European Union

With the recent pivot in US foreign policy regarding Europe and NATO, it has become clear that NATO’s European members need to ramp up spending on defense, and the time of relying on the US for defense in Europe is over. Many would argue that it’s well overdue, with Trump saying that NATO members should boost their defense spending to 5% of their GDP versus the traditional 2% target set by NATO. This target for NATO members was first set at the 2006 Riga summit; however, that target was reaffirmed and made more concrete in the 2014 Defence Investment Pledge at their summit in Wales, with only four members hitting the target that year. In 2024, those numbers were up, with NATO estimating 22 out of 32 would hit the target that year, so it’s clear defense spending in Europe is on the up. The Secretary-General of NATO, Mark Rutte, said, “We will need more time to consult amongst Allies what exactly the new level should be. But it is considerably more than 2%,” when asked about higher spending targets.

Inevitably, it will come down to the middle powers of NATO—France, Germany, Poland, and the UK—to step up to the plate and take over the leadership roles. Ultimately, this shift in responsibility will largely shape the alliance and Europe for years to come. But is this realistic, and what hurdles will the middle powers overcome to get there?

The US is the glue that holds NATO together.

Since NATO’s inception, the US has acted as the glue that keeps the alliance together, and it is evident from recent events just how crucial that role is. And it’s significantly more than just manpower/firepower, as you may expect.

The middle powers of NATO face a series of challenges ahead in their effort to step up and take over that role from the US. One of these challenges is the fact that the US plays a monumental role in the hierarchy of NATO’s various operational commands, with the US holding a lot of key roles within that structure that NATO, without the US, would not be able to operate certainly anywhere near as efficiently as it is currently run.

 The US also has an integral part to play in NATO’s capability for intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), with most of the capability that NATO has being US-supplied and run. An example of this occurred during Operation Unified Protector (Libya, 2011): the US provided an estimated 75% of ISR assets, enabling NATO to carry out precision strikes and monitor Gaddafi regime movements.

All of this is said without even touching the subject of the US’s missile defense and general man/firepower capabilities, with the European nations currently not having an equivalent.

Defense spending and capabilities

The only way the middle powers will be able to step into the US’s shoes and fill the role Washington has traditionally played is through an increase in defense spending, resulting in a significant boost to their military capabilities. However, this necessity presents several challenges of its own, so what does the current situation look like, and how will it develop?

France has consistently maintained a capable military and spent a good amount of their GDP on defense. Fluctuations in their defense budget have meant they’ve fallen short of the 2% goal set by NATO in previous years.

President Macron announced plans in early 2023 to vastly increase military spending, pledging to spend 413 billion euros on defense in 2024-2030, an increase of 118 billion euros compared to the previous period.

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, we have seen a vast increase in defense budgets across NATO, none perhaps more noticeable than in Germany, with Chancellor Olaf Scholz wanting to inject 100 billion euros into the German military (Bundeswehr) to increase military capability and readiness. With the German Federal Minister of Defence, Boris Pistorius, pledging to make the German military “the backbone of deterrence and collective defense in Europe.”

It would seem this shift in defense policy is here to stay, with both German parliaments recently voting in favor of another boost to military spending.

Nevertheless, it’s not all plain sailing for Germany. With recent recruitment numbers falling short of their targets, the Bundeswehr still faces personnel shortages. It’s clear that the intention is there, but there are still many practical challenges for them to overcome.

Poland has quickly become a key player within NATO, from having a humble military at the time of the 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russian forces to boasting the third-largest military within NATO, only behind that of the US and Turkey. Their armed forces have undergone a significant modernization program at this time, too.

This rapid modernization has meant Poland has fast become one of the leading defense powers within NATO, playing a crucial role in securing their eastern flank; they have also become one of NATO’s highest spenders on defense, spending an impressive 4.12% of their GDP.

The UK has consistently hit the 2% target set by NATO and, for the past four years, has even slightly exceeded this, with projects such as the Challenger 3 and the Boxer armored vehicle receiving around £5 billion in funding.

As with Germany, this isn’t without its challenges. The UK has faced significant setbacks in recruitment, with it being reported in November 2024 that the British armed forces had “consistently fallen short of recruitment targets over the past five years,” with some saying that the armed forces were losing 300 people a month more than they were recruiting.

It is also worth mentioning that France and the UK both possess nuclear capabilities, although the UK’s Trident missile system is US-supplied and maintained. Meanwhile, the French “Force de dissuasion” is fully independent.

Whilst it is undoubtable that the middle powers and Europe as a whole are taking defense spending a lot more seriously, and, for the first time since the Cold War, it is being seen as a priority, there is still a long way to go before NATO without the US taking a primary role could even be considered comparable to the NATO we have known up until now.

No natural leader

Other issues the middle powers face when trying to take over these roles are cooperation, coordination of efforts, and political and military leadership. To put it simply, NATO risks lacking unified leadership without the US. There is no obvious alternative to U.S. leadership within NATO. This means the alliance’s future leadership will depend entirely on the ability of European members to cooperate. Historically, however, that cooperation has been difficult. Europe is often divided by differing political ideologies, national interests, and unresolved disputes between member states. Countries frequently prioritize their own agendas, making it hard to reach collective decisions. A key example of this is the long-standing tension between Turkey and Greece—both NATO members, yet frequently at odds due to their history of conflict and territorial disputes. There is also the issue of the European Union and NATO often failing to cooperate, causing frequent internal strife on key issues such as the situation with Turkey and Cyprus.

