UK government confirms Liberation Day plans
The UK government has confirmed plans to mark Liberation Day as part of its VE Day commemorations.
It will include a special reception in Parliament and a visit to Jersey and Sark by Minister for Sport, Media, Civil Society and Youth, Stephanie Peacock.
Flags from the Channel Islands will also be flown from the Ministry of Justice and in Parliament Square.
It comes after Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell raised the lack of published plans to include the Channel Islands in Parliament.
Events will begin with a special reception in Parliament on 6 May.
It will be hosted by the Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, on behalf of the governments of Jersey and Guernsey, with UK ministers expected to attend.
Peacock will then travel to Jersey and Sark on 9 and 10 May to participate in the Liberation celebrations.
She will be joined by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Ministry of Justice, who has responsibility for the UK's constitutional relationship with the Channel Islands.
Flags of all the Crown Dependencies will be flown from the top of the Ministry of Justice building and in Parliament Square.
Channel Islands may join 80th VE Day celebrations
Flypast and concert for VE Day 80th commemorations
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
3 hours ago
- Forbes
Why The Washington Post Is Drowning In Bad Headlines
The Washington Post Building at One Franklin Square Building in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew ...) I didn't think I'd be back writing about the troubles at The Washington Post so soon, following my last piece from just a few days ago, but here we are. That earlier piece, which you can read here, focused on the Post having lost tens of thousands of subscribers over the last several years, with the paper's current average daily paid subscriptions now at a new low. Despite the financial backing of owner Jeff Bezos, the reality is that Post hasn't been able to convert fleeting interest from readers into long-term loyalty; worse still, internal dysfunction and shifting editorial strategies continue to cloud the Post's identity and future. And, unfortunately, two new developments suggest the challenges aren't letting up anytime soon. Another misstep at The Washington Post Let's start with a newsroom experiment that executive editor Matt Murray detailed in a company memo. It's a new initiative that will allow individuals mentioned in the Post's stories to annotate those articles directly on the site. The movie is being framed as a way to 'deepen the conversation' and keep reader engagement on the Post's platform, rather than that discussion migrating away to X, Reddit, or elsewhere. But, come on: It's an absolute certainty that this is going to end up backfiring in spectacular fashion. This initiative is the kind of idea that looks fantastic on a whiteboard: Start letting some of the sources who are quoted in articles add annotations to the articles they're mentioned in. More engagement = everybody wins. Or something like that. In reality, the idea of real-time rebuttals next to reported journalism opens up an unnecessary Pandora's box. What happens when a powerful figure – or anyone, really – uses the feature in bad faith to undermine verified facts? Or tries to insert spin into the conversation? Will readers trust the original reporting, or will the very presence of a sidebar reply create the illusion of 'two sides' to a matter of fact? Reporters will technically be able to respond, but as I see it this risks adding 'debate monitor' to their job description. That the paper's management decided to embark on such an initiative at all, meanwhile, should also put this next bit of negative news into context. A rebuke of The Washington Post's Bezos era Pamela Alma Weymouth, granddaughter of the late Post publisher Katharine Graham, has written a personal and extremely scathing commentary in The Nation about the situation at the Post — among other things, accusing Bezos of systematically dismantling the institution her grandmother once protected. She lays the blame for much of the Post's woes at the feet of the Amazon founder. 'In the face of a more tyrannical Trump,' she writes, 'Bezos has retreated. He's muzzled his editorial page. Exceptional writers, editors, cartoonists have fled. Eight days before the election, the Post canceled a scheduled endorsement of Kamala Harris — breaking with decades of precedent. Four hundred Post journalists signed a protest letter. Two hundred and fifty thousand readers canceled their subscriptions.' Things got worse earlier this year, she continued, when Bezos dictated that Opinion writers would be expected to align with 'personal liberties and free markets,' leaving little or even no room for dissenting views. Editor David Shipley and others resigned, and another wave of subscription cancellations followed. Weymouth continues: 'If the free press can be manipulated by politicians, if truth is viewed as optional, if The Washington Post goes dark under Bezos, then we lose more than a legend. We lose the very thing that makes America a democracy.' Weymouth's commentary is particularly damning in light of recent revelations about Bezos' companies engaging with Trumpworld while the Post, at the same time, shifted its own editorial voice. It's the kind of rebuke that ought to cut deep, given that it's rooted in the legacy of the family that once owned The Washington Post — their ownership now relegated to a bygone era of journalism. To be sure, none of this means the Post is finished. There are still plenty of talented reporters who fill its newsroom, but decisions from the leadership have nonetheless put the paper in a precarious spot. Legacy isn't a business model. Without a clear editorial mission and a bold plan to rebuild reader loyalty, the fact of the matter is that even a paper as storied as The Washington Post won't be able to successfully right the ship — and avoid the inevitable.
