Latest news with #UK-EU
CTV News
6 hours ago
- Politics
- CTV News
U.K. will recognize Palestinian state unless Israel agrees to a ceasefire: Starmer
Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer speaks during a reception following the UK-EU summit, in London, May 19, 2025. (Hannah McKay/Pool via AP) LONDON — The U.K. will recognize a Palestinian state in September unless Israel agrees to a ceasefire in Gaza, allows the UN to bring in aid and takes other steps toward long-term peace, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Tuesday. Starmer called ministers together for a rare summertime Cabinet meeting to discuss the situation in Gaza. He told them that Britain will recognize a state of Palestine before the United Nations General Assembly, 'unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, reaches a ceasefire, makes clear there will be no annexation in the West Bank, and commits to a long-term peace process that delivers a two state solution.' He also said Hamas must release all the hostages it holds, agree to a ceasefire, 'accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza, and commit to disarmament.' Starmer said in a televised statement that his government will assess in September 'how far the parties have met these steps' before making a final decision on recognition. Britain has long supported the idea of an independent Palestinian state existing alongside Israel, but has said recognition should come as part of a negotiated two-state solution to the conflict. Pressure to formally recognize Palestinian statehood has mounted since French President Emmanuel Macron announced that his country will become the first major Western power to recognize a Palestinian state in September. More than 250 of the 650 lawmakers in the House of Commons have signed a letter urging the government to recognize a Palestinian state. Starmer said that despite the set of conditions he set out, Britain believes that 'statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people.'
Arab News
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Arab News
UK-EU migration progress welcome but more must be done
Two visits to London in consecutive weeks this month, first by French President Emmanuel Macron and then German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, were a clear demonstration that the UK and leading EU countries are absolutely determined to put the debacle of Brexit behind them and embark on a healing journey, one which will enable them to deal constructively with the common challenges and opportunities they encounter — and all in a cordial spirit. The visits and the agreements and understandings reached during the talks announced the return of the informal E3 group of France, Germany and the UK as the backbone and driving force of European security. All three leaders were keen to display unity, regardless of whether the UK is inside or outside the EU, stressing that it is important not to let the past hold back close UK-EU cooperation. One of the issues that dominated both visits, particularly Macron's, was of stopping, or at least substantially reducing, irregular migration, mainly the arrival of immigrants on small boats. According to the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, about 37,000 people were detected crossing the English Channel in small boats last year. The first half of 2025 has seen an increasing number of people attempt this dangerous and costly journey, proving that the current deterrent measures hardly work. Tragically, the increase in the number of crossings also led to a record number of deaths — at least 82 people, including 14 children, in 2024. Migration is not a simple issue, not in terms of the reasons behind it, the legality of it or how it affects the countries of origin and destination. First, migration is a human trait — it has been part of humanity from the dawn of history and is done for economic, social, political and, increasingly, for environmental reasons. Without exploring and addressing these reasons, people will continue to look for routes to enter countries that promise them a safer and better life. Second, lumping together all the different types of migration muddles the public discourse. There are: economic migrants, which all European countries need; asylum seekers, who these countries have a moral and legal obligation to help; and those who are arriving for family reasons or to study. And, yes, there are those who arrive illegally. These are all different categories of migration that must be addressed according to their individual merits, while removing prejudices and biases against newcomers. Third, there is no escaping the fact that the discourse over migration has become toxic, divisive and fertile ground for right-wing parties and ultranationalist movements, which have no existence without it, and this endangers the stability of many societies and might lead to antimigration movements ascending to power. Lastly, it would be an illusion to believe that migration, especially the kind that most countries consider to be undermining their societies, can be stopped by legislation or by investing in better-equipped and more sophisticated border control forces without