Trump said the US “does not need” its forces on the ground in Iran, claiming his war was going well without the need to send troops. “We don’t need boots on the ground now,” he told the New York Post. “We wiped out much of their [Iran’s] military with just bombing. We didn’t put anybody in the ground.”
Two leftwing US political commentators who were banned from entering the UK will still speak at the Oxford Union via livestream. The Home Office told Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker their presence in the UK was “not conducive to the public good” when they attempted to come to London to attend this week’s SXSW London event. The government has not commented on the specific reasons for the ban but Uygur, the host of the Young Turks podcast, has been accused of propagating antisemitic tropes in his criticism of Israel. He has insisted his criticisms are confined to analysis of Israeli influence over US policymaking. Piker, a leftwing streamer, has faced a backlash over some of his comments, including reportedly saying on a 2019 stream that “America deserved 9/11”, a comment he later apologised for and said was “inappropriate”. Piker has stood by his characterisation of Hamas as “1,000 times better” than Israel and his claim that he “would vote for Hamas over Israel every single time”, made in an episode of Pod Save America, the podcast hosted by former staffers for Barack Obama. Piker has said he is not antisemitic but anti-Israel. As well as the SXSW invitation, they were also due to speak this Saturday at the Oxford Union, the world’s most prestigious debating society. The Oxford Union president, Arwa Elrayess, said: “The Oxford Union intended to host Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker on 6 June for a discussion and head-to-head event with our members. We are deeply concerned by the revocation of both speakers’ electronic travel authorisations on the basis that their appearances would not be ‘conducive to public good’.” She added: “The Oxford Union was founded on one principle: that ideas are challenged through debate, not silenced by decree. We have never turned a speaker away because of their political beliefs nor have we sought a permission slip from the state. We will not start now. This event will not be cancelled. The union will ensure this discussion takes place. Free speech does not require a visa. We will update our members shortly.” SXSW London did not make such provisions for the pair. A spokesperson said: “We are aware that Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker are unable to travel to the UK following a decision by the Home Office. They will therefore not be participating in the SXSW London programme this year. “Decisions on entry to the UK are a matter for the Home Office and the individuals concerned. SXSW London’s role is to convene a broad range of diverse voices and perspectives. We remain focused on delivering a programme this week fostering open dialogue and exchange of ideas and featuring more than 800 speakers, artists and screenings.” Free speech activists criticised the government’s decision to ban the pair. Jemimah Steinfeld, the chief executive of the Index on Censorship, called it a “worrying escalation”. Akiko Hart, the director of Liberty, called on the government to be transparent about its rationale for issuing bans, saying: “Free speech can only exist when we defend it for those we disagree with, as uncomfortable as it may feel.”
It was about 11pm and Luis* was about to get into an Uber to go home when the police car pulled up. One of the officers produced two plastic bags with what looked like drugs: one contained some sort of powder, the other little crystals. Luis had never seen them before. Luis, who asked not to use his real name for fear of reprisals, insisted that the drugs weren’t his, but the officers didn’t seem to care. They shoved him into the back of the police truck and drove into the night. “You’re in big trouble,” one said. The frightening ordeal lasted hours, as the police drove him all over the Mexican city, threatening him, mocking him and sexually assaulting him. It was only once the officers had drained both of Luis’ bank accounts and taken all his cash – totalling about $870 – that he was released. “If you tell anyone what happened, we’re going to find you,” said one of the officers, according to Luis. “Where do you think you could file a complaint? There’ll be someone there who’s going to tell us and then we’re going to kill you and everyone close to you.” Luis’s terrifying experience has become commonplace in Mexico. Extortion is one of the country’s most prevalent and fastest-growing crimes. Between 2016 and 2025, the number of reported extortion cases nearly doubled. According to the Global Organized Crime Index, Mexico is one the world’s top five countries for extortion and racketeering, along with Libya, Colombia, Honduras and Somalia. In the first four months of 2026, there were nearly 3,600 cases nationwide, according to official figures. Yet the true number is likely far higher: only 0.2% of extortion cases are reported, largely out of fear of reprisals, making it Mexico’s most “silent” crime. It is also one of the country’s most costly, sucking up 0.04% of its GDP every year – nearly $900m. Extortion affects all sectors of society, from