My day with Spanish anti-tourist activists giving Britons a soaking
Not long after we set off from near Gaudí's house, we came across our first target: a Louis Vuitton store.
After one activist climbed a ladder to deliver a political speech, protesters, including a child, began spraying the store front.
One scribbled 'Free Palestine' on the wall before a red smoke bomb engulfed us all.
This was supposed to be an anti-tourism protest in Barcelona, one of many co-ordinated across southern Europe on Sunday.
I had joined for the day to witness what it was like to be on the other side and see the sweeping pushback against over-tourism through the lens of locals.
After making a short political stand, the Assembly for Tourism Degrowth moved on, with the tourist magnet of the Sagrada Familia church in our sights.
I was now armed with a water pistol I'd been given by a figurehead in the group, Daniel Pardo, who was leading us past the Generator Hostel.
Two young women slapped 'Tourists Go Home' stickers on the windows. Mr Pardo, seeing a window of opportunity, ordered the demonstration to stop.
Next thing I knew, water guns were trained on the hostel entrance. For the tourists inside, it was initially amusing.
Then came the tape. Activists began crossing the front entrance repeatedly, symbolically 'barring' entry with red-and-white ribbon. It was too much for one hostel employee, who stormed out shouting in frustration.
Protesters sprayed him with their water pistols as he tore through the tape, grabbed one of the guns, and returned fire. A brief scuffle broke out, with pushing and shoving, before he was eventually pulled back inside.
Moments later, another activist emerged from the crowd and picked up where the soaking had left off. He kicked a smoke bomb into the hostel, where horrified tourists – including children – looked on.
The group moved on again, this time towards their biggest prize: the Sagrada Familia, a symbolic target for the protesters given it is visited by five million tourists every year.
Police blocked their path and even officers were caught by the odd squirt from water guns. After a 30-minute stand-off, the group was allowed to proceed to within sight, but not within reach, of the famous basilica.
On the way, protesters targeted outdoor restaurant tables. Gabriel and Rachel, tourists from Los Angeles, were among those caught in the crossfire.
While Gabriel sat over his soggy avocado lunch, he told me that it was annoying but insisted it wouldn't stop him returning to Barcelona.
At this point, I should make it clear I did not fire my water gun.
Many protesters insist their fight isn't with the tourists themselves, but with the political and economic model that they say allows mass tourism to overwhelm their city.
Rents in Barcelona have soared and neighbourhoods once filled with families are now dominated by short-term lets, particularly Airbnbs. Not only this but many local shops have vanished, replaced by souvenir stalls and endless Turkish cafes, particularly around areas such as La Rambla and Poblenou.
Residents say elderly neighbours are struggling to afford food and bills while landlords and corporations cash in.
'We have a big problem with housing in Barcelona. Some people are lucky just to eat or turn on the lights,' said Francisca García, who joined the protest.
For groups like hers, tourism is not just a nuisance but a form of 'economic colonisation,' where quality of life is sacrificed for the comfort of short-term visitors. Their goal, they insist, is not better tourism but less of it.
That may be true for most activists but their actions sometimes blur the line. The most common chant that echoed throughout the day was: 'Tourists go home, refugees welcome.'
Message may be getting through
At one point, a protester shouted into a microphone that Gaudí built the Sagrada Familia for locals, not tourists who leave it looking like a 'shit-tip'.
At the end of the protest, when the Assembly read out its manifesto, the language veered towards conspiracy, accusing authorities of 'brutal gentrification' and 'population replacement'.
'For more than two decades, we have seen a large part of the neighbourhood being evicted and practically its entire old town demolished, in a savage attempt to replace its population,' the manifesto reads.
Their message, however messy, may be getting through.
Barcelona's mayor has announced plans to ban all short-term tourist rentals by 2029. More than 10,000 flats are currently licensed for tourists, and the city hopes to return many of these to locals.