Politico
4 hours ago
- Politico
Trade talks morph into Trump's global bargaining table
President Donald Trump's trade talks aren't just about trade. They're about tech regulation, defense spending, critical minerals — even war and peace. Since slapping sweeping tariffs on nearly every country in April, Trump has turned narrow, trade-focused talks into kitchen-sink diplomatic forums. In closed-door negotiations, the president's top lieutenants have pressured foreign governments to significantly increase their military budgets, upend their tax systems and scuttle domestic legislation that could hurt U.S. businesses. The president has even leveraged U.S.-brokered ceasefires, such as the one between Israel and Iran, to induce other countries to buy more American goods It's part of a broader effort by Trump to use tariffs not only as a tool to boost domestic manufacturing and revenue, but as a lever to extract concessions on a host of unrelated issues. 'Access to the American market should cost you. Additional tariffs or additional levies — of course it makes sense to tie it to foreign policy. Why wouldn't we?' said former Trump adviser Steve Cortes. 'I get why countries are like, 'What the hell? This isn't the America we've been dealing with.' No, it isn't,' Cortes added. 'You just have to decide, is it worth it? If it is, well, play by our rules.' Trump sees a win-win: If countries refuse to bend to his will, he keeps his 'Liberation Day' tariffs in place, protecting domestic businesses and boosting U.S. coffers. Case in point: Trump on Friday ended trade negotiations with Canadain part because of its digital services tax on American tech companies slated to start being collected Monday, which he called a 'direct and blatant attack on our Country' in a post on Truth Social. The broad set of issues at play has frustrated other negotiations ahead of the president's self-imposed July 8 deadline to broker trade deals, as foreign leaders grapple with the fact that everything is on the table when negotiating with the United States. The ongoing uncertainty threatens to upend the global economy, confuse American industry, alienate U.S. allies and drive countries into the arms of China. 'It's unprecedented, if not completely dubious,' said one official from an Asian country, pointing to the Trump administration raising antitrust legislation in talks with South Korea and export controls in talks with China, as an example. The person, granted anonymity to discuss the negotiations, added: 'There is no indication it's working, and Trump will not reverse course.' But White House aides argue that the administration's kitchen-sink approach matches the scope of the problem. 'This whole thing is unprecedented. I mean, we are trying to basically reset what's a four or five decade-old status quo in which the United States was basically subject to free riding by a lot of our trading partners and other countries in the world, whether it be on trade, on defense and national security,' said a White House official, granted anonymity to share the administration's thinking. 'I push back on the idea that you can silo off trade,' the official added. 'They're all connected here.' At the NATO summit in the Netherlands this week, Trump threatened new tariffs on Spain after the country refused to increase its defense spending in line with other NATO allies — even though Spain is part of the European Union and doesn't negotiate trade deals independently. It's also been a hot topic in negotiations with Japan and South Korea, which have balked at the 5 percent across-the-board defense spending target the U.S. has set for its allies in Asia despite their exclusion from NATO. Trump this month said the U.S., which spends roughly 3.4 percent of its GDP on defense, would not abide by the 5 percent pledge. Trump has positioned Canadian investment in his 'Golden Dome' missile defense system for the United States as a way for the country to 'prove' itself amid ongoing trade negotiations — though the U.S. actually can't build the system without help from its northern neighbor. At the same time, the U.S. is pressuring South Korea to abandon antitrust legislative proposals aimed at regulating online platforms that are opposed by Google, Apple and Meta. It has also, like Canada, pressured the U.K. and EU countries to eliminate their digital services tax. On Tuesday, Trump added another demand, suggesting that China boost purchases of American oil as a thank you for the Israel-Iran ceasefire — an ask that comes as the president pushes Beijing to increase its imports from the U.S. And he's implied that he used the cudgel of trade wars to negotiate peace between India and Pakistan this spring, though India has disputed the suggestion. Trump took a similar approach during his first term when he threatened hefty levies to get Mexico to curb the flow of Central American migrants to the U.S., and tariffed China over 'unfair practices' in part related to the theft of U.S. intellectual property. In his second term, Trump has built on that strategy. He levied tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China in February aimed at curbing the tide of fentanyl and undocumented immigrants into the U.S. He also in April threatened 25 percent 'secondary tariffs' on any country that imports oil from Venezuela, a move he framed as targeting the country's authoritarian leader Nicolás Maduro and the Tren de Aragua gang. Foreign leaders are confronting the very real possibility that if they slow walk negotiations or abandon talks, Trump would happily slap a tariff large enough to effectively serve as an embargo with the U.S. — cutting off access to the world's largest economy. 'The president feels that tariffs are leverage — leverage for the relationship, of which trade is one component. That's why each of these negotiations has unique elements to it, which makes matters more unpredictable,' said one former White House official, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the president's approach. But giving into the president's demands on non-trade issues isn't a guarantee of tariff relief. Trump has shown no signs that he will heed French President Emmanuel Macron's calls for an end to the U.S.'s trade war with the European Union after NATO members agreed to hike defense spending to 5 percent of their gross domestic product. That unwillingness to significantly budge on his array of tariffs has bogged down trade negotiations and hindered the administration from crafting substantial trade deals. As the U.S. has set out to negotiate deals with more than 60 trading partners, world leaders have grown increasingly frustrated with what they say are unbalanced demands from the U.S. Other trading partners, including the European Union, have bristled at the terms of the UK framework and said they would not agree to a similar deal. That arrangement left a 10 percent so-called baseline tariff in place, while laying out a path to slash sector-specific tariffs. The bloc isn't alone, and Trump's numerous demands and 'do-it-or-else' approach have made it challenging for countries to corral the domestic political support they'll need in order to sell any deal at home. 'If the deal gets too imbalanced, it will get a very bad reception by most of our national public opinions,' said one European official granted anonymity to speak candidly about the state of negotiations with the United States. 'I don't think the EU side and countries can really accept a very imbalanced deal without risk of it backfiring.' But former Trump administration officials doubt the White House is about to change course. 'I see no evidence that the administration intends to reverse or scale back its use of this approach,' said Patrick Childress, a former U.S. Trade Representative assistant general counsel.