Nevertheless, there are recent examples of political cohesion, such as the UK stating it would back the potential incoming German chancellor Friedrich Merz in sending Taurus missiles to Ukraine come across more as a patchwork than cohesive leadership. Most of the middle powers appear to focus on strengthening their own national capabilities rather than fostering cohesion and building multinational capacity. The result is a fragmented and disorganized approach—unsurprising, given that NATO is fundamentally an alliance of countries with a long history of rivalry and conflict. However, one should never underestimate the power of an external threat in uniting nations and giving them a common enemy, and Russia certainly seems to be doing just that.

NATO going forward

What does all this mean going forward? Across the board, especially amongst the middle powers of NATO, the intention to take a more active role in defense is there. Generally, NATO isn’t in a terrible position, and the desire for collective defense amongst member states has become paramount.

That said, the alliance still faces significant challenges ahead, especially when it comes to leadership; the US has long been the force that bridged the gap where the European members fell short. The US shifting its focus away from Europe has undoubtedly had a profound effect. It was perhaps not until this happened that it became clear just how much NATO relied on Washington for political direction, and whilst it is entirely possible for the middle powers to collectively take over that role, presently, that reality seems distant. Reaching that reality will be far from an overnight process. With Europe’s attention firmly focused on the war in Ukraine, many argue that the clock is already ticking, bringing the prospect of a conflict with Russia closer to reality.

US President Donald Trump has backed away — for now — from imposing steep levies on the European Union, two days after he threatened the bloc with 50 percent tariffs.

On Sunday, Trump agreed to extend his deadline for trade talks until July 9, from the June 1 deadline he set on Friday, after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the bloc needed more time to “reach a good deal”.

Von der Leyen reportedly told Trump during a phone call that the EU needed more time to come to an agreement and asked him to delay the trade duties until July, the deadline he had originally set when he announced his “reciprocal” tariffs on almost all countries around the world in April.

Trump said that he had granted the request, and that von der Leyen told him, “We will rapidly get together to see if we can work something out.” Von der Leyen said in a social media post that the EU was ready to move quickly in trade talks.

During a trip to Vietnam on Monday, French President Emmanuel Macron said that he hoped Washington and Brussels could achieve a deal with the lowest tariffs possible. “The discussions are advancing,” he told reporters.

The US president’s latest salvo comes amid Washington’s stop-and-start global trade war that kicked off in April. Trump’s moves have unnerved markets, businesses and consumers and raised fears of a global economic downturn.

But while his approach has yielded a trade deal with the United Kingdom, and negotiations are believed to be progressing with a range of other nations — from India to Vietnam to Japan — key sticking points complicate the prospects of an agreement with the EU.

Here’s what the tiff is about, and why the US and EU are struggling to reach a trade deal:

What’s the backdrop?

Trump’s recent broadside against the EU was prompted by the White House’s belief that negotiations with the bloc are not progressing fast enough. “Our discussions with them are going nowhere!” Trump posted on Truth Social.

“Therefore, I am recommending a straight 50% Tariff on the European Union, starting on June 1, 2025. There is no Tariff if the product is built or manufactured in the United States,” he wrote last Friday.

By Sunday, however, Trump had changed course. He welcomed von der Leyen’s assertion that the bloc was willing to negotiate but that it needed more time. He added that it was his “privilege” to delay the increased tariffs.

Trump said, “[von der Leyen] said she wants to get down to serious negotiation. We had a very nice call … she said we will rapidly get together and see if we can work something out,” he told reporters.

Trump is thought to be opposed to the idea of mutually cutting tariffs to zero – an EU proposal. The US president has insisted on preserving a baseline 10 percent tax on most imports from America’s trading partners.

On May 8, the UK agreed to a trade deal that kept Trump’s 10 percent reciprocal tariff rate in place.

EU trade chief Maros Sefcovic said the European Commission – the EU’s executive arm – remains committed to securing a deal that works for both sides. But he warned that EU-US trade “must be guided by mutual respect, not threats.”

In 2024, EU exports to the US totalled about 532 billion euros ($603bn). Pharmaceuticals, cars and auto parts, chemicals and aircraft were among the largest exports, according to EU data.

What is the EU offering?

Last week, the US rejected a proposal sent by the European Commission. The EU had offered to remove tariffs on industrial goods, boost access for some US agricultural products and co-develop AI data centres, Bloomberg reported.

It also proposed enhancing economic cooperation in areas like shipbuilding and port infrastructure, as well as by establishing an EU-US energy partnership covering gas, nuclear power and oil.

In exchange, Brussels wants the Trump administration to have more flexibility on lowering the 10 percent baseline tariff — including by potentially lowering it in phases over time.

While the EU has said it wants to find a negotiated solution, it has also been preparing to retaliate if necessary.

Member states have approved a 50 percent tariff on a batch of US products worth 21 billion euros ($23.8bn), including maize, wheat and clothing, which will kick in on July 14 without a deal.

The bloc is also preparing tariffs on other imported products totalling 95 billion euros ($107.8bn), targeting industrial goods like Boeing aircraft and cars, as well as bourbon.

What does the US want?

Trump has long accused the European Union of “ripping off” the US, and is determined that Brussels will adopt measures to lower its 198.2-billion-euro ($225bn) goods trade surplus with the US.

Washington has repeatedly raised concerns over Europe’s value-added tax, as well as its regulations on IT and food exports. Trump contends that these controls act as de facto trade barriers to the EU.

For his part, Sefcovic recently told the Financial Times that he wants to slash the US-EU trade deficit by buying more US gas, weapons and agricultural products.

In addition, the bloc is reportedly open to reducing its dependence on Chinese exports and on erecting tariffs against subsidised Chinese exports, which Trump is keen on.

Sefcovic and his US counterpart, Jamieson Greer, are scheduled to meet in Paris next month to discuss ways of de-escalating the ongoing US-EU trade dispute.

How badly would Trump’s tariffs affect both economies?