wealthy entrepreneurs to shopkeepers who are targeted by criminal gangs and forced to pay a “protection fee”. In other instances known as “express kidnappings,” people are detained for a few hours until their families pay up. Gangs abduct – or claim to have abducted – children and even pets, says Emmanuel Moya, an anti-corruption expert. “They don’t discriminate against anyone. That’s why it’s so profitable, so easy to do, and so difficult to combat.” The town of Huautla in Morelos state recently drew national attention after the Bishop of Cuernavaca denounced the extortionists demanding that residents pay $10 per family member each month just to live there – equivalent to two-thirds of the daily minimum wage. “Some had five children – imagine what that means per month for a poor person or family, in such a difficult environment,” Bishop Ramón Castro told Radio Fórmula. In the nearby city of Cuautla, known as the extortion capital of Mexico, things were almost as bad, with street vendors forced to pay sometimes two different gangs at the same time, Castro said. “Imagine a woman who sells tamales, a woman who sells ice-cream, having to pay organised crime,” he said. “This is unheard of and heartbreaking.” When owners are unable to keep paying, businesses are often forced to close down. And when people do speak out, the result can be deadly. In October, the leader of a local lime growers’ organisation in Michoacán state was killed after repeatedly denouncing extortion by crime groups. Two weeks later, Carlos Manzo, the mayor of the city of Uruapán, was shot dead on the Day of the Dead after calling out extortion by criminal gangs and local officials. “We are surrounded by criminal groups dedicated to extortion and killing,” the mayor said last year. “But we are going to confront them.” President Claudia Sheinbaum has vowed to target the scourge, pushing for a constitutional amendment to make extortion a federal crime, which would allow prosecutors to investigate cases without victims having to file a complaint. Since authorities launched a “national strategy against extortion” last July, more than 1,300 people have been arrested. Sheinbaum has also launched a large-scale security effort known as Operation Swarm to tackle corruption among local officials. While most cases of extortion are linked to organised crime groups, Operation Swarm has highlighted how prevalent it is among local authorities. The operation has led to the arrests of more than 70 officials, at least five of whom have been convicted on extortion charges. Often local mayors will work with criminal groups in exchange for bribes, while other times authorities rely on extortion just to line their own pocketbooks. Luis, like most victims of extortion, decided not to report his experience, fearful that the officers would make good on their threat. But that night still haunts him. “I’m very disappointed by all the kinds of violence happening in the city right now,” he said. “I really suffer every time I pass by a place where there are police officers.”
Italy to become a republic: royal family going into exile 6 June 1946 Italy is to become a Republic. This became known last evening when Rome radio broadcast the result of the referendum. The figures were: For a republic …….… 12,182,855 For the monarchy .… 10,362,709 The figures represent votes cast in 34,112 out of 35,236 polling districts. The figures will be announced on Sunday, and ex-King Umberto will leave Italy that day, probably for Egypt, where his father, Victor Emmanuel, is already living. His wife and family went to Naples yesterday to await him. All regions of northern Italy voted for a republic and central and southern Italy, with the exception of the region of Umbria, favoured the monarchy, as did Sicily and Sardinia. Rome was equally divided, 677,000 voting for a monarchy, and 619,000 against. The latest election results give the Christian Democrats a lead of about three million votes over the Socialists and, who are the second largest party. The Communists came not far behind the Socialists. Editorial: the new republic 6 June 1946 Seventy-four years after his death one half of Mazzini’s dream has been realised: Italy is for the first time in her history united as a republic. Even those who value the monarchy most highly in this country will not be inclined to question the wisdom of this choice. The best traditions of modern Italy are republican traditions. The Savoy monarchy was no natural growth. Those Italians who had long dreamed of national unity never dreamt that it would come in the shape of a dynasty from Piedmont, and they accepted it – if they did accept it – only because it seemed the easiest way to achieve their aim. Francesco Crispi, Mazzini’s ablest follower, expressed this well when he finally broke from his leader with the declaration “The republic would divide us, the monarchy unites us.” To-day many Italians must wonder whether the reverse will hold good. Though the referendum has given the republic a clear majority it is not a decisive majority – 12,182,855 against 10,362,709, – and it is remarkable that even after Victor Emmanuel’s collaboration with fascism nearly half the country was ready to give its allegiance to the House of Savoy. It is not impossible that if the allies had accepted Croce’s proposal of a regency