easyJet states that post-Brexit, Brits travelling to the EU will need to ensure their travel documents meet certain requirements – specifically when it comes to their passport’s validity
easyJet advises passengers they will need “some form of identification” for travel both domestically and internationally(Image: Adam Gerrard / Sunday Express)
If you are one of the many sun-seeking Brits preparing for a European holiday, there are some rules that you should know.
easyJet has shared its guidance for those travelling to certain countries in the EU to ensure all passengers have a smooth flight. Under the ‘travel documents and information’ section of its website, easyJet states that passengers “need to have some form of identification on both domestic and international flights”. Below are the specific guidelines for travel to Spain, Portugal, Greece and France.
Spain
Under post-Brexit regulations, easyJet confirms UK passport holders travelling to the EU (except Ireland), or Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, the Vatican City or Switzerland need to meet certain passport criteria.
UK passport holders travelling to Spain must have a passport that is valid for “at least three months after the day you plan to depart from the EU or above countries”. Additionally, passports “must be no more than 10 years’ old on the date of travel to the EU or above countries”.
In addition to adhering to certain validity requirements, your passport should be in good condition(Image: Getty Images)
According to the UK government’s latest guidance, those with a full British citizen passport from the UK can travel without a visa to the Schengen area, which includes Spain, for up to 90 days in any 180-day period.
easyJet passengers flying to Portugal are also reminded that entry is permitted for a maximum stay of 90 days in a 180-day period without a visa.
Portugal follows Schengen area rules as well, meaning your passport’s validity must fall within the prescribed 10-year and three-month rules. Your passport must have a ‘date of issue’ less than 10 years before the date you arrive and have an ‘expiry date’ at least 3 months after the day you plan to leave the Schengen area (the expiry date does not need to be within 10 years of the date of issue).
easyJet also states that extra documents are required for children entering or leaving Portugal without a parent or guardian. According to the airline: “Children aged 17 and under, must carry written authorization to be able to travel to and from Portugal if they are travelling without their parent or legal guardian.”
easyJet’s guidance continues: “The letter must include the details of the adult who will be responsible for them during their stay in Portugal. For full information about the requirements please see the web pages of the Government of Portugal and the Government of the United Kingdom .
Greece
Remember that Cyprus is not part of the Schengen region, and thus different travel regulations may apply(Image: Getty Images/iStockphoto)
Given that Greece is also part of the Schengen area, easyJet passengers that are UK passport holders are subject to the same passport and visa regulations as those travelling to Spain and Portugal.
Meaning that those with a full British passport will also be able to travel without a visa for up to 90 days in any 180-day period. Additionally, the UK government website advises that even if you are visiting multiple countries “your total stay in the Schengen area must be no more than 90 days in every 180 days.
“It does not matter how many countries you visit. The 180-day period keeps ‘rolling’,” the website confirms. Additionally, if you are considering adding on a trip to Cyprus on your Greece journey, remember that Cyprus is not in the Schengen area.
That said, the UK government confirms that British passport holders can stay up to 90 days in a 180-day period in Cyprus without a visa. More importantly, any time you spend in the Schengen area does not affect the number of days you can spend in Cyprus.
France
France, also being part of the Schengen region, does not require British passport holders to travel with a visa for stays under 90 days. Non-EU passport holders travelling to the Schengen area are once again obliged to ensure that their passport is valid for at least three months from the date of their departure from the Schengen member country, according to the UK government website.
Though this requirement does not apply to holders of a Schengen issued residence permit or long-term visas.
An EU diplomatic service audit report, seen by Reuters and AFP, looked at Israel’s actions in Gaza and occupied West Bank.
There are indications Israel may have breached its human rights obligations under the terms of a pact governing its ties with the European Union, a review of the agreement shows.
According to an EU document seen by the Reuters and AFP news agencies on Friday, the European External Action Service said that Israel’s actions in Gaza were likely not in line with rules laid out in the EU-Israel Association.
“On the basis of the assessments made by the independent international institutions … there are indications that Israel would be in breach of its human rights obligations,” the audit drafted by the EU’s diplomatic service read.
The report comes after months of deepening concern in European capitals about Israel’s operations in Gaza and the humanitarian situation in the enclave.
“Israel’s continued restrictions to the provision of food, medicines, medical equipment, and other vital supplies affect the entire population of Gaza present on the affected territory,” it said.
The document includes a section dedicated to the situation in Gaza – covering issues related to denial of humanitarian aid, attacks with a significant number of casualties, attacks on medical facilities, displacement and lack of accountability – as well as the situation in the occupied West Bank, including settler violence, Reuters reported.
The document said it relies on “facts verified by and assessments made by independent international institutions, and with a focus on most recent events in Gaza and the West Bank”.
The audit was launched last month in response to the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza, in a push backed by 17 states and spearheaded by the Netherlands.
The EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, is expected to present the findings of the report to the bloc’s foreign ministers in Brussels on Monday.
EU-Israel agreement
Under the EU-Israel agreement, which came into effect in 2000, the two parties agreed that their relationship would be based on “respect for human rights and democratic principles”.
Suspending the agreement would require a unanimous decision from the bloc’s 27 members, something diplomats have said from the beginning was virtually impossible.
According to AFP, diplomats have said that they expect Kallas to propose options on a response to the report during the next foreign ministers’ meeting in July.
“The question is … how many member states would still be willing not to do anything and still keep on saying that it’s business as usual,” an unnamed diplomat told the news agency ahead of the review’s findings.
“It’s really important to not fall into the trap of Israel to look somewhere else,” they said.
The EU is Israel’s largest commercial partner, with 42.6 billion euros ($48.2bn) in goods traded in 2024. Trade in services reached 25.6 billion euros ($29.5bn) in 2023.
Israel’s mission to the EU did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment about the contents of the document.
Spanish PM Pedro Sanchez warns the spending hike would undermine EU efforts to build its own security and defence base.
Spain has reportedly asked to opt out of NATO’s proposed defence spending target of 5 percent of GDP, risking disruption to a key agreement expected at next week’s alliance summit.
In a letter addressed to NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte on Thursday, Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez urged the alliance to adopt a more flexible framework, according to media reports.
The letter, seen by the Reuters and Associated Press news agencies, called for either the target to remain optional or for Spain to be exempt entirely.
“Committing to a 5% target would not only be unreasonable, but also counterproductive,” Sanchez wrote, warning that it would undermine efforts by the European Union to build its own security and defence base. “As a sovereign Ally, we choose not to.”
Sanchez insisted Madrid does not intend to block the outcome of the upcoming summit. But any agreement on increased defence spending must be approved unanimously by all 32 NATO members, giving Spain leverage to delay or water down the deal.
Spain currently spends approximately 1.28 percent of its GDP on defence, the lowest among NATO members, according to alliance estimates. While Sanchez has pledged to accelerate the country’s path to NATO’s current 2 percent goal, he argues that going beyond that risks harming the welfare state and compromising Spain’s broader policy vision.
NATO’s push for higher spending follows calls by US President Donald Trump and others to share the burden more fairly across the alliance. Rutte has suggested a new formula that allocates 3.5 percent of GDP to core military spending and an additional 1.5 percent to broader security needs.
Pressure to increase defence spending
The United States, NATO’s largest military contributor and Ukraine’s main backer since Russia’s 2022 invasion, is estimated to have spent 3.38 percent of its GDP on defence in 2024. Trump has repeatedly claimed European allies are not pulling their weight, and has threatened to withhold support for those who fall short.
Sanchez, however, said rushing to meet a 5 percent target would force EU states to buy military equipment from outside the bloc, damaging the continent’s attempts to bolster self-sufficiency in defence.
The proposal also faces resistance from Spain’s political left. The left-leaning Sumar party, part of Sanchez’s coalition, opposes the move, while Podemos, not in government but often a key parliamentary ally, has also rejected it.
“If the government needs parliamentary support to approve spending, it will have a very difficult time in the current situation,” said Josa Miguel Calvillo, a professor of international relations at the Complutense University of Madrid, speaking to Reuters.
Italy has also raised concerns, reportedly seeking to shift the proposed deadline for the new target from 2032 to 2035 and drop the requirement to increase spending by 0.2 percent annually.
One senior European official told Reuters that Spain’s rejection complicates talks but said discussions are ongoing. “It doesn’t look good, indeed, but we are not over yet. Spain has demonstrated to be a steadfast ally so far.”