courageously investing in resolving the root causes. The 'one in, one out' migrant return deal agreed between the UK and France during Macron's visit is designed to serve as a deterrent to stop people from attempting to cross the Channel in small boats. The plan proposes that for each migrant the UK returns to France, another with a strong case for asylum in Britain will be allowed to come the other way. At this stage, it is unknown how many people will actually be sent away. And although those who are sent back to France will not be allowed to apply for asylum in the UK, one wonders how much of a deterrent this plan is. When more details surface, it will be possible to assess whether the number of migrants sent back justifies the cost and whether it can be scaled up when the pilot scheme comes to an end. But this does not, for instance, effectively deal with the smugglers who exploit the predicaments of those who are desperate enough to pay extortionate sums of money and risk their lives for a better future. Even going after the smugglers would not guarantee an end to small boat crossings, as it is too profitable a venture for more unscrupulous people not to take their place. A quick glance at the nationalities of those who attempted to reach the UK by boat between 2018 and 2024 reveals that 70 percent of them come from countries such as Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Albania, Syria and Eritrea. Fighting criminal gangs is necessary, but can provide only limited answers, as there is a demand for their services, and even securing borders and international cooperation cannot seal them hermetically. The discourse over migration has become toxic, divisive and fertile ground for right-wing parties and ultranationalist movements. Yossi Mekelberg Instead, there is a need to go beyond international cooperation and stopping irregular migration when the migrants are already en route or sending them back when they arrive. First, there must be an integral migration policy that promotes safe and orderly pathways and that establishes legal migration channels that meet the need for migration and the demand for it. But above all, the challenge — and the current record of the international community is not encouraging — is to solve the underlying political, economic, social and environmental problems that lead people to try and escape their countries of origin, whether temporarily or permanently. As long as domestic political instability, including wars, violence, oppression and corruption, is rife and there are no employment opportunities or access to basic needs, people will look for an escape route. A growing issue linked to migration is the worsening impacts of climate change. And the collective global neglect of this existential threat to humanity is bound to lead to more people attempting to escape hostile climate conditions. Programs like 'one in, one out,' as much as they are a welcome, proactive and cooperative move to stop irregular migration by small boats, do not go far enough. Only a holistic approach that recognizes the need for migration in the EU, that meets the drive for migration of those who embark on such journeys, legally and illegally, and, most importantly and drastically, that results in a substantial improvement of conditions in migrants' countries of origin can provide a chance to regulate migration to the benefit of all.
South Wales Argus
a day ago
- Politics
- South Wales Argus
Catherine Fookes MP on Monmouthshire and Westminster
From day one, I've aimed to be present across Monmouthshire and as accessible as possible – listening to residents at public events, surgeries, and on the doorstep. Over the past 12 months, I've attended more than 140 visits and meetings across the constituency, hosted at least 20 surgeries, and responded to more than 9,000 resident queries. My brilliant casework team and I have supported people through housing issues, benefit issues, and more - resolving more than 1,000 individual cases! But being your MP isn't just about being visible locally – it's also about standing up for Monmouthshire in Westminster. One of the biggest concerns raised with me is river pollution. I've made this a top priority – securing £1 million to clean up the River Wye, organising the first ever cross-border meeting on the issue, and lobbying both the Prime Minister and key ministers. I also helped develop and pass a new law banning bonuses for water polluters – a major step forward in protecting our rivers. I've also worked with Monmouthshire County Council to help secure £1 million to fix Inglis Bridge in Monmouth – raising it in Parliament and meeting directly with the defence minister to push for funding. And I continue to campaign for Magor Walkway Station, working alongside the Magor Rail Group and local Labour councillors to ensure that some of the £445 million in new South Wales rail investment comes to Monmouthshire. In Parliament, I've spoken up more than 100 times on issues raised by constituents – including crime, violence against women, transport, broadband, the UK-EU relationship, Gaza, and protecting creative industries from AI. I'm working hard to make sure Monmouthshire's voice is heard. Nationally, I'm proud to