In 2024, the EU exported 531.6 billion euros ($603bn) in goods to the US and imported products worth 333 billion euros ($377.8bn), resulting in a trade surplus of almost 200 billion euros ($227bn).

On the flip side, the US runs a surplus of more than 109 billion euros ($124bn) in services as of 2023, with notable IT exports, led by large American tech companies, charges for intellectual property and financial services.

Trump’s tariffs would, in turn, hit both economies hard. According to a 2019 study by the International Monetary Fund, a full-scale US-EU trade war could cost 0.3-to-0.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on both sides.

Pro-European Nicusor Dan faces big challenges after defeating pro-Russian George Simion last week in a tense run-off.

Pro-European Nicusor Dan has been sworn in as Romania’s new president amid persisting claims from the far right that his election was illegitimate.

The centrist promised on Monday to usher in a “new chapter” in Romania amid hopes that his inauguration could help bring an end to months of political crisis. However, his pro-Russian and nationalist rival George Simion maintained that the May 18 election represents a “coup d’etat”.

In the run-up to the election, which was marred by the annulment of November’s initial vote due to Russian interference, Dan promised to quash corruption and reaffirm Romania’s commitment to the European Union and NATO.

In his inauguration speech, he said he would fix Romania’s economic and political woes and be a president “open to the voice of society”.

“The Romanian state needs a fundamental change within the rule of law, and I invite you to continue to be involved in order to put positive pressure on state institutions to reform,” he said. “I call on political parties to act in the national interest.”

‘National treason’

The May election rerun was held months after the Constitutional Court voided the previous election.

Far-right, pro-Russian Calin Georgescu had won the most votes in the first round of November’s vote but was thrown out of the race after allegations of electoral violations and Russian interference, which Moscow has denied.

Simion, leader of the far-right Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR), took his place and led the polls for weeks before a surge in the final days of the campaign pushed Dan past the post.

Since the result was announced, Simion has repeatedly alleged, without providing evidence, that the election was rigged through foreign interference.

However, the Constitutional Court validated the results on Thursday after rejecting an appeal from Simion to annul the vote.

Lawmakers from the AUR boycotted the swearing-in ceremony, calling it “legitimising a national treason” while Simion condemned the court’s decision as a “coup d’etat”.

Authorities remain on alert with protests expected by supporters of the far right.

Dan’s victory over Simion was heralded around Europe with the outcome viewed as crucial to maintaining Romania’s place within Western alliances, especially as the war continues in neighbouring Ukraine.

“We won the Romanian presidential elections. People rejected isolationism and Russian influence,” Dan said on Sunday at a rally in Poland for liberal Warsaw Mayor Rafal Trzaskowski, who will face nationalist Karol Nawrocki in a presidential run-off on June 1.

However, significant challenges lie ahead for Dan as Romania faces political and economic crises.

He must first nominate a prime minister who can garner the support necessary to form a new government as widespread rejection of the political class has propelled figures like Georgescu and Simion into leading challengers.

Dan is expected to meet Ilie Bolojan, who had been serving as interim president. The member of the pro-EU National Liberal Party has been tipped as a possible prime minister.

As for Romanians struggling economically, Dan made few promises on Monday.

“Put simply, … the Romanian state is spending more than it can afford,” the new president said.

“It is in the national interest for Romania to send a message of stability to financial markets,” he said. “It is in the national interest to send a signal of openness and predictability to the investment environment.”

The Madrid Group has convened in Spain’s capital for a fifth time, in a meeting attended by major European and Arab nations.

Pressure on Israel this year has been ramped up, with Spain calling for an arms embargo on Israel and the imposition of sanctions on individuals who obstruct a two-state solution to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The United Kingdom has paused trade talks and sanctioned a number of Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank. Canada and France have also threatened punitive measures.

And the European Union – Israel’s biggest trade partner – is reviewing its landmark Association Agreement covering trade and political dialogue.

But after 20 months of Israel’s destruction of Gaza, why is this happening now?

And without changes on the ground for Palestinians, are these actions anything more than diplomatically symbolic?

Presenter: Tom McRae

Guests:

Lynn Boylan – Member of European Parliament, and chair of the delegation of relations with Palestine

Mouin Rabbani – Non-resident fellow at the Center for Conflict and Humanitarian Studies

Saul Takahashi – Former deputy head of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in occupied Palestine

Farmers demonstrate against changes to legislation that would ease restrictions on pesticide and water use in farming.

French farmers have disrupted highway traffic around Paris and rallied in front of parliament to protest against amendments filed by opposition lawmakers to a bill that would loosen environmental regulations on farming.

Members of France’s leading farming union, the FNSEA, parked about 10 tractors outside the National Assembly on Monday to put pressure on MPs, who began debating the legislation in the afternoon.

The legislation, tabled by far-right MP Laurent Duplomb, proposes simplifying approvals for breeding facilities, loosening restrictions around water use to promote irrigation reservoirs and reauthorising a banned neonicotinoid pesticide used in sugar beet cultivation that environmentalists say is harmful to bees.

The proposed law is part of a wider trend in numerous European Union states to unwind environmental legislation as farmers grapple with rising costs and households struggle with the cost-of-living crisis.

More than 150 farmers from the Ile-de-France, Grand Est and Provence-Alpes-Cote d’Azur regions gathered peacefully in front of the National Assembly, drinking coffee and eating croissants, after blocking the main roads around the capital.

“This bill to lift the constraints on the farming profession is very important to us,” FNSEA Secretary-General Herve Lapie told the AFP news agency.

“What we are asking for is simply to be able to work in a European environment: a single market, a single set of rules. We’ve been fighting for this for 20 years. For once, there’s a bill along these lines. … We don’t have the patience to wait any longer.”

