LONDON — For Keir Starmer, the crises and climbdowns just keep getting faster. The British prime minister, facing questions about his judgment in appointing Peter Mandelson as U.K. ambassador to Washington despite his Jeffrey Epstein links, pledged on Wednesday to publish a cache of emails and texts between the ex-Labour peer and his top team — on his own terms. But hours later he was forced to toughen up independent scrutiny of this document release in the face of a revolt by his own MPs, who are horrified by the scandal and fear opposition accusations of a cover-up will stick. Taken alone, this technical U-turn will not enter any history books. But the last-minute drama around it puts the already weak Labour leader in further peril. Nervous MPs in his governing party, now awaiting the document dump with deep unease, are rounding with renewed ferocity on the PM and his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney. POLITICO spoke to 20 Labour MPs and current and former officials for this piece. “We need a head,” said one moderate Labour MP who entered parliament in 2024 and was, like others quoted, granted anonymity to speak frankly. “Someone has to pay the price for this failure,” a second, usually loyal, MP from the 2024 intake said, adding they “wouldn’t care” who exactly it was. In the minds of many of Labour’s own MPs and officials, the Mandelson affair has further weakened Starmer and McSweeney, who pushed for the appointment of his close ally and friend as ambassador in late 2024. After rows over a succession of tax and policy U-turns, some believe the Mandelson crisis exemplifies their criticisms of Starmer’s leadership — paying too little attention to a potential problem until it blows up into a full-blown scandal. “I love Morgan, but Keir has to sack him and he should have sacked him a long time ago,” said one Labour official who has long been loyal to the leadership. “The problem is, who does Keir replace him with?” TAINTED BY MANDELSON Starmer defended McSweeney to the hilt on Wednesday. “Morgan McSweeney is an essential part of my team,” he told MPs. “He helped me change the Labour Party and win an election. Of course I have confidence in him,” the PM said. Some MPs also rallied around Starmer, blaming an overexcited media narrative and MPs on edge for the next scandal. “This feels like a Westminster story at the moment rather than something terminal for the PM in the eyes of the public,” said a third Labour MP elected in 2024. But the mood in large parts of the party on Wednesday night was bleak. The latest round of bloodletting began in earnest on Monday, when emails released as part of the Epstein files appeared to show Mandelson leaking government financial discussions in the wake of the 2008 banking crash. Police are now investigating allegations of misconduct in public office. Mandelson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the police investigation Tuesday evening. He has previously said he was wrong to have continued his association with Epstein and apologized “unequivocally” to Epstein’s victims. Starmer, like the rest of the British state and public, insists he did not know about the bombshell emails, and would never have appointed Mandelson if he did. Having already sacked Mandelson in September he is now obliterating his reputation, saying on Wednesday that Mandelson “lied repeatedly” during his appointment as ambassador.  Yet it was well known that Mandelson came with baggage. Starmer knew the former Labour Cabinet minister had been repeatedly sacked in scandal — and confirmed at the weekly Prime Minister’s Questions session on Wednesday that he had known Mandelson was friends with Epstein. “That was the moment,” said a fourth, moderate Labour MP. “The mood was awful. I had opposition MPs saying to me that they had not seen one that bad in decades.” Several Labour MPs and officials who spoke to POLITICO voiced fears that revealing details of the vetting process will paint Starmer and his chief of staff as too incurious about the wider situation. Mandelson had worked closely with McSweeney since the late 2010s and gave Labour informal advice in the run-up to its 2024 election landslide. One former No. 10 official said Mandelson was not on the list of potential ambassadors until McSweeney took over as chief of staff in October 2024, claiming: “Morgan didn’t do anything without speaking to Peter.” “Once the timeline — and the degree to which searching questions were asked — become clear, I think Morgan might be in trouble,” one U.K. government official added. Mandelson went through at least three layers of checks, a second U.K. government official said. Before his role was announced, the Cabinet Office carried out due diligence. Afterward, he was subjected to full deep security vetting. The third layer — and potentially the most problematic for Starmer and McSweeney — was a letter to Mandelson before his appointment from the chief of staff on the PM’s behalf. It asked three questions: why he continued contact with Epstein after his conviction, why he was reported to have stayed in one of Epstein’s home when the financier was in prison, and whether he was associated with a charity founded by Epstein’s associate Ghislaine Maxwell. A No. 10 official said reports that linked Mandelson to Epstein, including after he was first convicted, had been looked into as part of the appointment process. “Peter Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister, hid information that has since come to light and presented Epstein as