on behalf of the boy Prince of Naples, who, unlike King Victor Emmanuel and King Humbert, bore no stigma of fascism, Italy would still be a monarchy to-day. Moreover, in spite of attempts to conceal it, it is known that whereas the north was strong for the republic the south was loyal to the monarchy. This is not surprising in view of the rival historical traditions, but it may help to accentuate one of the most persistent and fatal rifts in Italian politics. Great wisdom and restraint will be necessary if the new republic is not to be haunted by royalist ghosts. If one half of Mazzini’s dream has been realised in the referendum for the republic the results of the election show how remote was his other aim – the destruction of the papacy. The Christian Democrats, who are very much the party of the Roman Catholic church, have won a resounding victory. Continue reading. The birth of the republic From our own correspondent 11 June 1946 Rome To-day the Italian supreme court in a simple but historic ceremony in the parliament building announced the all but complete returns for the referendum on the monarchy. And so, somewhat hesitantly, the Italian Republic came into being. Since early in the morning there had been a queue outside parliament for the few seats available for the public at this evening’s ceremony. The president of the High Court of Cassation, with six sectional presidents, all black-robed, stood at one end of the hall, with the Italian government, while the president solemnly announced the almost complete figures of the voting. The court had announced that some objections had still to be investigated and that some results were missing, and so the question arose whether the Republic had been officially proclaimed. Signor de Gasperi, the premier, thought it had: it was not necessary that it should be proclaimed from a balcony, he said. “If the court has felt authorised to communicate figures showing a majority for the republic we take that to mean that the court is satisfied that further adjustments cannot materially modify the result.” Signor de Gasperi added that if Umberto leaves to-night or tomorrow, he leaves still as “King” of Italy. There was no reason on personal grounds why the king should leave at all as he had behaved very well. Thus from to-night Signor de Gasperi becomes not only prime minister but also head of the Italian state. This is a temporary measure until the first meeting of the new Constituent Assembly, which must elect Italy’s first president. Continue reading Umberto gives up the fight and goes: flight into exile in Portugal From our own correspondent 14 June 1946 The people of Rome, who have got into the habit these last few days of looking at the Quirinal from time to time, saw the royal standard come slowly down at 10 minutes to six to-night. At 2.30 Umberto II was seen to drive into the Quirinal, from which all cordons had been removed. At quarter past three his car, followed by another, drove swiftly out towards the Ciampino airport before anyone except a few waiting journalists knew what had happened. At the airport the passengers of the two cars, who included Umberto, two Italian generals, and two ladies-in-waiting, as well as Duke Gallarati Scotti, Italy’s Ambassador in Madrid, who is on his way back to his post, entered the Italian plane which had been waiting since Monday to take the king to Portugal. Continue reading. Voting by symbol 5 June 1946 Today we reproduce some of the symbols by which the parties are represented on the voting paper and the simpler but more prosaic designs which stand for the republic and the monarchy. The use of symbols is presumably to help the section of the electorate which is illiterate. The chief parties are the Christian Democrats (2), the Socialists (6), the Communists (13), the Republican party (3), the Royalist National Block (16), and the Liberals (18). No 9, which shows the Stars and Stripes as well as the tricolour of Italy, is the symbol of the party which wants Italy to be the 44th state of the United States.
For decades, the Savak was seen as the most hated symbol of repression that kept Iran’s last shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, in power – and a main driving force behind the revolutionary fervor that toppled him in 1979. Now the deposed monarch’s son, Reza Pahlavi, has been forced to distance himself from the once-dreaded security agency after some of his most vociferous supporters glorified it as the defining emblem in their drive to install him on the throne in a royal restoration. Washington-based Pahlavi, 65, who has not been in Iran for 48 years, has portrayed himself as “uniquely positioned” to lead a transition to democracy to replace the current Islamic theocracy, which has been fighting for its survival since February when the US and Israel embarked on a campaign of military strikes, currently stalled amid a current shaky ceasefire and Pakistani-mediated negotiations. He thrust himself forward as a potential leader after protesters chanted his name and “javid shah” (long live the shah), in reference to the Iran’s long history of monarchical rule in mass demonstrations that gripped Iran last January before being brutally crushed by regime security forces. But former Pahlavi allies say his credentials have been undermined by “fascistic” supporters