The FNSEA and its allies say the neonicotinoid pesticide acetamiprid, which has been prohibited in France since 2018 due to environmental and health concerns, should be authorised in France like it is across the EU because it is less toxic to wildlife than other neonicotinoids and stops crops from being ravaged by pests.

Environmental campaigners and some unions representing small-scale and organic farmers say the bill benefits the large-scale agriculture industry at the expense of independent operators.

President Emmanuel Macron’s opponents on the political left have proposed multiple amendments that the protesting farmers said threatened the bill.

“We’re asking the lawmakers, our lawmakers, to be serious and vote for it as it stands,” Julien Thierry, a grain farmer from the Yvelines department outside Paris, told The Associated Press news agency, criticising politicians from the Greens and left-wing France Unbowed (LFI).

Ecologists party MP Delphine Batho said the text of the bill is “Trump-inspired” while LFI MP Aurelie Trouve wrote in an article for the French daily Le Monde that it signified “a political capitulation, one that marks an ecological junction”.

FNSEA chief Arnaud Rousseau said protests would continue until Wednesday with farmers from the Centre-Val de Loire and Hauts-de-France regions expected to join their colleagues.

Protests are also expected in Brussels next week, targeting the EU’s environmental regulations and green policies.

Farmers across France and Europe won concessions last year after railing against cheap foreign competition and what they say are unnecessary regulations.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Sunday that the U.S. will delay implementation of a 50% tariff on goods from the European Union until July 9 to buy time for negotiations with the bloc.

That agreement came after a call Sunday with Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, who had told Trump that she “wants to get down to serious negotiations,” according to the U.S. president.

“I told anybody that would listen, they have to do that,” Trump told reporters Sunday in Morristown, N.J., as he prepared to return to Washington. Von der Leyen, Trump said, vowed to “rapidly get together and see if we can work something out.”

In a social media post Friday, Trump had threatened to impose the 50% tariff on EU goods, asserting that the 27-member bloc had been “very difficult to deal with” on trade and that negotiations were “going nowhere.” Those tariffs would have kicked in starting June 1.

But the call with Von der Leyen appeared to smooth over tensions, at least for now.

“I agreed to the extension — July 9, 2025 — It was my privilege to do so,” Trump said on social media shortly after he spoke with reporters Sunday evening.

Von der Leyen said the EU and the U.S. “share the world’s most consequential and close trade relationship.”

“Europe is ready to advance talks swiftly and decisively,” she said. “To reach a good deal, we would need the time until July 9.”

Kim writes for the Associated Press.

Syrians are hoping sanctions relief will help boost investment, reconstruction after more than a decade of civil war.

Business owners in Syria have welcomed the European Union’s decision this week to lift sanctions on the country, in what observers say is the most significant easing of Western pressure on Damascus in more than a decade.

The EU’s move, which followed a similar announcement by the United States in mid-May, was praised by Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani as one that would bolster Syria’s security and stability.

For many Syrian entrepreneurs, it also brings the hope of rebuilding their livelihoods after years of economic isolation.

“Companies that were ousted from Syria and stopped dealing with us because of the sanctions are now in contact with us,” Hassan Bandakji, a local business owner, told Al Jazeera.

“Many companies and producers are telling us they are coming back and that they want to reserve a spot in our market.”

The EU and US sanctions had levied wide-ranging sanctions against the government of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who was removed from power in a rebel offensive in December of last year.

The economic curbs had severely limited trade, investment, and financial transactions in Syria, cutting businesses off from supplies and international banking.

“The main obstacle we faced was getting raw materials and automated lines,” said Ali Sheikh Kweider, who manages a factory in the countryside of the Syrian capital, Damascus.

“As for bank accounts, we weren’t able to send or receive any transactions,” Kweider told Al Jazeera.

Syria’s new government, led by ex-rebel leader and interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa, had called for the sanctions to be lifted as it seeks to rebuild the country.

US President Donald Trump said after a meeting with al-Sharaa in Saudi Arabia last week that he planned to order the lifting of American sanctions on Syria.

Reporting from Damascus, Al Jazeera’s Mahmoud Abdelwahed said the government is hoping the sanctions relief will help Syria reintegrate into the international community.

It also views the EU’s announcement as additional “recognition of the new political leadership” in the country, Abdelwahed added.

European Parliament backs bill that will enact duties in July and gradually increase them over three years.

The European Parliament has voted to impose tariffs on fertiliser and certain farm produce imports from Russia and its ally Belarus, despite European farmers’ fears that the move could lead to higher prices.

The European Parliament on Thursday voted 411 to 100 in support of the bill that will enact duties in July and gradually increase them to a point where they would make imports unviable in 2028.

In 2023, more than 70 percent of EU fertiliser consumption was of nitrogen-based fertiliser, of which Russia accounted for 25 percent of EU imports worth about 1.3bn euros ($1.5bn).

According to the bloc, the tariffs for certain fertilisers will increase over three years from 6.5 percent to an amount equivalent to about 100 percent, effectively halting trade by 2028.

For farm produce, an additional 50 percent duty will apply.

While Russia and Belarus were hit with prohibitive tariffs last year over the war in Ukraine, the new measures will apply to 15 percent of agriculture imports from Russia that were not previously hit, including meat, dairy produce, fruit and vegetables.

EU lawmaker Inese Vaidere, spearheading the push for increased tariffs, said the bloc must stop fuelling “the Russian war machine” and “limit the dependency of Europe’s farmers to Russian fertilisers”.

Member states still must formally give the bill their final approval, having already supported the idea.

Russia said on Thursday that the tariffs would cause fertiliser prices in the EU to rise.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that demand for Russian nitrogen fertilisers on other export routes remained high, adding that Russian fertilisers were of the highest quality.

