Portugal wants EU to pressure reluctant France on power connections
The blackout, which started in Spain and also left mainland Portugal without electricity on April 28, could have been less crippling had the two countries had more interconnections to resume power supplies rather than just relying on their own power plants, according to experts and officials.
Last Wednesday, the energy ministers of Spain and Portugal sent a letter to the EU energy commissioner Dan Jorgensen asking him to step in.
"France has a lot of nuclear energy and does not have a great interest in importing cheaper renewable energy from Iberia," Portuguese Energy Minister Maria da Graca Carvalho told reporters on the sidelines of an event in Cascais, near Lisbon.
But the European Commission can "pressure" France to comply with the rules of the EU electricity market, she added.
"If we (Portugal) do something that is considered a barrier to the internal market, the Commission wastes no time in sending us a letter with a warning. So we expect the same attitude towards France," Carvalho said.
Iberia lags behind the EU's target for all countries to have 15% of their energy system interconnected to the broader European network by 2030, with its share stuck at just 3%.
Works to strengthen an existing interconnector between France and Spain are expected to wrap up this year, while a new underwater power line spanning the Bay of Biscay is set to be completed by 2028.
Although French grid operator RTE has studied the feasibility of building two additional interconnections with Spain over the Pyrenees, Carvalho said they are not part of France's new plan until 2035, which she said "worries" her.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
44 minutes ago
- The Guardian
If Britain recognises a Palestinian state, it will be a gesture. That doesn't mean it is pointless
The idea that if you really, really believe something you can make it happen seems to be the best explanation for Britain and France's recent statements that they will recognise a Palestinianstate. No matter how fervent Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron are, their fervour will not make an impossible thing happen. There is no Palestinian state, and there certainly won't be one by September. For mostly domestic political reasons, they have decided to set aside that fact. Recognition is an understandable gesture, but it will do nothing to solve the current famine, and is doomed in the short term because there is no real state to recognise. But there's also a clear reason why some sort of action – even if it's purely symbolic – is needed. The situation in Gaza is appalling. If Starmer and Macron proceed with recognition, how can we manage the short-term disappointment of recognising a state that does not exist, while moving towards a two-state solution in the long term? In 1933, the Montevideo convention, a treaty signed in the Uruguayan capital by 19 states, all from the Americas, set out criteria that had to be fulfilled when recognising a new state. The criteria were agreed at the international conference of American states but are applied by the whole international community. Although not formal legal requirements, they provide a useful framework when considering whether or not to recognise a state. The three most important are 'people', 'territory' and 'governance'. Is there a permanent population? Does that population occupy a defined territory whose borders it controls? And does it have a single recognised government? The international community has recognised the distinctiveness of the Palestinian people since the 1970s. That's the main reason why 78 countries recognised the state of Palestine within months of the Palestine National Council's declaration of independence in November 1988. But the Palestinians have never controlled their territory. The Oslo accords in 1993 gave full security control to the Palestinians in 18% of the West Bank. Over time, that area was supposed to enlarge. That never happened. And in 2007, Hamas took control of Gaza. The Palestinian Authority (PA), under the control of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), remained in charge in the West Bank, while Hamas controlled Gaza. Two rival Palestinian administrations remain in place. Widespread international recognition of Palestine has made no difference to the lives of ordinary Palestinians. So far, 147 UN member states have recognised Palestine, including China and Russia. When Ireland, Norway and Spain recognised Palestinian statehood last year, all four governments claimed that recognition sent a signal that couldn't be ignored. But it hasn't helped the Palestinian people one jot. Israel (and the US) barely noticed, beyond saying disobliging things about rewarding a 'death cult'. They didn't change their policy. UK and French action will probably be treated with the same contempt in Jerusalem and Washington. But, despite Israeli denigration of their action, London and Paris won't be able to agree effective measures to