who have staged rallies at which they have flown banners and worn T-shirts emblazoned with the emblem of the Savak. Trained by the US and Israel, the Savak was widely seen as instrument of despotism which sustained his father’s rule by ruthlessly torturing and surveilling opponents. Following criticism that he had stayed silent, Pahlavi has belatedly denounced the displays in an awkwardly worded video message, calling the issue “relatively urgent”. “I don’t know where it is coming from,” he said. “I don’t want to get into a historical analysis of whether that organisation acted correctly or incorrectly, what it was not. “I will only say that it is a controversial issue. This is precisely the type of behaviour that gives an excuse to those that want to launch attacks on our movement.” Pahlavi’s denunciation was aired after his standing appeared to suffer a blow following revelations that the US and Israel had identified the former Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as a likely replacement in the event of the Islamic regime collapsing. The scheme to install Ahmadinejad is believed to have fallen through. Nevertheless, Pahlavi’s erstwhile supporters say the Savak displays have also eroded his status by mocking the values he once proclaimed. “I interviewed him in 2012 about Savak and he was clearly against torture or against anything that undermined human rights,” said Nik Kowsar, a US-based Iranian journalist and caricaturist who abandoned his former support for Pahlavi amid disagreements over hardline advisers. “The sad thing is Savak was seen an organization that was known to torture political activists or anybody criticizing [his father], as well as censoring the media. It wouldn’t represent democracy or liberalism, but that’s what a number of his avid fans are presenting right now.” Critics say the celebration of the Savak is consistent with others signs intolerance and authoritarianism in Pahlavi’s camp. At a rally in Munich in March, one supporter displayed a banner bearing the slogan “one nation, one flag, one leader” – closely evoking Nazi language supporting Hitler. Followers have also attacked journalists. Footage widely shared on social media showed the Iran-born CNN journalist, Christiane Amanpour being verbally abused by acolytes enraged at her description of Pahlavi as a “pretender to the throne” during an interview. Supporters – who commonly refer to him as “crown prince Reza” – have also complained about reporters addressing him as “Mr Pahlavi”. Pahlavi has himself been confrontational in his personal interactions with journalists. In a press conferences in Berlin in April, he abruptly cut off a female journalist who sought to ask him a follow-up question and became involved in a heated exchange with another who asked if he was “an agent of Israel”. He vented his anger in a subsequent video, accusing journalists of “silencing” the voices of the opponents of the Islamic regime. Pahlavi, has supported the US and Israeli strikes against Iran, and criticized European governments – notably Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, who he has accused of “appeasement” and compared to Neville Chamberlain. But he has also lately criticised Donald Trump, accusing him of sending “mixed signals” by threatening to destroy Iran’s civilisation. Some Pahlavi supporters have been accused of threatening his critics, creating an atmosphere of “fear and dread”, according to one. Canada-based Masood Masjoody, a former Pahlavi supporter who had broken with him, was found dead in Vancouver in March this year after claiming that a group of activists were plotting to kill him. Investigators later determined that he had been killed and charged two anti-regime campaigners, Mehdi Ahmadzadeh Razavi and Arezou Soltani, with first degree murder. (There is no suggestion that Pahlavi was involved or complicit.) Neither of the accused have as yet entered a plea. Some expatriate Iranians reported being tagged in a threatening social media post after Masjoody’s death. “A bunch of us received this threat online, and that really shook all of us up,” said Alireza Nader, a Washington-based analyst on Iranian affairs, who reported the threat to the police. Pahlavi, who has been ambiguous on whether he seeks to inherit his father’s throne, was challenged on the issue in a recent appearance at a conference hosted by Politico. He blamed “a well-orchestrated campaign” by the Islamic regime aimed at discrediting him for some acts attributed to his supporters, who he called “a very diverse group”. “I always condemn any behavior that is based on violence or insult or [aggression] of any kind to anyone that is active. [But] I let my own supporters define themselves and describe themselves,” he said. “Are there extremists every now and then in the mix? Of course they are. This is something that is unavoidable” However, Nader – a former ally who broke with Pahlavi over what he says is an increasingly authoritarian posture – believes Pahlavi has been tolerating far-right extremists among his supporters. “I really do think they’re fascistic, if not fascist – and I rarely use that word to describe anyone,” he said. “He has taken the persona of this far-right, Maga, pro-Israel figure. That’s not who he was when I met him. He was just this very docile, polite, liberal, democratic