Farmers’ fears

The pan-European farmers’ group Copa-Cogeca told the AFP news agency that using Russian fertilisers was the “most competitive in terms of price, due to well-established logistics”.

The tariff could be “potentially devastating” for the agriculture sector, the group warned, adding, “European farmers must not become collateral damage”.

A farmer in Belgium accused the EU of hurting its farmers.

Amaury Poncelet told AFP that he “doesn’t understand the European Union’s idea of punishing its farmers”.

“We’re losing money because of these European decisions that treat us like pawns who don’t matter,” he said.

The European Commission has argued the tariffs will help support domestic production and suggested duties on imports from other regions could be removed to alleviate price pressures, among other mitigating measures, in case of price shocks.

Israel is facing condemnation from some of its strongest allies over its increasing aggression in Gaza.

The UK is cancelling new trade talks and the EU is reviewing old agreements, while both are imposing sanctions on Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank.

The two powers say they cannot stand by while Israel expands military operations, increases air strikes and starves Palestinians in Gaza with its total blockade.

But critics are asking why they did not step in before.

Will the new measures be imposed?

And most importantly: Will any of this change the reality on the ground for the Palestinians?

Presenter:

Folly Bah Thibault

Guests:

James Moran – Former EU ambassador to Egypt and Jordan

Yossi Mekelberg – Senior consulting fellow at Chatham House

Zaid Belbagi – Managing partner of Hardcastle Advisory and political commentator

So the white smoke emerged from Whitehall as the Prime Minister didn’t quite say “Habemas a Deal”. at the end of the much hyped UK-EU reset talks. The good news is that there is some amelioration of the 2020 Brexit Treaty negotiated by Boris Johnson. The bad news is that it won’t satisfy many on either side of the Brexit divide.

In 1992 the Swiss voted against the Maastricht Treaty enshrining Margaret Thatcher’s campaign to create a single market Europe with its four freedoms of movement of capital, goods, services and labour. Pope Saint John Paul II Mrs Thactcer’s Treat  “will hasten the process of European integration. A common political structure, the product of the free will of European citizens, far from endangering the identity of the peoples in the community, will be able to guarantee more equitably the rights, in particular the cultural rights, of all its regions. These united European peoples will not accept the domination of one nation or culture over the others, but they will uphold the equal right of all to enrich others with their difference.”

                  Quickly Europe’s richest nation in the Alps realised they had shot a crossbow arrow into their foot. Negotiations started and continue to this day to improve Switzerland’s access to the four freedoms without actually joining the EU.

                  The Alpine nation is governed by referendums and there have been 20 so far on aspects of the EU-Swiss relationship. 17 agreed to proposals put forward by negotiators in Berne and Brussels and 3 said no. In 2010 as David Cameron and Nick Clegg announced their referendum which both leaders thought would put the Europe question to bed the Swiss voted against allowing Europeans to work in sectors like care homes, agricultures, mountain tourism, or construction which Swiss like Brits chez nous didn’t want to work in.

                  Swiss employers recoiled in horror and launched a campaign to reverse the decision. Despite the fulminations of the anti-EU Swiss People’s Party a second referendum was held and Switzerland now benefits from access to the European labour market pool while the UK imported more than a million workers from Africa and Asia to do the work native Brits shunned.

                  Britain is now embarking on the laborious slog of the mountain climb of gradual  step by step improvements in the 2020 deal Boris Johnson signed.

                  This has led the ageing tenors of anti-European ideology emerging like Japanese soldiers from the jungle 20 years after the second world war ended still believing their inevitable triumph is just around the corner.

                  From Boris Johnson, through Jacob Rees Mogg, Priti Patel, David Frost, Andrew Neil or assorted peers and retired Oxbridge dons  the chorus of “Surrender!”, “Betrayal!”, or “Sell-out!” continues but is weaker and weaker.

                  As Rod Liddle who helped turn Today when he edited it into a platform for Nigel Farage and anti-European keenies now notes the old heartlands of Brexit know it has delivered none of its promises and just want to move on.

                  Some Labour ministers use Theresa May’s slogan she “would make Brexit work.” That is an oxymoron. When the very conservative governor of the Bank of England says here will be no growth if we continue to set our faces against trade with Europe that is an ex-cathedra statement saying Adieu to Brexit. 

                  The Prime minister has none of the flair, nor drive of a Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher but after the excitements of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, voters opted for caution, prudence, and stability.

                  `It will be a long haul but the 30 year long Brexit era of British politics is over. One day Polish workers will be welcome back in Britain and attendance at Sunday mass will go up.

Denis MacShane is the former Labour Minister for Europe. His book “Brexiternity. The uncertain future of Britain” is published by Bloomsbury.

Holidaymakers with UK passports are facing a major change at airports after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer outlined the terms of the UK’s new ‘EU reset deal’ – and it could come into effect this year

A major change affecting holidaymakers with British passports is set to come into effect. Sir Keir Starmer announced the news as part of what he described as a ‘common sense’ deal with the EU, reached nine years after the UK first voted to leave the European Union.

Starmer described the deal as a “win-win” as he shook hands with the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, in London on Monday (May 19). “Britain is back on the world stage,” he declared. “[The deal] gives us unprecedented access to the EU market, the best of any country… all while sticking to the red lines in our manifesto.”

The PM went on to explain the impact of the “new partnership between an independent Britain and our allies in Europe” on voters’ daily lives.

“Let me set out why it is good for Britain,” he said in a speech posted to X.

“Today’s deal will […] help British holidaymakers. We’re confirming that they will be able to use e-gates when they travel to Europe, ending those huge queues at passport control.”

Since Brexit, British passport holders have been considered “visa-exempt third-country nationals” and have generally had to queue for manual checks at border control to have their passport stamped.