penalise Israel, such as sanctions. Both governments still believe in Israel and its right to defend itself. Both still abhor what happened on 7 October 2023, and still see manifest shortcomings in the way the PA is run. Both the UK and France as part of the EU proscribe Hamas as a terrorist organisation. In fact, British and French recognition may make matters worse. Hamas may see advantages in sweeping away the corrupt gerontocracy in Ramallah; it is more popular than the PA in the West Bank these days. Benjamin Netanyahu, who doesn't subscribe to a two-state solution, may step up operations in both Gaza and the West Bank to underline who's in charge, and send a rather more effective message to Britain and France than they send to him. A two-state solution remains the only way to achieve long-term peace, but right now conditions for one could not be more hostile. For that reason, Britain and France recognising Palestine is an empty gesture. But the recognition boat seems to have sailed. Both Britain and France have made forward-leaning statements; governments find it hard to ignore incessant public demands. And public opinion is responding to what Israel is doing in Gaza. Collective punishment is unlawful. What Israel is doing to the population of Gaza because Hamas refuses to hand over 50 hostages (about 20 living and 30 dead) and dismantle its leadership amounts to collective punishment. Israel is not doing nearly enough to prevent starvation. By September, Israel won't have fulfilled the conditions that Starmer has set out to avert recognition. And Israel (and its supporters) will say that's no fault of Israel's. The British government will still have freedom of manoeuvre either to recognise the state of Palestine or postpone recognition. But at that point failing to recognise would look just as weak as I believe recognising looks right now. What to do? The government could recognise Palestine while acknowledging the weakness of doing so. Ministers should go easy on rhetoric claiming it's a historic moment, and focus instead on basic principles and the future. The only way for two peoples to live side by side in peace is for each to have its own state. Israel did not fulfil the criteria for statehood when it was first created. But Israel's friends overlooked its shortcomings, while its foes (such as Stalin) argued that the Jews were not even a people. The unique complexity of Israel/Palestine's history and geography will mean that the state of Palestine, when it's real, is likely to look different from any of the other 193 members of the UN. It might not have an army. It might not have exclusive control over its borders. But it will still be worth it. The Palestinian people deserve better than the fate they have suffered for decades, a fate which has deteriorated horribly since the ceasefire broke down in March this year. We must not forget them. Perhaps the best option in September would be for Britain to embrace the fact that it's making a gesture, and not pretend that gesture had immediate, far-reaching consequences. It would make the gesture recognising that time, hard work and imagination were still needed to reach the ultimate goal of a two-state solution, but that, at this desperate time, such a gesture was the last best hope to keep that solution alive. In diplomacy, it is vital not to mistake activity for effective action. But sometimes activity is all we have to offer. Lord McDonald of Salford was the British ambassador to Israel from 2003 to 2006, and permanent secretary at the Foreign Office from 2015 to 2020. He is now a crossbench peer
Reuters
5 hours ago
- Reuters
UK threatens jail for people smugglers who advertise on social media
LONDON, Aug 3 (Reuters) - People smugglers who use social media to promote their services to migrants seeking to enter Britain illegally could face five years in prison under plans announced by the government. Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour government is under huge political and public pressure to cut the number of migrants arriving illegally in small boats from France. More than 25,000 people have made the crossing so far this year. Analysis by the Interior Ministry showed around 80% of migrants arriving on small boats had used social media during their journey to find or communicate with people smugglers. Under a new offence, which will be added to legislation already passing through parliament, individuals who post online to advertise services that facilitate a breach of immigration laws will face fines and prison sentences of up to five years. It is already an offence to facilitate illegal immigration to Britain, but the government said its latest plan would give law enforcement agencies another option to disrupt the criminal gangs that profit from organising the crossings. Last month, the government launched a new sanctions regime allowing it to freeze assets, impose travel bans and block access to the country's financial system for individuals and entities involved in enabling irregular migration.
