Emmanuel Macron waxwork is brazenly stolen from museum in France
Greenpeace France said Paris was "playing a double game" in supporting Ukraine while allowing French companies to continue with gas and fertiliser imports from Russia
A waxwork figure of Emmanuel Macron was stolen from a French museum and placed outside the Russian embassy to highlight his alleged double standards on Ukraine.
Greenpeace activists reportedly posed as tourists when they entered Paris' Grevin Museum before covering the statue and taking it out through an emergency exit.
It later reappeared outside the Russian embassy, where activists said the French president was a hypocrite for allowing French companies to continue doing business with Russia despite vocally supporting Ukraine.
No arrests have been made and the waxwork, worth a reported £33,765, has not yet been recovered. Greenpeace said they would return the statue but could not yet confirm when.
Jean-Francois Julliard, head of Greenpeace France, said Paris was "playing a double game" in supporting Ukraine while allowing French companies to continue with gas and fertiliser imports from Russia.
He said Macron "embodies this double discourse" and "should be the first" among European leaders to end trade contracts with Russian companies.
Analysis by the BBC last month revealed that Russia has continued to make billions from fossil fuel exports to the West, including to the EU, since invading Ukraine in 2022.
While it led to sanctions, EU states have paid Russia £176bn for fossil fuels since the February 2022 invasion. This includes £15.1bn from France.
Despite threatening further sanctions on Moscow if it does not cooperate in efforts to negotiate a ceasefire to the Ukraine conflict, it remains to be seen if the EU can wean itself off Russian gas.
The news came as the mounting instability of France's banking sector jeopardises its role as a key EU partner, Italian journalist Nicola Porro warned.
"France, under Macron, is now the new sick man of Europe. It faces a massive fiscal deficit of over 6% of GDP — double the EU's 3% limit — along with a stagnating economy and political instability,' he said.
He highlighted that France's 2025 draft budget proposed £50.5 billion in spending cuts and tax increases to reduce its deficit to 5% of GDP, but warned of serious doubts over its ability to deliver on these promises. He said: "During the eurozone debt crisis, Greece caused a financial panic with just 1.3% of the EU's GDP.
"France accounts for over 16%. If things go wrong, the consequences will be on an entirely larger scale: banks risk hundreds of billions, and the ripple effects could reach British shores (because of UK investments in French banks)."
Mr Porro said that the ongoing political situation in France is making matters worse. Macron's party was decisively defeated in the 2024 European elections by Marine Le Pen's Rassemblement National, leaving the French president struggling to maintain a stable government.
Adding to the concern are France's military operations in Mali, which ended in 2023, and in Burkina Faso and the Sahel - where French troops continue to help governments fight Islamists-backed insurgencies.
Under Macron, France's influence in the region has waned, highlighted by Burkina Faso's president, Captain Ibrahim Traore, saying in January that the French president is 'insulting all Africans" and urged all African nations to end military pacts with Paris.
These failures have damaged EU credibility abroad, paving the way for Russia and China to fill the vacuum, heightening security concerns across North Africa and the Mediterranean, Mr Porro said.
Despite these setbacks, Macron persists in projecting himself as a global statesman, Mr Porro said. However, he claimed that many see his foreign policy as increasingly erratic and self-serving.
Mr Porro added: "His resistance to trade deals like the EU-Mercosur agreement (a free trade deal between the bloc and several South American countries) has been criticised for blocking economic opportunities across the continent. It's always about national interest over EU unity — every time." He added: "And Britain should be very wary of getting too close to that."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
44 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Fact check: More people leave than arrive on current youth mobility schemes
On the BBC's Today programme on May 19, from around two hours and 21 minutes, Business and Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the UK's youth mobility arrangements with other countries reduce net migration. Asked 'how do you know there will be fewer people coming here than leaving?' Mr Reynolds said: 'Well, I've got 13 schemes in action already and that's the evidence of them.' He later added: 'I tell you the evidence of the current schemes just so you know is that they're a net negative on immigration.' Evaluation Around 24,400 youth mobility visas were issued to people wanting to come to the UK in 2024. Although figures are patchy for how many Britons go abroad, data from just three countries – Australia, New Zealand and Canada – suggests that 68,495 British citizens travelled to those countries in 2024 (the Australian data is for the 12 months to the end of June 2024). That would suggest that Mr Reynolds is right. However it does not take into account that Britons going abroad on these temporary visas will sooner or later come back, as will those who come to the UK. It is also not clear that this pattern will repeat in any similar deal with the EU. The UK population is much larger than those of Australia, New Zealand and Canada, so there are more Britons who can go to those countries than can come here. With the EU that is reversed. The facts How many people come to the UK on a youth mobility visa? Government data shows there were 24,437 people who were handed a youth mobility visa last year. Most of these were from one of the 13 countries with which the UK has a reciprocal arrangement. A small handful of visas – 131 in total – were for people from countries other than the 13. The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford has suggested that these are the result of errors in data recording, or due to people having dual nationalities. The top three countries that sent people to the UK on youth mobility visas between January and December 2024 were Australia (9,754 visas), New Zealand (4,304 visas) and Canada (3,060 visas). How many Britons go abroad on youth mobility type schemes? Figures are patchy on how many British