EU member states agree to host Ukrainians fleeing war until 2027

EU member states have agreed in principle to extend temporary protection for refugees from Ukraine by another year until March 2027, according to a statement issued on the sidelines of a meeting of EU interior ministers in Luxembourg on Friday.
This extension would allow Ukrainian citizens to continue accessing EU labour markets, social benefits and medical care without having to apply for asylum.
Friday's political agreement marks an important step, although the decision still needs to be formally adopted by EU member states - a move that is expected in a subsequent meeting.
In parallel, EU countries are discussing a recommendation from the European Commission to prepare a coordinated return strategy for Ukrainians.
This would help Ukrainians who fled to the bloc access other forms of residence permits such as work or student visas. Information about return options should also be improved, paving the way for Ukrainians to gradually return to their country of origin.
EU Migration Commissioner Magnus Brunner announced the appointment of a special envoy for Ukrainian refugees. Brunner had previously indicated that if the situation in Ukraine stabilizes, the protection status could also be lifted prematurely.
Since the beginning of Russia's war on Ukraine, more than 4.3 million people have fled from Ukraine to the European Union, according to the commission. Germany has taken in the largest overall share, more than 1.2 million people.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Forbes

an hour ago

• Forbes

Leadership Falters As Climate Costs Soar And Time To Act Runs Out

CHARLEVOIX, CANADA - JUNE 9: In this photo provided by the German Government Press Office (BPA), ... More German Chancellor Angela Merkel deliberates with US president Donald Trump on the sidelines of the official agenda on the second day of the G7 summit on June 9, 2018 in Charlevoix, Canada. Also pictured are (L-R) Larry Kudlow, director of the US National Economic Council, Theresa May, UK prime minister, Emmanuel Macron, French president, Angela Merkel, Yasutoshi Nishimura, Japanese deputy chief cabinet secretary, Shinzo Abe, Japan prime minister, Kazuyuki Yamazaki, Japanese senior deputy minister for foreign affairs, John Bolton, US national security adviser, and Donald Trump. Canada are hosting the leaders of the UK, Italy, the US, France, Germany and Japan for the two day summit. (Photo by Jesco Denzel /Bundesregierung via Getty Images) London Climate Action Week is set to start, showcasing what urgent, inclusive climate action looks like when cities, financiers, and citizens unite. But the energy and innovation on display in London are being overshadowed by growing inaction from global leaders. Just days after the G7 failed to deliver any meaningful policy progress, and as the EU backpedals on its green regulation agenda, a troubling gap is emerging between local ambition and failures of international leadership. This retreat is happening at the worst possible moment. Climate damage costs are skyrocketing, climate science is sounding red alerts, and economic evidence points to a clear win: green investment can grow economies, create jobs, and protect communities. The world's most powerful leaders are not just missing an opportunity, they are magnifying a crisis. To grasp its scale, we need to look at the growing economic cost of inaction. The Price Of Delay And The Need For Leadership Bloomberg Intelligence has estimated that in the year to May 2025, the U.S. incurred close to $1 trillion (or around 3% of GDP) in direct climate-related costs from floods, wildfires, infrastructure damage, and insurance losses. Globally, heatwaves, droughts, and extreme weather are disrupting supply chains, inflating food prices, and undermining financial stability. Insurers have seen annual catastrophe losses surge tenfold since the 1980s. Premiums have skyrocketed, and coverage has shrunk, especially in wildfire and storm prone regions, exacerbating economic disruption and housing unaffordability. At the same time, the European Union appears to be shelving the Green Claims Directive, retreating under political pressure precisely when markets are demanding clear, consistent regulation to guide sustainable investment. This uncertainty discourages capital and undermines momentum. These setbacks comes as the OECD's 2025 Green Growth report shows that climate action could unlock $7.4 trillion per year in investment and job creation if scaled by 2030. Yet rather than harnessing this opportunity, many leaders are hesitating. Nowhere is this hesitancy more evident than in the recent action, or inaction, of the G7, whose decisions ripple far beyond their border G7 Paralysis And The Global Ripple Effect The G7's latest Chair's Summary reaffirms familiar goals, like limiting warming to 1.5°C but offered no timelines, targets, or tools to achieve it. 'Once again, the G7 chose safe, business-as-usual declarations over the bold, future-proof action we urgently need,' said Daniela Fernandez, CEO of Sustainable Ocean Alliance. 'The G7's latest climate commitments reflect a deeper issue,' added Ibrahim AlHusseini, managing partner of climate investor FullCycle. 