Times
15 hours ago
- Times
Palestinians are prisoners of geography, but statehood is possible
A rose may be a rose by any other name, but a territory is different. What's in a place name? Geography, history, identity and … politics. That is why most of what follows is disputed by one side or another, and why the Israel-Palestine conflict remains so intractable. In recent days, France, Canada and the UK announced plans to recognise Palestine as a state at the United Nations general assembly in September. Already 147 countries out of 193 at the UN recognise Palestinian statehood. However, that has not made the 'two-state solution' envisaged 32 years ago in the Oslo Accords any likelier. Last month, Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel, said it was no longer a goal of American policy. But on Saturday Hamas said it would not disarm until Palestinian national rights had been restored, 'foremost among them the establishment of an independent, fully sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital'. The statement left open if Hamas means all of Jerusalem but that is unlikely. In 2017 the group updated its 1988 charter and while it rejected 'any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea' it also said it considers a Palestinian state 'with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967 … to be a formula of national consensus'. This leaves the door open for Hamas accepting (possibly temporarily) Jerusalem being divided between its east and western parts, as it was before the Six Day War broke out on June 5, 1967. Perhaps emboldened by the global headlines that followed the French, British and Canadian announcements, Hamas appears to be trying to make itself part of future debate about statehood, including during the intense discussions which will come ahead of and during the UN General Assembly in New York. However, yesterday's statement brings us no closer to a ceasefire as it would take months if not years to negotiate the contours of statehood. The near future, like the past, brings areas of disagreement. They are always easier to spot than any common ground. Palestine is an ancient name, but its geographic area and political status have changed frequently over three millennia. The word derives from Philistia, the term the ancient Greeks used for a pocket of coastal land stretching along what is now Gaza. It was home to the Philistine people who had arrived from the Aegean in the 12th century BCE. The Israelites, who by then had conquered most of ancient Canaan, called them P'lishtim. The Philistines clashed with the Israelites, usually ending up on the losing side (see David and Goliath). They were eventually overrun by the Babylonians and by the 5th century BCE no longer existed as a people. Later, the Greeks referred to the entire land of Israel as Philistia, as did the subsequent Roman invaders who expelled most of the inhabitants of what they called Palaestina. Over the centuries this evolved into Palestine, or in Arabic, Falestina. History marched on, bringing with it the Islamic conquests, followed by the Ottoman Empire — both of which treated the land as part of a larger unit. Before the First World War, the terms Western Palestine and Eastern Palestine were used to refer to lands each side of the River Jordan, but contemporary understanding of existing political Palestine generally defines it as running from the River Jordan to the border with Israel — the West Bank — and the Gaza Strip. The Ottoman defeat in the First World War resulted in the Allies creating new political units. The British had issued the Balfour Declaration in 1917, promising to help create a Jewish homeland on the understanding that 'nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine'. The result was the Mandate for Palestine. Originally it was to include Transjordan (Jordan) but the League of Nations approved two separate mandates. Over 25 years there was an influx of Jews, many of whom bought land. The communities clashed and in 1947 the British handed the problem to the UN. It proposed two independent states, with Jerusalem internationalised. The Jews said yes, the Arab countries said no. The following year the State of Israel was declared, followed immediately by the first Arab-Israeli war, resulting in hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs fleeing, never to return. Jerusalem was divided, Egypt occupied Gaza, and Jordan annexed the West Bank. In the 1967 war, Israel captured East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank, and began settling Jews in all of them. Since then, we have seen wars, uprisings, the building of the 'separation barrier', a withdrawal of settlers from Gaza but a huge increase in their numbers in the West Bank, and now the Gaza war. That is a rough and probably disputed tale of the Palestinian territories, but what of the people? Here we enter the emotional and mutually exclusive claims of historic tenancy and sovereign rights. Arab Palestinians point out they were the overwhelming majority of inhabitants for more than a thousand years. In 1917, they comprised about nine-tenths of the population. Many trace ancestry to the arrival of Arabs during the 7th century Islamic conquests. Others are from Syrian and Egyptian families who came seeking work in the early 20th century. A