The European Commission has announced a significant reduction in funding for the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), cutting the budget from €386.6 billion to €300 billion after 2027. This decision, revealed by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, represents a decrease of over 20 percent, igniting fierce opposition from farmers who view the move as a betrayal of the agricultural sector.

During a press conference on March 6, 2024, von der Leyen defended the budget cuts, asserting that farmers would not face losses. She emphasized the continued availability of funding for rural communities through other programs. “Agriculture will be strengthened. What we have safeguarded are the direct payments to farmers,” she stated, aiming to reassure stakeholders.

In response to the cuts, Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen attempted to clarify the implications of the new budget. He argued that, despite the headline figures, there would be no reduction in the amount reaching farmers, as the missing funds would be accounted for in other parts of the budget. “The €300 billion figure is not a ceiling but a floor,” he explained to the European Parliament, assuring members that the funds would be legally protected from being redirected to other priorities, such as defense.

Despite these assurances, the mood among farmers remains hostile. While Hansen spoke inside the Parliament, hundreds of farmers rallied outside the EU institutions in Brussels, expressing their discontent with banners and chants, including the slogan “Welcome to Vonderland,” a critique directed at von der Leyen. Massimiliano Giansanti, head of Copa, the influential EU farming lobby, condemned the cuts as a “declaration of war” on farmers, emphasizing the historical significance of the CAP since its inception post-World War II.

The core of the controversy lies in the details of the budget. Hansen indicated that not all of the current CAP funding directly supports farmers; approximately €291.1 billion is allocated for income and sectoral support, while €95.5 billion is designated for rural development programs. Critics argue that many farmers still rely heavily on this rural development funding for various forms of support, including investments in environmentally sustainable practices.

Copa-Cogeca, representing major farmers’ and agricultural cooperatives, condemned the day as a “Black Wednesday for European agriculture,” accusing the Commission of implementing “radical, unilateral and cynical” cuts while neglecting meaningful dialogue with farmers. They stressed that family farms, which are vital to the agricultural model, would bear the brunt of these reductions.

In Parliament, lawmakers across the political spectrum voiced their concerns. Herbert Dorfmann, a member of the center-right European People’s Party, criticized the framing of the budget cuts as a success. “Don’t try and sell us a 25 percent CAP cut as a success story,” he remarked. Fellow member Dario Nardella from the Socialists and Democrats questioned the logic of presenting €300 billion as an improvement over €386 billion.

Hansen maintained that EU member states could supplement their national farm budgets, but skepticism surrounds the likelihood of cash-strapped governments providing additional funds. “They’ve got us tied down,” lamented a farmer from Toledo, who wished to remain anonymous. “I wish we could survive without subsidies, but we need them. The Spanish countryside and European agriculture are being ruined from here.”

As the protests concluded, the debate over the EU’s agricultural budget is set to continue, with farmers and policymakers bracing for a contentious discussion in the months ahead. The implications of these budget cuts are likely to resonate deeply within the agricultural community and beyond, influencing both policy and farming practices across Europe.

Independent Galway West TD Catherine Connolly has officially announced her candidacy for the Presidency of Ireland following the acquisition of necessary nominations. Connolly, aged 68, confirmed her intention to run during an interview on July 16, 2024, via RTÉ’s Irish language radio channel, Raidió na Gaeltachta. To be eligible for the ballot, candidates in Ireland must be at least 35 years old and nominated either by at least 20 members of the Oireachtas, four local authorities, or by former or retiring Presidents.

Connolly has garnered the support of 20 Oireachtas members, including endorsements from the Social Democrats, People Before Profit, and several Independents. The Labour Party is also considering backing her candidacy.

“I am honoured to announce that I have secured the support of my colleagues to run for the office of Uachtarán na hÉireann, the Presidency of Ireland,” Connolly stated on social media. She highlighted the importance of the election as a platform for representing the people’s voice and promoting the common good. Connolly emphasized the need for a “people’s movement” to effectively communicate her vision of hope across all communities in Ireland.

Connolly has represented Galway West as a TD since 2016. After departing from the Labour Party in 2006, she has operated as an Independent. Her prior roles include serving on the Public Accounts Committee and chairing the Committee on the Irish Language, the Gaeltacht and the Islands. Notably, from 2020 to 2024, Connolly held the position of Leas-Cheann Comhairle, becoming the first woman to do so.

“It’s an important day for me, and I am finally confirming that I am standing for the Presidency of Ireland,” Connolly remarked to reporters outside Leinster House. “I stand here, not as a politician seeking office, but as a citizen, to serve as the President of Ireland with the help of the people and the votes of Ireland.” She expressed her commitment to serving with humility and hope, believing in the potential for collective action to elevate the country.

Connolly acknowledged the lengthy decision-making process leading to her candidacy. “It wasn’t something I did overnight,” she explained. “It was a tortuous decision for many reasons—my own personality included—and it has taken many months.” She reached her final decision the previous week and is now eager to empower citizens to find their voices and advocate for change.

During her announcement, Connolly addressed pressing issues such as climate change and homelessness, stating, “We must deal with climate change. We must be a voice for peace. We have to stop the normalization of war and violence.” She underscored that these challenges are not inevitable but rather the result of policy decisions, advocating for a different vision of Ireland and the world.

Connolly’s confirmation as a candidate follows closely after the nomination of Mairead McGuinness as the candidate for Fine Gael. McGuinness was the only name submitted for ratification, which will take place at a Fine Gael event in September, marking the start of their Presidential campaign.

The political landscape remains dynamic, with Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald not ruling herself out as a potential candidate. Similarly, Michelle O’Neill, Sinn Féin’s Vice President and First Minister of Northern Ireland, has also left the door open for candidacy.