someone he barely knew,” the No. 10 official added. HURRY UP AND WAIT Some Labour MPs — spooked by consistent polls putting Labour behind Nigel Farage’s populist Reform UK — are so angry that they want to see regime change immediately. For many on Labour’s left or “soft left” flank this was simply a chance to push their campaign against No. 10. One former minister, already hostile to the leadership, said it felt like the worst part of Starmer’s premiership and McSweeney should go now. Left-wing former Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn, long cast out of the party over comments on antisemitism, went on Sky News to say Starmer may even be challenged before local elections, which will be held across the U.K. in May. Others were new converts to immediate action. A fifth Labour MP, a moderate who entered parliament in 2024, also said McSweeney should go now. They lamented the “blind spot for many in the leadership” who allowed Mandelson to become ambassador. It has left some MPs angry and dejected. One, Sarah Owen, made an impassioned intervention in Wednesday’s debate: “Don’t we need to put the victims at the heart of this, not just ourselves?” But they will have to wait if they want the facts behind the case to become clear. MPs agreed on Wednesday night to release a series of documents concerning the diligence and vetting around Mandelson’s appointment, as well as communications he had with McSweeney, ministers, civil servants and special advisers in the six months before his appointment. Starmer had intended to block the release of any documents that would prejudice U.K. national security or international relations. But No. 10 staged a late climbdown after Angela Rayner — a key figure among MPs on Labour’s “soft left” who resigned as deputy prime minister amid a housing scandal in September — called for parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) to have a role. Officials scrambled to compile a new amendment that would give the ISC the final say on what is blocked. It will likely take days or weeks for the government to work through what needs to be released, and far longer for the ISC to work through the most contentious documents after that. The Met Police also released a statement on Wednesday night warning the release of specific documents “could undermine” its current investigation into Mandelson’s alleged misconduct in public office. The releases — which could include Mandelson’s private messages to friends in the Cabinet, such as Health Secretary Wes Streeting — will provide easy fodder to a British media gripped by the stories of Epstein’s friendships with Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew. But most MPs and officials who spoke to POLITICO agreed that No. 10 and McSweeney stand to lose the most. A second former No. 10 official said: “Lots of people are nice to creepy people in politics. But when it comes down to the brass tacks of who knew what or did what when they made the appointment — that’s the chopping block stuff.” A sixth Labour MP, on the left of the party, said even frontbenchers were “questioning why they should jeopardise their own positions to protect one individual [McSweeney].” But the question of “when” remains a key one.  One Labour figure loyal to Starmer’s No. 10 admitted there will be pressure for McSweeney to go now, but insisted anyone with an ounce of political sense would delay any move against him until after local elections in May — so that he could absorb the blame for any losses and protect the PM. Even a staunch ally of McSweeney — who has been at Starmer’s side since he first ran to be Labour leader — said they had no idea if he will survive. But a seventh Labour MP, elected in 2024, thinks questions over McSweeney’s future are a red herring. “It’s ultimately about the PM’s judgement,” they said. The fourth Labour MP quoted above added: “If one of them goes, the other one has to go too.” Esther Webber contributed reporting.

London’s Metropolitan Police on Tuesday evening opened an investigation into former U.K. ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson over alleged misconduct in public office. “Following the further release of millions of court documents in relation to Jeffrey Epstein by the United States Department of Justice, the Met received a number of reports into alleged misconduct in public office, including a referral from the U.K. government,” the Metropolitan Police said in a statement. “I can confirm that the Metropolitan Police has now launched an investigation into a 72-year-old man, a former Government Minister, for misconduct in public office offenses,” said Police Commander Ella Marriott. The police didn’t give a name, but 72-year-old Mandelson — a central figure in the politics of the U.K’s ruling Labour party for decades — has appeared in the latest tranche of Epstein-related documents. Files released by the U.S. Department of Justice show emailed communications between Mandelson and Epstein, including discussions about sensitive government policy. Mandelson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday evening. A government spokesperson told POLITICO on Tuesday: “The government stands ready to provide whatever support and assistance the police need.” Prime Minister Keir Starmer — who appointed Mandelson as the U.K.’s ambassador to the U.S. a year ago — told his Cabinet on Tuesday that the fresh allegations were “disgraceful,” according to people familiar with the meeting. Joe Stanley-Smith and Andrew McDonald contributed to this report.