'We are confronting what we believe is Barcelona's largest problem,' said mayor Jaume Collboni.
The movement is no longer a fringe concern, with protests also taking place across southern Europe on Sunday in Madrid, Palma, Venice and Lisbon.
Tourists are undoubtedly starting to take notice – it's becoming harder to ignore.
Even away from the protests, my hotel made a point of proudly advertising its commitment to 'sustainable tourism' in the room, as though it were a key part of its appeal.
Sander and Luke Dingle, visiting from Florida, told me their hotel had posted warnings about the protest but they weren't deterred.
'We'll keep travelling around Spain, we're going to Madrid in a few days and we'll probably come back to Europe next year,' they said.
Indeed, tourism in Barcelona is still booming. More than 11.7 million tourists visited the city in 2024, a 5 per cent increase on the previous year.
The Spanish government in recent days has also approved a €3.2 billion expansion of the city's airport, indicating there will be no sign of the industry slowing down.
It seems inevitable that tourism will continue to thrive in Barcelona but if today is anything to go by, the activists won't be letting up. Visitors might just have to pack an extra waterproof next to their factor 50.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
The small boats crisis is out of control. This plan could solve it
In December 2018, Sajid Javid, then home secretary, cut short his holiday and declared a 'major incident' after 78 migrants crossed the Channel in small boats in four days. Since then six more home secretaries, and four prime ministers, have struggled with the same problem: how to stop the boats. All have failed. A record 17,000 have crossed so far this year. More than 900 crossed in a single day this month. There are some who argue that this proves, once again, that irregular migration can't be stopped and there is no point trying. This is wrong: the premise is false and the counsel unwise. Irregular migration can be controlled. There are plenty of examples of countries stopping or significantly reducing it. Australia has reduced it to almost zero: not once, but twice. It did so in 2001, and again in 2013, by shipping 'boat people' off to Nauru, a tiny Pacific island. Israel did the same in 2012 by building a fence and pushing migrants from Africa back across its border with Egypt. And, in the United States, President Trump is making a pretty good fist of it now: by strengthening border patrols and denying asylum applications at America's southern border, he has reduced encounters with irregular migrants to 12,000 in April this year, compared with 240,000 in April 2023. All these policies have three things in common: they are cruel and they violate people's rights. But they are also popular; or voters are at least prepared to put up with them if nothing else appears to work. In Australia, the 'Pacific solution' is now backed by both main parties. Trump is polling steadily on migration, even if the expansion of his deportation policy has dented support in recent weeks. None of this is lost on Nigel Farage, or his equivalents on the Continent. Seeing all else fail, voters are warming to Reform's promise to leave the European Convention on Human Rights and turn boats back at sea, using the navy if necessary. It is doubtful whether this very dangerous policy could work: you still need a place to push boats back to, and France is unlikely to be obliging. But it sounds simple and radical enough to tempt both voters and, it seems, the Conservative Party. This is a big problem for a Labour government that has promised to reduce migration but is reluctant to follow that path. Sir Keir Starmer's government desperately needs a humane, lawful, effective alternative. Is there one? More law enforcement is definitely not the answer. Close to £1 billion has been spent on boosting patrols in France; even more won't make much difference. A 'safe third-country agreement', with another faraway country that will admit and process asylum seekers, is perhaps an option. There is a version of this policy that could work, and could be lawful. The Supreme Court was clear on this, even as it scotched the previous government's half-baked Rwanda plan. But Labour criticised this policy so vehemently in opposition it would struggle to revive it now. • 1,378 migrants tried to cross the Channel in one day. France stopped 184 There is still one thing worth trying, however. It's also a safe third-country agreement, but not with Rwanda or some far-flung country. The deal the UK needs is with countries much closer to home: countries in the EU. From an agreed day onwards, the UK would agree with a group of EU countries, ideally including both France and Germany, to swiftly return almost all migrants who arrive irregularly across the Channel. This would reduce crossings to zero within a few weeks. As soon as it became clear that there was no prospect of