people have gone abroad on a youth mobility scheme. The Department for Business and Trade was unable to share data. Australia publishes a twice-yearly report into what it calls its working holiday visa programme. That is the Australian equivalent to the UK's youth mobility scheme. The latest such report covered the 12 months to the end of June 2024. That report showed that Australia issued 48,973 working holiday visas to UK citizens. Data from New Zealand is available on the website of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. Using its migration data explorer produces a spreadsheet which shows that there were 9,486 working holiday visas granted by New Zealand to UK citizens in between January and December 2024. Canadian data does not appear to be publicly available, but the figures were provided to the PA news agency by the Canadian Department for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. The data shows that in 2024 there were 9,972 work permits issued to UK and UK overseas territories citizens under the country's working holiday scheme, and a further 64 people had their permits extended. How do incoming youth mobility visas compare to outgoing? Net migration is a figure which subtracts the number of people coming into the country from the number of people leaving. The data cited above suggests that while 9,754 Australians came to the UK on youth mobility visas, 48,973 Britons went in the opposite direction. It must be noted that the time periods measured here are different, the Australian data is for the 12 months ending June 2024, while the UK data is for the 12 months ending December 2024. Meanwhile the data suggests that 4,304 New Zealanders came to the UK while 9,486 Britons went in the other direction. Data further shows that 3,060 Canadians came to the UK in 2024, while 9,972 Britons went in the other direction. This suggests that for each of these three countries the youth mobility schemes are – as Mr Reynolds suggested – reducing net migration. In fact Australia alone appears to receive twice as many Britons (48,973) as all people who the UK receives from all 13 countries added together (24,437). However, it should be noted that because youth mobility schemes are time-limited, Britons going abroad and people who have come to the UK on such visas will eventually be forced to return. This means the UK's inbound migration figures should take into account not just Australians and Canadians – for example – coming to the UK, but also Britons returning from Australia and Canada after their youth mobility visas expire. If it is assumed that everyone returns then over a longer time frame the youth mobility programmes will have a neutral impact on net immigration because every Briton who leaves the UK will come back and every non-Briton who comes to the UK will leave. This does not take into account the people – both Britons abroad and non-Britons in the UK – who apply for a different visa to stay in their adopted country. Do these conclusions also apply to the EU scheme? The impact on net migration of the potential EU scheme will depend on the details of the agreement between London and Brussels. Madeleine Sumption, director at the Migration Observatory, told the PA news agency that the size of the cap on the programme would be vital for the impact on net migration. She said the fact the UK sends more people to Australia, Canada and New Zealand than it receives from them 'probably results from the fact that the UK has a much larger population than they do, so we just have more young people potentially interested in moving'. With the EU scheme, Ms Sumption said, the population sizes are flipped – that is to say the EU's population is much bigger than the UK, leaving more young people who might be willing to come here. Therefore the smaller the cap on the number of visas is, the more likely both the EU and UK will fill their quotas. If both fill their quotas – and the quotas going both ways are the same – then the impact on net migration will be zero. However if the cap is large then it is more likely that there will not be as many Britons going to Europe as are coming in the opposite direction, which will bring up net migration. But, as with the existing schemes, both Britons in Europe and Europeans in the UK will eventually have to leave unless they find another visa, which over the long run should mean that the programme has a neutral impact on net migration. Links BBC – Today, 19/05/2025 Migration Observatory – What is the Youth Mobility Scheme and how does it work? (archived) – Entry clearance visas granted outside the UK (archived page and spreadsheet, using tab Data_Vis_D02) Australian Department of Home Affairs – Visitor visa statistics (archived) Australian Department of Home Affairs – Working Holiday Maker visa program report (archived) New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment – Migration data explorer (archived page and downloaded spreadsheet. To download the correct spreadsheet, instructions can be found at (archived): In dataset select 'W1 work decisions', in time period select 'calendar year' and in variables select 'application substream', 'application criteria' and 'decision type')
Finextra
an hour ago
- Finextra
Act Now or Pay Later: How DORA Sets the Standard for Cyber Resilience: By Stephen Terry
Cyberattacks are costly affairs. However, for some they are more costly than for others. The global average cost of a data breach is $4.88 million but for financial institutions this figure goes way up, with the average cost hitting over $6 million. The financial services sector has always been a honey pot for hackers with its lucrative assets and highlight sensitive data. And the threat is getting worse. The rise of Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS), AI making attacks easier, and the rise in IoT devices opening up whole new attack opportunities. To counteract this rising tide, the EU introduced the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) earlier this year - a sweeping regulation that mandates enhanced risk management, incident reporting, and third-party oversight in the financial sector. For financial institutions, compliance with DORA is more than a tick-box exercise, it's a strategic imperative for operational survival. Design the roadmap to resilience DORA's framework provides financial institutions with a structured path to resilience by requiring institutions to develop comprehensive strategies for identifying, reporting, and mitigating information and communications technology (ICT)-related incidents. In the context of ransomware, the regulation emphasises the importance of early detection, accurate reporting, and verified data integrity. When a ransomware attack occurs, the initial response window, often within the first hour, is critical. Swift, pre-planned, rehearsed and coordinated actions can mean the difference between a controlled incident and a full-scale operational crisis. As a result, DORA compels financial organisations to establish and regularly test detailed response plans, ensuring staff are trained and roles are clearly defined. One of the cornerstones of compliance is the ICT risk management audit, which involves identifying all types, locations, and classifications of data and storage infrastructure. To do this effectively, organisations must adopt tools that provide full visibility into their data environments, as this allows for rapid and accurate reporting when incidents occur. These tools can link isolated datasets and apply uniform security policies across hybrid and multi-cloud environments, saving a business large amounts in downtime damages. See it to secure it Operational resilience depends on the ability to know where a business' data is, how it's accessed, and who is using it at any given time. With cybercriminals increasingly targeting critical data sites, IT teams are now required to continuously monitor for infrastructure anomalies. This is particularly important in cell-level data corruption, a stealthy form of attack where malicious code is embedded deep within databases, lying dormant until it's triggered to corrupt vital assets. These attacks are difficult to detect and can undermine trust in the integrity of the entire dataset. The key effective countermeasure is to maintain secure, immutable backups that are regularly tested for integrity and can be restored rapidly if needed. AI plays a vital role here. Modern AI tools can detect anomalies in user behaviour, flag potential compromises, and automate the process of isolating malware-infected backups. By continuously scanning for subtle changes in data patterns, these systems serve as an early warning mechanism, triggering immediate recovery and minimising disruption. To be effective, backup systems must also be resilient themselves. This means ensuring that storage locations are physically secure, regularly tested, and not connected to the network in a way that would allow them to be compromised during an attack. Immutable storage is increasingly seen as a best practice, as it ensures data cannot be altered once written, alongside encryption in transit as well as at rest. Ensure a rapid response and real recovery Once a ransomware attack is detected, a fast response is required. IT teams must act swiftly to isolate affected systems and end-users, minimising the potential spread of malware. Data management tools enable teams to quickly identify which datasets have been accessed or altered, allowing for precise damage assessment and targeted recovery. If mission-critical applications have been affected, every second of downtime matters. So, even if an organisation were willing to hold their noses and pay a ransom, the decryption delay would be intolerable. Thankfully, newer resilience technologies allow near-real-time application failover to alternative IT environments delivering almost immediate rollback and operational readiness. And, if backups have been properly maintained, organisations can restore the rest of their data without paying a ransom. However, in order to avoid fines for non-compliance and to assist regulatory investigations, institutions must also be able to accurately report the specifics of the attack, including the strain of ransomware involved and its impact on operations. Master the power of preparedness True cyber resilience doesn't begin in the moment of attack, it starts with preparation. DORA mandates that financial services providers not only implement technical defences but also cultivate a culture of readiness and transparency. This includes having a clearly communicated, continually updated ransomware response strategy that extends to third-party service providers. Failure to comply with DORA can result in substantial penalties, including fines of up to 2% of global annual turnover. Beyond avoiding financial harm, compliance also offers a strategic advantage; it demonstrates to customers and partners that an institution can be trusted to safeguard sensitive data and maintain operational continuity in the face of threats. Get ahead Threat actors are constantly changing and evolving their activities with new approaches and technologies. Financial institutions must match this if they are to mitigate the threat and resulting impact. Cyber resilience isn't just about a reactive defence it's also about proactive resilience. And this is where DORA comes to the fore. A clear path that ensures increased visibility, faster response, and a culture of readiness. Financial institutions are not only compliant, they are stronger, fitter, more secure and have the ability to 'carry on as normal' after the inevitable attacks, than ever before.
Belfast Telegraph
an hour ago
- Belfast Telegraph
Trump says it might be better to let Ukraine and Russia ‘fight for a while'
©Press Association President Donald Trump has said that it might be better to let Ukraine and Russia 'fight for a while' before pulling them apart and pursuing peace. In an Oval Office meeting with German chancellor Friedrich Merz, Mr Trump likened the war in Ukraine — which Russia invaded in early 2022 — to a fight between two young children who hated each other. 'Sometimes you're better off letting them a fight for a while and then pulling them apart,' Mr Trump said. He added that he had relayed that analogy to Russian president Vladimir Putin in their phone conversation on Wednesday. The US president still left the threat of sanctions on the table. He said sanctions could be imposed for both Ukraine and Russia. 'When I see the moment where it's not going to stop … we'll be very, very tough,' Mr Trump said. Asked about Mr Trump's comments as the two leaders sat next to each other, Mr Merz stressed that both he and the president agreed 'on this war and how terrible this war is going on', pointing to Mr Trump as the 'key person in the world' who would be able to stop the bloodshed. But Mr Merz also emphasised that Germany 'was on the side of Ukraine' and that Kyiv was only attacking military targets, not Russian civilians. 'We are trying to get them stronger,' Mr Merz said of Ukraine.
