French-speaking parliamentarians meeting in Jersey
The APF is an international organisation that brings together parliamentarians from countries where French is either spoken or plays a significant role. Jersey has been a member of the APF since 1971.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
43 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The super-rich have done what protesters never could: taken over the US embassy in London
Until seven years ago, one of the key centres of American power in Europe was a few minutes' walk from the consumer frenzy of Oxford Street in London. Reassuring or enraging, depending on your view of American hegemony, for more than half a century the enormous US embassy, by far the largest in the capital, provided diplomatic, immigration and intelligence services – and an irresistible target for protesters. Its strikingly skeletal grey building on Grosvenor Square, which opened in 1960, became steadily more surrounded by fences, concrete blocks, bollards and other defences: signs of the increasing effort required to maintain the US's worldwide ascendancy. So it's strange to visit the square and find that all the defences have gone. You can walk right up to the building, as protesters never managed to in large numbers, on to pavements once menacingly guarded by the embassy's detachment of US marines, and peer through the rows of windows at an interior eerily transformed. Like the exterior, it has been almost entirely dismantled and then reconstructed over several years, its grey bones warmed and softened with a lavish new colour scheme based on gold. The signal being sent to visitors and passersby is not subtle. The building's new role is to serve those around whose needs and wishes the centres of London and other prestigious cities are increasingly being reshaped: the 1%. Staying at the Chancery Rosewood, as the former embassy is now known, will cost between £1,520 and £24,102 a night – the latter half the annual median salary in London – when the hotel's first guests arrive on 1 September. Among other amenities, they will have an 'immersive wellness area', 'courtesy Bentley cars' and a 'curated art exhibition with art concierge'. The combination of material ostentation, health micromanagement and exclusive cultural opportunities required by the very wealthy these days will be provided by a formerly American hospitality chain, now owned by a conglomerate based in Hong Kong. The building itself is owned by Qatar's sovereign wealth fund. As so often in Britain, the ambition of some non-western countries to reverse their relationship with the old imperial powers is hiding in plain sight. Enclaves for ultra-wealthy guests are proliferating across a widening swathe of central London. Some of these hotels, such as Raffles London at the OWO (Old War Office) and the Waldorf Astoria London Admiralty Arch, follow a similar formula to the Chancery. Famous, well-located properties sold off by the state – the Old War Office and Admiralty Arch disposed of during the deep spending cuts by David Cameron's government – are having their history and faded grandeur commodified into something glitzier. By its final years, parts of the Grosvenor Square embassy were actually quite shabby, with worn carpets and frayed office furniture. Maintaining large government premises in expensive city-centre locations, exposed to protests or potential terrorist attack, can ultimately become unappealing for the state, not least because its revenues are limited by the reluctance of many of the 1% to pay their taxes. So the London boom in luxurious office-to-hotel conversions may have been partly prompted, in an indirect way, by the self-interest of some of those who now stay in them. As so often in the 21st century, the behaviour of the 1% feels impervious to satire or condemnation. Fifty-seven years ago, at the height of protests against the Vietnam war, Grosvenor Square filled with demonstrators, among them the leading activist Tariq Ali. In his memoir of the 1960s, Street Fighting Years, he recalls that he and his more excitable comrades 'dreamed' of forcing their way into the building, and 'using the embassy telex to cable the US embassy in Saigon and inform them that pro-Vietcong forces had seized the premises in Grosvenor Square'. Only mounted police charges and mass arrests saved the London embassy from invasion. Yet now luxury capitalism has managed to do what protesters could not, and take over the building from the spooks and diplomats. With Donald Trump transparently running the US for the benefit of the rich, it feels fitting that the building has become a place for them, rather than Americans in general. The hotel will be open just in time for his September state visit. Perhaps some of his wealthier supporters will take the opportunity to stay. For any guest who worries about the potential provocation of yet another elite hotel, operating at a traditional protest site, in a country in which most people are struggling with a seemingly endless cost of living crisis, the Chancery does have some discreet security. Cameras cover the hotel's perimeter, and guards circle the building after dark. Meanwhile a couple of miles to the south, in a new London landscape of residential towers and windswept roads at Nine Elms, the successor to the Grosvenor Square embassy stands in the middle of its own, far more extensive security zone, including a partial moat and a defensive wall disguised as a waterfall. The huge pale cube of the current US embassy dominates its neighbourhood even more than its predecessor did. It's also much further away from the usual routes of London political marches. Some protesters have already adjusted. Thousands of people supporting Palestine walked to the embassy in February, to show their fury at Trump's backing for Israel. The symbolic contrast between their defiant flags and flimsy placards and the fortress-like building did not work in the US's favour. The Grosvenor Square embassy may be gone, but the business of challenging the US goes on. Andy Beckett is a Guardian columnist
