British-Irish Council to be held in Co Down
The 43rd meeting of the British-Irish Council (BIC), which was established to promote mutually beneficial development following the Good Friday Agreement, will have a particular focus on artificial intelligence.
Ireland's premier and deputy premier will be among attendees, along with representatives of the Northern Ireland Executive and the UK Government, as well as the Governments of the Scotland, Wales, Jersey and the Isle of Man.
Taoiseach Micheal Martin said relations across the islands are in 'a good place'.
He said 'I look forward to the BIC Summit when I will have the opportunity to discuss with our nearest neighbours our own shared, and international challenges.
'Relations across these islands are in a good place and there is always more that can be done to deepen cooperation and unlock potential to the benefit of all.'
Tanaiste Simon Harris added: 'I look forward to attending this BIC Summit, which is the first to take place in Northern Ireland since the restoration of the Executive and Assembly last year.
'The British Irish Council provides a very useful forum to discuss issues of topical concern across these islands.
'This is vitally important, particularly at a time when we are focused strongly on realising the potential of relationships across these islands.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
20 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Spending billions on unclean, risky energy? What a nuclear waste
Rolls-Royce pressurised water reactors have powered British nuclear subs since 1966, but small modular reactors (SMRs) aren't yet proven at scale anywhere on land (Rolls-Royce named winning bidder for UK small nuclear reactors, 10 June). Only three are operating worldwide: two in Russia, one in China. Argentina is constructing the world's fourth; is Labour simply keen to keep up with historical geopolitical rivals (Sizewell C power station to be built as part of UK's £14bn nuclear investment, 10 June)? The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) reported actual cost overruns of 300% to 700% for all four projects. Rolls-Royce claims costs of £35 to £50 per MWh; so should we triple this? The government says the SMR project would create 3,000 new low-carbon British jobs, but at what cost? The energy secretary, Ed Miliband, can't know the true costs yet, and three reactors doesn't scream 'economies of scale'. Yet £2.5bn is already 10 times more than Great British Energy has invested into simple, cheap rooftop solar, which democratises energy savings. The true cost of renewables must consider intermittency and balancing costs, but why not invest more in flexibility through distributed renewables and grid-scale storage? And what of energy security? SMRs may mitigate against Putin snipping offshore wind cables, but increased reliance on imported uranium, and a heightened nuclear waste security threat, are significant risks. Last May, the IEEFA concluded that SMRs 'are still too expensive, too slow and too risky', and that we 'should embrace the reality that renewables, not SMRs, are the near-term solution to the energy transition'. Has this truly changed? The climate crisis requires scaling all feasible solutions as fast as possible, but, with limited capital, we should prioritise those that make economic sense HillMBA student, Cambridge Judge Business School As Nils Pratley says, Great British Energy's budget has been nuked to divert funding away from local energy initiatives (11 June). But let's get away from the idea that SMRs are a cutting-edge technology. Rolls-Royce is proposing a 470MW reactor, the same size as the first-generation Magnox reactors. Their 'small' modular reactor, if it ever emerges, will use the familiar method of generating a lot of heat in a very complex and expensive manner, in order to boil water and turn a turbine. It will bequeath yet more radioactive waste to add to the burden and risk at Sellafield. In the meantime, if government SMR funding continues, it takes money away from opportunities for cutting-edge technical and social innovation, discovery and training all around the country, as schools, hospitals, community groups, network operators and all of us get to grips with renewables-based systems. This sort of innovation is necessary, it's already benefiting us and it needs full-on government support rather than uneasy compromises with an increasingly redundant nuclear DarbyEmerita research fellow, Environmental Change Institute I'm a Scot who moved to the US in 1982. I returned to the UK seven years ago. In my time in the US, I worked with a few contractors as a chemist and health and safety manager on a number of environmental clean-up projects, chemical, biological and nuclear. The nuclear clean-up sites I worked on directly and indirectly were Hanford in Washington state, and Rocky Flats, Colorado. The multibillion-dollar Hanford cleanup is ongoing. Most of the problems there are as a result of gross mismanagement of nuclear waste during the cold war. I very much believe in wind, solar and other environmental solutions to energy production. I am cautiously supportive of small‑scale nuclear energy, but outraged by this government's failure to include the costs of the disposal of past, current and future nuclear waste in its support of 'cheap energy'. Has Ed Miliband taken into account future waste management issues? Google Hanford cleanup to see the real expense. Can we trust this and any future government to protect the environment, public health and the taxpayer from future nuclear 'cost overruns'?Peter HolmyardEdinburgh The more I read about the government's nuclear intentions, the more it sounds like HS2 all over again, ie another financial boondoggle. Where are the detailed costings? What is our experience with cost overruns, eg at Hinkley Point C? What is the overseas experience with pressurised water reactors (the kind proposed for Sizewell C) at Olkiluoto, at Flamanville, at Taishan? Uniformly bad in all cases, actually. No matter which way you look at this, viz the future cost overruns, the facts that we consumers will be on the hook for them, that reactors are never constructed on time, that nuclear wastes are unaudited, that we have to import all our uranium, that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in 2023 that renewables are 10 times better than nuclear at lowering carbon emissions, all point to a remarkably poor decision by the government, sad to Ian FairlieIndependent consultant on radioactivity in the environment; vice-president, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
The Guardian
20 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Russia adviser Fiona Hill's alarming conclusion
