Read the daily news to learn English

JD Vance says US-Iran deal ‘very general’ with many details yet to be negotiated – Middle East crisis live

Gaza’s health ministry said in its latest update that at least five people were killed and eight others injured in Israeli attacks across the territory over the past day. The health ministry says 997 people have been killed in Israeli attacks since the ‘ceasefire’ between Israel and Hamas came into effect in October 2025. It says that 73,008 people, many of whom were women and children, have been killed in Israeli attacks across Gaza since October 2023, when Israel launched its assault on the territory following the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 taken hostage.

G7 leaders meet for first full day of talks with Russia-Ukraine war first on the agenda – Europe live

As we have no read on what’s happening behind the closed doors, let’s kill some time with a bit of Élyséeology and see what songs the Élysée admins picked for Macron’s handshakes with visiting leaders on the French president’s Instagram. It’s Tom Petty’s “Love is a long road” for Macron’s meet up with Trump, which includes these fairly telling lines: “There were so many times I would wake up at noon With my head spinning ‘round I would wait for the moon And give her one more chance To try and save my soul But love is a long, long road” Erm. For Italy’s Meloni, it’s the classic Felicità – meaning, happiness – by Al Bano and Romina Power, and for Germany’s Merz is Namika’s Lieglingsmensch, my favourite person. Japan’s Sanae Takaichi gets Nxnja Beats Arigato, so a courteous thank you; Canada’s Mark Carney gets Celine Dion’s classic J’irai où tu iras, or I’ll go where you go. Britain’s Keir Starmer gets the James Bond treatment with The World is Not Enough by the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. And the EU’s Ursula von der Leyen and António Costa get simply a rock version of the Union’s anthem, with the CNK’s L’Hymne a la Joie. That’s proper music diplomacy. Hats off to the Élysée admins.