see the largest financial settlement for Wales since devolution – £22.4 billion – thanks to Labour Governments in both Westminster and Cardiff. We're already seeing the impact through new rail funding, reduced NHS waiting lists, and a pay rise for 150,000 workers across Wales. I know there's still so much more to do, but I'm just getting started. So what's next? After a year of listening and learning, I want to share just some of the key priorities I'll be focused on as your MP. Local economy and transport Growing Monmouthshire's economy is a top priority, and improving public transport is key. I'll continue campaigning to make Magor Walkway Station a reality – helping ease congestion on the M4, offering greener travel, and supporting local jobs. I'll also continue working to improve mobile signal and create more high-quality jobs – especially in our rural communities. Cleaning up our rivers Across Monmouthshire, one of the biggest issues people care about is river pollution – something I've heard through emails, doorstep conversations, and my recent constituency-wide survey. We all want our rivers back, and we're not asking for much – just clean, swimmable water and thriving wildlife, not sewage spills and excuses. I welcome the UK Government's announcement of the biggest reforms in a generation to the water sector – including over £100 billion of investment and the scrapping of Ofwat, to be replaced with a new single powerful regulator intended to deliver tougher enforcement and greater accountability, as well as a new Water Ombudsman. However, I know there's still so much more to do. I'll keep pressing both UK and Welsh Government for serious action to clean up our rivers for good. Tackling violence and crime As a member of the Women and Equalities Committee, I remain focused on tackling violence against women and girls – particularly financial abuse through the Child Maintenance Service. I'll keep pushing the Government to meet its target of halving violence against women, and for more police officers on streets all over Monmouthshire to help tackle anti-social behaviour and keep residents safe. Being visible and accessible And of course, one of my top priorities is to be as accessible as possible – out in the community, working on the issues that matter to you, not tied up in Westminster. I want to help as many of you as possible, to listen to your issues, understand how I can help, and do everything I can to improve your lives. I became an MP to help people in my community – and that's exactly what I aim to do. I'll always be here to listen, take action, and keep fighting for Monmouthshire every single day. If you need my help, please get in touch via or call 01291 200 139.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The UK's weak economic growth and Brexit: Is the worst over?
Nine years after the vote on Brexit, the latest UK economic indicators send a strong message about an ailing economy that is yet to emerge from the shadows of the 'leave' vote. According to experts, some of the negative impacts of Brexit will endure. GDP has been contracting for two consecutive months, coupled with rising inflation and unemployment, and accompanied by a highly uncertain geopolitical environment and trade wars. UK GDP grew by 0.7% quarter-on-quarter in the first three months of 2025, but monthly data shows that the output contracted 0.1% in May after a 0.3% decline in April. According to S&P Global Ratings, these figures put the economy on course for 0.1% GDP growth in the second quarter, if there is no growth in June. Inflation increased to 3.6% in June — up from 3.4% in May and slightly ahead of expectations. This ties the hands of the Bank of England, which is aiming for a 2% inflation target before it lowers the benchmark rate, currently sitting at 4.25%. These weak datasets indicate that the UK has 'little spare capacity to grow,' Marion Amiot, Chief UK Economist at S&P Global Ratings, told Euronews Business. Some hope that the UK will be able to boost its GDP through exports, supported by trade agreements, including the latest with the US. However, exports alone might not be enough to fix a fundamental problem: the UK is contending with cripplingly low productivity. According to Amiot, productivity woes partially stem from Brexit. 'It has contributed to reducing the UK's labour supply and pulled the brakes on investment on the back of uncertainty in the years following the referendum,' she said. She added that sluggishness in the key financial services sector has also been playing a role: 'Productivity growth in the UK has been particularly weak since the Great Financial Crisis, especially in the financial sector.' UK labour statistics are also signalling a difficult path ahead for the economy. The number of job vacancies has been falling since April 2022. Unemployment in the country has been on the rise since August 2024, and sat at 4.7% in May, the highest level in four years. Related What would a UK-EU thaw mean for financial services? Brexit impact keeps getting worse, economists warn As poor productivity limits wage growth, this is expected to slow inflation. 