LONDON — Peter Mandelson spent four decades helping build Britain’s Labour establishment. Now it’s decisively cutting him adrift. Former colleagues in the Cabinet and Labour Party officialdom lined up to blowtorch Britain’s former ambassador to the U.S. on Tuesday after newly released files suggested he leaked sensitive government financial discussions to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 2009. “The latest revelations are materially different to the unpleasant sleaze of previous revelations,” David Blunkett, a former home secretary under Tony Blair, told POLITICO. “This is about conduct in a public office, betrayal of colleagues and a dereliction of duty.” Geoff Hoon, Blair’s former defense secretary, told GB News it was “very disturbing,” while Labour grandee Harriet Harman told BBC radio: “I was of the view that Peter Mandelson was untrustworthy from the 1990s.” Prime Minister Keir Starmer sacked the so-called “prince of darkness” as Britain’s envoy to Washington in September as the extent of his friendship with Epstein became clear. But to many former colleagues, Monday’s revelation that Mandelson allegedly disclosed internal emails went much further — and will trigger, they believe, the end of his time in public life.  Mandelson declined to comment for this piece. He has previously said he was wrong to have continued his association with Epstein and apologized “unequivocally” to Epstein’s victims. Starmer said on Saturday that he had “nothing more to say” on Mandelson. That didn’t last. Smelling public outrage, the PM told his Cabinet Tuesday that the fresh allegations were “disgraceful.” Mandelson, 72, quit his seat for life in the House of Lords on Tuesday after Starmer — having earlier declined to do so — said ministers would draft a law to remove him from the upper house. Police are reviewing whether the allegations could amount to misconduct in a public office. Ex-Prime Minister Gordon Brown — who brought Mandelson back into government in 2008 — issued a statement tearing into the “shocking” revelations, and revealing he asked civil servants to investigate Mandelson’s communications with Epstein in September. Brown also contacted police Tuesday. One former diplomat, granted anonymity to speak undiplomatically, called the flurry of statements a “public lynching.” They added: “He’s going now through Dante’s seven circles of hell, and every time it looks like he’s reached the bottom, another circle appears.” One of British politics’ greatest survivors, Mandelson has not arrived at the last circle yet. Prime Minister Keir Starmer sacked the so-called “prince of darkness” as Britain’s envoy to Washington in September as the extent of his friendship with Epstein became clear. | Tolga Akmen/EPA Several of his close personal allies kept their counsel when contacted on Tuesday. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has not yet decided to comment. Another of Labour’s most senior figures told POLITICO that they had no publishable comment. But Luke Sullivan, who was a junior special adviser in the late 2000s, and later became Starmer’s political director in opposition, said: “I cannot tell you how angry people are.” Another former aide from the New Labour years, granted anonymity to speak frankly, added: “Bloody hell, it is worse than we thought. People feel justifiably sad and angry. This is not a story of people turning on him. It’s more like a Greek tragedy — Peter has been brought down by his fatal flaw, and it’s a flaw that people were always aware of.” AT THE HEART OF POWER Whenever Labour reached a turning point in its recent history, Mandelson was somehow there. Pairing a smooth-talking style with ruthless maneuvering behind the scenes, he began as the party’s communications director in 1985 and embarked on a mission with then-leader Neil Kinnock to drag his party back from the left. He became MP for Hartlepool in 1992, playing a key role in Blair’s 1994 election as party leader and Labour’s 1997 general election landslide. He was never far from scandal, resigning from the Cabinet first in 1998 over a loan he took from a colleague, then again in 2001 in a row over a passport application from an Indian billionaire. Yet his attraction to power and strategic skills made his return inevitable. In 2008, already back as Britain’s EU trade commissioner, he repaired ties with Brown, who had recently become prime minister, in an hour-long private meeting in Brussels, before returning to the heart of government. The next year, when Cabinet minister James Purnell resigned and called on Brown to stand aside, Mandelson is said to have come into No. 10 and persuaded the rebels to back down. Peter Mandelson began as the party’s communications director in 1985 and embarked on a mission with then-leader Neil Kinnock to drag his party back from the left. | Will Oliver/EPA Nigel Farage, leader of the populist right-wing party Reform UK, said on Tuesday: “He’s very articulate. He’s highly intelligent. He’s incredibly well-briefed, probably the best networker in Westminster in the last 30 years.” “[On] the actual subject, the brief … I’d never heard anybody as impressive in all my 20 years in the