Brits were able to use e-gates at a limited number of airports in Spain and Portugal.

However, the EU has now agreed to ease checks on British travellers more universally.

The deal states that “there will be no legal barriers to e-gate use for British nationals travelling to and from European Union.”

When will I be able to use e-gates?

It has not yet been confirmed when the changes will come into effect.

However, the EU plans to launch its new Entry/Exit System (EES) in October 2025, replacing the need for non-EU citizens to have their passports stamped. It is thought that more EU airports will allow UK passengers to use the e-gates after the new system comes into effect.

The system will require travellers to have their fingerprints scanned and a photograph taken so they can be registered to a database. Their data will then be stored for three years.

Those who do not provide a fingerprint scan and photo will be denied entry.

Some EU airports will still require additional checks and Brits may not be able to use e-gates here.

Brits will also still be subject to the ’90-day rule’, whereby eligible non-EU citizens can spend 90 days in any 180-day period in the EU without a visa.

Travel records will be digitised under the new EES to enforce this rule and increase border security.

The ‘landmark deal’ is also expected to “lower food prices at checkouts”, improve UK defence and put “more money in people’s pockets,” according to Starmer. Von der Leyen described it as “a historic moment […] opening a new chapter in our unique relationship.”

The European Union has lifted all sanctions on Syria. The decision follows Donald Trump’s recent announcement than the US would also lift sanctions, as Syria’s new government looks to rebuild the country.

The Baltic nation is seeking damages, including compensation for border reinforcement costs.

Lithuania has initiated legal proceedings against Belarus at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing its neighbour of orchestrating a refugee and migrant crisis by facilitating the smuggling of people across their border.

“The Belarusian regime must be held legally accountable for orchestrating the wave of illegal migration and the resulting human rights violations,” Lithuanian Justice Minister Rimantas Mockus said in a statement on Monday.

“We are taking this case to the International Court of Justice to send a clear message: no state can use vulnerable people as political pawns without facing consequences under international law.”

The case, submitted to the ICJ in The Hague, centres on alleged violations by Belarus of the United Nations Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air.

Lithuania’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said attempts to resolve the issue through bilateral talks failed and it has evidence showing direct involvement by the Belarusian state in organising refugee and migrant flows, including a surge in flights from the Middle East operated by Belarusian state-owned airlines.

After landing in Belarus, many of the passengers were escorted to the Lithuanian border by Belarusian security forces and forced to cross illegally, Lithuanian officials said.

Lithuania also accused Belarus of refusing to cooperate with its border services in preventing irregular crossings and said it is seeking compensation through the ICJ for alleged damages caused, including costs related to border reinforcement.

Tensions between the two countries have simmered since 2021 when thousands of people – mostly from the Middle East and Africa – began arriving at the borders of Lithuania, Poland and Latvia from Belarus.

Belarus had previously deported Middle Eastern refugees and migrants with more than 400 Iraqis repatriated to Baghdad on a charter flight from Minsk in November 2021.

That same year, a Human Rights Watch report accused Belarus of manufacturing the crisis, finding that “accounts of violence, inhuman and degrading treatment and coercion by Belarusian border guards were commonplace”.

European Union officials have also accused Minsk of “weaponising” migration in an effort to destabilise the bloc. The claims are strongly denied by Belarus.

In December, the EU approved emergency measures allowing member states bordering Belarus and Russia to temporarily suspend asylum rights in cases in which migration is being manipulated for political ends.

BRITS heading to Europe could soon find it much easier thanks to new plans allowing holidaymakers to use airport e-gates.

Since the UK left the EU, British tourists have faced huge queues at the airport across Europe after being forced to use the standard passport gates.

3

3

However, the UK government has revealed plans of a deal that would allow UK holidaymakers to use the much faster e-gates when visiting Europe.

The talks, part of the UK-EU summit taking place today, suggest Brits would join other EU tourists in the shorter queues, The Guardian reports.

EU relations minister Nick Thomas-Symonds said he backed the potential rule change.

He told Sky News: “I would love to see you being able to go through the border more quickly in that way.

“That’s certainly something we’ve been pushing with the EU and I think that will be something that will be very helpful to British people.

“I think we can all agree that not being stuck in queues and having more time to spend, whether it’s on holiday or work trips, having more time to do what you want, would be a very sensible objective.”

Plans to allow Brits to use e-gates in European countries were put forward back in 2023 by then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak although never came into fruition.

Last summer, some Brits even missed their flights when travelling through Spain due to long passport queues while waiting to get them stamped.

Another Brit wrote on Tripadvisor: “My lunchtime arrival at Oslo left me with an hour and a half wait to get through manual passport control.”

Another agreed: “The queue was horrendous, people couldn’t even get into the passport hall. Took just over 90 minutes to get through.”

However, the new rules could cause problems with passport stamping, which is still required from Brits entering and exiting Europe.

This is because of the new rules which only allow Brits to visit for 90 days in an 180 day period.

Anyone without an outgoing stamp could be mistakenly seen to have overstayed in Europe and even be banned from entering – which happened to a British tourist in Majorca back in 2022.

But it comes ahead of the constantly-delayed Entry/Exit System (EES) which will scrap the need for passport stamping entirely.

First announced in 2016, it finally hopes to be rolled out from October this year.

Instead of manual passport stamping, new biometric checks will take place instead.

And next year will see the roll out of the ETIAS – a visa waiver that Brits will need to visit Europe.

Costing around €7 and lasting three years, it will be similar to the current ESTA Brits need when visiting the US.

3

No forgiving a Brexit betrayal

WILL today go down in history as the day Sir Keir Starmer betrayed Brexit and the British people?