'Global leaders are increasingly distracted by immediate geopolitical crises, and climate, still perceived as a medium to long-term risk, has slipped down the agenda. But this is a dangerous miscalculation.' He added: 'Delay is not neutral, it's an accelerant of future instability,' with direct consequences for supply chains, migration, and global financial systems. And it's not just experts calling for change. According to the 2024 People's Climate Vote, 80% of people globally want their countries to strengthen climate commitments, and over two-thirds support a fast transition from fossil fuels. Other surveys echoes this: 89% of people across 125 countries support stronger government action, yet many mistakenly believe they are in the minority. This public mandate for bold climate action stands in sharp contrast to the political hesitancy now on display. As political will may be stalling, another sector is responding. What was once viewed as an environmental issue is now a pressing financial risk. Climate Risk Becomes Financial Risk Inaction is not just costly, it is destabilizing. The financial consequences are already unfolding across insurance markets and beyond. "We have already seen residential and commercial insurance premiums rise and availability drop in recent years, in response to growing insurer losses," warns Tom Sabetelli-Goodyer, vice-president of climate risk at FIS. They are early signs of a broader, systemic threat. As climate impacts intensify, they are cascading through the financial system, affecting asset valuations, credit risk, and the stability of entire markets. Regulators around the world have begun to integrate climate risk into their frameworks, but last week, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the global standard-setter for financial regulation, added its voice with a new framework for the voluntary disclosure of climate-related financial risks. While non-binding, the guidance marks a significant step and reinforces a clear message: climate risk is no longer just environmental, it's financial. As Julia Symon, head of research and advocacy at Finance Watch put it: 'Without clear, consistent data, supervisors are flying blind, unaware of the real risks building up on balance sheets.' The Climate Clock Is Ticking Scientific indicators confirm the urgency and the danger of delay. The 2024 Indicators of Global Climate Change report shows that the average global temperature from 2015 to 2024 reached 1.24°C above pre-industrial levels, with human activity responsible for nearly all of it. In 2024 alone, global temperatures spiked to 1.52°C, temporarily crossing the critical 1.5°C threshold. More troubling still, human-induced warming is accelerating at an unprecedented rate of 0.27°C per decade, the fastest rate ever recorded. At current emissions levels, the remaining carbon budget for staying below 1.5°C could be fully exhausted within just two to five years, depending on assumptions. Scientists also point to a growing Earth energy imbalance and early signs of amplifying climate feedback loops, such as ocean heat uptake and ice melt, which could further lock in extreme changes. The window for keeping global heating within safe limits is narrowing quickly. Yet even as time runs short, the economic case for prompt action continues to strengthen. Green growth offers a rare convergence of climate responsibility and financial return. Green Growth: A Trillion-Dollar Opportunity The OECD Green Growth report emphasizes that investing in clean energy and green infrastructure is not just responsible, its smart economics. Clean energy investment now outpaces fossil fuels, and 90% of global GDP is covered by net-zero targets. The report outlines how aligning financial systems with climate goals could unlock $7.4 trillion annually in investment by 2030. 'Green growth is an approach that seeks to harmonize economic growth with environmental sustainability and helps to deliver broader development benefits,' explains Jennifer Baumwoll, head of climate strategies and policy at UNDP. Far from hindering development, the green transition can generate resilient jobs, improve productivity, and enhance long-term competitiveness. In short, the report argues that climate action is not a cost but a catalyst for growth. Countries like Mongolia and Lao PDR are already demonstrating what this looks like in practice. In Mongolia, a green finance strategy, backed by the Central Bank and a new SDG-aligned taxonomy, has mobilized $120 million in climate-aligned investment, including the country's first green bond. Green lending is targeted to grow from 2% to 10% of all bank lending by 2030. Meanwhile, Lao PDR is advancing a national circular economy roadmap to reduce waste and resource use while unlocking economic opportunity. If fully implemented, it could create 1.6 million jobs and add $16 billion to GDP by 2050. These pragmatic, investment-ready models of climate action deliver real development gains. Their progress underscores a growing global divide: while emerging economies embrace opportunity, many developed nations are falling behind, precisely when their leadership is most needed. A Shrinking Window And Defining Test Of Leadership 2025 marks a critical juncture. Countries are expected to submit new national climate plans (NDCs 3.0) ahead of COP30 in Belém this November. Yet as of late June 2025, four months after the February deadline, only a small fraction had done so. Intended to reflect increased ambition following the Global Stocktake, most submissions remain overdue, and the ambition gap continues to widen. The UN expects a surge of last-minute filings, but tardiness isn't the only concern. Most existing plans fall short of aligning with the 1.5°C target, and the policy frameworks to deliver them at scale are still lacking. The challenge is not technical though but political. Instead of advancing, many major economies are retreating, weakening targets, delaying regulations, and rolling back commitments just as the case for bold action becomes stronger. Evidence shows that a well-managed transition can boost growth, reduce inequality, and build resilience. Yet that potential is being squandered. What's needed now is not just political courage, but real leadership, capable of driving structural reform and aligning finance with planetary boundaries. Decisive action today isn't only about avoiding catastrophe, it's about exercising leadership that can shape a more stable, equitable, and liveable world. The responsibility lies with those in power to act—not later, but now.