European Parliament. The guy is very, very bright, but clearly has a taste for money, and has a taste for bad company.” Labour went on to lose the 2010 election — though by a slimmer margin than many expected — and Mandelson co-founded a lobbying firm, Global Counsel. (The firm began cutting ties with him last year.) But in the late 2010s, he returned to politics, striking up a close professional relationship with Morgan McSweeney, now Starmer’s chief of staff. Along with other Labour aides, the pair attended dinners at the south London home of the Labour peer Roger Liddle to discuss how best to wrestle Labour back (again) from the left. His advice became more valued in the run-up to the 2024 election. He even co-presented a podcast, produced by The Times newspaper, called “How To Win An Election.” And late in 2024 — at the suggestion of McSweeney, despite concerns elsewhere in government — Mandelson bagged his biggest prize yet: the ambassadorship to Washington. Starmer jokingly compared Mandelson to Donald Trump in a February 2025 speech at the embassy: “You can sense that there’s a new leader. He’s a true one-off, a pioneer in business, in politics. Many people love him. Others love to hate him. But to us, he’s just … Peter.” TURNING ON MANDELSON In four decades, Mandelson made plenty of enemies who are now glad to see his demise. The difference with this scandal may be the reaction of those close to him. Nigel Farage, leader of the populist right-wing party Reform UK, said on Tuesday: “He’s very articulate. He’s highly intelligent. He’s incredibly well-briefed, probably the best networker in Westminster in the last 30 years.” | Andy Rain/EPA Wes Streeting, Starmer’s telegenic health secretary, who shares many aspects of Mandelson’s politics and is widely expected to be a future leadership contender, was at some of the Liddle dinners. He told the BBC: “This is a betrayal on so many levels. It is a betrayal of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein that he continued that association and that friendship for so long after his conviction. It is a betrayal of just not one, but two prime ministers.” Privately, Mandelson is said to believe he was simply casting around for advice during the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. He told the Times: “There was no reason to shun his advice, but I was too trusting.” He added: “Work has always defined me. Everything else has always been an add-on. So I will find things to do.” But one serving Labour official in government said the revelations were “qualitatively (and quantitatively) worse” than what was known before. A second Labour official added: “The latest revelations have put him beyond what most people are willing to accept.” One person who speaks to No. 10 regularly said: “There are people who have known him for a long time who are very hurt and angry. He has upset people.  “He had a much reduced reservoir of support coming into this anyway, and the question is — who is going to touch him now?” Ex-Prime Minister Gordon Brown — who brought Mandelson back into government in 2008 — issued a statement tearing into the “shocking” revelations. | Will Oliver/EPA A person who knows Mandelson well drew a distinction between the reaction to his sacking in September, when some colleagues felt concern for Mandelson on a “human level because of the very public nature of his sacking,” and the “shock and real anger” at the revelations of the last few days. “It felt like a kick in the gut to read it and has brought his behavior as minister into question in a way no one could possibly have imagined,” they said. Sullivan said: “People thought that he had been characteristically not as frank as he could be with his relationship with Epstein … but I don’t think people had clocked just quite how big the significance of those revelations [Monday] are. “Any one of those, if it had come out at the time, would have brought the government down. I was a very junior Spad in the last Labour government. [With] Gordon Brown, you could hear the anger in his statement.” “I think the potential ramifications of this not just for the Labour Party but for politics and politicians in general could be understated. It is serious,” Sullivan added. The former diplomat quoted above added: “People are genuinely astonished at the sort of stuff he told Epstein. He always had a reputation of being relatively indiscreet, but some of that stuff, I mean, why Epstein? I don’t know why Epstein seemed to have had such a grip on him.” John McTernan, who served as a senior aide during the New Labour years, said: “It turns out that Peter’s actions are those of an avaricious man — which makes it really sad, because he did so much to make Labour electable, not once but twice.” WHERE DOES IT GO FROM HERE? Britain’s opposition Conservative Party is likely to apply fresh pressure on Wednesday by formally demanding that ministers release the details of Mandelson’s vetting for the ambassador post. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper revealed in September that Mandelson was not subjected to full national security vetting until after his appointment had been announced.  