US-Iran deal may get oil flowing again, but region’s root problems are unsolved

In much of the Middle East, news that the US and Iran had come to a fragile agreement was greeted with relief tempered with doubt that any deal would resolve the turbulent region’s deep problems or even prevent a future return to war. In Kuwait, a frequent target of Iranian drone strikes during the 15-week conflict, Iyad Joumma, a 37-year-old Jordanian engineer, spoke for many. While the agreement may allow the region to catch its breath, he said, its success “will depend on the ability of the parties involved to address the root causes of the tensions”. Of a dozen analysts and experts consulted by the Guardian since the news of a potential end to hostilities broke at the weekend, not one suggested the interim deal to be signed on Friday by representatives of Iran and the US would be any more than a temporary solution. “It’s just a big Band-Aid and future conflict is like to come at some point,” said Neil Quilliam, a Middle East expert at London’s Chatham House. The memorandum of understanding provides for a 60-day cessation of hostilities during which the two sides will address some of the most contentious issues – Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile and nuclear programme, sanctions and the release of billions of dollars of frozen Iranian assets – in the hope that a final settlement can be reached. Few analysts believe this is likely within such a short timescale – if at all. They point to the painstaking 18-month process that led to the 2015 agreement with Iran, which traded economic benefits for restrictions of its nuclear programme, and which Donald Trump tore up during his first term in office. The interim deal now agreed does little more than commit both sides to further talks, while obliging Washington to lift its naval blockade of Iran and making Tehran allow free passage to all shipping in the strait of Hormuz, which usually carries a fifth of the world’s oil and liquid gas supplies but was blocked by Iran early in the war. To the great displeasure of Israel, a ceasefire has been imposed once again in Lebanon as part of the interim deal and appears for the moment to be holding. But such ceasefires count for little these days, said several experts, pointing to Gaza as an example, where almost 1,000 Palestinians have been killed since Donald Trump brokered an end to the war there last year. Israel has occupied more than 60% of the territory, Hamas has not given up its weapons, and there has been almost no progress towards a projected second phase of the deal, let alone the third, which was to have brought a massive reconstruction effort. “Gaza is a case in point. The deal there didn’t contend with the past: the war crimes that had been committed. Nor the present: how to disarm Hamas. Nor the future: a pathway to a viable Palestinian state and a resolution of the conflict,” said Alia Brahimi at the Atlantic Council in Washington. “It’s almost as if … you can use the cover of a ceasefire to continue to achieve your aims, including military ones.” But this was not possible in the Gulf, Brahimi said, because the strategic geography was different. “The strait of Hormuz is of integral importance to the global economy, as the Iranians have demonstrated. They’ve shown us what we always knew in theory: that they can impose cascading stress globally by throwing a few projectiles towards a tanker or two.” Mkhaimar Abusada, a political science professor at al-Azhar University in Gaza and now in Cairo, agreed. “The ceasefire in Gaza is holding because Hamas knows that if they fire it will give a pretext for another full-scale Israeli ground invasion but the situation in Gaza is disastrous,” he said. In Israel there is dismay and disappointment at a deal that does not appear to address Iran’s ballistic missile armoury nor funding of its so-called Axis of Resistance, a loose coalition of militant Islamist movements including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen and a series of militia in Iraq. This, too, could threaten instability in the near future, analysts argue. Danny Orbach, a military history professor at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, said that that after the bloody surprise October 2023 Hamas raid which triggered the Gaza war, Israel had set out to bring about structural change in the Middle East. “The structural change [Israel wants] is that the ‘Axis of Resistance’ must no longer be allowed to threaten Israel with destruction. Israel’s destabilising instinct is to tell all regional actors you will not have stability until you solve our problem, and that problem is Iran. This will not change until the memory of [the] 7 October [attack] fades and that will take years and years.” The sharpest shock, however, is being felt in the Sunni Arab Gulf states, where the stability behind decades of economic growth and growing diplomatic heft has been sharply challenged. It will take months or even years for damage to civilian infrastructure done by Iran’s strikes on Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar to be repaired, and the psychological scars will last much longer. Meanwhile, Washington’s clear unwillingness to accept significant losses, months of potential economic pain or domestic dissatisfaction send a clear message. “A ‘superpower’ that is not ready to bear 100 casualties is not a superpower,” said Orbach. H.A. Hellyer, of London’s Royal United Services Institute, said that Gulf states would now seek to contain a newly empowered Iran led by a more confident and possibly more belligerent regime. “The realisation that they can’t rely on the US is the point of consensus but otherwise [Gulf states] have all got different views of the best strategy going forward,” Hellyer said. “The Arab world has important and legitimate grievances with how Iran projects power and influence and none of these are being addressed.” Quilliam described a “new era”. “The [current] agreement will hold and in 60 days we will probably see positive headlines and the oil and gas will flow [again] but there’ll be no major breakthrough,” he said. “We know that Hormuz can be closed again, the Iranians have carried out strikes on Gulf states, and we have seen that whatever Israel and the US can do, Iran will take it. All the previous thresholds have been passed now.”