Hamilton Spectator

2 hours ago

• Hamilton Spectator

Inside the global race to shelter kids from the harms of porn and social media

Desperate parents like it a lot. Their children, not so much. Measures meant to bring safety and order to the digital Wild West, protecting children from the harms of social media and pornography, are coming into force around the world. In Australia, the United Kingdom, Europe and parts of the United States — though not in Canada, at least not yet — lawmakers are pledging to protect kids from an increasingly dark digital realm where the flashy, outrageous and most addictive prevail. To do it, governments are banning younger teens from social networks entirely, forcing companies to proactively block harmful content and put hard-to-crack adults-only locks on sexually explicit websites. It will make for difficult dinner table conversations with the kids, no doubt. Try announcing to a 13-year-old whose every spare moment is filled with TikTok dances and Instagram stories that their access is to be revoked. The technology being used to verify and estimate the age of users — and which is emerging as the future requirement before logging on to Snapchat or Reddit or X or PornHub — has also sparked debate. It is pitting porn sites against tech titans and advocates of free speech against those of child protection. Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s with world-first law What is not up for discussion, though, is that something must change. 'It's been 20 years that we've been having these discussions and every parent knows that there's a ton of inappropriate content that their kids are being exposed to — content that we use to all agree that they should not be exposed to before the internet and social media was around,' said Jacques Marcoux, director of research and analytics at the Canadian Centre for Child Protection in Winnipeg. French President Emmanuel Macron tapped into this frustration after a teenage student with a knife attacked and killed a school monitor earlier this month . He blamed the shocking act of violence on the rise of overwhelmed single-parent families and the harmful influence of social media. 'We have to ban social media for those under the age of 15,' Macron said in reaction to the killing, adding that he would push for the European Union to establish continent-wide rules or, if they were not forthcoming, he would push ahead alone. 'We can't wait.' Australia already passed the world's first law that, by the end of this year, will block children under the age of 16 from some of the world's most popular apps — a message that 'until a child turns 16, the social media environment as it stands is not age appropriate for them,' then-communications minister Michelle Anne Rowland in charge said last November. The ban could potentially reduce the incidence of cyberbullying, unwanted sexual solicitation and the cases of depression, self-harm and suicidal behaviour that has been linked to social-media use among children, wrote Jasmine Fardouly, a senior lecturer at the University of Sydney's School of Psychology. It could also restrict 'positive social media experiences, such as social support and connections for marginalized groups,' she wrote in The Lancet, a British medical journal . The Aussies have given themselves 12 months to test the technologies that could be used to comply with the law. The obligatory age-verification or estimation process must be capable of keeping young kids out without relying on the use of official documents, such as a passport or driver's license. It's a legal fence that many countries are straddling in a bid to satisfy those who want to protect children and those who want to protect privacy. Britain's communications regulator, Ofcom, is forcing online service providers to conduct mandatory age checks if their platforms feature pornography and to take proactive steps, up to and including age verification, to protect children from online harms. French President Emmanuel Macron, right, has pledged to a ban on social media for those under the age of 15. Prime Minister Mark Carney, meanwhile, has so far declined to pick up the Trudeau-era Online Harms Act. 'We invented age verification for pornography,' said Iain Corby, Executive Director of the Age Verification Providers Association, a London-based industry group. Verification was rather straight forward in the early days. A credit card, driver's license, bank account or passport would serve as proof of age, just like in offline life. 'As it became clear that we wanted to try and do this for younger people under 18, none of those things were available. So, the industry innovated and came up with estimation tools,' Corby said. Having a user flash his or her face in front of a camera for a few moments of digital analysis, is the most straightforward and probably the most accurate method available. The hiccup — that users are required to show their face — is a big one. There may be no qualms about doing to so to unlock a personal iPhone, but it is bound to make sheepish consumers of adult content think twice. Other services estimate age by checking a person's email against online databases to determine how long it has been active. The new regimes coming into place oblige the age-checkers to delete personal information as soon as it has been processed. For those concerned about leaving even the faintest digital trace, a French firm, BorderAge , promises total anonymity by estimating age through an analysis of hand gestures. The more fundamental question is whether age checks are really the way to go and, if so, who should do them. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on a challenge to a Texas law arguing that age-verification laws applied to porn sites violate the First Amendment rights of adults. The website operators say that users' fear of identity theft or the exposure of their online predilections end up deterring them from submitting to the new standards. How Trump the dealbreaker helped create the Iran-Israel crisis Aylo, the Canadian-owned company that runs PornHub, the world's best known adult site, is locked in a fight of its own with the French government. Earlier this month, it blocked access to French users in response to age-verification requirements that the company said were unfairly applied to 17 companies while letting others off the hook. Service was restored this week after a judge temporarily suspended the government order until a court could rule on the legal challenge. Aylo says it supports measures that prevent children from accessing its content, but argues that obliging individual sites to keep out the kids 'does not work' and risks exposing legal adult users 'to privacy breaches and hacks.' Instead, it says user ages should be tracked on individual phones, tablets and computers. This would shift the onus — as well as the costs and legal responsibility — to tech giants Apple, Google and Microsoft. In the global race to rein in the internet and make it safer for delicate young minds, Canada is trailing the pack. Technically, following this spring's election, it's not even on the track. In early 2024, the previous Liberal government introduced the Online Harms Act , which included measures to criminalize online acts of hate, oblige website operators to remove harmful content and force them to adopt 'age-appropriate design' to protect younger users. The bill proposed creating a Digital Safety Commission and Ombudsperson to enforce the new rules and regulations. But there were no explicit measures proposing age blocks for mature or adult content. 'Just to put age-appropriate measures, or something of that nature, was not doing it for me. It's like saying, 'Regulate yourselves, do what you think is right,'' said Independent Sen. Julie Miville-Dechêne, who introduced her own legislation in the Senate that would have made it a crime to make sexually explicit material available to to children on the internet. She worried that the government bill left the possibility of imposing age-verification measures up to the future federal commission — a much-too consequential step to be left to appointees and civil servants, in her opinion. Her Senate bill and the government bill both died when the last Parliament was prorogued and the federal election was called. Miville-Dechêne has refined and re-introduced her legislation . But Prime Minister Mark Carney's government, which has put all of its focus on protecting and growing the Canadian economy, has given no indication about if or when it plans to resurrect the online safety initiatives. The more time passes, the more Canada lags in the common effort to clean up the internet for kids. 'The longer that we delay this, the further behind we fall,' said Marcoux, of the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. 'It's true to say that kids in the U.K. and kids in Australia, they likely have a safer online experience than Canadian kids because of it.' It's also important for Canada to act in partnership with other nations in order to reach a critical threshold beyond which social media companies and pornography providers are forced to shape up or ship out. 'If more and more countries decide that this is not acceptable to feed kids with this,' said Miville-Dechêne, 'at one point they will have to change because we can cut the signals.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