One government official said: “If there wasn’t any real vetting until after the appointment, that could be very damaging in my view.” Labour officials also smell danger in the fact that Gordon Brown asked the government to investigate Mandelson’s communications on Sept. 10 — a day before Starmer resolved to sack Mandelson as ambassador. The Labour Party has said disciplinary action was underway against Mandelson before he resigned his party membership on Sunday, but has not said when it began — days, weeks, or months ago. One former Labour official said: “The problem for the government as a whole and the civil service is Gordon clearly clocked something had gone on, had some concerns, and raised them last September, and it’s unclear exactly what has happened to dig it out.” No. 10 went nuclear in its response on Tuesday, saying the government was investigating and had contacted the police. Starmer’s spokesperson said: “An initial review of the documents released in relation to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Department of Justice has found that they contain likely market-sensitive information surrounding the 2008 financial crash and official activities thereafter to stabilize the economy.  “Only people operating in an official capacity had access to this information, [with] strict handling conditions to ensure it was not available to anyone who could potentially benefit from it financially. It appears these safeguards were compromised.  “In light of this information, the Cabinet Office has referred this material to the police.” Starmer and McSweeney can maintain that they — like the rest of the press and British public — knew nothing of the emails revealed this week when they appointed Mandelson. Whether they can prevent the saga raising questions about their judgment may be another matter.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico’s national security adviser, who resigned on Saturday over his messages to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, said he feels like a “fool” after reading them again. “When I read those messages today, I feel like a fool. It was a private conversation, let’s be honest, who would be happy if the whole nation were reading their messages? At the very least, I exercised poor judgment,” Miroslav Lajčák, who served as Slovak foreign minister in multiple Fico governments between 2009 and 2020, told Radio Slovakia on Monday evening. In the newly released files, Epstein bantered with Lajčák about women while discussing Lajčák’s meetings with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The exchanges also show Lajčák suggested a meeting between Fico and Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon, which he refuted in the radio session. “This meeting did not happen … nor did I organize it,” Lajčák said. Lajčák denied any wrongdoing but subsequently resigned, saying he wanted to prevent political blowback on Prime Minister Robert Fico. He went on to say that he “does not recall and therefore cannot confirm or deny the authenticity of the texts.” According to Lajčák, Epstein was a well-known figure accepted among high-profile politicians, and he looked at him as a “valuable contact that could open a lot of doors.” “But that does not absolve me of responsibility,” he said. “I showed poor judgement and inappropriate communication. Those messages were nothing more than foolish male egos in action — self-satisfied male banter,” he added, refering to conversation about women. Lajčák added that his communication with Epstein was limited to words, not actions. “There were no girls … the fact that someone is communicating with a sexual predator does not make him a sexual predator,” he said, condemning the crimes that came to light after Epstein’s arrest in 2019. The messages were included in Friday’s release by the U.S. Justice Department of investigative materials related to Epstein. 

PARIS — French President Emmanuel Macron said on Tuesday preparatory work was under way to restart direct discussions between Europe and Russia over the war in Ukraine. “It has to be prepared, so technical discussions are under way to prepare for this,” Macron said, answering a reporter who asked the president about his call in December to restart talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. “It is important that Europeans restore their own channels of communication, it is being prepared at the technical level,” Macron added, during a visit to farmers in the Haute-Saône department. Macron said talks with Putin should be coordinated with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his “main European colleagues,” insisting on the role of the so-called “coalition of the willing,” which brings together like-minded countries supporting Ukraine. The president was, however, quick to note that, by continuing to bomb Ukraine, Russia was not showing any willingness to negotiate a peace deal. “First and foremost, today, we continue to support Ukraine, which is under bombs, in the cold, with attacks on civilians and on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure by the Russians, which are intolerable and don’t show a real willingness to negotiate for peace.”

