office spokesman said: 'As part of the Post Office's commitment to deliver a 'new deal for postmasters', we have undertaken a review of our operating model to ensure we have the right structure in place. 'We have been in consultation with a number of colleagues from across the business, including the Remediation Unit. As a result of this Post Office-wide organisational design exercise, Simon Recaldin has left the business.'
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
Government struggles to cut foreign aid spent on asylum hotels
The government is struggling to cut the amount of foreign aid it spends on hotel bills for asylum seekers in the UK, the BBC has figures released quietly by ministers in recent days show the Home Office plans to spend £2.2bn of overseas development assistance (ODA) this financial year - that is only marginally less than the £2.3bn it spent in 2024/ money is largely used to cover the accommodation costs of thousands of asylum seekers who have recently arrived in the Home Office said it was committed to ending asylum hotels and was speeding up asylum decisions to save taxpayers' money. The figures were published on the Home Office website with no accompanying notification to aid is supposed to be spent alleviating poverty by providing humanitarian and development assistance under international rules, governments can spend some of their foreign aid budgets at home to support asylum seekers during the first year after their to the most recent Home Office figures, there are about 32,000 asylum seekers in hotels in the promised in its manifesto to "end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds". Contracts signed by the Conservative government in 2019 were expected to see £4.5bn of public cash paid to three companies to accommodate asylum seekers over a 10-year a report by spending watchdog the National Audit Office (NAO) in May said that number was expected to be £15.3bn. On June 3, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told the Home Affairs Committee she was "concerned about the level of money" being spent on asylum seekers' accommodation and added: "We need to end asylum hotels altogether."The Home Office said it was trying to bear down on the numbers by reducing the time asylum seekers can appeal against decisions. It is also planning to introduce tighter financial eligibility checks to ensure only those without means are Whitehall officials and international charities have said the Home Office has no incentive to reduce ODA spending because the money does not come out of its scale of government aid spending on asylum hotels has meant huge cuts in UK support for humanitarian and development priorities across the cuts have been exacerbated by the government's reductions to the overall ODA budget. In February, Sir Keir Starmer said he would cut aid spending from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3% by 2027 - a fall in absolute terms of about £14bn to some £ was the scale of aid spending on asylum hotels in recent years that the previous Conservative government gave the Foreign Office an extra £2bn to shore up its humanitarian commitments overseas. But Labour has refused to match that commitment. 'Poor value for money' Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy at the Bond network of development organisations, said: "Cutting the UK aid budget while using it to prop up Home Office costs is a reckless repeat of decisions taken by the previous Conservative government. "Diverting £2.2bn of UK aid to cover asylum accommodation in the UK is unsustainable, poor value for money, and comes at the expense of vital development and humanitarian programmes tackling the root causes of poverty, conflict and displacement. "It is essential that we support refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, but the government should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul."Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, said the government was introducing "savage cuts" to its ODA spending, risking the UK's development priorities and international reputation, while "Home Office raids on the aid budget" had barely reduced."Aid is meant to help the poorest and most vulnerable across the world: to alleviate poverty, improve life chances and reduce the risk of conflict," she said. "Allowing the Home Office to spend it in the UK makes this task even harder.""The government must get a grip on spending aid in the UK," she said. "The Spending Review needs to finally draw a line under this perverse use of taxpayer money designed to keep everyone safe and prosperous in their own homes, not funding inappropriate, expensive accommodation here." Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: "Labour promised in their manifesto to end the use of asylum hotels for illegal immigrants. But the truth is there are now thousands more illegal migrants being housed in hotels under Labour. "Now these documents reveal that Labour are using foreign aid to pay for asylum hotel accommodation – yet another promise broken."A Home Office spokesperson said: "We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure, and continue to take action, restoring order, and reduce costs. This will ultimately reduce the amount of Official Development Assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK."We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4bn by 2026."
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Why the death of the Tory Party has been greatly exaggerated
Has the death of the Tory Party, like that of Mark Twain, been greatly exaggerated?There are good reasons to think that after nearly 200 years, it has breathed its last as a major force in British politics. The failure to properly address voters' concerns during a decade and a half in government led to a catastrophic collapse in public faith and electoral annihilation. With the Tory brand badly tarnished, the party languishes in the polls behind Labour and Reform UK. No wonder some have read it the last rites. And yet, under Kemi Badenoch there are encouraging signs the party is flickering back to life. She is a thoughtful leader who is determined to do the right thing – insofar as the Westminster circus will allow. She is also a politician of substance, rather than soundbite. It is understandable she wants to take time to put a coherent policy platform together, rather than indulging in knee-jerk politics. Her review into the European Convention on Human Rights, which enables activist judges to prevent the deportation from Britain of foreign criminals and Channel migrants, is a case in point. Like many, the Tory leader increasingly believes that you can faithfully adhere to the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg court, or have an elected Parliament that responds to the wishes of voters, but not both. But it's right she looks at all the issues involved in leaving. One reason for such huge disillusionment with the Conservatives is that in power they repeatedly promised one thing and then did another. This shabby habit has been taken to new heights by Labour. Does anyone seriously believe the Government, led by a die-hard human rights lawyer, will keep its word and legislate to restrict the abuse of the ECHR? With the comprehensive spending review due next week, another claim made by Sir Keir Starmer and his Chancellor will take a bashing: That Labour is fiscally responsible. Before the election, their mantra was never to 'play fast and loose' with the public finances. In fact, Rachel Reeves has made an unholy mess – awarding excessive public-sector pay rises to placate the unions, hiking taxes on businesses and letting borrowing go through the roof. She toyed with reining in the out-of-control welfare budget only to blink at the first signs of disgruntlement among Labour MPs. Then there is Nigel Farage. For all that he is a charismatic politician, with a gift for tapping into the concerns of ordinary Britons, his policies so far lack credibility. His plan to increase the tax-free allowance to £20,000 a year is a wonderful aspiration, but it would cost an eye-watering £80billion. And when one of the UK's biggest problems is the unsustainable rise of the welfare bill, his baffling pledge to end the popular two-child benefit cap would make things worse. Frequent damaging rows also erupt within Reform UK. Has the party the experience and temperament to run the country? As Sir Keir and Mr Farage try to outbid each other with extravagant promises, Mrs Badenoch has an opportunity. While re-energising the Tories, she must communicate vigorously that they represent common sense, law and order, fiscal restraint and controlled migration. She has an impressive team of shadow ministers. Could their talents be utilised more? It would be absurd to defenestrate Mrs Badenoch after just seven months. Anyone who thinks her party can suddenly jump to the top of the polls is delusional. But as Sir Keir's popularity sinks lower by the day, she is beginning to hit her stride.
