Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron find grounds for an agreement*
Emmanuel Macron Nous exigeons un accès équitable pour les pêcheurs français
Kaja Kallas Now, now, Emmanuel. Let's not be childish. We've already agreed that English would be the lingua franca for these informal discussions
Macron But it's ridiculous. Le clue is in le title: lingua franca
Kallas Or we could speak Finnish?
Macron …
Kallas I thought not. Let's move on
Macron I will speak English, but in return I demand fair access for our historically mistreated fishermen
Keir Starmer You already have more than fair access. It's our fishermen who have been historically mistreated
Starmer Sorry, and fisherwomen
Starmer Sorry, I mean fisherpeople
Kallas Gentlemen, we're supposed to be discussing the growing threat from Russia
Macron We can't discuss the growing threat from Russia
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
29 minutes ago
- The Independent
This vision for Britain's nuclear future is to be warmly welcomed
A politician with such a long and mixed track record as energy secretary Ed Miliband should perhaps have been more wary of declaring that nuclear power will 'deliver a golden age of clean energy abundance', and that it is 'the only way to protect family finances, take back control of our energy, and tackle the climate crisis'. Such things may yet prove to be so – and indeed investment in a new generation of nuclear power may well be inevitable. However, it is equally the case that the history of nuclear power in Britain, spanning some seven decades, has been far from an unalloyed success. At home and – sadly, more dramatically – abroad, scientists and engineers overconfident in their abilities and seized by the promise of the future have found themselves all too often watching the consequences of their complacency played out with devastating effect, most infamously at Fukushima, Chernobyl and Six Mile Island, but also at many other locations. Previous visions of a golden age melted down as rapidly as the faulty reactors. If the early post-war hopes for the peaceful use of nuclear power had been well founded, just as was claimed in the 1950s, the abundant electrical power generated by nuclear fission would have been so cheap it would have been pointless to meter and charge for it, fossil fuels would have been rendered redundant, and, as it happens, the pace of climate change greatly retarded. But it was not to be. Therefore, the public is right to be sceptical now about why, in the old and dangerous phrase, 'this time it's different'. With those heavy caveats, Mr Miliband's announcements about Britain's nuclear future are to be welcomed, and his reasoning endorsed. He is right, above all, to seek a great variety and plurality in sources of the UK's long-term energy supply. As the Germans discovered when the Nord Stream pipelines and gas supplies from Vladimir Putin's Russia were cut, it is extremely unwise to become so heavily dependent on any single source of energy. Mr Miliband declares himself an enthusiast for offshore wind, onshore wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, and even fossil fuel sources where effective carbon capture can be achieved. In the nuclear sphere, he's also correct to adopt the previous government's plans for small, 'modular' reactors, which could speed up the transition from carbon and reduce costs. The only disappointment in that area is that time has already been lost, and Rolls-Royce and other private interests are not yet in a position to make any deployment pump meaningful wattage into the National Grid before the early to mid-2030s, as Mr Miliband told the House of Commons. The £14.2bn investment in the Sizewell C plant is a more traditional kind of project, and carries the familiar risks. Mr Miliband will need to be much more specific about private sector involvement, and who will bear the financial risks for such a costly programme over such a long and uncertain timeframe. Disposal of waste and decommissioning costs will also have to be fully transparent to carry public opinion, especially for the people of Suffolk, who will be hosting this latest iteration of a long-standing lodger. Of course, it all would have been better if successive governments hadn't slowed the nuclear programme in the aftermath of successive accidents, and had found the money to invest in previous decades. In fact, the Sizewell C plant is set to become Britain's first new nuclear power station since 1995. The French have long prioritised nuclear power and weathered the recent energy crisis better than the British or the Germans, more tied as they were to foreign gas and soaring world prices. The aim now is to ensure that the new generation of nuclear power doesn't turn into a costly disaster, and can indeed help the transition to renewables and lower energy bills. Cheap, plentiful power and net zero on track? Mr Miliband may yet leave a legacy more permanent than any of his colleagues. Golden, indeed.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Who are the two Israeli ministers who have been sanctioned by the UK?