man.” Pahlavi has generally not identified himself as “far right”, instead depicting his movement as a broad tent. But he did attend this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference in Grapevine, Texas, bolstering the impression that he was attempting to woo Trump’s Maga base. However, Trump is said to be sceptical over his abilities having reportedly referred to him as a “loser prince”, according to the New Yorker. Pahlavi has previously been quoted as saying he has no desire to return to Iran, telling one interviewer that all his friends and family were now in the US. Kowser said the former prince – a keen and talented photographer – once told him that his only wish was to take pictures if he was ever allowed back. Some have attributed his transformation into a presumptive leader to the influence of Israel, which Pahlavi visited in 2023, when he was received by the country’s then intelligence minister, Gila Gamliel, and Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister. “During the 12-day war last June, Netanyahu openly called on the Iranian public to rise up – and Reza Pahlavi also supported that war,” said Vali Nasr, a professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins University. “Six months later, you have the January uprising and again, the Israelis were knee deep involved, both with Reza Pahlavi, as well as having people on the ground. “But at the end of the day, Pahlavi doesn’t have a single person in Iran of whom he could say, ‘This is my representative.’ You need to have a ground game, people who can organize for you. This takes months to set up.” Nasr compared Pahlavi’s persona to The Last Emperor, Bernardo Bertolucci’s 1987 film about Puyi, the final head of the Chinese Qing dynasty, who collaborated with Japanese occupiers in the hope of regaining his throne in the 1930s before ultimately dying in obscurity after China fell to communism. “Like the last emperor, he’s gone to Manchuria under the support of the enemy who is trying to destroy Iran and it’s going to be very difficult for him to extricate himself from there,” said Nasr. “The longer this war has gone on, the more irrelevant he has become.”
Good morning. I’m Libby, and I’m joining First Edition today as lead writer. Thanks for having me in your inbox; it’s an invitation I won’t take for granted. I’ve reported for the Guardian everywhere from East Timor to Easterhouse (even a doggy swimming pool in Inverclyde), and I wanted to do this job now because talking directly with our readers has never been more essential. In this climate of “increasing misinformation, AI slop and divisive technology,” our editor-in-chief Katharine Viner recently described Guardian journalism as “the connective tissue that helps fight isolation and sustains democracy”. I want First Edition to play its part in that. Rest assured, we’ll still provide an early briefing to navigate news overwhelm, digest the story of the day and take you under the bonnet of our reporting. But we’ll be trying out some new formats and ideas to elevate your mornings – please do let us know what you love, what you hate and if you have any ideas by hitting reply. Change doesn’t happen without you. I’d like to begin by looking at the latest iteration of the (third and counting) Peter Mandelson scandal, after the UK government published thousands of messages, emails and other documents relating to his time as US ambassador. I spoke to Luke Tryl, UK director of the research agency More in Common and a man who knows more about the inside of British voters’ heads than most folk, about how and why this story reaches beyond the Westminster bubble. But first the headlines. Five big stories UK news | Politicians and community leaders have called for calm amid fears that the populist right is using the murder of Henry Nowak by a Sikh man to whip up racist resentment against minority ethnic Britons. Middle East crisis | The US and Iran have exchanged fresh missiles and drone strikes, further jeopardising efforts by Washington to secure a new ceasefire agreement with Tehran. Health | Weight-loss drugs can cut the risk of developing or dying from cancer by 30%, doctors have said. UK news | South West Water has been fined £1.85m for supplying water unfit for human consumption after a parasite outbreak made hundreds of people sick. World news | A British couple jailed on spying charges in Iran have lost an appeal against their convictions, their family has said. In depth: ‘Across the system, there is this sense of the broken social contract’ MPs voted in February to force the Labour government to release files relating to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador, from which he was sacked last year after revelations about the extent of his relationship with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The second batch of documents was released on Monday afternoon and comes after the Guardian revealed in April that the Foreign Office overruled a decision by officials to deny Mandelson security clearance for the role. Done in the name of transparency, it was nonetheless entirely unhelpful for prime minister Keir Starmer – reminding the nation of his glaring misjudgment in appointing a crucial diplomatic role to a man forced to resign in disgrace twice previously (and despite