BRUSSELS — The EU’s most senior trade official said he had no contact with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Maroš Šefčovič issued a denial through a European Commission spokesperson on Tuesday, insisting he “never had any direct or indirect contact, communication or meeting with Jeffrey Epstein.” POLITICO searched the tranche of documents relating to Epstein released on Friday by the U.S. Department of Justice and found three incidental references to Šefčovič but no evidence of any contact with Epstein. “I did not authorize, request or agree to anyone mentioning my name to Jeffrey Epstein,” Šefčovič said via Commission spokesperson Balazs Ujvari. “Any such mention was made without my knowledge … I’m appalled that my name was used in that exchange without my knowledge or consent, and I categorically reject any implication of my involvement for that.” The denial comes after fellow Slovak politician Miroslav Lajčák resigned from the country’s government on Saturday after exchanges between him and Epstein were published. “If Miroslav Lajčák mentioned my name, it was for his own purposes with which I had nothing to do,” Šefčovič said via Ujvari. Šefčovič, who became a European commissioner in 2009, has overseen the bloc’s trade deal with U.S. President Donald Trump.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico on Saturday accepted the resignation of his national security adviser, Miroslav Lajčák, following revelations that Lajčák exchanged messages with convicted sex offended Jeffrey Epstein. The messages were included in Friday’s release by the U.S. Justice Department of investigative materials related to Epstein.  Fico, announcing the decision in a video statement on Facebook, praised Lajčák as “a great diplomat” and said Slovakia was losing “an incredible source of experience in diplomacy and foreign policy.” Lajčák served as Slovak foreign minister in multiple Fico governments between 2009 and 2020. The U.S. Justice Department on Friday released more than three million pages of documents in the Epstein files. The documents, which reference several prominent figures, such as Steve Bannon, Elon Musk and world leaders, also include exchanges between Lajčák and Epstein. In the newly released files, Epstein bantered with Lajčák about women while discussing Lajčák’s meetings with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Lajčák initially denied any wrongdoing, describing the communications as informal and light-hearted, and later offered his resignation to prevent political costs from falling on the prime minister, according to reports in Slovak media. “Not because I did anything criminal or unethical, but so that he does not bear political costs for something unrelated to his decisions,” Lajčák was quoted as saying. The opposition has united in calling for him to resign. The coalition Slovak National Party has also joined this stance, saying that Lajčák represents a security risk, according to local media. Lajčák did not immediately respond to a request for comment by POLITICO.  In his video address, the prime minister also criticized media coverage of the case, calling it “hypocritical” and overstated.