Spanish households save €10 a month thanks to renewables expansion, report finds

Spanish households save €10 a month on electricity bills because of wind turbines and solar panels installed in the last five years, a report has found. Typical energy bills would be 19% more expensive if electricity costs were still as tightly coupled to gas prices as in 2021, according to Ember, a climate thinktank. It found Spain’s “strategic” expansion of renewables since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 has shielded Spanish households from the latest rises in fossil fuel prices caused by the Iran war. “We just had a 60% rise in gas prices and electricity bills in Spain basically haven’t reacted – they actually got a bit cheaper in April,” said Chris Rosslowe, an analyst at Ember and the lead author of the report. “That’s a clear and obvious contrast to the previous gas crisis, when electricity bills were climbing immediately.” Burning fossil gas is one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity in Europe, even before considering the health costs of the carbon emissions. The influence of gas on electricity prices in Spain fell from 52% of hours in 2021 to 9% of hours in the first five months of 2026, according to the analysis. In Italy, which has the highest wholesale electricity prices in Europe, gas influences the price 75% of the time. The report found electricity prices in Spain rose by about 50% in the first half of 2021 – in line with European gas prices – but remained “largely unaffected” by higher gas prices in 2026. The effects of volatility in the wholesale gas markets was seen only as higher price peaks during the dwindling periods when large volumes of gas had to be burned. Mar Reguant, an energy economist at Northwestern University, who was not involved in the report but whose research findings painted “the same picture”, said ambitious policy helped Spain make the most of favourable conditions. Compared with the rest of Europe, these include decent wind, “unbeatable solar” and pre-existing pumped hydropower storage. “There is no question that Spain and Portugal are greatly benefiting from their early transition,” she said. “The Iberian peninsula has a privileged position and has acted smartly.” Wind and solar generated 33% of Spain’s electricity in 2021. By 2025, the share had risen to 42%. In other European countries that also expanded renewables at great speed – such as Germany, which increased its share of wind and solar in power generation from 28% to 45% in the last five years – the consumer benefits have been more muted as they have displaced other forms of energy, such as coal and nuclear. The analysis, which used data from March and April 2026, took a regulated electricity tariff paid by about one-third of Spanish households and modelled the size of the bill under a scenario in which renewables added in the last five years had not been installed. It did not factor in the bolstering of the electricity grid that variable renewables require, but it did account for balancing costs paid during periods when they generate too much or too little. Dr Diego García Gusano, a senior energy planning researcher at Tecnalia, a Basque technology centre, who was not involved in the analysis, said Spain’s gas-fired power plants still set the price during key hours and that frequent periods of very low prices were weakening the investment signal for further renewables. The slow deployment of storage and limited flexibility in electricity demand had “intensified” the situation, he added, preventing the system from efficiently absorbing excess renewable generation. “Spain is less exposed to gas shocks than other countries, but it is not immune,” Gusano said. “The bet on renewables is very sound, but much more is needed to make that bet structural and not circumstantial.”

Tuesday briefing: How the UK’s military spending row exposes Starmer’s defence dilemma