Holidaymakers are being warned that they could face fines or criminal prosecution for bringing an innocent sandwich into an EU country due to strict meat and dairy rules
03:51, 18 Jun 2025Updated 03:52, 18 Jun 2025
“To avoid fines or potential criminal prosecution, ensure that any meat or dairy products are not carried into the EU.”
British holidaymakers gearing up for a European getaway this summer have been given a stark warning about a deceptively simple blunder that could put them at loggerheads with EU border officials.
British travellers risk incurring hefty fines or possibly even facing legal action if they unwittingly transport something as innocuous as a prepackaged sandwich into an EU member state, thanks to stringent import restrictions on meat and dairy products.
Maryanne Sparks from European Waterways has alerted UK nationals: “If you travel to the EU from a non-EU country, you are not allowed to bring any meat or dairy products with you – this includes those you would find in a meal deal sandwich.”
In light of Brexit, Britain has been designated as a third country outside the EU, meaning British citizens must adhere to the same tight rules faced by other non-EU nations.
Maryanne warned further: “When arriving in the EU, you may have to undergo official controls by the authorities.
“If you are carrying any undeclared meat or dairy products, they will be confiscated and destroyed. Additionally, you may be fined or face criminal prosecution.”, reports the Express.
The European Commission has highlighted concerns that items containing “meat, milk or their products” carry significant risks for animal health across the bloc.
Holidaymakers could face fines or even criminal prosecution for bringing a sandwich to the EU(Image: Getty)
Providing advice to travellers, Maryanne clarified: “It is safe to consume these sandwiches in the airport and on the plane, but they must be disposed of either before you get off the flight or as soon as you enter the terminal at the other side.”
Travellers are warned: “To avoid fines or potential criminal prosecution, ensure that any meat or dairy products are not carried into the EU.”
However, there are a few exceptions to these rules. Parents can breathe a sigh of relief as powdered infant milk and baby food are allowed.
Additionally, you can bring up to 20kg of fish or 2kg of honey, as well as live oysters, mussels, and snails.
It’s essential to note that these restrictions only apply to individuals entering the EU from non-member countries.
If you’re travelling between EU nations or arriving from countries like Norway, Switzerland, Andorra, or Iceland, you’re exempt from these rules.
As the holiday season kicks off, experts advise Brits to carefully inspect their luggage and refrain from carrying prohibited food items to avoid any issues or penalties at the border.
As Canada hosts the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, from June 15 to 17, 2025, an orchestra of economic collapse plays across free economies like Canada, the United States, and the European Union. The conductor is not war or scarcity but a silent plague: Anti-Job Creation Syndrome, fueled by a job-seeker mindset where individuals, driven by a quest for stability, prioritize secure careers over the daring act of building enterprises.
Job creators, those rare alchemists who forge businesses from dreams, are the antidote, yet they are stifled by a culture that clings to caution. Canada’s G7 presidency must spark a global shift toward job-creating prosperity or risk a financial collapse that reverberates across continents.
The spark of entrepreneurial mysticism—a primal force weaving prosperity from village squares to global markets—has long defined human progress. From the wheel’s invention to Steve Jobs’ digital revolution, this unexplainable drive has birthed enterprises, from humble workshops to towering giants.
In Canada, small and medium-sized enterprises account for 50% of GDP, yet too many falter under job-seeker policies that favor bureaucracy over risk. In contrast, China’s job creators drive 60% of GDP; their billion entrepreneurs are a symphony of innovation. Canada’s G7 stage must champion this mysticism to counter the syndrome’s chokehold, lest free economies fade into a dissonant fog.
Free economies suffer because 99% of their economic teams are job seekers, trained to support enterprises, not start them. Job creators, wielding tacit knowledge—the intuitive brilliance of innovation—face a world that prizes explicit skills like accounting or law. Canada’s education system, like its G7 peers, churns out resume-builders, not enterprise-builders, leaving small businesses to wither.
Across the European Union, 50% of small enterprises have closed since 2020, while India’s multi-million startups thrive on risk-taking. This divide fuels the Anti-Job Creation Syndrome, where job seekers caution against starving the entrepreneurial flame. Canada must lead the G7 in nurturing job creators, not coddling job seekers.
The global economy splits into abstract and real realms. Abstract economies, like those of Canada and the United States, indulge in financial games—stock manipulations and debt bubbles—while real economies, grounded in value creation, flourish in job-creator nations.
Canada’s enterprises, burdened by $1.3 trillion in national debt, struggle in this abstract haze, unable to match China’s relentless advance. G7 elections, despite bold promises, fail to launch grassroots prosperity, blinded by job-seeker policies. The summit’s focus on digital resilience and climate change risks missing the primal need for enterprise creation. Canada’s leadership must shift this narrative to real economies, where job creators forge lasting wealth.
Canada’s G7 presidency is a clarion call to host a global summit, uniting nations to forge strategies for real economies rooted in value creation. The absence of bold economic debates to address declining productivity demands this reckoning. When 99% of economic teams lack the spark to grow small and medium-sized enterprises, the damage is profound.
How long will Canada’s enterprises languish in debt’s shadow? A summit could draw lessons from job-creator nations, rekindling the entrepreneurial mysticism embedded in every community.
Five steps chart the path: promote entrepreneurial education to inspire job-creators; incentivize small and medium-sized enterprises with tax breaks; invest in training that blends tacit and explicit knowledge; foster public-private partnerships to break dependency; and convene a summit to share value-driven strategies.
The world watches as Canada stands at Kananaskis, its G7 baton poised to conduct a new symphony. Free economies teeter on collapse, their job-seeker mindset a weary colossus crumbling under caution.
Why is Expothon Worldwide gaining global attention? An international platform for entrepreneurial innovation and authority on National Mobilization of SME protocols, now so focused on 100 countries. Why is it challenging to use immediately deployable methodologies for all massive SME sectors within the GCC, OIC, European Union, African Union, Commonwealth, BRICS, and ASEAN for national mobilization of entrepreneurialism as pragmatic solutions? Over the last decade, these insights have been shared weekly and reached approximately 2000 selected VIP recipients at the National Cabinet-Level senior government officials across 100 free economies. This track record of expertise and trust forms the foundation of its proposed strategies.
Population-rich nations like India and China play a vibrant melody; their billion entrepreneurs are a testament to the reward of risk. Canada must lead the G7 in unleashing job creators, not job seekers, by forging enterprises that light up the global stage. Free economies and G& have some bigger challenges, like facing the anti-job creation syndrome.
Without this mega-shift, the old economic model risks a grand financial collapse, leaving free economies in darkness. Canada’s summit is the last stand to ensure job-creators triumph, creating a future of prosperity for all.
Travel company Great Little Escapes has been removed from the ATOL scheme and ceased trading, leaving Brits with holidays booked through the firm in chaos
16:02, 17 Jun 2025Updated 16:32, 17 Jun 2025
Travel company Great Little Escapes has been removed from the ATOL scheme and ceased trading(Image: PA)
British holidaymakers are faced with turmoil as bookings fall through following Great Little Escapes being stripped of its ATOL scheme membership and halting its operations.
The Berkshire-based firm touted itself as a provider of the ‘best cheap breaks in the UK’, focusing on city breaks, while Your Holidays boasted a varied offering, including deals for hen and stag dos, LGBT getaways and bespoke packages.
Falling into financial difficulty, the company’s latest figures reveal a near £77,000 loss last year and a hefty £186,000 deficit reported for 2023, says TTG, the travel industry’s news outlet.
Finding out your holiday company has gone bust can be a nightmare for travellers looking to jet off for a much-needed break(Image: Getty)
In the UK, it’s mandatory for any business selling holidays and flights to possess an ATOL (Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing), providing a safety net for consumers’ finances. The ATOL protection ensures that customers can either continue their planned trip or claim a full refund if a travel operator collapses, reports Wales Online.
Following the company’s sudden downfall, ATOL stated they are “currently collating information from the company” and will issue guidance promptly.
But now hundreds of summer breaks are in jeopardy and holidaymakers are desperate for clarity.
The authority also issued explicit guidance for associated travel agents, noting: “If you are a travel agent of Great Little Escapes LLP and you are currently holding consumer payments which you have not yet paid to Great Little Escapes LLP, you must not use these funds to refund consumers until you have received instructions from the Air Travel Trust.”
The collapse of this latest travel agency is sure to unsettle those thrifty holiday-seekers keen on saving on their bookings to have more spending money for beachside cocktails and souvenirs during their getaway.
What to do if your holiday company goes bankrupt
So, what’s the next step if your travel firm goes under? What rights do you have, and how can you reclaim your hard-earned cash?