“Laws that exist only on paper achieve nothing.” This is not a slogan. It reflects the reality described by small-scale fishers and points to a wide gap between European Union commitments and delivery on the water. More than a decade after the last reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the EU is once again debating whether to rewrite this policy, even though the CFP’s framework is fit for purpose and delivers sustainable fisheries — when properly applied. What continues to fail is its implementation. The clearest example is the legal commitment to end overfishing by 2020, a deadline still unmet. > If Europe delays action until after another lengthy reform, it risks losing > the next generation of fishers and hollowing out coastal economies. Nowhere is this gap more visible than in the Mediterranean, and particularly in Cyprus and Greece, where stocks are further weakened by the accelerating effects of the climate crisis and the spread of invasive species. The Mediterranean remains the most overfished sea in the world, and small-scale fishers feel these consequences directly. Yet, Cypriot fishers are not asking for weaker rules or a new policy. They are asking for effective enforcement of existing legislation, and support from national authorities. Without these, the future of fisheries as a profession is at stake. If Europe delays action until after another lengthy reform, it risks losing the next generation of fishers and hollowing out coastal economies. Photo by A.S.S. The experience of Cypriot and Greek fishers mirrors a broader European issue. Before reopening the CFP, Europe should take stock of the real gap, which lies not in the law itself, but in its uneven implementation and enforcement. Calls for reform are driven by familiar pressures: environmental safeguards are increasingly framed as obstacles to economic viability and fleet renewal. Reform is presented as a way to modernize vessels and cut red tape. But this framing overlooks lessons from the past. Europe has been here before. Excess capacity and weak controls pushed fish stocks to the brink of collapse, forcing painful corrections that cost public money and livelihoods. For small-scale fishers in the Mediterranean, these impacts are not theoretical. They are experienced daily, through declining catches, rising costs and increasing uncertainty. The Common Fisheries Policy delivers when implemented Evidence shows that where the CFP has been implemented, it delivers. According to European Commission assessments, the share of stocks subject to overfishing in the North-East Atlantic fell from around 40 percent in 2013 to just over 22 percent by 2025. In the Mediterranean, the figure dropped from 70 percent to 51 percent over the same period. These improvements are closely linked to the application of science-based catch limits, effort restrictions and capacity controls under the CFP. > Europe has been here before. Excess capacity and weak controls pushed fish > stocks to the brink of collapse, forcing painful corrections that cost public > money and livelihoods. Economic and social data tell the same story. EU fishing fleets have become more efficient and more profitable over the past decade. Vessels now generate higher average incomes, with wages per full-time fisher rising by more than a quarter since 2013. In its 2023 policy communication, the Commission concluded that the CFP remains an adequate legal framework, with the real gap lying in its application and enforcement. Those involved in the 2013 reform understand why this matters. The revised policy marked a clear shift away from overcapacity and short-term decision-making toward a science-based approach. The European Commission’s own assessments show that this approach delivered results where it was applied. Parts of the EU fleet became more profitable, labor productivity improved and several fish stocks recovered. The CFP remains the EU’s strongest tool for reversing decline at sea. Implementation results in progress; reform leads to instability and uncertainty Strengthening the CPF’s implementation would deliver tangible benefits, including greater stability for fishers and coastal communities, avoiding years of legislative uncertainty, and allowing faster progress toward sustainability objectives. Firm and consistent implementation can enhance economic resilience while restoring ocean health, without the delays and risks that come with reopening the legislation. Given the time and resources required, another round of institutional reform is neither efficient nor necessary. Priority should instead be given to effectively delivering the agreed CFP commitments. Photo by A.S.S. Cypriot Presidency of the Council: a moment for delivery This debate unfolds as Cyprus assumes the EU Council Presidency, at a moment when choices made in Brussels carry immediate consequences at sea. Holding the Presidency brings responsibility as well as opportunity. It offers a chance to help frame the discussion toward making existing rules work in practice, while addressing current implementation challenges. This is where the credibility of the CFP will be tested. > Sustainability and livelihoods move together, or not at all. Reopening the CFP now may send the wrong signal. It may suggest that missed deadlines carry no consequence and that agreed-upon rules are optional. For fishers, it would prolong uncertainty at a time when stability is already fragile. For Europe, it would undermine trust in its ability to deliver. The EU was not conceived to generate endless processes or delay action through repeated legislative cycles. Its purpose is to deliver common solutions to shared problems, and to support people and communities where national action falls short. The last reform of the CFP was built on a simple principle: healthy fish stocks are the foundation of viable fisheries. Sustainability and livelihoods move together, or not at all. This principle is already reflected in Europe’s agreed framework. The task now is to act on it. Fisheries are a clear test of that promise. The law is already in place. The tools already exist. What Europe needs now is the political resolve to deliver on the commitments it has already made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is OCEANA * The ultimate controlling entity is OCEANA More information here.

