Princess Anne to visit islands for Liberation Day
The Princess Royal is to visit the Bailiwick for Liberation Day celebrations.On 9 May she will be in Guernsey, followed by a trip to Sark the following day where she will meet residents who lived in the island during the Occupation. The Princess Royal last visited the islands of Guernsey and Sark in 2018 - this year marks the 80th anniversary of their liberation from the Nazi occupation.Lieutenant-Governor of The Bailiwick of Guernsey, Lt Gen Richard Cripwell, said he was "very pleased that Her Royal Highness will be here to share this significant anniversary with us all."
He said: "The occupation and liberation of these islands remain within living memory, offering a powerful reminder of the value of freedom and the cost of defending it."Organisers of Guernsey's Liberation Day said in January a royal visit had been requested as part of the celebrations.The event will mark 80 years since the Bailiwick was liberated from Nazi occupation and the end of World War Two.Christopher Beaumont, Seigneur of Sark said it will be a "privilege" to welcome the Princess Royal back to the island."Our island has many unique and often-unheard stories to tell from the Occupation, and this anniversary gives us an excellent opportunity to tell those stories and remember those who were evacuated."The States of Guernsey has said more details about the visit will be released closer to the time.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
How a Luxembourg village divided Europe
I am in the most EU-ish bedroom in the EU. That is to say, I am lying in a refurbished room in the handsome 14th-century Chateau de Schengen, in the little village of Schengen, Luxembourg. From my casements, opened wide onto the sunny Saarland afternoon, I can see the exact stretch of the river Moselle where, on a boat floating between Germany, France and Luxembourg, the Schengen Agreement was signed in 1985. This was the agreement that sealed Free Movement as Europe's defining ideal – one whose consequences are still unfolding. I've been in Luxembourg for a week, on assignment, and this week has given me an insight into why the nations of the EU undertook their bold, remarkable experiment of no more borders. The first and obvious motivator was war. Luxembourg can look oddly new, or newish. Ancient-sounding villages are full of blocky 1960s houses. Supposedly medieval churches are clearly modern, lacking the rich patina of age. This is because they were all flattened in war – especially the last German offensive of the second world war, the Battle of the Bulge – which raged across snowbound Luxembourg from December 1944 to January 1945. As a result, much had to be rebuilt or heavily restored. Reviving international trust took even longer, as the war here was brutal. In little towns like Diekirch, teenage Nazi conscripts casually gunned down innocent civilians in the streets. The angered Allies felt no huge need thereafter to take German prisoners alive. The yearning to overcome this evil trauma – and reconcile – was one big driver of the EEC, which reached its frontierless, post-national apotheosis here in Schengen. But another was sheer practicality. Yesterday, my local guide, Anna, told me how she once had to show her passport every day to cross the Moselle to and from Germany. She can remember the queues and frustration. She recalls a crimped, claustrophobic Europe – like an office with too many cubicles. Nowadays the quaint old customs houses have been turned into tourist bureaux or posh chocolatiers, and everyone breezes between countries with total freedom. The other day I drove a meandering route through the rustling green winelands and must have crossed between Lux and DE half a dozen times, barely noticing. At its best, Schengen is indeed wonderful. But there's the geopolitical rub. Schengen at its Platonic best is magnificent. In practice, it may be turning into a tragic failure. A primary reason is migration – not within Europe, but without. To illustrate my point, Anna told me another story of Luxembourg. She explained how, in the 1970s, the now-prospering little Duchy required workers. As she put it, with bracing candour: 'We chose the Portuguese because they were poor and wanted the work, but also because they are European, Christian, Catholic, like us. We felt they would assimilate.' And so they have. You can see unexpectedly good selections of Douro wines in Luxembourg supermarkets. Otherwise, the 15 per cent of the population that is Portuguese is barely discernible. Schengen might, perhaps, be in much less trouble if every other country had followed those careful Luxembourg policies. But they didn't. France drew people from its old empire – Algeria, Morocco, sub-Saharan Africa. Germany imported millions of Turks, then another million Syrians under Merkel's idealistic Willkommen policy of 2015. Britain turned to the Caribbean, then Pakistan, India, Bangladesh. Combining open internal borders with sovereign external migration policies – inviting millions from far outside Europe – was, in retrospect, bound to create a problem. It's like a flat share where everyone agrees to leave their doors open and split the rent, but each person gets to invite their own guests, who then stay forever, use the bathroom, and host loud parties. Irritation is guaranteed. Some housemates will get seriously annoyed. Take, for example, the Somali migrant population in Holland. Tens of thousands of them moved to the UK under Free Movement. The UK could do nothing to stop this – as Britons duly noted. This is one example of how Free Movement, which peaked with Schengen, led quite directly to Brexit. It was perhaps sheer bad luck that Schengen coincided with one of the most ill-conceived experiments of recent times: multiculturalism plus mass immigration. Or maybe it wasn't coincidence, and they