Mandelson’s incurious friendship with Epstein). The absence of key documents on vetting and security mitigations from the latest batch meant the focus was squarely on gossipy WhatsApp messages that revealed how little confidence some of Starmer’s closest counsels had in his leadership. In one, Mandelson complained that the PM was “not leading from the front”, in another that Starmer was trapped in a cycle of “advance/buckle/advance/buckle”, while he described No 10 policy and staff as “rubbish in, rubbish out”. And it prompted his main rival, Andy Burnham, to warn – for reasons that very much suit his Makerfield byelection campaign – that “the revelations will further damage people’s confidence in our political system”. *** A long history of dashed hopes But it’s not just the Mandelson scandal that does damage to public trust, says Tryl. “It’s that it compounds what people already thought they knew, which is this sense that the system is rigged, it’s one rule for politicians and other rules for themselves”. Certainly people have specific issues with Mandelson’s appointment: I remember at a More in Common focus group in Glasgow at the turn of the year, where previous Labour supporters spoke about “people who feel they’re beyond sanction”, and pointed out that in any other line of work you don’t get a third shot when you’ve messed up twice before. But this erosion of trust has been decades, and many governments, in the making. I caught up with our political editor Pippa Crerar as she navigated the Euston rush hour yesterday, and she reminded me of the recent history of disappointment and dashed hopes: the Iraq war, MPs’ expenses, austerity, then the wave of misplaced optimism about Brexit getting done that accompanied Boris Johnson’s victory in 2019. That was only to be brought low again by Partygate and the mis-selling of PPE contracts, what Pippa describes as “a crystallising moment, particularly for a new generation that hadn’t directly experienced the expenses scandal”. There’s been plenty of discussion about Labour’s difficult inheritance, she adds, in terms of public services, or the economy: “But there was another inheritance, which was as profound, and that was the lack of faith in the political system”. *** Government by WhatsApp? Starmer pledged to do things differently: instead disillusionment festered over prime ministerial freebies, Angela Rayner’s initial failure to pay the correct stamp duty, (assisted along by some wildly classist reporting from right-wing media) and now the never-ending Mandelson saga. The messages released at the beginning of the week are ripe for cut through, says Tryl: WhatsApp is a familiar medium and there’s a chattiness that voters remember. Its debatable how long Mandelson’s mockery of “hysterical” Wes Streeting and his “early mid-life crisis” will linger in the public consciousness. (Mandelson was criticising Streeting for raising Israeli human rights violations in Gaza with the cabinet. When people show you who they are, believe them), but Tryl sounds a loud alarm bell about Pat McFadden’s comments about tax and welfare, on which much of the right-wing press splashed yesterday. McFadden, who worked closely with Mandelson under Tony Blair grumbled: “Every meeting I have is: ‘Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others?’ They’re asking the wrong questions.” “That has the potential to really cut through,” says Tryl, “because it chimes with public mood”. Indeed, he puts it on a par with the former Labour Treasury minister Liam Byrne’s notorious “there’s no money” note after the party lost the 2010 general election. You can at the very least expect Tory leader Kemi Badenoch to raise it at PMQs later today. “There’s a profound sense that the people who work hard and do the right thing are essentially paying for those who don’t,” says Tryl. “For some people on the right, that’s people on benefits or illegal immigrants, people on the left, it tends to be that billionaires are getting a good deal while working people don’t. But across the system, there is this sense of the broken social contract.” *** Rebuilding the system Last time I was in touch with Tryl was at the fag end of the Holyrood election campaign, when he notably described the Scottish electorate as the least enthused he’d ever encountered. He predicts the ongoing revelations about the extent of former SNP chief executive Peter Murrell’s thieving from party coffers will only make this worse. But while the turnout in Scotland last month was down to pre-independence referendum levels, in the Welsh Senedd elections it was the highest turnout on record. Disillusionment doesn’t always drive voters right away from the ballot box, says Tryl, with people motivated by polarising parties to stop those they don’t support from winning, and vice versa. But it does push people out of the political mainstream, something Guardian reporters heard from voters up and down the country ahead of last month’s local and national elections. Tryl says people tell him that “mainstream parties have proven themselves incapable of making my life any better”, which inevitably leads them to reach for something new. “It’s not necessarily that people are confident that Reform and the Greens will make things better. But they think ‘we may as well roll the dice because what have we got to lose?’