success, the incentive to undertake a dangerous, costly journey would evaporate. After a few weeks, therefore, the number of transfers back to participating states would also fall to zero. The agreement would not be with the EU itself and would not replicate the unwieldy and unworkable system for intra-EU transfers known as the Dublin system, under which hardly anyone ever got sent anywhere. Anything that resembled this would fail — it is essential that asylum seekers do not suspect that there is a good chance of remaining in Britain anyway. Instead, it would be an ad hoc, one-off agreement with a coalition of interested EU countries, designed to ensure fast, efficient transfer for almost everyone within three or four weeks, with very occasional exceptions for people with the strongest family ties. The idea is not to turn boats around at sea. Intercepted migrants would be brought to British shores. They would be held securely and processed fairly. They would get a hearing, but unless they could present a credible other ground to remain here their claims would be declared inadmissible because there was a safe country to which they could be sent. There is no question that Germany and France — or Denmark, or Austria or the Netherlands for that matter — are safe. Their asylum systems are no worse, arguably better, than ours. Transfers would, therefore, be perfectly legal. There is an obvious question about such a deal. Why would European countries go for it? France and Germany have both had significantly higher numbers of asylum seekers per capita than the UK in recent years. They could not possibly agree to any arrangement in which the traffic was all one way. For this reason the UK would have to offer something in return: to take in, through organised legal channels, a fixed number of asylum seekers from the EU a year for the next few years: say 20,000 a year for four years, after which the scheme could be reviewed. A capped scheme similar to the Homes for Ukraine visa scheme would be set up to achieve this. This would be a good deal for Britain. Admitting 20,000 asylum seekers a year would be 30,000 less than are likely to arrive this year if nothing changes. Some would see this as an admission of failure, but a sharp reduction in numbers and, crucially, the restoration of control would quickly bring political dividends. A scheme such as this would almost entirely eliminate illegal migration. In comparison, the Darwinian lottery of the UK's current protection system, where over half of those securing it must have the strength and resources to undertake deeply hazardous journeys, is surely unsatisfactory. But what's in it for a Macron, or a Merz? Ultimately, something similar. Mainstream parties in Europe are leaching support to populists promising much more radical solutions to irregular migration. Right now, they have no policies of their own that credibly offer control. Nor are uglier ones that they are already endorsing (pushbacks at external borders from Greece to Poland, and deals with Tunisia and Libya to intercept boats and take them back before they even get there) working particularly well. This deal offers the outline of such a policy. Western European countries have every interest in showing their voters that migration can be controlled lawfully and humanely through safe third-country agreements. If they agreed this policy with Britain, EU countries would then need to invest in similar arrangements of its own, with partners it can find. For EU countries, finding (genuinely) safe third countries to transfer migrants to will be harder and will take time. But it is not impossible. Short of legalising the abuses occurring at their own borders, this is the only policy option they have. Developing this plan with the UK could quickly show that the model, control through co-operation, works. They would have a narrative and plan: two things sorely lacking right now. Like all good agreements, this one appeals to interests on both sides. It won't appeal to everyone. Participating states would be criticised from all sides: too generous for some, not generous enough for others. But if even closely allied, rights-respecting countries such as Britain and Germany cannot reach civilised migration control agreements, there is little hope for such agreements being reached anywhere. And little hope, therefore, for humane border control — meaning cruel ones will prevail. John Dalhuisen is a senior fellow at the European Stability Initiative. The ESI helped to broker the EU-Turkey deal in 2016, to address the migrant crisis caused by the Syrian civil war
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Ukraine war briefing: Russia repatriated at least 20 of its own dead soldiers in recent exchanges, Zelenskyy says
Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that Russia sent Ukraine at least 20 of its own dead soldiers in recent exchanges with Kyiv, describing it as a result of Moscow's disorganisation in carrying out large swaps of wounded PoW's and remains of troops. Zelenskyy said that an 'Israeli mercenary' fighting for Moscow was among the dead Ukraine had received. Officials did not disclose the identities of the bodies: 'They threw the corpses of their citizens at us. This is their attitude toward war, toward their soldiers. And this is already documented. Sometimes these bodies even have Russian passports,' he said. He said the Russian side insisted the dead were all Ukrainians. Zelenskyy has also accused western firms of supplying Russia with 'machine tools' used to make weapons, in remarks made public Saturday. He said companies from Germany, the Czech Republic, South Korea and Japan were among them, as well as one business 'supplying a small number of components from the United States.' He said most of the companies supplying tools to Russia were from China, but that dozens of western firms were also culpable: 'We have passed on all this information to all countries, our partners, everyone … We strongly urge everyone to impose sanctions on these companies,' the Ukrainian leader added. The Ukrainian president also called on Ukraine's western partners to allocate 0.25% of their GDP to helping Kyiv ramp up weapons production and said the country plans to sign agreements this summer to start exporting weapon production technologies. In remarks released for publication Saturday, Zelenskyy said Ukraine was in talks with Denmark, Norway, Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Lithuania to launch joint weapon production. He also said on Saturday he was planning staff changes in Ukraine's diplomatic corps and also in government institutions to boost the country's resilience. He gave no time frame for the decisions. Siarhei Tsikhanouski, a leading Belarus opposition figure, was freed on Saturday after more than five years in prison, in the most significant move so far by Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko to try to ease his isolation from the West. Lukashenko has been shunned by the West for years and faced sanctions after brutally crushing pro-democracy demonstrations in 2020 and then allowing Vladimir Putin, his close ally, to launch part of his 2022 invasion of Ukraine from Belarusian territory. The release came just hours after Belarusian authorities announced that Lukashenko met with US president Donald Trump's envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, in Minsk. In the Donetsk region, Russian strikes on Saturday on key towns on the eastern front of the war in Ukraine killed at least one person. The Russian military said its forces had captured another small village in its slow advance westward through Donetsk region. Russian forces struck Sloviansk and Kramatorsk – two cities that Moscow will target as its forces press on. Donetsk region Governor Vadym Filashkin said one person died and three were injured in Sloviansk. In Kramatorsk, officials said at least one person was trapped under rubble and a number of other residents were injured. In the north, another person died in a drone attack in the north near the Russian border, Ukrainian officials said. A mass drone attack on the town of Nizhyn near the Russian border killed one person and damaged local infrastructure. Reports from Kharkiv region in the north-east suggested Russian troops were closing in on the city of Kupiansk. On Friday, the Russian Defence Ministry said it had captured the village of Moskovka, just outside the city of Kupiansk. Deportation of Ukrainians is part of a continuing 'cleansing' operation of the occupied territories, reports the Guardian's Shaun Walker in Zaporizhzhia, which may accelerate if US-led attempts to push Russia and Ukraine into a peace deal result in the freezing of the current frontlines, solidifying Russian control over the territory Moscow has seized over the past three years.
Times
3 hours ago
- Times
Defence spending is increasing. Do we get bang for our buck?
B uckle up: the British state is about to commit a lot of money it does not really have to restore defence spending to levels last seen in the 2000s. Indeed it may have to go further: at the Nato summit this week the organisation's secretary general, Mark Rutte, will push member states to commit themselves to spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence. For years the fall in defence spending was used to pay for a rise in healthcare and welfare costs — the peace dividend — but defence has come calling again, and that transfer cannot be reversed. Instead, by squeezing a few years of the foreign aid budget, the prime minister has managed to raise defence spending to 2.6 per cent of GDP by 2027-28. We will learn a bit more about where that money will be spent in a national security strategy to be published this week. But will 2.6 per cent make much of a difference? Will a 0.3 percentage point rise in spending over the next few years really result in a meaningful expansion of our armed forces?