distinct Palestinian Arab identity had already begun to emerge in the 19th century, and there is now a strong sense of nationhood. Israeli Jews argue that there has been a continual Jewish presence in the lands for 3,000 years, and that this is the birthplace of their national identity. They contest the notion that they are alien to the region and point out that about 50 per cent of Israel's Jewish population are descendants of the 600,000 Middle Eastern Jews who were among the million or so who migrated, or were expelled from, Arab countries after 1948. The population of Israel now stands at 9.5 million, of which about two million are Arabs. The West Bank Palestinian population is 3.19 million and there are 2.1 million people in Gaza. However, the UN regards another 5.9 million people living outside the territory as Palestinian refugees. This brings us to contemporary politics. In 2011, President Abbas applied for Palestine to join the UN, and the following year it was granted non-member observer state status (which Switzerland also held until its people voted to join in 2002). The security council must agree to a country becoming a member before the application is sent to the UN general assembly; it can be vetoed by any of the permanent five members of the council (China, France, Russia, the UK and the United States). While the US remains primed to do just that, the Palestinian application is unlikely to proceed, despite the recent announcements by France, the UK and Canada. The three western powers have at least helped to resuscitate discussion around a two-state solution. There is urgency here: continued Israeli settlement of the West Bank means the window of possibility is closing. At some point the geography for two states will not work. That is why the more significant declaration this week was by the 22-member Arab League. EDUARDO MUNOZ/REUTERS For the first time it backed a declaration at the UN in New York that condemned Hamas for the massacres on October 7, 2023, as well as subsequent Israeli actions. It called on Hamas to hand its weapons to the Palestinian Authority and stand down, and, in another first, hinted at the normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. The text calls for 'tangible steps in promoting mutual recognition, peaceful coexistence, and co-operation among all states in the region'. This is significant because it is possible that the key to unlocking recognition of Palestine is full Arab recognition of Israel. However, pre-existing problems, and a new one, put a roadblock in front of this potential progress. • Why Israel can't brush off France's recognition of a Palestinian state The new barrier was the US State Department's announcement of sanctions against the Palestinian Authority for 'continuing to support terrorism, including incitement and glorification of violence (especially in textbooks) and providing payments and benefits in support of terrorism to Palestinian terrorists and their families'. Washington knows the Palestinian Authority pays the families of suicide bombers stipends, an accusation it has levelled for years — so why issue sanctions, including visa bans, now? It is clearly to undermine the new international push for a two-state solution, including the Arab-led plan for Gaza's reconstruction, with policing undertaken by Egyptian-trained Palestinian Authority police. Less clear is if this indicates that President Trump will never allow a Palestinian state, or that he will, but wants to ensure only he can bring it about (and thus win a Nobel peace prize). Within two days, Trump went from 'having no view' on world leaders saying they would recognise Palestine to castigating Canada's prime minister, Mark Carney, for doing the same thing. A post on his Truth Social platform said: 'That will make it very hard for us to make a trade deal with them. Oh Canada!!!' Some of the pre-existing problems were contained in the New York declaration. It reiterated that the 5.9 million Palestinian refugees have the 'right of return' to the places in Israel they left in 1948. The UN categorises as refugees the descendants of Palestinians who fled. Israel asks why only Palestinians have this UN status and says there is no way it would ever allow almost six million Palestinians to enter its borders. We are back where we began — definitions. The most used criteria for statehood are in the 1933 Montevideo convention: a permanent population, a defined territory, an effective government, the capacity for external relations. Opposing sides argue about whether Palestinian refugees should be included in the definition of a permanent population, and what are the defined borders. Some will say the Palestinian Authority can be an effective government and others that it is a corrupt fossil with little authority over the West Bank, never mind Gaza, which was/is run by Hamas. Perhaps, though, these are technicalities that can be overcome by compromise. Ah yes — compromise. For almost 80 years, since the United Nations became involved, the failure to compromise on rights, territorial inheritance, geography and competing historical narratives has often led to 'provisional' agreements on the intertwined futures of Israel and the Palestinian territories. But as the adage goes, sometimes nothing is so permanent as the provisional.