Meanwhile, Fianna Fáil, currently the largest party in the Dáil, has yet to announce whether it will support a candidate. Jack Chambers, a TD for Fianna Fáil, indicated that a decision will be made in early autumn. Potential candidates mentioned include Micheál Martin, the current Taoiseach and leader of Fianna Fáil, although Chambers noted that Martin may prefer to remain in his current role. Former TD Mary Hanafin has also expressed interest in the party’s nomination.

In a somewhat unconventional development, mixed martial artist Conor McGregor has renewed his call for supporters to vote for him in the Presidential election, though it remains unlikely that he will meet the nomination thresholds required to appear on the ballot.

As the election period unfolds, Connolly’s campaign will be closely watched as she seeks to mobilize support and present her vision for Ireland’s future.

Twenty individuals lost their lives on the morning of November 1, 2023, at a Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) aid distribution center. The distressing incident occurred as people gathered to receive food. According to GHF, 19 victims were trampled during a crowd surge, while one individual was fatally stabbed.

Amid the chaos, Gazan authorities claimed that Israeli soldiers had used tear gas and live ammunition against the crowd, which incited the surge. These assertions have not been independently verified by POLITICO. The United Nations reported that nearly 900 people have been killed in Gaza while attempting to access food in recent weeks, with 674 fatalities occurring near GHF aid sites.

The GHF, which has been a primary provider of humanitarian assistance in Gaza since May 2023, has consistently denied that fatalities have taken place at its distribution centers. However, the organization faces significant scrutiny, especially following the U.N.’s accusations of its role in enabling the forced relocation of Palestinians amid ongoing conflict with Hamas militants.

Escalating Humanitarian Crisis

Philippe Lazzarini, the head of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), characterized the aid distribution process in Gaza as a “death trap” in a statement made in June. He described the current situation as a “humiliating system” compelling “thousands of hungry and desperate people to walk for tens of miles to an area that’s all but pulverized.”

In June 2023, an EU review determined that Israel was in breach of its human rights obligations as stipulated in its trade agreements with the EU. Last week, Brussels reached an agreement with Israel aimed at increasing aid deliveries to Gaza. However, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas emphasized on November 1 that Israel must take more decisive action to enhance the humanitarian conditions in the enclave.

Following the tragic events at the GHF aid center, the organization released a statement expressing profound sorrow for the lives lost. It reaffirmed its commitment to providing humanitarian assistance as safely and responsibly as possible. “GHF exists to serve the people of Gaza with compassion and integrity, and our mission has never been more urgent or more challenged,” the statement read.

The escalating humanitarian crisis in Gaza continues to prompt international concern, highlighting the urgent need for effective measures to ensure the safety and well-being of civilians seeking essential aid.

The historical significance of Temple Hill, located in Blackrock, Dublin, has come under scrutiny as advocates call for acknowledgment of its true function as an adoption home for infants. While the Irish Government maintains that Temple Hill served solely as a hospital, many argue that the reality was far more complex. This debate highlights the need for recognition of the experiences of those who were born at Temple Hill, including individuals like Rachel Fehily, who assert that their stories have been overlooked.

Fehily spent her first three months in Temple Hill, officially known as the St Patrick’s Infant and Dietetic Hospital. According to Sinn Féin TD Claire Kerrane, this institution does not qualify for governmental supports or redress because it is classified as a hospital. Yet, she pointed out in a parliamentary question that children were adopted from Temple Hill through advertisements, with many being sent to America. “I have never heard of a hospital that does that,” Kerrane stated, underscoring the inconsistencies in the Government’s stance.

Despite the documented history of adoptions facilitated by the former adoption society St Patrick’s Guild, Temple Hill remains excluded from the Mother and Baby Institutions payment scheme. This exclusion stems from its classification, as it was not included in the initial investigation by the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes. The Commission’s report has faced criticism for its narrow focus, leaving many individuals without the recognition and support they deserve.

Fehily, who left Temple Hill with her adoptive parents at the age of three months, emphasizes that her advocacy is for those who were not as fortunate. Many ageing survivors of institutions, who endured abuse and neglect, currently find themselves without access to the supports offered by the scheme. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has echoed these concerns, labeling the commission’s report as flawed due to its exclusion of various institutions.

In light of these issues, Minister for Children, Disability and Equality Norma Foley is set to review the operation of the payment scheme by September 2026, marking two years since its inception. The delay leaves many survivors in a state of uncertainty, with their experiences still unrecognized.

The artistic community has also contributed to the dialogue surrounding Temple Hill. Bernard Canavan, an artist and recipient of the prestigious Presidential Award, recently showcased his work that reflects the trauma endured by residents of such institutions. Canavan, who resided in Temple Hill more than 25 years before Fehily, is similarly excluded from the payment scheme due to contested definitions of his experience.

Educational initiatives are emerging to address this complex history. The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) has developed a comprehensive resource on “mother and baby homes” for the Junior Cycle curriculum, in collaboration with survivor advocacy groups. This curriculum aims to provide students with a deeper understanding of Ireland’s past, encouraging critical thinking regarding the interplay of history and current affairs.

Despite these efforts, there remain significant gaps in the educational materials. While the NCCA has compiled an extensive reading list, it predominantly features official reports that may omit crucial narratives, including those from contested institutions like Temple Hill. Fehily highlights the importance of understanding how governmental definitions influence access to justice, stating that students must learn to question the presentation of their history.

As discussions around these topics continue, the urgency for recognition and acknowledgment of overlooked experiences becomes increasingly significant. The complexities surrounding Temple Hill illustrate the broader implications of how history is interpreted and taught.

Fehily’s advocacy sheds light on the necessity for inclusivity in historical narratives, ensuring that the voices of all who have been affected are heard. As Ireland grapples with its past, it is essential to confront these contested histories and seek justice for those who have long been forgotten.