Discovering that your holiday provider has folded is every traveller’s worst fear, especially when you’re yearning for that essential escape. Thankfully, various laws and regulations exist to aid you in getting a refund should things take a turn for the worse.
Your first port of call should be to touch base with your travel agent if you arranged your trip through them, to confirm your booking is still valid.
All providers offering services within the EU are bound by consumer protection legislation. According to the European Consumer Centres Network: “If you book a holiday, rental car, accommodation or a flight in the EU, Norway or Iceland and run into problems, rest assured that consumer rights are in place to support you.
“If your flight is cancelled, your baggage is lost, your cruise doesn’t go smoothly, or you miss your train connection, EU legislation will ensure you obtain redress.”
In the UK, travel companies that provide packages, including a flight, and sell them to customers must protect your money through the ATOL scheme.
As the Post Office notes, this means that if you booked your overseas holiday with an ATOL member and it goes bust before you travel, you can apply to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) for a full refund. If you’re already on holiday when the company goes bankrupt, the CAA will arrange for you to return home.
ABTA, the Association of British Travel Agents, also provides financial protection for UK consumers who book holidays through ABTA members. This protection ensures that consumers receive refunds or assistance if their travel company goes out of business.
Package holidays and agency booking can also offer travellers extra reassurance and customer service. “Booking through a professional agent gives you the peace of mind that you are protected in the event of any changes to your travel,” said Sarah Davies, a travel advisor from Life Begins with Travel. “Even if just to have someone on the end of the phone to guide you through the process.”
Davies explained that many online travel companies weren’t members of ABTA, though, so it was important to ensure you choose a company with both ABTA and ATOL protection “so you don’t end up out of pocket and that you’re well looked after.”
Look for the ATOL logo when booking, and you should receive an ATOL certificate immediately after booking. You can also check a company’s ATOL status on the CAA website.
If you can’t reach the travel company, contact your airline and accommodation provider directly to confirm your booking and check that they’ve received your payment. If everything checks out, you should be all set to go on your hols.
However, if the booking doesn’t exist or you can’t get through to those companies, possibly because they’ve gone out of business, check your paperwork to determine whether you’ve ABTA or ATOL protection.
Making a claim
The Civil Aviation Authority notes that the refund process is quite straightforward. ATOL-protected consumers complete an ATOL Claim Form, and it then requests the documentation from the ATOL holder issued to the customer.
They will request evidence of payment to the ATOL holder or overseas supplier, depending on your claim type.
In some cases where you’ve paid by credit card, they may direct you to contact your card issuer for a refund. For more details, visit their website.
How to make a claim
Check your ATOL certificate or invoice to confirm that the trip was ATOL-protected and lists the ATOL holder.
Visit the CAA ATOL Claims Portal to submit your case as the Lead Passenger
You’ll need to provide an ATOL certificate/reference, booking and payment details, receipts for any extra costs
The CAA then processes the claim and may seek reimbursement through a credit card provider (Section 75), in some cases.
Will Travel insurance cover me?
Travel insurance doesn’t usually cover you if your holiday company goes bust — but some policies do include cover for things like “end supplier failure” or “scheduled airline failure.” It’s definitely worth having a quick look at the fine print to see if you’re protected.
Do I have Credit card protection?
If you haven’t got travel insurance in place at the point when your holiday company goes bust, you may be able to claim back your money through your credit card company.
To be eligible, you need to have paid more than £100 for your holiday or flights and booked directly with the holiday company or airline.
Next steps
Do not apply for CAA claims before they publish details about a failed ATOL holder
If you’re overseas, the CAA will inform you of the repatriation plan.
Upon failure, the CAA list is updated; find it on the ATOL portal .
Gather all documents: receipts, bookings, and communications; this will support your claim
At a glance:
If a travel company with an ATOL goes bust:
You’ll get a refund if you haven’t travelled yet.
If you’re already abroad, ATOL ensures you’re not stranded and helps bring you home.
It applies to package holidays and some flight-only deals sold by UK companies.
If something goes wrong:
First, go to the travel company.
If unresolved, and it’s financial or related to collapse, go to ATOL via the CAA.
For complaints not involving insolvency (e.g. poor service), escalate to an ombudsman or Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) body.
Russia’s Ministry of Defence confirmed on Sunday that it launched a strike targeting the Kremenchuk oil refinery, a key fuel source for Ukrainian troops in Ukraine’s Donbas region.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy slammed the attack as a “vile strike” on energy infrastructure, accusing Moscow of ignoring international appeals to de-escalate. Zelenskyy said the United States has asked Kyiv to refrain from targeting Russian energy sites.
Russia claimed to have seized control of the village of Malynivka in Donetsk, referring to it by its Soviet-era name, Ulyanovka.
Moscow reported making significant gains in Ukraine’s Sumy region, stating that its forces had pushed through enemy defences and caused major losses.
In a rare long-range operation, Ukraine said it struck a drone production site in Yelabuga, Tatarstan, about 1,000km (621 miles) inside Russia. The military said the facility had been used to launch attacks on Ukrainian civilians and energy infrastructure.
Tatarstan’s regional leader, Rustam Minnikhanov, said that a drone strike had hit a car factory near Yelabuga, killing one person and wounding 13. Ukraine claims the site is used to manufacture drones for Russian military use.
UK intelligence believes that more than 6,000 North Korean soldiers have been killed or injured while fighting alongside Moscow’s forces in Russia’s Kursk region. The United Kingdom said the figure represents more than half of the 11,000 North Korean troops originally deployed, highlighting Pyongyang’s growing role in supporting Moscow’s war effort.
Diplomacy
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called for increased pressure on Russia to achieve a ceasefire, urging the Group of Seven (G7) nations to strengthen sanctions against Moscow when they meet in Canada on Monday. Zelenskyy will attend the meeting.
French President Emmanuel Macron said he plans to ask United States President Donald Trump if Washington is prepared to back stronger sanctions if Russia continues to refuse to agree to a ceasefire.
The White House confirmed that Trump would meet Zelenskyy for bilateral talks.
Russia said it had not received a single Russian corpse in return, accusing Ukraine of not upholding the agreement reached in Istanbul, which would see both sides hand over as many as 6,000 bodies and to exchange sick and heavily wounded prisoners of war as well as those aged under 25.
Leaders of the Group of Seven (G7) countries – Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the US – will meet on Sunday in the remote town of Kananaskis, Alberta, nestled in the foothills of the Canadian Rockies, for three days of intense discussions.
This will be the 51st G7 summit meeting. The first took place in 1975 in Rambouillet, France. Back then, it was known as the G6 meeting, as Canada did not become a member until the following year.
Russia joined the forum in 1998, making it the G8, but was effectively expelled in 2014, following its annexation of Crimea. Since then, the forum has been known as the G7.
Tensions at this year’s gathering, taking place June 15-17, are likely to be high for many reasons.
Intense discussions are expected about the unfolding crisis in the Middle East after Israel carried out massive strikes on military and nuclear sites in Iran on Friday. This year’s meeting also takes place against the backdrop of aggressive trade tariffs set – and then paused for all countries except China, which has now reached a deal with the US – by US President Donald Trump earlier this year.
Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney may also still be reeling from comments by Trump that Canada should become the 51st US state. In May, Carney stated that Canada was “not for sale … ever” during a meeting with Trump at the White House.
The G7 represents 44 percent of global gross domestic product (GDP) but only 10 percent of the world’s population. Within the group, the US is by far the largest economy. Having campaigned for the presidency on an “America First” message, Trump has frequently expressed displeasure about how much it contributes to global affairs.
At the last G7 summit attended by Trump in 2018, his national security adviser, John Bolton, posted on social media: “Just another G7 where other countries expect America will always be their bank. The President made it clear today. No more.”
So, who is coming this year and what will they be talking about?
Who is attending the G7 meeting this year?
Canada is hosting this year’s G7 meeting – it’s the seventh time it has assumed the presidency of the group. Besides leaders of the G7 countries and the EU, which is also represented at the summit, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has invited several heads of state from non-G7 countries as guests.
These include Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, who confirmed her attendance on Monday after saying in May that she was undecided, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was invited, but it is unclear whether he will attend.
The invitation for Modi has raised eyebrows in Canada. Relations between India and Canada have been strained since former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused India of assassinating a Sikh separatist leader in Canada in 2023. The World Sikh Organisation said Carney’s invitation was a “betrayal of Sikh Canadians”, and the Sikh Federation of Canada called it “a grave insult”.