'Wage growth has slowed, and unemployment has risen again. For the Bank of England, this is a sign of growing slack in the labour market, which is likely to ease inflationary pressures, and means it can cut rates sooner rather than later,' said Sarah Coles, head of personal finance at Hargreaves Lansdown. Job vacancies have also been falling due to higher costs, partially attributed to the UK government's decision to increase national insurance contributions, a cost that employers pay for every person on the payroll. What Brexit really cost the UK Nine years after the referendum, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) assessed the economic impact of Brexit. Researchers came to the conclusion that — since 2020 — withdrawal from the EU has led to reduced productivity, lowering GDP by 4%, and trade by about 15%, in both goods and services, compared to a 'remain scenario'. Brexit has also had a sizeable impact on shrinking investments. According to John Springford, an associate fellow at the London-based think-tank Centre for European Reform, Brexit has cost the state £40 billion (€46.1bn) since 2019. 'The 2019-2024 parliament raised taxes by around £100 billion, and if we take the OBR's 4% loss of productivity to be the true figure, £40 billion of those tax rises were needed because of EU withdrawal,' he wrote in a recent study. Is the worst over? 'Brexit is going to have a long-term impact on UK growth beyond the initial fallout seen in trade,' said Amiot, adding that 'with a smaller pool of workers and weaker competition leading to lower productivity, the capacity of the UK to grow will remain durably lower'. She clarified: 'That being said, most of the large impacts are likely behind us.' The years following Brexit came with an increased uncertainty for businesses, and left a sizeable impact on investment, which stagnated for five years, before it returned to growth. Investment is now rising again and has surpassed its pre-Brexit referendum levels. According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) and business investment both increased to record levels in the first quarter of 2025. Trade with the EU also struggled, but that could have been partially attributed to a range of other factors, including the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the global slowdown of trade in goods. 'Although much of the initial economic disruption has likely faded as firms adjusted, Brexit still appears to be weighing on export levels and GDP,' Andrew Hunter, Associate Director at Moody's Analytics, told Euronews Business. He added that goods exports to the EU are still 16% lower in real terms, compared to the end of 2019 (before the pandemic and before the UK began leaving the EU). 'And goods exports to non-EU countries have actually performed even worse,' Hunter said. He added that the UK has significantly lagged behind other advanced economies in this respect, due to a 'broader hit to the export sector from Brexit-related trade barriers (with many firms choosing to stop exporting altogether due to the added costs and paperwork).' Many hope the recent trade deal with the US will improve the economy by attracting investment into the country. And the US-UK trade deal provides relief for certain industries in particular. While the EU is finalising its potential countermeasures, including a tariff on US aircraft imports, almost certain to attract a retaliation, the UK has secured free trade for its aerospace sector. Yet, experts are sceptical about the overall contribution of the trade deal to the UK economy. S&P Global Ratings estimates 'that US tariffs are going to represent a direct drag on UK GDP of around 0.1 percentage point this year and next,' partly due to weaker global demand. And other trade deals are also unlikely to boost exports too much. 'The UK government's recent 'reset' deal with the EU has eased some trade barriers, particularly for food and agriculture, but further progress is expected to be slow,' said Hunter, adding that he doesn't expect a strong export rebound in light of global trade uncertainty. According to Springford, Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) signed since Brexit have had a very limited impact. 'The macroeconomic benefit of the new FTAs the UK has signed is very small, only offsetting the 4% loss from Brexit by about 0.2%. Even if a full FTA were signed with the US, that would rise to about 0.35%.' Related UK decision to leave EU a 'disaster' costing thousands of jobs - Lord Mayor A clouded UK economic outlook In the short term, the currently ailing economic output has been fuelling expectations that the government will have to make up for the missing tax revenue by hiking tax rates in the second half of the year, further constricting GDP growth. In the long run, experts agree that the UK's growth will be slower than if it had stayed in the EU. This is due to the fact that the structural changes associated with losing access to the EU market have meant that the UK is missing out on workers, investment and trade opportunities. Looking ahead, the primary source of uncertainty and risk remains productivity, according to the Chief UK Economist at S&P Global Ratings. 'While most forecasts anticipate a rebound in productivity that could support stronger growth, the outlook is clouded by uncertainty around the implementation of government growth policies and the pace at which AI technologies will be adopted,' Amiot said. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data