The UK government has sanctioned two prominent Israeli ministers for "inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank". Britain has been joined by Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway in imposing sanctions on Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich - who are opposed to Palestinian statehood and are on the far right of Israeli politics. The ministers are being sanctioned in their personal capacities and are now subject to a freeze on UK assets and director disqualifications, as well as a ban on entering the country. Here we take a look at who they are and why they have been sanctioned. Itamar Ben-Gvir Mr Ben-Gvir is Israel's security minister and the leader of the Jewish Power (Otzma Yehudit) party - one of the members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's ruling coalition. The 49-year-old has previously been convicted of supporting a Jewish terrorist organisation and has supported the removal of Palestinians from their lands - including calling for Gaza's people to be resettled from the territory. The minister has also called for the al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem to be replaced with a synagogue. The mosque - the third-holiest site in Islam - is built atop the Temple Mount - the holiest site in Judaism, and which was once home to two Jewish temples. Mr Smotrich is Israel's finance minister and leader of the National Religious Party-Religious Zionism - which is another part of Mr Netanyahu's coalition. He is in charge of Israel's administration of the West Bank - the occupation of which is illegal under international law. He has also approved an expansion of settlements in the West Bank, and called for aid not to be let into Gaza. Mr Smotrich has recently said not "a grain of wheat" should be allowed to enter Gaza, saying it will be "entirely destroyed" and its people should be encouraged to leave in great numbers to go to other countries. What has the UK and its allies said? In a joint statement with foreign ministers from the four other countries who have announced sanctions, UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy said the two senior Israelis had incited "serious abuses of Palestinian human rights". The statement added: "These actions are not acceptable. This is why we have taken action now - to hold those responsible to account." Meanwhile, a Number 10 spokesman said the sanctions have been applied in the "personal capacities" of the two ministers and "not their ministries and departments". What has Israel said? Mr Smotrich, speaking at the inauguration of a new settlement in the Hebron Hills in the West Bank, spoke of "contempt" for Britain's move. "Britain has already tried once to prevent us from settling the cradle of our homeland, and we cannot do it again. We are determined, God willing, to continue building." Israel's foreign minister Gideon Sa'ar said it was "outrageous" that the UK had sanctioned the two ministers. He also said he had spoken with Mr Netanyahu and that an Israeli response would be decided at a "special government meeting early next week". The countries have used the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020 to designate the ministers "involved persons". What can't they do?
Powys County Times
an hour ago
- Powys County Times
UN urges UK to negotiate new Chagos deal that allows islanders to return
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer faces calls to suspend his deal handing the Chagos Islands back to Mauritius after UN experts criticised its treatment of the Chagossian people. The deal, agreed last month after long-running negotiations, returns sovereignty of the islands to Mauritius, but will see the UK lease back a military base on Diego Garcia, the largest of the islands. But a panel of experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council said retaining the base and continuing to bar Chagossians from Diego Garcia 'appears to be at variance with the Chagossians' right to return'. The Chagossians were expelled from the islands between 1965 and 1973 to make way for the joint UK-US base and have not been allowed to return. Although the UK-Mauritius deal includes a £40 million trust fund for the benefit of the Chagossians, the UN experts expressed concern that this would not provide an 'effective remedy' for the islanders. They also criticised an apparent lack of consultation of the islanders prior to the deal, saying: 'We are gravely concerned about the lack of meaningful participation of Chagossians in processes that have led to the agreement.' The experts added: 'In light of these significant concerns, we call for the ratification of the agreement to be suspended and for a new agreement to be negotiated that fully guarantees the rights of the Chagossian people to return to all islands of the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia.' Conservative shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel urged the Government to 'do the right thing (and) stop this'. She said: 'We have been warning from the start that this deal is bad for British taxpayers and bad for the Chagossian people. 'Now even the United Nations is saying the very same. 'Labour has completely ignored this community from the get-go, and failed to consult with them at every step of the way. 'It is why I have introduced a Bill in Parliament that would block the (agreement) and force the Government to speak to the people at the heart of their surrender plans.' The deal follows a 2019 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice saying the islands should be handed over to Mauritius. As well as the fund for Chagossians, the UK has agreed to pay at least £120 million a year for 99 years in order to lease back the Diego Garcia base – a total cost of at least £13 billion in cash terms. The deal also includes provisions preventing development on the rest of the archipelago without the UK's consent, which the Government has argued will prevent countries such as China setting up their own facilities. The agreement has also been backed by the United States.