But Carney, who is trying to diversify Canadian trade away from the US, defended his decision, saying it makes sense for the G7 to invite India, since it is the world’s fifth-largest economy and is at the heart of a number of trading supply chains.
“In addition, bilaterally, we have now agreed, importantly, to continued law enforcement dialogue, so there’s been some progress on that, that recognises issues of accountability. I extended the invitation to Prime Minister Modi in that context,” Carney told reporters in Ottawa.
In March, Carney also invited Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to this week’s gathering.
Leaders of Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa and South Korea are also expected to attend.
[Al Jazeera]
Will they discuss US trade tariffs?
During his current tenure as president, Trump has imposed broad tariffs on every member of the G7, as well as on most other countries around the world, sparking a global trade war in the process. Trump says he wants to reverse large trade deficits between the US and other countries.
However, it is unlikely this issue will be formally addressed during G7 discussions as Carney will primarily be trying to prevent a fallout over trade between the member states, many of whom are still scrambling to secure trade deals with the US.
The UK reached the first trade agreement with the US in May, when it agreed to reduce tariffs on US goods from 5.1 percent to 1.8 percent and provide greater access for US goods. In return, the US dropped higher tariffs, leaving only its universal 10-percent tariff in place.
Both the EU and Japan are hoping to strike their own agreements before the July 9 end of Trump’s 90-day pause on reciprocal tariffs.
Trump also had a rocky relationship with the G7 during his first term as US president and left the 2018 summit – also in Canada – in a huff. At the end of what was thought to be a successful gathering, Trump wrote on social media that he had directed his staff not to sign the final communique – the statement G7 countries issue in a show of unity at the end of the summit – and called then-Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “very dishonest and weak”.
Even though the communique is never usually formally “signed”, the incident pointed to Trump’s unpredictability, experts say.
John Kirton of the G7 Research Group, based at the University of Toronto, said Trump is less likely to cause a scene this year. He told Indian channel NDTV World that Carney is on better terms with Trump and noted that the US is due to host the G7 in 2027. “He doesn’t want to kill the G7 golden goose before he can produce the ‘biggest, best summit ever’ for the whole world stage two years from now,” Kirton said.
So, what will be on the agenda for this G7 meeting?
The G7 2025 summit website lists three core actions on the agenda for this year’s discussions: “Protecting our communities around the world”; “Building energy security and accelerating the digital transition”; and “Securing the partnerships of the future”.
If this does not dominate discussions entirely, other items on the agenda at this year’s G7 summit are likely to be global trade issues, the Russia-Ukraine war and China.
Israel-Iran crisis
Julia Kulik, director of strategic initiatives for the G7 Research Group at the University of Toronto’s Trinity College, said conversations on global peace that would have focused on the Russia-Ukraine conflict and Israel’s war on Gaza will now likely pivot to Iran.
“There will be tough questions from other leaders around the table to Donald Trump about what went wrong with the negotiations and about what he’s going to do to get Israel to de-escalate before things get worse,” Kulik told Al Jazeera.
The G7 “was designed to be a crisis response group with the ability to act and adapt quickly to international challenges … so in some ways it’s good they’re meeting this weekend as they’ll have the ability to respond quickly”, she added.
Robert Rogowsky, professor of trade and economic diplomacy at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, said there is no way G7 members can avoid the subject of the latest crisis in the Middle East. “That attack, counterattack, and the US declaration that it was not involved and its warning about staying away from American assets as targets is likely to be the first thing discussed, as it now creates the possibility of a real, all-out war in the Middle East. The major neighbouring parties will have to decide how to align themselves.” Rogowsky said.
Global trade
While Carney is hoping to cover uncontroversial themes, such as building friendlier global supply chains for materials like critical minerals, China may also be a focus of discussions.
Following a meeting of G7 finance ministers in Canada in May, the group issued a joint communique saying they would continue to monitor “nonmarket policies and practices” which contribute to imbalances in global trade. The statement did not mention China, but “nonmarket policies” often refer to export subsidies and currency policies that the Trump administration says provide an advantage in international trade. The statement was seen as a swipe at China’s trade practices, in particular its lending practices, which many see as adding debt for poorer countries.
Leaders of the G7 are also expected to discuss concerns about rising tensions between China and Taiwan in the East and South China Seas, as well as China’s expanding military presence there.
Russia-Ukraine war
A joint statement of G7 foreign ministers following an earlier meeting in Quebec in mid-March expressed strong support for Kyiv. It said finance ministers had “discussed imposing further costs on Russia” if Moscow did not agree to a ceasefire.
The UK and the EU announced a new round of sanctions against Russia in May, but Trump, who has been conducting discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin, said the US would not follow suit.
Sanctions against Russia and achieving a ceasefire may, therefore, also be a focus of discussions this week.
Global development
This could be a thorny issue.
Global development, particularly in African countries, has long been a primary focus of G7 discussions. However, this year, the US has made clear that it wishes to de-prioritise economic and humanitarian assistance for other countries. It has largely shuttered the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and says it plans large cuts to funding for other health and development initiatives overseas, as well.
What meetings could take place on the sidelines of the G7 summit?
US-EU
Donald Trump is expected to hold meetings with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Japan’s prime minister, Shigeru Ishiba. Both leaders are eager to agree on a trade deal with Trump as soon as possible to avoid reciprocal tariffs, due to come back into place following a pause in early July.
US-Canada-Mexico
Trump, Carney and Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum may also hold a separate meeting of North American leaders on trade and border security. In February, Trump postponed his planned 25-percent import tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods at the last minute. Canada’s then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Sheinbaum both agreed to increase border security to prevent the trafficking of drugs and migrants into the US, averting a trade war. Trump says he has been particularly concerned about the flow of the drug fentanyl into the US from both Canada and Mexico.
US-South Africa
South Africa’s president, Cyril Ramaphosa, has told reporters he will have a second meeting with Trump during the G7 summit, following the two leaders’ meeting in Washington, DC, on May 21, when Trump accused South Africa of “genocide” against white farmers. Earlier in May, 59 white “refugees” were flown from South Africa to the US as part of a relocation plan for white South Africans devised by the Trump administration.
Russia has returned the bodies of 1,200 Ukrainian soldiers to Kyiv, marking one of the largest repatriations of remains since the war began more than three years ago.
The return on Friday was made following an agreement reached during peace talks in Istanbul last month.
However, Moscow has claimed this latest exchange was one-sided, claiming that Ukraine has failed to return the bodies of its fallen soldiers.
“Today, Russia handed over 1,200 bodies of deceased soldiers of the Ukrainian armed forces to Ukraine. Not a single one was handed over to us,” an unnamed source told Russia’s state-run TASS news agency.
Russian presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky also claimed that Ukraine suddenly postponed the handover of remains and prisoner exchanges on June 7, without offering a public explanation.
Ukraine’s Coordination Headquarters for the Treatment of Prisoners of War said in a statement on Friday that forensic experts will now work to identify the remains they received, adding that the bodies were believed to be those of Ukrainian military personnel.
Earlier this week, Russia returned another 1,212 bodies and received just 27 bodies of its own troops in return.
Despite tensions, both sides have agreed in principle to exchange up to 6,000 bodies and prioritise the release of sick and severely wounded prisoners of war, as well as those under the age of 25.
EU protection for Ukrainian refugees
Meanwhile, as the war continues between Russia and Ukraine, the European Union has extended its temporary protection scheme for Ukrainian refugees by another year, allowing them to remain in the bloc until March 2027.
The EU’s move, announced on Friday, comes amid ongoing air raids and strikes across Ukraine, which have displaced millions since the start of Russia’s invasion in February 2022.
More than 4.3 million Ukrainians are currently registered under the scheme, with Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic hosting the largest refugee populations.
“While Russia continues to terrorise Ukrainian civilians with indiscriminate air strikes, the EU continues to show its solidarity,” said Tomasz Siemoniak, Poland’s interior minister.
“We will continue to offer protection for millions of Ukrainian refugees for another year.”
Fighting continues
Heavy fighting continued across the front line on Friday, with new casualties reported in both Ukraine and Russia.
In Russia’s Belgorod region, a two-year-old boy was killed and two adults, including his grandmother, were wounded in what officials said was a Ukrainian drone strike overnight, according to Governor Vyacheslav Gladkov.
Russia’s Ministry of Defence claimed it had intercepted 260 Ukrainian drones over the past 24 hours, while over the past week, Moscow says its air defences downed a Neptune long-range missile, 18 JDAM guided bombs, nine US-made HIMARS rockets, and 1,582 fixed-wing drones from Ukraine.