derive from the same well-meaning, liberal universalism – only this time taken too far. Frontiers are intrinsically sad – divisions within humanity made all too real Whatever the case, as I write this in my room in the Chateau de Schengen, I can also read the daily and unhappy news that springs from Europe's mass immigration experience: of riots and deaths in France following the football victory of Paris Saint-Germain; of another call for an inquiry into rape gangs in the UK; of a hard-right Polish politician becoming president, vowing to keep Poland migrant-free; of once-peaceful Sweden – now 'the bombing capital of the West'. Or I can read about de facto blasphemy laws in Britain and Denmark, introduced to placate militant Islam. And I can read of endless terror shifting across Europe untracked, leading even mainstream politicians in Germany, Austria, Italy to argue for the suspension of Schengen. Yes, of course there are multiple good, successful stories of integration and assimilation across Europe. But for many Europeans, judging by the remarkable electoral shift to the hard right, the good is now majorly outweighed by the bad. Is there any hope for that faded but shimmering Schengen ideal of a borderless Europe? I'd like to think so. Frontiers are intrinsically sad – divisions within humanity made all too real – even if Robert Frost knew what he was talking about when he said 'good fences make good neighbours'. The day is closing here in the Chateau de Schengen, and the summer sun sets lazily over the Auxerrois vines. They have a nice restaurant in the hotel, which has a classic French menu. I want to eat French food in Luxembourg while looking at Germany. It feels Schengen-y. But as the waitress brings my tranche de foie gras maison, the capricious Luxemburg weather turns. It's been in the forecast for a while – now it has arrived: a cold wind from the Ardennes is sweeping down the Moselle valley. The rain lashes the ancient gardens, and the waiters drift toward the windows, watching as the parasols surrender to the storm.
Belfast Telegraph
4 days ago
- Belfast Telegraph
Trump's tariffs ‘could see 1,000 fewer jobs in NI over next 15 years'
The Department for the Economy has released modelling of the impact of President Trump's tariffs on Northern Irish exports, which model a range of scenarios. Since the US President's 'Liberation Day' in April, there has been concern around the world about the impact of US tariffs on global trade and national economies. From April 4, the US imposed a 10% tariff on UK goods entering the US. After signing the 'Prosperity deal' between the two countries, the tariff on UK steel has remained at 25%, avoiding the jump to 50% imposed on other nations. DfE said it had used a framework called 'Computable General Equilibrium' to model a variety of outcomes of the tariffs. Uncertainty has accompanied the tariff policy as President Trump has already instituted pauses for a number of them, and has hinted at the possibility of deals with individual nations. There is also uncertainty as to what industries will be hit, as Trump has long favoured tariffs on steel, for example, but other industries such as pharmaceuticals have hoped to avoid tariffs altogether. The 1,000 fewer jobs does not refer to job losses, but to how many fewer positions would be created as compared to a situation where the tariffs were not imposed. The baseline scenario would still result in 800 fewer jobs being created in Northern Ireland, with a general reduction to GDP of around £85m, or 0.15%. DfE has considered four different outcomes, which include a 10% tariff that excludes pharmaceuticals, a 10% tariff that includes that industry, a 10% general tariff with a 20% rate for pharmaceuticals and a 10% general tariff that excludes aerospace products. While the overall impact may be low, the department anticipates a greater hit to exports within industries, modelling a baseline scenario reduction in the machinery sector of 2.24%. In a scenario where pharmaceuticals are hit by a 20% tariff, the department anticipates that sector would fall by 4.77%. The conclusion to the DfE report highlights the potential impact on the regions within Northern Ireland. 'It is also likely that many of the businesses impacted will be in specific geographic areas e.g. Mid Ulster and Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon council areas. 'This is due to the importance of the manufacturing and pharmaceutical industries to these areas, which will have implications for the regional balance agenda being taken forward by the department. 'In addition, the tariffs will negatively impact business investment over the long term which will serve as a headwind against efforts to increase investment and improve productivity.' The model is based on the impact to exports, and does not incorporate the changes to imports, or the effects of potential retaliatory tariffs from the EU. A tariff is an additional cost applied to imports, typically imposed on goods or services where they cross national borders.
Economist
5 days ago
- Economist
The man behind Trump's first tax cuts assesses the second
As a registered Democrat, Gary Cohn was an unexpected pick for Donald Trump's chief economic adviser in 2017. He came on a mission to slash taxes, but left during the president's first tariff war. Eight years later we interview Mr Cohn at the Reagan National Economic Forum, getting his take on the more-radical 'Liberation Day' tariffs and the 'Big Beautiful Bill' that would make permanent the tax cuts he crafted. Hosts: Mike Bird and Alice Fulwood. Guest: Gary Cohn, former director of America's National Economic Council under Donald Trump and former president of Goldman Sachs. Recorded at the Reagan National Economic Forum. Listen to what matters most, from global politics and business to science and technology—subscribe to Economist