Fiona Hill's assessment of the Russian threat to Britain is a classic example of how a seemingly rational argument based on a false premise and scanty evidence can lead to a mad conclusion (Russia is at war with Britain and US is no longer a reliable ally, UK adviser says, 6 June). It is especially alarming that this conclusion was reached by one of the three principal authors of the recent strategic defence review. The false premise is that Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine is the first step to make Russia 'a dominant military power in all of Europe'. Evidence that Britain is already under attack is provided by 'the poisonings, assassinations, sabotage operations … cyber-attacks and influence operations ... sensors … around critical pipelines, efforts to butcher undersea cables'. It follows that Britain's economy and society must be geared up to resist the Russian menace. Deny the premise and the argument for a 'whole society' mobilisation against Russia collapses. What it reveals is the strength of the warmongering mood of official Britain. This is not to deny that we have to take precautions against the real danger of a significant US pullout, perhaps amounting to rendering article 5 of the Nato treaty meaningless, and that the Russians can be quite ruthless in exploiting an advantage if they think they have one. But this is a far cry from proposing, as the strategic defence review does, a national mobilisation in face of an immediate and pressing Russian Skidelsky Emeritus professor of political economy, Warwick University, Richard Balfe Former MEP, Anthony Brenton British ambassador to Russia, 2004-08, Thomas Fazi Author and journalist, Anatol Lieven Senior fellow, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statesmanship, Ian Proud Senior diplomat, British embassy, Moscow, 2014-18, Geoffrey Roberts Professor, University College Cork, Richard Sakwa Emeritus professor of Russian and east European studies, University of Kent, Brigitte Granville Professor of international economics and economic policy, Queen Mary University of London Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Daily Mail
29 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Starmer stresses Israel's 'right to self-defence' after strikes
Sir Keir Starmer moved to ease tensions with Israel today stressing its 'right to self-defence' after strikes on Iran. But the PM urged a 'diplomatic' solution to rising fears about Tehran developing nuclear weapons as he called a Cobra emergency meeting this afternoon. Operation Rising Lion, involving more than 200 Israeli jets, targeted a facility in Natanz and the capital overnight - sparking alarm at the potential for an all-out war. The US was told in advance that the raids were coming, but the UK was not given any notice amid rising tensions over Gaza . In a call with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu this afternoon, Downing Street said Sir Keir was 'clear that Israel has a right to self-defence and set out the UK's grave concerns about Iran's nuclear programme'. But a No10 spokesperson added the PM had also 'reiterated the need for de-escalation and a diplomatic resolution, in the interests of stability in the region' in his call with Mr Netanyahu. Earlier, in a call with French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Sir Keir said a 'diplomatic resolution, rather than military action was the way forward'. Asked in an interview with Bloomberg News on Friday whether Israel was justified in its action, the PM said: 'I'm very concerned about the situation that is developing. 'It's obvious that for a long time we've had grave concerns about the nuclear programme that Iran is putting together and we absolutely recognise Israel's right to self-defence.' Kemi Badenoch has insisted Israel should be supported for stopping Iran getting nuclear weapons . The Tory leader said Tehran was an 'enemy' of the UK that had been behind attempted terrorism. While urging 'de-escalation', she swiped that the government should not be 'confused about whose side we're on', saying the regime developing such weapons of mass destruction would be 'catastrophic'. The US has stressed it was not involved in the strikes, but Donald Trump has said the regime must do a nuclear deal to avoid further action. Oil prices have surged on concerns about fresh turmoil. There are claims Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Commander Hossein Salami was killed in the strikes. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said Israel should expect 'severe punishment' in response. Sir Keir declined to comment on whether the UK would help Israel fend off any retaliation from Iran. Earlier Sir Keir said he would ' urge all parties to step back and reduce tensions urgently'. 'Escalation serves no-one in the region,' he said. 'Stability in the Middle East must be the priority and we are engaging partners to de-escalate. Now is the time for restraint, calm and a return to diplomacy.' The strikes appear to be the most significant Iran has faced since its war with Iraq in the 1980s. Foreign Secretary David Lammy, who has postponed a trip to the US amid the crisis, said stability in the Middle East was 'vital' for global security. 'Further escalation is a serious threat to peace & stability in the region and in no-one's interest,' he said in a post on X. 'This is a dangerous moment & I urge all parties to show restraint.' But on a visit to Scotland today Mrs Badenoch said: 'Iran is an enemy of the UK… we do not want Iran gaining nuclear weapons. 'If Israel is stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons they should not be condemned for that. That would be something I support.' The Tory leader dismissed the idea that Israel's actions were an escalation. 'I do not understand why this would be seen as an escalation. If Iran is about to acquire nuclear weapons, that is the real escalation. I mean, that would be catastrophic,' she said. She added: 'If Israel sees Iran getting nuclear weapons, I don't think it should sit back and put its feet up and say: 'Well, we're de-escalating'. 'Because the person, the country, that will escalate is Iran, and that would be absolutely disastrous for the entire world.' Asked whether she thought the UK should be helping Israel to defend against Iranian retaliation, she said: 'I don't know why the Government has chosen not to be supportive. 'There will be security details that I'm not familiar with, but we have supported them before, in you know, defending themselves against strikes from Iran. 'But let's, let's just remember that Iran tried to carry out a terrorist attack on UK soil. 'This is not an area where we should be confused about whose side we're on, and we can't just assume that warm words are going to stop Iran from doing something that will destroy our way of life.' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this morning that the 'operation will continue for as many days as it takes to remove this threat'. In a clip posted on social media, Mr Netanyahu said that Israel 'struck at the heart of Iran's nuclear enrichment programme' and 'the heart of Iran's nuclear weaponisation programme'. Iranian state television reported that the leader of the paramilitary Revolutionary Guard Hossein Salami was killed as well as chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces, General Mohammad Bagheri.