In Zaporizhzhia, Ukrainian Governor Ivan Fedorov reported one person killed and three injured in Russian shelling, while in Donetsk, Ukrainian Governor Vadym Filashkin said two civilians were killed and five injured across the region.
It comes after the Ukrainian military said it had struck the Rezonit electronics factory near Moscow, triggering explosions. The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine later reported 113 Russian assaults across key fronts, including in Lyman, Pokrovsk, Novopavlivka and Kurakhove.
The sun-soaked British Overseas Territory is a slice of the UK on the southern coast of Spain – and has been a popular holiday hotspot for Brits looking for a break closer to home
The Rock has red phone boxes, classic full English breakfasts, and a retro-style M&S(Image: Getty)
With its iconic red phone boxes, traditional full English breakfasts, and a vintage-style M&S, it’s like stepping into a 1970s British high street. But this isn’t a charming village in the English countryside – it’s Gibraltar.
Nestled on Spain’s southern coast, this British Overseas Territory offers all the home comforts of the UK, with just a few hints – such as scorching sunshine and a wandering monkey population – to remind visitors they’re over 1,000 miles from Blighty.
Gibraltar is home to familiar brands like Morrisons, Costa Coffee and Card Factory, while locals enjoy hearty roasts, afternoon tea and other British favourites, according to MailOnline.
Earlier this week, the UK reached a landmark agreement with the EU, securing a ‘fluid’ border with Spain – meaning travellers can cross the land border without checks, paving the way for a long-awaited post-Brexit deal.
However, those entering via land will enjoy seamless travel, anyone flying into Gibraltar from the UK will face two checks – one by local Gibraltarian authorities and a second by the Spanish acting on behalf of the EU, as the land border provides direct access to Europe’s Schengen area, reports the Express.
Despite the updated arrangement, the UK and Gibraltar have been quick to emphasise it does not affect the territory’s sovereignty. Locals still use the British pound and hold UK passports, even though they’re closer to Morocco than Manchester.
Perched on the southern coast of Spain, this British Overseas Territory boasts all the home comforts(Image: Getty)
Gibraltar could soon be a rising star in holiday destinations, with airlines considering new international routes to the British overseas territory. It promises visitors a unique blend of British charm and Mediterranean flair, as evidenced by countless TikTok expat and local creators.
Meg Leigh, a Yorkshire lass turned Gibraltarian, has been documenting her sun-kissed adventures on TikTok for four years, giving followers a peek into her idyllic life that includes seaside strolls and monkey meet-ups.
In a viral TikTok video, Meg reveals her love for her adopted home: “I wouldn’t move back to the UK. Four years on and I own my house, have a job for life and better quality of life. Three years later and as much as I miss my family & friends, I love my life in Gib,” while cautioning that Gibraltar can be “super expensive” and recommending job security before relocating.
Gibraltar has a a roaming monkey population(Image: Getty)
With Rightmove noting an average housing price at a steep £491,867 due to high demand and import costs, residents are feeling the financial impact, albeit tourists remain cushioned from this with no currency exchange worries and duty free shopping for luxuries like jewellery and perfume.
Another popular TikToker, Hannah (@lidbetterlidbetter) from the south of England, is racking up millions of views with snippets revealing her daily existence in this sunny sliver of Britain.
“It’s like the UK but actually in the sun,” she joked in one viral video, showcasing marching bands, traditional phone boxes, and familiar high street brands – not to mention sandy beaches, dolphin-watching excursions, and Gibraltar’s notorious monkeys.
“Welcome to living in the UK but in the sunshine,” she declared in another snippet.
She pointed out that while you’ll come across a McDonald’s, Burger King and Costa, the menus might vary – and that most locals are bilingual, blending English and Spanish in their daily chat.
“It’s small! But a real sense of community and excellent school and health systems,” she continued.
Perhaps the most peculiar feature?
The airport.
Hannah captured the moment cars paused to cross the runway, which oddly cuts through a main road. Traffic is stopped until planes have taken off or landed, before vehicles are given the green light to drive over.
“One of the craziest things about Gibraltar is probably the whole runway, airport scenario. It’s honestly so bizarre,” she remarked.
In a huge blow to Brits, EU countries have green-lighted controversial plans to lengthen the wait time before delayed passengers can claim compensation for both short and long-haul journeys
Brits could soon be stung by new compensation rules when flying(Image: undefined via Getty Images)
Customers flying with some big name air operators on short-haul flights have been hit with a brutal four-hour warning over a controversial shakeup.
After 12 years of wrangling, EU countries have green-lighted plans to lengthen the wait time before flyers can lodge claims for delayed flights. Currently, passengers have to be delayed by more than three hours before qualifying for compensation.
However, under the new stipulations – which still have to be negotiated with the European Parliament before they become law – short-haul travellers will only be eligible to claim compensation after being delayed by four hours or more, while those on longer journeys will have to sit tight for a six-hour hold-up before they can lodge a compensation claim.
The huge changes could have a negative impact of delayed travellers(Image: undefined via Getty Images)
It’s not all bad news though, as EU nations have also agreed to increase the amount of compensation for those delayed on short-haul journeys from €250 (approx £210.47) to €300 (£252.56). But, passengers hit with delays on long-haul flights could see their compensation reduce from €600 (£505) to €500 (£420).
The trade body Airlines for Europe (A4E), which represents companies such as Ryanair, easyJet and Lufthansa, and The European Consumer Organisation, the BEUC, both slammed the rules – arguing it would deprive the majority of passengers from being able to claim compensation. This is because most delays are only between two and four hours.
“Europe has been waiting for transparent and workable passenger rights for 12 years and member states have fallen at the final hurdle to deliver,” A4E said. “Member states have diluted the European Commission’s original proposal and introduced even more complexity.”
According to Yorkshire Live, German members of the European People’s Party have also expressed their disapproval, stating that ‘decreasing the rights to compensation for air passengers would be a step in the wrong direction’. “Reimbursement after a three-hour delay has been standard for many years and should remain so,” they added.
A senior EU diplomat is believed to have said that ‘no politician wants to say more than four hours’ at risk of dampening Europeans’ holiday plans. The news comes amidst accusations by 16 consumer protection associations from 12 Member States against seven budget airlines for imposing unfair charges on passengers’ hand luggage.
“The European Court of Justice has made it very clear that hand baggage is an integral part of the basic ticket price. Normally, there is no surcharge on the price as long as the hand luggage is of a reasonable size,” explained Steven Berger, a solicitor with the European Consumers’ Organisation (BEUC).
“All we’re seeing is a proliferation of airlines charging for this baggage… We’re calling for very clear rules. Passengers must be able to take one piece of luggage, a small suitcase or a rucksack.”
He added: “At the moment, there are two different opposing positions among the member states in the Council. On the whole, you have the camp of the member states that are going to defend the three hours to be able to benefit from the right to compensation and others that are going to ask for five hours and nine hours based on distance. So right now this is really the big source of conflict.”
*Prices based on EUR to GBP conversions at the time of writing.
What do you think of the proposed rules? Let us know in the comments section below
Airlines have different rules on the size of bag you can have – and how much it will cost you
The European Union is planning a change in the rules on carry-on bags on flights, which would cover planes flying between the UK and countries including Spain, Portugal, Greece, France and Italy. At the minute, some airlines charge passengers for each item they want to take aboard.
Different airlines have different rules – meaning the size of the bag you can take aboard and how much it will cost you – is different each time. The new EU rule would set a specific size of bag you would be allowed to take on flights operated by companies like easyJet, Ryanair and Wizz Air.
And the rule would stipulate that the take-on bag would be free, the airline would not be able to charge you extra to take a bag aboard the plane.
A woman checking the size of her carry-on luggage at the airport.
The rule would change the confusion that see people being charged extra when they get to the airport for bags deemed too big, or too heavy. And people being charged for a bag by one airline but allowed to take it without additional fees by another.
EU transport ministers this week proposed standardised sizing for free underseat baggage on EU airlines. It will become law if it is accepted by the European Parliament. The new rule would mean passengers are guaranteed one free personal item, measuring up to 40x30x15cm (including wheels and handles) – or which could reasonably fit under a plane seat.
The rules would apply to EU-based airlines, including when they are carrying passengers from a non-EU country like the UK to an EU country and vice-versa.
11 years ago, an EU court ruled that hand baggage should not be subject to an additional fee so long as it is a reasonable size. But the ruling did not define ‘reasonable’.