.” More broadly, the fix is not a simple one. “Part of it is that people’s lives just have to feel better,” says Tryl. But there’s another element that’s often missed, which he describes as “the politics of respect”. “Politicians need to demonstrate that they genuinely respect the public that they serve, those people who work hard and do the right thing, even if they’re not living in London, or university graduates. It’s the only way to rebuild that sense we have a system that works for everyone.” What else we’ve been reading High in the North Sea, Fair Isle is one of the remotest islands in Scotland. But scientific testing has found it has one of the highest levels of Pfas in its drinking water. Daniel Shailer finds out why. Patrick I was very moved by this letter from an anonymous reader, who experienced a similar trauma to that in the Fordingbridge case, and asks us to be mindful of how we discuss the lifelong impact of sexual assault. Libby Having spent the weekend with Gen Z cousins, I learned that being ‘cringe’ is one of the ultimate social sins. Ellie Violet Bramley has delved into why it has become such a big fear with that generation. Patrick Marilyn Monroe love goes on all week: the joy dances off the screen in this photo gallery of lookalikes celebrating the triple threat’s 100th birthday. Libby Playa Guiones on Costa Rica’s Pacific coast was barren in the 1970s after it was cleared for livestock farming. But a major community tree-planting effort has seen the landscape recover. Patrick Sport Tennis | Alexander Zverev took another step towards winning a first grand slam title at the French Open in a 7-6 (3), 6-1, 6-3 defeat of Rafael Jódar. Paralympics | UK Athletics has been fined £350,000 for the “wholly avoidable” death of a Paralympian who was killed during a training session. Football | Sir Kenny Dalglish has revealed he is receiving treatment for cancer. The Liverpool legend confirmed the diagnosis on Tuesday. The front pages “Appeals for calm as murder case prompts fears of racial tension”, is the Guardian’s front page today. On the same story, the i Paper says “Family’s plea for calm ignored” and the Mirror asks “Why didn’t they listen?”. The Telegraph writes “Police face call to drop race bias policies”, the Times says “Review of race guidance to end ‘two-tier policing’”, and the Mail’s take is “Kemi: This needs to be a Stephen Lawrence moment”. The Sun says “Never again” and Metro splashes “‘A dereliction of duty’ over Henry killing’”. In the FT, the top headline is “US calms Nato allies’ fears with talk of extending nuclear umbrella in Europe”. Today in Focus: The Latest What’s missing from ‘embarrassing’ Mandelson files? More than 1,000 pages of documents were supposed to reveal what ministers knew about Peter Mandelson’s links to Jeffrey Epstein and the security process to approve his appointment, but instead revealed government infighting and doubts about Keir Starmer. To understand more, Lucy Hough speaks to the Guardian’s head of national news – and former First Edition editor – Archie Bland. Watch on YouTube. Cartoon of the day | Ella Baron The Upside A bit of good news to remind you that the world’s not all bad A British man could be the first person with a physical disability to live in space. John McFall is poised to take part in a mission to Haven-1 – a space station being constructed by a US startup. A space mission wouldn’t be the first groundbreaking achievement for the 45-year-old, originally from Hampshire. McFall won bronze in the 100m at the 2008 Beijing Paralympics, after losing his leg in a motorcycling accident. It’s hoped this expedition will produce research to improve prosthetics. “We’re saying it’s OK for people with disabilities to be astronauts,” he said. “I don’t want it to be a PR stunt. I don’t want it to be a fad. I want it to be of value, both for space exploration and for wider society.” 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
Russia’s war on Ukraine is now in its fifth year and a ceasefire remains elusive. The US’s attention is divided, limiting external pressure for compromise, while Moscow and Kyiv both still believe they can strengthen their respective negotiating positions through battlefield gains. At some point, however, a deal will have to be done. The parameters of that deal are already understood by negotiators on all sides. Russia will give up on its original war aims and Ukraine will make de-facto territorial concessions. The US will provide Kyiv with security guarantees to deter future Russian aggression and the EU will provide Ukraine with a membership path as well as help with the country’s postwar reconstruction. According to Ukraine’s constitution, any peace deal that Zelenskyy makes will have to be ratified by its parliament and possibly by the public in a referendum. The key to Zelenskyy being able to do a deal and sell it domestically will be the EU’s commitment to Ukrainian membership. Ukraine joining the EU is important for several reasons. Taking on membership obligations will help drive reforms in Ukraine that root out corruption and better institutionalise the rule of law, in turn helping attract inward investment and reducing the postwar reconstruction bill for European taxpayers. It would also equip the EU with much-needed leverage vis-a-vis the US, and