Good morning. What conflict has raged longer than the hundred years war? The fight between the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury over defence spending. I’d love to claim this as my own, but avoid patter theft this early in the day. So I’ll credit my colleague Dan Sabbagh, the Guardian’s defence and security editor, who spoke to me ahead of this week’s G7 meeting, in France, where Keir Starmer arrived yesterday for what could be his final international summit. The prime minister can anticipate candid discussions about international partnerships in conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, both of which may soon demand increased involvement from the British military. The political row over whether the UK government is spending enough to keep Britain safe and fulfil its international commitments broke into the public sphere with the resignation of defence minister John Healey last Thursday. It continues today as Al Carns, who resigned from his post as armed forced minister on the same day, tells the Guardian in an exclusive interview about “unbelievable” waste at the MoD, and suggests mismanaged programmes such as tanks investment should be scrapped in favour of new technology. The resignation of two highly respected ministers, only one of whom reportedly fancies a shot in Downing Street, further weakens the prime minister’s position ahead of Andy Burnham’s return to the Commons if he is victorious in this week’s Makerfield byelection. I spoke to Dan about how an argument about money exposes domestic and international uncertainties around Starmer’s leadership, Britain’s place in the world and the changing face of warfare. Five big stories Middle East | Donald Trump has declared that the strait of Hormuz will be “completely open” from Friday, as western leaders gathering at the G7 summit in Évian-les-Bains battled to prevent the fragile US deal with Iran from almost immediately unravelling. UK politics | Political hatred and division in the UK is probably worse now than during the Brexit referendum, when Jo Cox was murdered, says Kim Leadbeater, Cox’s sister who is now also a Labour MP. Crime | A schoolteacher described as a “serial manipulator and a serial liar” has been found guilty of sexually abusing and murdering a baby he and his partner had adopted. Environment | Half of the world’s children are exposed to at least three overlapping climate hazards threatening their health, education and survival, according to a Unicef report. US news | Eight people are presumed dead after a B-52 bomber crashed shortly after takeoff on Monday morning at a US air force base in California’s Mojave Desert, officials said. In depth: Starmer’s defence-spending ‘rhetoric-to-reality gap’ There isn’t a lot of agreement about what Starmer has got right in government, but our lobby team will tell you that some MPs remain swayed by his record on the international stage. He got two things right, says Dan: support for Ukraine and keeping Britain largely out of the US-Israel war on Iran. “He’s also weathered the sheer difficulty of being a British Labour prime minister when a turbulent Republican in the White House is shifting position daily between being your friend and trying to destabilise you.” But where Starmer has failed to shift the dial is on the strategic problem of Britain’s place in the world during a volatile time. He spoke to this at the Munich Security Conference in February, suggesting that – as the Trump administration disengaged with former allies – it provided an opportunity for “radical renewal” and a more European Nato able to “stand on our own feet”. Taken together, these factors point to the need to progressively spend more on defence to meet Nato’s target – which Starmer has signed up to, of 3.5% of GDP by 2035. Instead, Dan explains, “we’ve got a modest step up to 2.6% by 2027 and then ‘a big blank’”. Here the essential criticism that Healey and others are making kicks in, says Dan, with “this rhetoric-to-reality gap”. *** A lack of narrative Healey resigned on a point of principle about long-term defence spending, but he also quit because the prime minister is weak, Dan says bluntly. Circumscribed by Rachel Reeves’s much maligned fiscal rules, the Treasury has limited room for manoeuvre beyond further reallocation of spending from other parts of government, and Starmer has scant goodwill among remaining ministers. The trouble, Dan reminds me, is that Starmer’s dilemma is not only about cash that may be spent on future projects, but it is also about honouring the international commitments Britain already has signed up to. If you’ll indulge me a tangent: spending is often presented as a zero-sum scenario between welfare and defence, and not only in the rightwing media. In April, Lord Robertson, who led the government’s Strategic Defence Review in 2025, said: “We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget.” But as the Resolution Foundation’s Ruth Curtice said recently, the peace dividend – the uptick in available funding for other departments from the declining defence spend after the end of the cold war – has been spent on the entire welfare state, with the most dramatic increases in health spending, not just working-age social security. According to latest Ipsos polling, British voters are pretty evenly split on whether they favour an increase in defence spending or keeping it the same, although they are cautious about the tax-and-spend trade-offs. The case for increased defence spending is harder to make with a population who experience no direct threat while bombs continue to drop elsewhere. This is despite the general acceptance in military circles that Britain is already under threat on home soil, be that electoral interference from foreign agents, targeting of synagogues by Iranian state proxies. Only yesterday a handler with ties to Russia appeared to have directed arson attacks on property connected to Starmer. But the problem is that the prime minister had already – very publicly – argued for that increase, warning voters to beware “peddlers of easy answers” such as Reform UK and the Greens risking national security. A more effective narrative-builder than Starmer could have made the argument stick with voters – and his own cabinet. *** Rebalancing Europe and Nato Starmer’s words at Munich about rebalancing the relationship between Europe and the US is a thread likely to be picked up by Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney, who pledged en route to the G7 meeting that “the new world order