The rule will cover bags that can fit under airline seats
Currently, Ryanair allows a free carry-on bag of 40x20x25cm, while easyJet’s rules for a free bag are 45x36x20 cm, including wheels and handles. The new rule would cover under-seat bags, but does not currently mention bags you put in overhead lockers.
In November, five airlines in Spain were fined £150million for ‘abusive practices’, including charging for hand luggage. Spain’s Consumer Rights Ministry said it planned to ban charging extra for carry-on luggage.
Ryanair told the BBC it fully complied with EU law. A spokesman said: “If airlines were forced to include additional carry-on bags as part of the basic fare, it would reduce choice and drive up air fares for all passengers, which would harm consumers.”
Industry group Airlines For Europe said charging different amounts depending on baggage “allows passengers to choose the exact services that best suits their needs”.
Travel consumer expert Jane Hawkes, told the BBC: “A one-size-fits-all kind of approach would make it a lot simpler for passengers.”
The United States was once Ukraine’s most important ally – supplying arms, funding and political cover as Kyiv fought for its sovereignty. But today, Washington is losing interest. President Donald Trump, more at home on the golf course than in a war room, is pulling away from a conflict he no longer seems to care to understand.
Trump has not hidden his disdain. He has echoed Kremlin narratives, questioned NATO’s relevance and reduced Ukraine’s defence to a punchline. Even his recent comment that Russian President Vladimir Putin has “gone absolutely crazy” does little to undo years of indulgence and indifference.
He has not become a credible peace broker or a consistent supporter of Ukraine. His words now carry little weight – and Kyiv is paying the price.
Just last week, Ukraine launched what it called Operation Spiderweb, a coordinated series of drone strikes deep inside Russian territory. Dozens of aircraft were destroyed at airfields, and key military infrastructure was disrupted. The White House swiftly denied any US involvement. Trump responded by again threatening to “walk away” from the war.
Shortly afterwards, a second round of peace talks in Istanbul collapsed. The only agreement reached was a sombre one: the exchange of the remains of 6,000 fallen soldiers. That may help bring closure to grieving families – but it has done nothing to alter the course of the war.
Trump’s belated proposal – relayed by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt – that he supports direct talks between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Putin sounded more like political theatre than diplomacy. The moment had already passed.
It is Trump – not Zelenskyy – who now lacks leverage. And with the US pulling back from its traditional security leadership, the burden is shifting decisively to Europe.
Despite the brutality of Russia’s invasion in 2022, American officials have frequently treated Kyiv as the side to pressure and Moscow as the side to appease. European leaders pushed back – but mostly with words. They posted pledges of “unwavering support” yet hesitated to take full ownership of Europe’s defence.
Now, as US military aid slows and Trump continues to distance himself from the war, Europe faces a historic reckoning.
For the first time in nearly 80 years, the continent stands alone. The future of NATO – the alliance created after World War II to ensure collective defence – is in question. Ukraine’s ability to resist Russian aggression increasingly depends on European guarantees.
Can Europe meet the moment? Can a loose coalition of willing nations evolve into a durable security bloc? And can it do so without the US?
As of early 2025, Ukraine was meeting roughly 40 percent of its own military needs, according to the Centre for Security and Cooperation in Kyiv. Europe provided 30 percent and the US the remaining 30 percent. To sustain the fight, Europe must now do more – quickly.
The alternative would be disastrous. The Kiel Institute for the World Economy has estimated that if Russia were to occupy Ukraine, it could cost Germany alone 10 to 20 times more than maintaining current levels of support – due to refugee flows, energy instability, economic disruptions and defence risks.
One of Ukraine’s most urgent needs is ammunition – particularly artillery shells. Until recently, the US was the main supplier. As American deliveries decline, Ukraine is burning through its reserves. Europe is now scrambling to fill the gap.
The problem is scale. Europe’s arms industry has long been underdeveloped. It is only now beginning to respond. According to European Union Commissioner for Defence and Space Andrius Kubilius, the bloc aims to produce 2 million artillery shells annually by the end of 2025. This would just meet Ukraine’s minimum battlefield requirements.
A particularly ambitious initiative is a Czech-led plan to procure and deliver up to 1.8 million shells to Ukraine by the end of next year. Confirmed by Czech President Petr Pavel in May and backed by Canada, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark and other countries, the effort is one of the few on track to make a meaningful impact – if it arrives on time.
Germany has also moved beyond donations. In late May, Defence Minister Boris Pistorius signed an agreement with his Ukrainian counterpart, Rustem Umerov, to cofinance the production of long-range weapons inside Ukraine, tapping into local industrial and engineering capacity.
The United Kingdom remains one of Kyiv’s most dependable allies. On Wednesday, London announced a new 350-million-pound ($476m) drone package – part of a broader 4.5-billion-pound ($6.1bn) support pledge. It includes 100,000 drones by 2026, a substantial increase on previous commitments.
But war is not waged with weapons alone. Financial and economic power matter too.
Trump recently told Fox News that US taxpayer money was being “pissed away” in Ukraine. The remark was not only crude – it was also misleading.
Since 2022, the US has provided about $128bn in aid to Ukraine, including $66.5bn in military assistance. Meanwhile, the EU and its member states have contributed about 135 billion euros ($155bn), including 50 billion euros ($57bn) in military support, 67 billion euros ($77bn) in financial and humanitarian aid, and 17 billion euros ($19.5bn) for refugee programmes. The UK has added another 12.8 billion pounds ($17.4 billion).
These are not gifts. They are strategic investments – meant to prevent far higher costs if Russia succeeds in its imperial project.
Europe has also led on sanctions. Since 2014 – and with renewed urgency since 2022 – it has imposed 17 successive rounds of measures targeting Russia’s economy. None has ended the war, but each has taken a toll.
On May 20, one day after a reportedly warm call between Trump and Putin, the EU and UK unveiled their most sweeping sanctions package yet. It included nearly 200 vessels from Russia’s so-called shadow fleet, used to smuggle oil and circumvent global price caps.
Some estimates, including AI-assisted modelling, suggest the sanctions could cost Russia $10bn to $20bn per year if loopholes are closed and enforcement holds. Even partial implementation would disrupt Moscow’s wartime revenue.
EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas was clear: “The longer Russia wages war, the tougher our response.” Europe is beginning to back that promise with action.
From drones to shells, sanctions to weapons production, the continent is finally moving from statements to strategy – slowly but steadily building the foundations of Ukrainian resilience and Russian defeat.
But this momentum cannot stall. This is no longer just Ukraine’s war.
The US has stepped aside. Europe is no longer the backup plan. It is the last line of defence. If it fails, so does Ukraine – and with it, the idea of a secure, sovereign Europe.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
Party for Freedom leader hopes plan to get tough on immigration delivers election victory.
He has been dubbed the “Dutch Donald Trump”.
Geert Wilders has pulled his Party for Freedom (PVV) out of the coalition that governs the Netherlands in a row over immigration policy.
It has plunged the NATO ally into political turmoil and new elections.
After years in opposition, the PVV won the most votes in 2023 by tapping into rising populism in Europe with promises to reduce immigration.
Wilders has pushed for a 10-point plan that calls for the militarisation of Dutch borders as well as the repatriation of all Syrian nationals – something his coalition partners rejected.
Before resigning, Prime Minister Dick Schoof labelled Wilders’s actions “irresponsible”, coming at a critical time for Europe.
So was this a reckless or strategic move by Wilders?
And will it deepen uncertainty in the region, only weeks before a NATO summit in The Hague?
Presenter:
Tom McRae
Guests:
Henk van der Kolk – Professor of electoral politics at the University of Amsterdam
The Dutch government collapsed on Tuesday after far-right politician Geert Wilders pulled out of the right-wing coalition after a dispute over anti-immigration measures his party had proposed.
Wilders’ decision prompted the Dutch cabinet and Prime Minister Dick Schoof to resign.
Here is what triggered the government’s collapse, and what happens next:
Why did Wilders withdraw?
Wilders announced the withdrawal of his right-wing party, the Party for Freedom (PVV), from the 11-month-old right-wing Netherlands coalition government. Wilders said the other three parties in the coalition had failed to back his plans to crack down on asylum for refugees.
“No signature under our asylum plans. The PVV leaves the coalition,” Wilders wrote in an X post on Tuesday after a brief meeting in parliament with party leaders. Besides PVV, the coalition comprised People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), the Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB) and the New Social Contract (NSC).
On May 26, Wilders announced a 10-point plan to extensively slash migration, deploying army officials at the Dutch land borders and rejecting all asylum seekers. Wilders threatened, back then, that his party would pull out of the coalition if migration policy was not toughened.