From the moment he entered No10, or Remainiac Prime Minister — who spent years in Opposition trying to reverse the historic 2016 vote — has been hellbent on securing a so-called “reset” with the EU.

1

His approach to the negotiations with Brussels has been naive at best, and craven at worst.

Indeed, the message his public desperation sent to the hard-nosed Eurocrats was “I want a deal at any price, so shaft me”.

The vengeful EU — which will never get over Brexit, and cannot stand the idea of us being a sovereign nation again — duly obliged.

Its list of demands, in return for a defence partnership, a sop on passport queues and the simple lifting of some spiteful checks on British food exports, would put a mafia extortionist to shame.

Through a series of snide anonymous briefings (the EU’s tactic of choice for decades), we know it expects to agree the following at today’s Lancaster House talks:

Britain to slavishly adhere to every pettifogging Brussels edict on standards, a straitjacket known as “dynamic alignment” which would make trade deals with the rest of world far harder.

Subservience to the over-mighty, expansionist European Court of Justice.

Generous access to our fishing waters for mostly French vessels for ever more, undermining a core reason why millions voted Leave.

Bundles of cash to once again be paid into the EU’s coffers for participation in its various programmes and schemes.

Most unbelievably, a “youth mobility scheme” for anyone under 35 – yes, 35! – which would restore free movement by the back door, and give 80 MILLION EU citizens the chance to live and work here.

So much for getting a grip on runaway immigration.

And what has Sir Keir’s response been to all of this?

He and his Chancellor have effectively said bring it on, and that this is just the start of a much deeper future partnership with the EU.

We remind them both of two things, before they sit down to formally ink this seemingly wretched surrender deal.

First, the best economic days of the EU are long behind it — look at the state of the German and French economies.

Britain should be looking to do ambitious trade deals beyond Europe — indeed the new partnership with India, and the recent easing of US tariffs were only possible because of Brexit.

Not tying our hands and alienating allies like Donald Trump.

And, second, the British people voted nine years ago to take back control of our money, borders and laws.

If the PM hands all of this back over to Brussels today, he will not be forgiven.

Holidaymakers should familiarise themselves with the three-digit number when travelling to Europe

Holidays offer the chance to relax and unwind. For most tourists, it’s an opportunity to get away from it all and forget about any worries back home. However, there’s an important number anyone visiting the European Union ought to memorise before entering ‘holiday mode’.

The three-digit number could be life-saving if you or someone is in danger. It is 112, otherwise known as the European emergency phone number. It’s available everywhere in the EU free of charge.

The European Emergency Number Association explains: “112 is the European emergency number, available free of charge, 24/7, anywhere in the European Union. Citizens can dial 112 to reach the emergency services, including the police, emergency medical services and the fire brigade.

“EENA believes that having a common emergency number everywhere in Europe is directly benefiting citizens and visitors.” It adds: “But, unfortunately, this potentially life-saving number is largely unknown.”

You can also find information about the European emergency phone number on the European Commission’s website. The website says: “You can call 112 from fixed and mobile phones to contact any emergency service: an ambulance, the fire brigade or the police.”

It continues: “A specially trained operator will answer any 112 call. The operator will either deal with the request directly or transfer the call to the most appropriate emergency service, depending on the national organisation of emergency services.”

Helpfully, the operators are often multilingual. The European Commission explains: “Operators in many countries can answer the calls not only in their national language, but also in English or French. If the caller does not know where he is, the operator will identify where the person making the call is physically located and will pass it to the emergency authorities so that these can help immediately.”

In many countries, you can dial 112 as well as national emergency numbers. However, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania and Sweden use 112 as their only national emergency number. 112 is also used in some countries outside the EU, such as Switzerland.

People should treat 112 as they would any other national emergency number. They should not use it for general information queries, weather reports, or traffic updates, which waste time and money. Hoax calls to emergency lines are a criminal offence in most countries.

The EENA offers advice for people dialling 112. It recommends that you stay calm; wait until the operator answers your call; state your name, what happened, who is involved and your location; follow the operator’s advice; and ring 112 again if something changes.

The EENA website adds: “Sometimes several people call 112 reporting the same emergency. In those cases, do not be surprised if the operator only asks you for additional information and ends the call. This is normal procedure to avoid repeated information, to free the phone line faster and to ensure a prompt answer to the next emergency call.”

Brussels is drawing up plans to use trade tariffs and capital controls to maintain financial pressure on Russia, even if Hungary decides to use its veto to block an extension of the European Union’s sanctions regime, which lapses in July of this year.

The European Commission has told ministers that a large part of the EU’s sanctions, which included freezing 200 billion euros ($224bn) of Russian assets, could be adapted to a new legal framework to bypass Budapest’s veto, according to the United Kingdom’s Financial Times newspaper.

Viktor Orban, Hungary’s prime minister, has repeatedly held up EU boycotts on Moscow as the central European country gets 85 percent of its natural gas from Russia. Orban’s nationalist government is also one of the most friendly to Moscow in all of Europe.

In any event, the EU’s recent proposals have emerged as Moscow and Kyiv hold their first direct peace talks since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Ukrainian and Russian representatives are convening today in Istanbul, Turkiye. However, Vladimir Putin will not travel to Istanbul for face-to-face talks with Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Last weekend, European leaders held talks in Ukraine to put pressure on Russia to agree to a 30-day ceasefire in the run-up to the Istanbul talks. Ukraine agreed to it. Russia did not.

What sanctions does the EU currently have in place against Russia?

The EU adopted its 17th sanctions package against Moscow, designed to stifle Russia’s economy and force President Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine, on Wednesday. This package has been signed off by Budapest and will be formally ratified by the European Commission next week.