will be built starting with Europe”. “Do not underestimate how many European countries, particularly smaller ones and those to the east, now look to Britain, as well as to France and Germany, and want leadership,” says Dan. While initially encouraged by Starmer’s rhetoric, Dan says some Baltic states most exposed to Russian aggression are now asking: “Is Britain for real?” As he puts it: “They want nothing more than Britons to be strong and engaged, but suspect we haven’t really got the capability we say we have.” Britain’s reliability in a moment of crisis was exposed at the start of the Iran conflict in March, when it took three weeks to deploy a warship from Portsmouth to bolster security at the British RAF base in Cyprus after a drone attack. *** Changing face of warfare There has been a “huge shift” in British military thinking, says Dan, even in the past year, as regards the type of future investment our armed forces need and one directly influenced by Ukraine’s success in transforming itself into a “drone superpower”. When the Guardian interviewed Volodymyr Zelenskyy last week, just after his Downing Street meeting with Starmer, he was upbeat, saying the military situation was the most promising it had been for Kyiv for two and a half years. Having dramatically built up Ukraine’s drone capability – with the help of US technology – long-range strikes on Russian oil refineries, runways and military installations are now affecting the country’s economy and wartime logistics, and – in what Zelenskyy said was a very deliberate tactic – bringing the conflict home to ordinary Russians. Many military analysts argue that this techno-centric warfare is likely to become the model for 21st-century conflicts. But Dan offers a caution “against simplifications, that war is about one technology or another. Israel bombed Gaza quite effectively without drones; Iranian drones or missiles did not knock out US warships”. “Neither Russia or Ukraine has sufficient combat air power, or ability to mass force numbers – meaning that in Ukraine drones have become the weapon of choice,” he adds. “Drones are additive in a modern military, not a replacement for other weapons.” What else we’ve been reading Jonathan Jones has written this heartfelt piece about his email exchanges and intimate dinners with the late David Hockney when the artist returned to Yorkshire from LA. Sinéad Campbell, newsletters team I enjoyed this Science Weekly episode on the evidence for a social media ban for under-16s and how we make the online world a better place for all ages (clue: hold big tech to account). Libby Zoe Williams has a moving interview with the actor Laverne Cox about how her identity as a transgender woman has become a challenge to the politics around her. Sinéad World Cup 2026 On the pitch Spain 0-0 Cape Verde | No, that’s not a typo – the 64th-ranked World Cup debutants really did hold the perennial favourites to a no-score draw. “Wow, just wow”, Sid Lowe’s match report begins. Belgium 1-1 Egypt | Romelu Lukaku’s threat on the pitch drew two defenders on to his first run into the box, which resulted in an equalising own goal to salvage a point from a closely fought contest. Saudi Arabia 1-1 Uruguay | Maximiliano Araújo scored a late equaliser in Miami as Uruguay battled back for a 1-1 draw against Saudi Arabia. Iran 2-2 New Zealand | Iran did not seem bogged down by political baggage as they let their football do the talking in an entertaining 2-2 draw against New Zealand. Off the pitch England | Reporting from the Three Lions camp in Kansas City, Jacob Steinberg reveals how Jordan Henderson’s changing room leadership could make the difference after the veteran midfielder was dropped from the Euro 2024 side. My World Cup | Live in an America, Canadian or Mexican host city? The Guardian community team want to hear from you on what the mood’s like in your city right now. Japan | For his newsletter (sign up here!), Jonathan Wilson writes on how Japan’s great result against the Netherlands is the clearest symbol yet that Asian teams are catching up to the titans of Europe and South America. Today’s fixtures • France v Senegal, 8pm BST on BBC • Iraq v Norway, 11pm BST on BBC • Argentina v Algeria, 2am BST on ITV • Austria v Jordan, 5am BST on ITV The front pages “Social media firms hit back as PM vows to ban under-16s”, is the Guardian’s front page today. The Times runs “Age checks on phones to access social media”, The Telegraph says “Starmer’s social media ban ‘a rush job’” and Metro has “PM: My ban will keep our kids safe”. The FT leads with “Arson attacks on Starmer properties were run by pro-Kremlin hacktivists”, on the same story the Independent runs “Arson attack on Starmer linked to Russia”, and the i Paper also says “Plot to burn down Starmer’s home linked to Russian mastermind”. The Mirror splashes “In their name” in memory of murdered MPs Jo Cox and David Amess. And the Express says “Our hope has been restored” on the assisted dying bill. Today in Focus: The Latest Will US-Iran peace deal hold? The US and Iran have reached a tentative deal to end the conflict in the Middle East, but competing claims from Donald Trump and Tehran have left the details shrouded in uncertainty. Questions remain over the reopening of the strait of Hormuz, Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon, and the future of Iran’s nuclear programme. Nosheen Iqbal speaks to Julian Borger, the Guardian’s senior international correspondent – watch the episode on YouTube here. Cartoon of the day | Ben Jennings The Upside A bit of good news to remind you that the world’s not all bad Nick Dowling worked for decades in manufacturing and consultancy but when he saw a poster advertising voluntary work for the ambulance service, he signed up immediately. Soon after, the pandemic hit. Dowling’s work went online. “Suddenly, you’re just talking to a screen,” he says. “You’re getting nothing back from it … I got bored quickly.” Meanwhile, volunteering with the ambulance service became more vital, and it led to a change of heart about his career goals. Now, at 60, Dowling has undertaken an apprenticeship and hopes to qualify as a registered nursing associate. He’s never been one to stick to a career path. “I value learning,” he says. “And I think learning and change are synonymous.” Sign up here for a weekly roundup of The Upside, sent to you every Sunday Bored at work? And finally, the Guardian’s puzzles are here to keep you entertained throughout the day. Until tomorrow. Quick crossword Cryptic crossword Wordiply