The four parties cumulatively held 88 seats in the country’s 150-seat House of Representatives.
The PVV won the latest November 2023 election with 23 percent of the vote and 37 seats, the highest number of seats in the parliament out of all parties.
The majority mark in the House is 76 seats. The withdrawal leaves the coalition with only 51 seats.
When did Schoof step down?
After Wilders announced the withdrawal, an emergency cabinet meeting was called. After this, Schoof announced that he would step down, hours after the PVV withdrawal.
“I have told party leaders repeatedly in recent days that the collapse of the cabinet would be unnecessary and irresponsible,” Schoof said in the emergency cabinet meeting. “We are facing major challenges both nationally and internationally that require decisiveness from us.”
How did other Dutch leaders react?
Other leaders in the coalition called Wilders “irresponsible” and blamed him for putting his own political interests ahead of the country.
“There is a war on our continent. Instead of meeting the challenge, Wilders is showing he is not willing to take responsibility,” said Dilan Yesilgoz, leader of the VVD, which has 24 seats in the the House.
“It is irresponsible to take down the government at this point,” NSC leader Nicolien van Vroonhoven said about Wilders. The NSC has 20 seats.
Head of the opposition GreenLeft-Labour alliance Frans Timmermans said he could “see no other way to form a stable government” than early elections.
What’s next?
Schoof will now formally submit his resignation to the head of state, Dutch King Willem-Alexander. After this, elections are expected to be called. It is likely that the election will be held sometime in October or November, based on previous cycles.
As of May 31, polls show that Wilders’ PVV has lost a little of its support, from 23 percent in the 2023 election to 20 percent.
This brings the party almost at par with the GreenLeft-Labour alliance, which has 19 percent of support and 25 seats in the lower house of parliament, the second highest number of seats after the PVV.
The fragmented politics of the Netherlands makes it difficult to predict which party will win the election. It is unlikely for a single party to win the 76-seat majority and it takes months for a coalition to form. According to the Dutch election authority’s data, no single party has ever won a majority since the first direct elections in 1848.
What happens until elections?
Schoof has said he and the other ministers of the coalition will continue with their positions in a caretaker government until a new government is formed after elections.
The political crisis comes as the Netherlands is scheduled to host a summit of NATO leaders at The Hague on June 24-25. Mark Rutte, the current secretary-general of NATO, was the prime minister of the Netherlands from 2010 to 2024. Rutte was affiliated with the VVD.
Schoof had also been involved in European efforts to provide support to Ukraine in its war against Russia. In February, the Dutch PM was present at a meeting with other European leaders in Paris where the leaders pledged to provide Ukraine with security guarantees.
Mexico says tariffs make ‘no sense’ as Canada seeks negotiations to remove the levies ongoing.
In a move that has reignited trade tensions with key allies, United States President Donald Trump has doubled tariffs on steel and aluminium imports.
The new rates, which came into effect early on Wednesday, raise duties from 25 percent to 50 percent. Trump says the measure is designed to bolster the struggling US metals sector.
“We started at 25 and then, after studying the data more, realised that it was a big help, but more help is needed. And so that is why the 50 [percent tariff] is starting tomorrow,” said White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett during a steel industry event in Washington on Tuesday.
The executive order applies to all trading partners except the United Kingdom, which has reached a provisional trade deal with Washington during a 90-day pause on broader tariffs.
British exports will continue to face a 25 percent rate until at least July 9.
Allies seek exemptions
The hike is expected to weigh heavily on Canada and Mexico, two of the US’s closest economic allies and among the largest suppliers of steel. Census Bureau data shows Canada alone exports more aluminium to the US than the rest of the top 10 countries combined. Almost half of the US aluminium consumption is imported.
Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney’s office confirmed that “intensive and live negotiations” were ongoing to remove the tariffs.
Mexico’s Economy Minister Marcelo Ebrard slammed the decision as irrational, noting the imbalance in steel trade between the two nations.
“It makes no sense for the United States to levy a tariff on a product in which you have a surplus,” he said, adding that Mexico would seek an exemption.
The European Union criticised the decision, saying it “strongly regrets” the move and warned it could take retaliatory action, accusing Washington of undermining attempts at a negotiated settlement.
OECD chief economist Alvaro Pereira told the AFP news agency that the tariffs have already dampened global trade, investment and consumption, and that the US will bear the brunt of the fallout.
While several of Trump’s tariff measures face legal scrutiny, they remain in force during the appeals process.
Ryanair states that there are “different rules for different destinations” when it comes to travel documents. That said, we’ve outlined the travel guidance for the most popular summer destinations.
Be sure you are up to date on the latest travel document rules before entering the Schengen area(Image: PA)
Each summer, thousands of Brits board Ryanair flights seeking sun and surf in nearby countries. While many travellers are determined as ever to enjoy a European holiday, there are a few travel rules that should be kept top of mind to ensure a smooth journey.
Ryanair has outlined the travel dos and don’ts for holiday hotspots like France, Portugal, Spain, and Greece. Under the travel documents portion of its FAQs, Ryanair reminds passengers: “There are different rules for different destinations, so please be sure to check these before you travel.
“To streamline your travel experience and maintain a record of the necessary visa documentation, we are introducing an optional feature to upload the required visa documentation during the check-in process via our app. This will demonstrate that you carried the correct documents at the time of departure, to avoid fines or criminal penalties for travelling without the required documents.”
Ryanair has introduced an optional feature to upload required visa documentation during the check-in via their app(Image: AFP via Getty Images)
Spain
Ryanair confirmed on its website that: “depending on your nationality and flight destination, a visa may be required to travel.” That said, according to the UK government’slatest guidance, those with a full British citizen passport from the UK can travel without a visa to the Schengen area, which includes Spain, for up to 90 days in any 180-day period.
When it comes to travel to Greece, Ryanair’s statement about visas still applies – it depends on your nationality and flight destination. But given that Greece is also part of the Schengen area, those with a full British passport will also be able to travel without a visa for up to 90 days in any 180-day period.
That said, even if you are visiting multiple countries, the UK government website advises that: “your total stay in the Schengen area must be no more than 90 days in every 180 days.
British passport holders need to abide by the ’10-year’ and ‘three-month’ passport rules to enter the Schengen area(Image: Handout)
“It does not matter how many countries you visit. The 180-day period keeps ‘rolling’,” the website confirms. Additionally, if you are considering adding on a trip to Cyprus on your Greece journey, remember that Cyprus is not in the Schengen area.
That said, the UK government confirms that British passport holders can stay up to 90 days in a 180-day period in Cyprus without a visa. More importantly, any time you spend in the Schengen area does not affect the number of days you can spend in Cyprus.
France
France, also being part of the Schengen region, does not require British passport holders to travel with a visa for stays under 90 days. Though keep in mind that non-EU passport holders travelling to the Schengen area are obliged to ensure that their passport is valid for at least 3 months from the date of their departure from the Schengen member country, according to the UK government website. Though this requirement does not apply to holders of a Schengen issued residence permit or long-term visas.
The ‘date of issue’ on your passport must also be less than 10 years before the date you arrive. These three-month and 10-year rules apply for all travel to the Schengen area.
Portugal
Those flying to Portugal this summer via Ryanair are reminded again that entry is permitted for a maximum stay of 90 days in a 180-day period without a visa.
Portugal follows Schengen area rules. Your passport must have a ‘date of issue’ less than 10 years before the date you arrive and have an ‘expiry date’ at least 3 months after the day you plan to leave the Schengen area (the expiry date does not need to be within 10 years of the date of issue).
How to work out if your stay is within the 90-day limit
Check the date you plan to leave the Schengen area on your next trip.
Count back 180 days from that date to get the start of the 180-day period.
Add up the number of days you have already spent in the Schengen area in that 180-day period (you can use the dates stamped in your passport showing when you entered and left a country).
Work out how many days you will spend in the Schengen area on your next trip. Add this number to the number of days you worked out in step 3.
Check that the total number of days is not more than 90.
Judges say Berlin broke EU law by refusing Somali asylum seekers entry.
A Berlin court has ruled that Germany violated asylum law when it deported three Somali nationals at its border with Poland in a decision that challenges Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s aggressive new migration stance.
The three asylum seekers – two men and one woman – were turned back by border police at a train station in Frankfurt an der Oder, a city on Germany’s eastern border.
“The applicants could not demand to enter Germany beyond the border crossing,” the court said in a statement on Monday. “However, the rejection was unlawful because Germany is obliged to process their claims.”
Officials cited the asylum seekers’ arrival from a “safe third country” as grounds for their refusal.