USA Today
8 hours ago
- USA Today
Tens of thousands march against Hungary's government, for LGBT rights
Crowds in Budapest waved rainbow flags and carried signs mocking Prime Minister Viktor Orban amid a new ban on Pride marches. BUDAPEST, June 28 (Reuters) - Tens of thousands of protesters marched through Hungary's capital on June 28 as a banned LGBTQ+ rights rally swelled into a mass demonstration against the government. Crowds filled a square near Budapest's city hall before setting off across the city, some waving rainbow flags, others carrying signs mocking Prime Minister Viktor Orban. "This is about much more, not just about homosexuality, .... This is the last moment to stand up for our rights," Eszter Rein Bodi, one of the marchers, said. More: They were out and their companies were proud. Then came the DEI backlash. "None of us are free until everyone is free," one sign read. Small groups of far-right counter-protesters attempted to disrupt the parade, but police kept them away and diverted the route of the march to avoid any clashes. Orban's nationalist government has gradually curtailed the rights of the LGBTQ+ community in the past decade, and its lawmakers passed a law in March that allows for the ban of Pride marches, citing the need to protect children. Opponents see the move as part of a wider crackdown on democratic freedoms ahead of a national election next year when Orban will face a strong opposition challenger. Organizers said participants arrived from 30 different countries, including 70 members of the European Parliament. More than 30 embassies have expressed support for the march and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called on Hungarian authorities to let the parade go ahead. Seventy Hungarian civil society groups, including the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, Transparency International Hungary and the Hungarian Helsinki Commission, published an open letter on June 27 in support of the march, saying the law that led to the police ban "serves to intimidate the entire society". 'Legal consequences' "The right to assembly is a basic human right, and I don't think it should be banned. Just because someone does not like the reason why you go to the street, or they do not agree with it, you still have the right to do so," Krisztina Aranyi, another marcher, said. Budapest mayor Gergely Karacsony tried to circumvent the law by organising the march as a municipal event, which he said does not need a permit. Police however banned the event, arguing that it fell under the scope of the child protection law. Orban, whose government promotes a Christian-conservative agenda, provided some clues on June 27 about what participants can expect when he warned of "legal consequences" for organising and attending the march. Earlier this week Justice Minister Bence Tuzson warned in a letter sent to some foreign embassies in Budapest that organizing a prohibited event is punishable by one year in jail, while attending counts as a misdemeanour. The law that allows for the ban of Pride lets police impose fines and use facial recognition cameras to identify people who attend. When asked about the threat of a one-year jail term, Karacsony said at a press briefing on June 27 that such a sentence would only boost his popularity. "But I cannot take it seriously," he said. Making the march a key topic of political discourse has allowed the Orban government to take the initiative back from the opposition and mobilise its voter base, said Zoltan Novak, an analyst at the Centre for Fair Political Analysis think tank. "In the past 15 years, Fidesz decided what topics dominated the political world," he said, noting that this has become more difficult as Orban's party has faced an increasing challenge from centre-right opposition leader Peter Magyar's Tisza party, which has a 15-point lead over Orban's Fidesz in a recent poll. Tisza, which has been avoiding taking a strong position on gay rights issues, did not specify in response to Reuters questions whether it believed the Pride march was lawful, but said those attending deserved the state's protection. "Peter Magyar has called on the Hungarian authorities and police to protect the Hungarian people this Saturday, and on other days as well, even if it means standing up against the arbitrariness of power," its press office said. Magyar himself would not attend.