‘Beautiful moment’: fans of New Zealand and Iran draw on World Cup fervour together

On a cold winter afternoon in Wellington, dozens gathered at the Four Kings sports bar to watch New Zealand’s football team, the All Whites, take on Iran. The politics and hostilities surrounding Iran’s World Cup opener may have dominated attention in the lead up to the match, but in New Zealand, fans on both sides turned out for one reason: the love of the game. “It’s hugely significant,” said Andy Brown. “It’s all about football, it’s the World Cup and how good is it to see New Zealand there now? I saw them in 82 as a young’n and I can’t believe its happening again. New Zealand are the lowest ranked team in the competition, sitting at No 85 according to Fifa, compared to world No 21 Iran. It was an electrifying match – Iran and New Zealand slugged it out under the global spotlight, the match ending in a 2-2 draw that had supporters on both sides coiled with anticipation until the final moments. “I just want to see them do well,” said Iran supporter Arman who wished to give his first name only, adding his team had faced a huge amount of pressure. “I’m a huge football fan and I know its very polarised and there are emotions and strongly held opinions – I think its really unfortunate, the players and the team suffer a lot. They’re not the ones responsible for human rights abuses. “I don’t judge anyone over how they relate to it but I know that for me and others, [football] is something that is an escape and a beautiful moment.” For the first time in World Cup history, a host nation has received a country with which it is at war and the buildup to the match was mired in tension. Many Iranians and diaspora communities have described feeling torn over the team’s participation in the competition, due to the war with the US and Israel, and the perception the national team is connected to the regime. Some have described upset over Fifa’s rules barring political flags inside the stadium, which was upheld on Monday. In the US, Iranians turned out to protest against the match. In New Zealand, the response was more muted. “Given the diversity of views within the Iranian community, it is understandable that there has not been much organised activity,” said Aida Tavassoli, the co-founder of the Iranian Solidarity Network Aotearoa New Zealand. Some wished to support the players and distinguish them from the regime, while others boycotted the match in protest against the Islamic Republic, Tavassoli said. The political backdrop did not quell the enthusiasm at the Four Kings on Wednesday. The crowd erupted into cheers of joy and groans of despair as Iran and New Zealand traded goals in the first half. When early into the second half, Eli Just became the first New Zealand player to score twice in a World Cup match, the noise from the bar might have broken the sound barrier. The jubilant mood was quickly dashed when Mohammad Mohebis scored Iran’s second goal moments later. As the game drew to a close and a draw was confirmed, those in the bar clapped – the mood a mix of resignation and relief. In the minutes afterwards, an All Whites supporter approached Arman to shake his hand. “That was painful,” Arman told the Guardian. “I was going bald watching that. “We didn’t lead at all … we didn’t lose but I have high expectations and standards for the team. We should have won.” Stan, an All Whites supporter, was elated for his team. “It was an incredibly evenly matched game – both teams had a great attitude, were playing to win, taking chances – a great game of football.” Stan said he felt for the Iranians having to play “inside the belly of the beast”, surrounded by Americans and off the back of travel and visa issues, but it had levelled the playing field for the New Zealand side. “For a New Zealander – for us to play so well in a World Cup and come within a sniff of winning – was amazing.”