Reuters
44 minutes ago
- Reuters
World Court is poised to mark the future course of climate litigation
THE HAGUE, July 23 (Reuters) - The United Nations' highest court will deliver an opinion on Wednesday that is likely to determine the course of future climate action across the world. Known as an advisory opinion, the deliberation of the 15 judges of the International Court of Justice in The Hague is legally non-binding. It nevertheless carries legal and political weight and future climate cases would be unable to ignore it, legal experts say. 'The advisory opinion is probably the most consequential in the history of the court because it clarifies international law obligations to avoid catastrophic harm that would imperil the survival of humankind," said Payam Akhavan, an international law professor. In two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ, also known as the World Court, Akhavan represented low-lying, small island states that face an existential threat from rising sea levels. In all, over a hundred states and international organisations gave their views on the two questions the U.N. General Assembly had asked the judges to consider. They were: what are countries' obligations under international law to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions; and what are the legal consequences for countries that harm the climate system? Wealthy countries of the Global North told the judges that existing climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, which are largely non-binding, should be the basis for deciding their responsibilities. Developing nations and small island states argued for stronger measures, in some cases legally binding, to curb emissions and for the biggest emitters of climate-warming greenhouse gases to provide financial aid. In 2015, at the conclusion of U.N. talks in Paris, more than 190 countries committed to pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). The agreement has failed to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions. Late last year, in the most recent "Emissions Gap Report," which takes stock of countries' promises to tackle climate change compared with what is needed, the U.N said that current climate policies will result in global warming of more than 3 C (5.4 F) above pre-industrial levels by 2100. As campaigners seek to hold companies and governments to account, climate‑related litigation has intensified, with nearly 3,000 cases filed across almost 60 countries, according to June figures from London's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. So far, the results have been mixed. A German court in May threw out a case between a Peruvian farmer and German energy giant RWE ( opens new tab, but his lawyers and environmentalists said the case, which dragged on for a decade, was a still victory for climate cases that could spur similar lawsuits. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which holds jurisdiction over 20 Latin American and Caribbean countries, said in another advisory opinion its members must cooperate, opens new tab to tackle climate change. Campaigners say Wednesday's court opinion should be a turning point and that, even if the ruling itself is advisory, it should provide for the determination that U.N. member states have broken the international law they have signed up to uphold. "The court can affirm that climate inaction, especially by major emitters, is not merely a policy failure but a breach of international law," said Fijian Vishal Prasad, one of the law students that lobbied the government of Vanuatu in the South Pacific Ocean to bring the case to the ICJ. Although it is theoretically possible to ignore an ICJ ruling, lawyers say countries are typically reluctant to do so. "This opinion is applying binding international law, which countries have already committed to. National and regional courts will be looking to this opinion as a persuasive authority and this will inform judgments with binding consequences under their own legal systems," Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, said. The court will start reading out its opinion at 3 p.m. (1300 GMT).
Telegraph
44 minutes ago
- Telegraph
French Mirage fighter jet crashes in Ukraine
No casualties were reported on the ground, and an investigation into the cause of the crash is underway. President Volodymyr Zelensky addressed the incident on Wednesday morning. 'The pilot managed to escape and it was not shot down by the Russians,' he said. 'Unfortunately, we lost our combat aircraft. A French aircraft, very effective, one of our Mirage.' The loss is another setback for Ukraine's air defence capability, which has been under mounting pressure amid increasing Russian missile and drone attacks. Ukraine began receiving the Mirage 2000-5 aircraft this year as part of a French initiative to strengthen its air force. In June last year, President Emmanuel Macron announced that France would transfer the Mirage 2000-5s and train Ukrainian pilots in France for up to six months. The program was intended to bolster Ukraine's efforts to deploy U.S.-made F-16s later this year. The Mirage is a single-engine, multi-role fighter jet, which first entered into service in the 1970s, and shares many similarities with the American F-16.