But the court determined the expulsion was illegal under European Union rules, specifically the Dublin regulation, which requires Germany to assess asylum claims if it is the responsible state under the agreement.
It marks the first such legal ruling since Merz’s conservative-led coalition took office in February, riding a wave of anti-immigration sentiment that has helped boost the far-right Alternative for Germany party, now the country’s second largest political force in parliament.
Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt defended the deportations, saying the asylum system was failing under pressure. “The numbers are too high. We are sticking to our practice,” he told reporters, adding that the court would receive legal justifications for the government’s position.
Migration policies in doubt
But opposition lawmakers were quick to capitalise on the ruling. Irene Mihalic of the Greens called it “a severe defeat” for Merz’s government, accusing it of overstepping its powers “for populist purposes”.
“The border blockades were a rejection of the European Dublin system and have offended our European neighbours,” she said.
Karl Kopp, managing director of Pro Asyl, an immigration advocacy group, said the expulsion of the Somalis reflected an “unlawful practice of national unilateral action” in asylum policy and called for their return to Germany, the Reuters news agency reported.
The ruling also casts doubt on Merz’s wider migration agenda. In May, his government introduced a directive to turn back undocumented people at Germany’s borders, including those seeking asylum – a sharp departure from former Chancellor Angela Merkel’s more open policy during the 2015 migrant crisis.
Last month, the European Commission proposed a bloc-wide mechanism that would permit member states to reject asylum seekers who passed through a “safe” third country. The measure, widely criticised by rights groups, still awaits approval from national parliaments and the European legislature.
A major crisis is unfolding in Moldova, where Russia is using energy as a political weapon to influence the outcome of the autumn parliamentary elections. The first salvo came on Jan. 1, as Moscow halted the gas deliveries that had long provided low-cost electricity. Although Russia has since resumed gas flows to the pro-Russian separatist region of Transnistria, the rest of Moldova has been left to grapple with soaring prices, growing public discontent, and rising pressure ahead of a crucial vote. The goal, quite clearly, is to derail the country’s European path and tip it back into Moscow’s orbit.
As is typical in the course of its geopolitical skullduggeries, Vladimir Putin’s regime has deployed disinformation, distractions, and complicated moves aimed at contriving a version of plausible deniability.
A dangerous dependency on Russia
Historically, Moldova has depended on Russian gas via a complex mechanism involving the separatist region, where a large power plant generated electricity for the rest of the country. But on Jan. 1, 2025, both Moldova proper and the separatist enclave were plunged into an energy crisis after Russian gas supplies were halted following the expiration of a transit agreement with Ukraine.
It was actually Kyiv, engaged in full-scale war with Russia, that declined to renew the longstanding deal that allowed Russian gas to flow westward through its territory—but the move was telegraphed for many months, and alternatives existed.
Mainly, Russia could have easily rerouted gas to Transnistria via the TurkStream and Trans-Balkan pipelines, which run through Turkey, Bulgaria, and Romania. But it declined to do so, even as households and businesses in Moldova faced skyrocketing prices, and Transnistria itself remained without gas. Russia justified this by accusing Moldova of owing $709 million in unpaid gas bills — a claim that has been thoroughly debunked: An independent international audit commissioned in 2023 found the true amount owed by the Moldovan government to Gazprom was just $8.6 million.
In early February, the European Union stepped in to avert a humanitarian emergency. It provided €20 million in emergency aid to subsidize gas deliveries to Transnistria for 10 days — from February 1 to February 10 — enabling the region to restart electricity production for Moldova proper. This was from arranged external deliveries, supported through EU subsidies.
The EU then offered to extend this arrangement through mid-April with a larger €60 million package. But Transnistrian authorities rejected the offer, reportedly objecting to conditions that would have required greater transparency and price alignment with EU standards. Some analysts believe the refusal reflected a desire to maintain dependency on Moscow rather than risk deeper integration with the West. Others simply have concluded Moscow was calling the shots.
Indeed, by mid-February, Russia resumed gas supplies to Transnistria. Deliveries came through the expected detour involving the Black Sea, Turkey, and the Balkans. But it is no longer reaching Moldova—ostensibly by a decision of the separatists.
Moldova’s pro-European government, led by President Maia Sandu, is convinced these maneuvers amount to a deliberate attempt to punish its Western, pro-EU tilt and sway the upcoming September parliamentary elections toward pro-Russian opposition parties. In response, Moldova accelerated diversification efforts, sourcing electricity and natural gas from Romania and other EU partners—at far higher prices than before.
Russia is, of course, under no obligation to provide anyone with gas. But the timing of its move is no coincidence, and the impact has been staggering: In Moldova proper, gas prices are up 24%, electricity 75%, and heating bills 40%. Because of downstream effects, overall inflation is expected to exceed 30%, creating severe economic distress just months before the vote.
The energy crisis triggered a sharp spike in inflation in Moldova. In January 2025, the annual inflation rate jumped to 9.1% compared to a year earlier, up from 7.0% in December 2024, marking the steepest increase in recent months. This surge was largely driven by significant hikes in tariffs for heating, gas, and electricity, as well as rising prices for food and medicine.
The result is a textbook case of Russia’s energy leverage at work: create pain for adversaries, reward loyal proxies, and manipulate regional infrastructure to achieve geopolitical goals. In this instance, to erode trust in Moldova’s leadership and swing the election. If the pro-Russian opposition were to win the election, the result will be a global shock because in the middle of the Ukraine war, a small but strategically consequential European country will have fallen, seemingly voluntarily, back into the Kremlin orbit.
The episode underlines the need for a longer-term strategy: one that shores up Moldova, counters Russia’s manipulation, and keeps this EU-candidate country on track.
Why Moldova Matters
If Moldova is pulled back into Russia’s orbit, the consequences will ripple far beyond its borders. It would deal a serious blow to Ukraine, whose EU accession is closely tied to Moldova’s. A pro-Kremlin government in Chișinău could legitimize and make permanent the Russian military presence in Transnistria, which has been in place for decades, even though Moldova’s government has considered this illegal.
A move in this direction would further destabilize NATO’s eastern flank and threaten Romania, Poland, and the entire Black Sea region. Worse still, inviting Russian troops into Moldova proper itself would undermine Moldovan sovereignty and European security.
Success in Moldova would also validate this model of energy blackmail and electoral interference. If left unchecked, similar tactics could be deployed in the Baltic states, the Balkans, and other vulnerable regions, many of which still rely on Russian energy or face internal political divisions that Moscow can exploit. The message would be clear: Russia can strangle a country’s economy, manipulate public opinion, and tilt an election—all at virtually no cost.
What Europe Must Do
Europe’s effort to assist in February suggests that there is an understanding of the stakes. But to safeguard Moldova’s democratic path and broader European security, the EU must do far more — not only to confront the energy blackmail but also to mitigate its political and social consequences.
· Provide Massive Economic Aid to Offset Inflation: Moldova cannot afford Western market prices for energy. Inflation has already hit ordinary citizens hard, creating fertile ground for political discontent. A robust EU aid package must go beyond energy subsidies to include targeted social assistance, price caps, and support for small businesses. This is not just an act of solidarity—it’s a strategic imperative to prevent anti-European forces from exploiting popular frustration.
· Counter Russian Disinformation at Scale: Moscow’s propaganda machine is working overtime to pin the energy crisis on Moldova’s leadership. Europe must respond with a coordinated campaign to expose Russian tactics, debunk misinformation, and promote media literacy. One promising step is the EU’s decision to open an Eastern Partnership office in Moldova—the first of its kind in the region—with disinformation as a top priority. But far more investment in narrative warfare is needed.
· Fast-Track Moldova’s EU Membership: Most importantly, it’s time to stop viewing Moldova through a narrow bureaucratic lens. The country faces governance challenges, yes—but so did many prior EU entrants. Moldova’s small size (2.5 million people) makes integration manageable, while its geopolitical importance is undeniable. A fast-tracked accession process, similar to the one Ukraine has received, would send a powerful message: that Europe stands with its partners in their hour of need. And it would focus the minds of voters, counteracting the interference from Moscow.
Russia’s playbook is clear: create hardship, fuel resentment, and leverage democratic elections to install loyalist regimes that will cement authoritarianism and attempt to make permanent their hold on power. If it succeeds in Moldova, the European dream will be blocked from that country for a generation. Ukraine will be further isolated, and the Kremlin will chalk up another geopolitical win without firing a shot.
This is not just Moldova’s problem. It is Europe’s. It can be averted — but time is running out.