ensure that European governments have a seat at the negotiating table in shaping the final agreement when that time comes. The prospect of Ukraine joining the EU could also help to ward off a future Russian invasion. While article 42.7 of the EU treaties – the bloc’s mutual defence clause – is no substitute for the mutual defence pledge enshrined in article 5 of the Nato treaty, or for a US “backstop” to any European peacekeeping force in Ukraine, EU membership would nonetheless complicate decision-making for Russia’s military planners. This is especially important as long as Donald Trump or his Maga movement remain in power. It is for this reason that Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, and António Costa, president of the European Council, are framing Ukraine’s accession as the most important form of security guarantee Ukraine could win. The benefits are not all in Ukraine’s direction. Ukraine joining the club would make Europe a military and agricultural superpower. Not only does Ukraine have a far larger army than the UK, France or Poland – between 800,000 and 900,000 active military personnel, depending on how the numbers are counted – but it is also one with significant combat experience. Ukraine’s defence industry has proven highly adaptable, demonstrating leadership in areas such as drone innovation. As the US retreats from its pledge to keep Europe safe, it is Ukraine that can help the continent move toward greater military self-sufficiency. For this to be a credible prospect, however, Ukraine’s inclusion in the EU will need to be almost immediate – closer to 2030 than 2040. But EU leaders are torn on this question. Despite their warm words in public, in private many oppose Ukraine’s membership. The list of grievances is long. Given immigration pressures, many countries oppose granting Ukraine immediate free movement of labour. Fears of Ukrainian agriculture undercutting EU farmers makes others fearful of letting Kyiv have free movement of goods. Fierce opposition in France and Poland to the recent EU trade deal with the Mercosur countries of South America shows how difficult this issue will be. EU capitals also have concerns over corruption and the rule of law in Ukraine, especially given the EU’s past ineffectiveness in addressing these issues in countries such as Hungary once they are in the club. Another challenge is how the EU would treat territories in the eastern Ukrainian Donbas region, whose sovereignty is likely to remain contested. While Cyprus’s EU membership could provide a template (EU law does not apply to Turkish-controlled Northern Cyprus), dealing with a hostile Russia would be far more complicated. The budgetary implications would also be significant. Because Ukraine is agrarian and much poorer than the EU average, the funds needed to subsidise agriculture and economic catching up would be enormous, and result in significant transfers from southern, central and eastern Europe to Ukraine. Another challenge is that France and the Netherlands would probably need referendums to ratify Ukraine’s admission to the club. The precedent that Ukraine’s accession would set for other applicants in the western Balkans, along with Moldova and Georgia, is also a major worry. None of these challenges are easy. Yet EU leaders in national capitals and Brussels are nothing if not ingenious, and they can surely find solutions, as they have in previous crises. During the Greek financial crisis, despite a no-bailout clause in the EU treaty, governments still managed to shovel well over €200bn to Athens between 2010 and 2018 to keep the country solvent and prevent an even more systemic crisis threatening the entire eurozone. Sticking to the old, painstakingly slow system of EU “enlargement” would keep Kyiv stuck in the waiting room for the better part of a decade. Yet admitting Ukraine more quickly will require new thinking. One idea – for now rejected by the 27 governments – is “reversed membership”, whereby Ukraine would join the EU but not enjoy all of the benefits and rights on entry. Instead, Kyiv would negotiate its way into the single market in blocs and over time – but from inside rather than outside the club. Another idea is the use of “safeguards”, whereby Ukraine would run the risk of losing funds, access to the single market and certain voting rights if Kyiv failed to follow through on reforms. To manage the budgetary implications of rapid membership, long-term opt-outs could be put in place, meaning Kyiv would only gain full access to EU funds after 10, 15 or 20 years. German chancellor Friedrich Merz’s recent proposal of “associate membership” nods in this direction, even if his suggestion landed badly. Full membership would be a long-term aspiration. After all, many existing member states are still not part of the eurozone or Schengen free-travel areas. None of this is easy. But the alternative – possibly jeopardising a Ukraine-Russia peace deal – is surely more untenable. If war continues, it cannot be because EU leaders failed to recognise the importance of this moment in offering Ukraine the credible and speedy path to EU membership it needs – and deserves. Mujtaba Rahman is the managing director for Europe at Eurasia Group, a political risk research and consulting firm Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.