Yahoo

2 hours ago

• Yahoo

EU review ‘paints grim picture' of Israel's actions in Gaza, Irish premier says

An EU review 'paints a grim picture' of Israel's failure to adhere to international obligations, Ireland's premier Micheal Martin has said. The Taoiseach said the report highlights the restriction of food and medicines into Gaza, which he said 'amounts to the use of starvation as a method of war'. The EU-Israel Association Agreement is being reviewed after a dozen EU member states backed it last month. The unpublished report has found that there are 'indications' Israel could be in breach of its human rights obligations under the agreement, according to several media outlets. Reacting on Saturday, Mr Martin welcomed the 'substantive and important' report on Israel's compliance with its human rights obligations under the EU-Israel deal. He said Ireland had 'long argued' that clauses on human rights in the EU's international agreement 'have to be respected' and should prompt 'serious consequences' when they are not. Back in February 2024, Ireland and Spain jointly called for an urgent review of whether Israel had breached its human rights obligations in the trade agreement. A majority of EU countries did not back the review until last month, prompted by a proposal from The Netherlands. The shift came amid Israel's months-long blockade of Gaza, which has accelerated fears of a famine. A new Israeli and US-backed aid system has been marred by violence. Israel's 20-month military campaign in the the Palestinian enclave has killed an estimated 55,000 people and injured thousands more, according to Gaza's health ministry. Mr Martin said: 'I very much welcome the substantive and important report of the EU's High Representative for Human Rights on Israel's compliance with its human rights obligations under the EU-Israel Association Agreement. 'Bringing together the reports and analysis of serious, credible and reliable sources – including the International Court of Justice, the UN's Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN Secretary General's Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict and others – it paints a clear and grim picture of a sustained and deliberate failure by Israel to adhere to its international obligations, especially in Gaza but also in the West Bank. 'It highlights a continued restriction of food, medicines, medical equipment, and other vital supplies into Gaza that amount to collective punishment of the civilian population, that amounts to the use of starvation as a method of war. 'It describes an unprecedented level of killing and injury of civilians in Gaza resulting from indiscriminate attacks without proportion or precaution, as well as attacks on hospitals, forced mass displacements and the killing of journalists. All of this with a persistent lack of accountability. 'In the West Bank, it reports sustained oppression of the Palestinian population, including through state and settler violence, the appropriation of land, and the use of detention as a form of collective punishment.' He added: 'We will now work with partners to follow up on this important report with concrete steps, and I will be discussing it with my colleagues in the European Council when we meet next week.'