Spectator
22-07-2025
- Business
- Spectator
The problem of striking a defence deal with the EU
The UK-EU summit in London in May at which a new relationship between the parties was agreed seems a long time ago now. In fact, it is barely eight weeks, but we live in a world which has supercharged Harold Wilson's mordant dictum that 'a week is a long time in politics'. They seem like aeons now. One major subject at the summit was the EU's financial instrument Security Action for Europe (Safe). This is a fund of €150 billion (£130 billion) which will provide loans for member states to undertake urgent, large-scale defence procurement projects, with the aim of addressing capability gaps and boosting the European defence industry's production capacity. However, Brussels makes clear that 'beneficiary member states will have to carry out, in principle, common procurements involving at least two participating countries to qualify for the loans'. It is now clear that the UK will need to pay a fee to participate in this scheme. The amount has not yet been fixed, but EU diplomats reason that 'since British businesses would receive EU money to create jobs and expand capacity under the scheme, London should recompense Brussels'. France is said to be pushing for a significant contribution, while others, including Germany, are keen not to set the tariff so high that the UK does not participate at all. This should come as no surprise. The prima facie terms of the Safe scheme, initially excluding the US and the UK (between them home to ten of the world's twenty biggest defence contractors), left French and German manufacturers like Thales, Rheinmetall and KNDS at the head of the queue to benefit from new spending. Thales and KNDS, as well as Naval Group and Safran, are, as it happens, part-owned by the French state. In these circumstances, the question of who benefits was not a particularly challenging one. Surely this wasn't supposed to happen? At the summit in May, Sir Keir Starmer said that the UK-EU agreement would 'open the door to working with the EU's new defence fund – providing new opportunities for our defence industry, supporting British jobs and livelihoods'. That was, I argued at the time, one of the main motivating factors behind the agreement. After all, the rules for Safe make it clear: Safe will also allow acceding countries, candidate countries, potential candidates and countries that have signed a security and defence partnership with the EU, such as the United Kingdom, to join common procurements. Alas, there was a brief cautionary note that Britain's participation would be 'subject to a separate negotiation and conditions, including a financial contribution from the UK'. The European Commission's spokesman for defence, Thomas Regnier, told the Financial Times that, under the terms of the agreement, UK-based companies could provide up to 35 per cent of the value of procurement through Safe, but going beyond that would depend on 'an agreement with the EU on the precise modalities on aspects such as budget contribution and security of supply'. This was inevitable. The EU is a fundamentally protectionist organisation which seeks to gain as much advantage as possible for the economies of its member states. That is not a criticism, merely an observation: but it has highlighted the disadvantages of pursuing defence policy through the EU, of which we are not a member, rather than Nato, a dedicated military alliance of which we have been part for more than 75 years. (It is true the overlap between the EU and Nato is not complete: although acting through the latter would include the US, Canada and Turkey, it would exclude the military superpowers of Austria, Ireland, Malta and Cyprus.) The Cabinet Office has offered bland, reality-defying reassurance: 'It is in all our interests for the UK and EU to bring together our unique capabilities and expertise to make Europe a safer, more secure, and more prosperous place'. Indeed so, but perhaps that is a message better directed towards the French government, while there still is one. There have been pious expressions of hope that 'parochial national interests' do not undermine Safe's potential to contribute to Europe's overall security. But this is the EU, the bare-knuckle fight club of national interests. It has weak defence institutions but strong ambitions to accrete more competencies to the centre. And the hard-edged realpolitik of Brussels is showing the relative emptiness of the clutch of bilateral agreements Starmer has concluded. There is a clear choice. What is Europe's overriding priority: building the continent's defence capabilities or strengthening national defence industrial bases? The rules governing Safe effectively choose the latter; that is a matter for member states. But perhaps the British government should not have so eagerly chased a mechanism that was bound to work to our disadvantage. The Strategic Defence Review set out a 'Nato First' policy – perhaps we should have focused more closely on that mantra.