Sweden votes to back laws reinforcing its immigration crackdown

Sweden’s parliament has voted to escalate the country’s crackdown on immigrant rights, backing laws that allow authorities to revoke residency permits based on a vague criteria of bad behaviour and obliging most public sector workers to report anyone suspected of being undocumented. The new legislation comes ahead of parliamentary elections in September, pitting the centre-right government, which currently depends on the support of the far-right Sweden Democrats to govern, against a far right that has said its intent is to create one of Europe’s most hostile environments for non-Europeans. Late on Monday, parliamentarians voted to pass the so-called “good behaviour” law, which would cover pending and future residents but also be applied retroactively to many of the country’s current residents. “Anyone ‌who doesn’t make the effort to do the right thing shouldn’t be able to count on staying,” Sweden’s minister of migration, Johan Forssell, said in March when he proposed the bill. While the law does not specify the types of behaviour that would be deemed unacceptable, the government has previously mentioned examples such as unpaid debts, failing to pay taxes, criminality, and links to extremist organisations. The task of reviewing permits would fall to the Swedish migration agency, and any decisions can be appealed against. The law has been fiercely criticised by opposition politicians and rights groups, who have described the criteria as arbitrary. “This would lead to the risk of residence permits being denied or revoked based on behaviour that was neither illegal nor punishable for Swedish citizens,” Amnesty International noted recently. The Stockholm-based group Civil Rights Defenders said the legislation “undermines the rule of law”. In a statement it added: “The good behaviour law leaves people in uncertainty about what actions or expressions can be used against them.” The country’s parliament also voted to narrowly back a contentious, so-called “snitch law” that will require many public sector workers to report anyone they believe is undocumented. Critics of the new law, which passed with 174 votes in favour and 172 against, have long warned that it will negatively impact migrants’ physical and mental health while also significantly increasing the risk of racial profiling. “It is a cruel, ineffective policy and opens up the Pandora’s box of snitching – a trademark of authoritarian states,” said Jacob Lind, a postdoctoral researcher in international migration at Malmö University, in a statement. “Today’s vote will have devastating consequences for undocumented migrants who will be further pushed into the margins of society as their access to rights is restricted.” After widespread criticism, teachers, doctors and social workers have been exempted from reporting obligations. Employees of tax authorities and employment and social insurance agencies, however, are among those who would have to notify police when they have reasons to believe they have been in contact with people who do not have residency papers. Louise Bonneau of the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, described it as a “serious setback for human rights” in the country. “The so-called exemptions for healthcare, schools and social services don’t offer sufficient protection: in practice, information will flow between service providers, agencies, and immigration authorities,” she said, meaning some would probably avoid contact with healthcare professionals altogether. Her view is backed by Swedish researchers who, following interviews with public servants, warned that the law would, in effect, turn public employees into border police. They cited the example of a mother who delivers a child with the help of a midwife; while the midwife is exempt from reporting, they would need to register the baby with tax authorities, who could then report the family to police. The Swedish government has long defended the measures, arguing that they are needed to ensure that those who are not legally allowed to stay in Sweden can be sent to their home countries. The new reporting requirements have few equivalents across Europe; Finland has long been considering whether to expand such obligations, while in Germany, social welfare offices have for two decades wrestled with reporting requirements. In 2012, the UK’s Theresa May introduced the “hostile environment” policies that sought to limit access to work, benefits, bank accounts, driving licences and other essential services for those who could not prove they had the legal right to live in Britain. It later emerged that many who were in the UK legally were unable to prove their status and that the Home Office was frequently misclassifying legal residents as immigration offenders, leading the National Audit Office to conclude in 2018 that hostile environment policies did not provide value for money for taxpayers. On Monday, the European Public Services Union pushed back against the idea that workers would be forced to act as informants, with Jan Willem Goudriaan of the union saying that now was not the time for a “new witch hunt”. Instead, he called for governments to be reminded that “public services would cease functioning without migrant workers in Sweden and many EU member states.” The new law would fuel a climate of “suspicion, fear and racism,” he added, while also threatening people’s fundamental right to asylum. “It merely legitimises the far-right, who are all too happy to see their wildest dreams of mass surveillance, detention, and deportation come true at the expense of public service ethics.”