Brussels has progressively expanded sanctions against Moscow since 2022, introducing import bans on Russian oil, a price cap on Russian fuel and the freezing of Russian central bank assets held in European financial institutions.

Vast swaths of Russia’s economy – from media organisations to aviation and telecommunications – are now under EU restrictions, in addition to trade bans and measures targeting oligarchs and politicians.

Under the 17th package, some 200 “shadow fleet” tankers have been sanctioned. These are ships with opaque ownership and no Western ties in terms of finance or insurance, allowing them to bypass financial sanctions.

The latest sanctions will also target Chinese and Turkish entities that the EU says are helping Russia to evade embargoes. New restrictions will be imposed on 30 companies involved in the trade of dual-use goods – products with potential military applications.

“Russia has found ways to circumvent the blockage imposed by Europe and the United States, so closing the tap would grab Russia by the throat,” France’s foreign minister, Jean-Noel Barrot, told BFM TV.

How effective are sanctions?

Alongside military support for Kyiv, sanctions have been the EU’s main response to Russia’s war on Ukraine. But sanctions have so far failed to stop the war. What’s more, due to high oil prices and elevated military spending, Russia’s economy has outperformed expectations since the start of 2022.

Barrot acknowledged on Wednesday that the impact of sanctions has been insufficient. “We will need to go further because the sanctions so far have not dissuaded Vladimir Putin from continuing his war of aggression … we must prepare to expand devastating sanctions that could suffocate, once and for all, Russia’s economy,” said Barrot.

What new measures are being proposed?

While the 17th round of sanctions was only agreed on Wednesday, EU ministers are already considering what more might be done to undermine Putin’s political clout if the war in Ukraine persists.

Capital controls, which would be aimed at restricting money flowing in and out of Russia, and trade measures such as tariffs, are two options that have been mentioned by the European Commission in recent weeks. Capital controls can take a variety of forms, including restrictions on foreign investment, limiting currency exchange or imposing taxes on the movement of capital.

The commission also aims to share proposals next month that would allow Brussels to implement a ban on new Russian gas spot market contracts – deals for immediate delivery and payment – with European companies in 2025, and a total phase-out by 2027.

Despite oil export restrictions, Russia still earns billions of euros from natural gas sales into the EU through liquefied natural gas (LNG) and TurkStream (a pipeline connecting Russia to southeastern Europe via the Black Sea). Banning spot market contracts would lower Moscow’s revenue from these sources.

Brussels may also propose tariffs on enriched uranium as part of its effort to cut EU reliance on Russian fuels.

According to The Financial Times, the EU insists that these measures would not amount to sanctions and therefore would not need the unanimous backing of all 27 EU countries, which is normally required to extend sanctions.

“I think the EU cooked up these potential punishments to try and get Russia to agree to the 30-day ceasefire … it was the stick they were brandishing,” said an analyst familiar with the matter who asked not to be named.

Will the US impose more sanctions?

It may. On May 1, Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said he had the commitment of 72 colleagues for a bill that would enact “bone-crushing” sanctions on Russia.

Graham, a close ally of President Donald Trump, is spearheading a draft bill that seeks to impose a 500 percent tariff on imports from countries that buy Russian oil and fossil fuels.

Trump himself, who seemingly welcomes the possibility of a rapprochement with Russia, said in March that he was “considering” imposing sanctions and tariffs on Russia until a peace agreement is reached with Ukraine.

Could such measures force Putin to the negotiating table?

“Most Russian people want life to return to normal and business owners are getting tired of war-related costs,” the anonymous analyst told Al Jazeera. “There is a growing sense of unease.”

She said she doubted whether the EU’s touted measures would bring Putin any closer to signing a peace agreement, however. “Only because sanctions haven’t been able to do that,” she said, “and there’s already a maze of them.”

According to Castellum.AI, a global risk platform, Russia has been slapped with 21,692 sanctions since the start of the war – the majority of them against individuals.

“On past performance, it’s hard to see how even more sanctions and additional punishments will stop the fighting,” the analyst said.

She estimated a 60 percent chance that Russia and Ukraine would still be at war by the end of this year.

SIR Keir Starmer is preparing to wave the white flag to Brussels in a fresh Brexit betrayal, Kemi Badenoch has warned.

The Tory chief accused the PM of lining up a string of concessions to the EU just to say he’s “reset” Brexit relations.

2

2

It comes as the PM is heading to Albania today for last-minute talks with EU leaders ahead of a major London summit, where he’s expected to sign a new defence and trade pact.

It is understood that in return, Sir Keir has put fishing rights, immigration rules and legal powers all on the line.

Writing for The Sun, Ms Badenoch said: “Keir Starmer walks into negotiations with a white flag at the ready…

“The Brexit vote was not a polite suggestion, it was a clear instruction: to put Britain first.” She warned British waters could be handed back to French trawlers “for no good reason”, calling it “a fundamental betrayal of Britain’s fishing community”.

And she raised alarm over Labour’s support for an EU Youth Mobility Scheme, saying it “would see us accepting seemingly unlimited numbers of unemployed 20-somethings from Romania and Bulgaria… all coming over here to take UK jobs.”

The Tory leader accused Labour of preparing to make Britain “a rule-taker from Brussels once again” by aligning food laws, restricting farmers from using modern crops.

And she warned the plan to join the EU’s carbon trading scheme will leave Sun readers “saddled with even more expensive bills, just so Keir Starmer can say he ‘got closer’ to Europe.”

Vowing to reverse any Brexit row backs, Ms Badenoch said: “A future Conservative Government will take them back. I will always put Britain first. And when the time comes – I will make it right.”

Ms Badenoch will head to Brussels herself today to speak at the IDU Forum – a global gathering of centre-right parties.

She will argue Britain’s relationship with EU countries can be improved without “being supplicant”.