One month into nationwide protests, the Iranian people are still making history — at the cost of their lives. The free world can no longer credibly claim uncertainty about events on the ground, nor can they claim neutrality in the face of what has occurred. Iranians aren’t asking others to speak for them but to empower them to finish what they’ve started. And the urgency for international action has only intensified. This week, the European debate finally shifted. Italy formally joined calls to condemn the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and with that decision, the EU’s political landscape narrowed. France and Spain are now the only two member countries preventing the bloc from collectively designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization. The question for Brussels is no longer whether the conditions for this are met — it’s whether the bloc will act once they are. For decades, the Iranian people have been subject to systematic violence by their own state. This isn’t law enforcement. It’s a unilateral war against a civilian population, marked by extrajudicial executions, forced disappearances, confessions, torture, mass censorship and the deliberate use of deprivation as a tool of repression. On one side stands a totalitarian state; on the other, unarmed citizens. As videos and eyewitness testimonies continue to emerge despite severe communications blackouts, the scale of the violence is no longer in doubt. Supported by investigative reporting, sources inside Iran warn that more than 36,500 people may have been killed by regime forces since protests began on Dec. 28. Leading human rights organizations have verified thousands of deaths, cautioning that all available figures are almost certainly undercounts due to access restrictions and internet shutdowns. The scale, organization and intent of this repression meets the legal threshold for crimes against humanity as defined under the 1998 Rome Statute that founded the International Criminal Court. And under the U.N.’s Responsibility to Protect (R2P) — a principle seeking to ensure populations are protected from mass atrocity crimes, which the EU has formally endorsed — this threshold triggers obligation. At this point, inaction ceases to be restraint and becomes moral, political and legal failure. The risks here are immediate. Thousands of detained protesters face the imminent threat of execution. Senior Iranian judicial authorities have warned that continued protest, particularly if citing alleged foreign support, constitutes moharebeh, or “waging war on God” — a charge that carries the death penalty and has historically been used to justify mass executions after unrest. Arbitrary detention and the absence of due process place detainees in clear and foreseeable danger, heightening the international community’s obligations. The Iranian people are bravely tackling the challenge placed before them, demonstrating agency, cohesion and resolve. Under the pillars of R2P, responsibility now shifts outward — first to assist and, where necessary, to take collective action when a state itself is the perpetrator of atrocity crimes. Six actions directly follow from these obligations: First, civilians must be protected by degrading the regime’s capacity to commit atrocities. This requires formally designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization given its central role in systematic violence against civilians both inside and outside of Iran. This is in line with European legal standards. Italy has moved on it. Now France and Spain must follow, so the EU can act as one. France and Spain are now the only two member countries preventing the bloc from collectively designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization. | Abedin Taherkenareh/EPA Second, the bloc must impose coordinated and sustained economic measures consistent with the R2P. This includes globally freezing regime assets under EU sanctions frameworks, as well as identifying, seizing and dismantling the shadow fleet of “ghost tankers” that finance repression and evade sanctions. The third obligation is guaranteeing the right to information. Iran’s digital blackout constitutes a grave violation of freedoms protected under the European Convention on Human Rights. Free, secure and continuous internet access needs to be ensured through the large-scale deployment of satellite connectivity and secure communication technologies. Defensive cyber measures should prevent arbitrary shutdowns of civilian networks. Fourth, the EU must move to end state impunity through legal accountability. This means expelling regime representatives implicated in the repression of citizens from European capitals, and initiating legal proceedings against those responsible for crimes against humanity under universal jurisdiction — a principle already recognized by several EU member countries. Fifth, the bloc must demand the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners, who were detained in clear violation of Iran’s international human rights obligations. Finally, Europe must issue a clear ultimatum, demanding that independent nongovernmental humanitarian and human rights organizations be granted immediate, unrestricted and time-bound access on the ground inside Iran. If this access isn’t granted within a defined time frame, it must withdraw diplomatic recognition from the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nonrecognition is a lawful response to a regime that has forfeited its legitimacy by systematically attacking its own population. It would also signal unambiguous support for the Iranian people’s right to representative and accountable government. Supporting Iranians is neither charity nor interference. Rather, it is realizing the legal and political commitments the EU has already made. The regime in Tehran has practiced state-sponsored terror, exported violence, destabilized the region and fueled nuclear threats for 47 years. Ending this trajectory isn’t ideological. It’s a matter of European and global security. For the EU, there’s no remaining procedural excuse. The evidence is overwhelming. The legal framework is settled. France and Spain are now all that stand between the bloc and collective action against the IRGC. What’s at stake isn’t diplomacy but Europe’s credibility — and whether it will enforce the principles it invokes when they’re tested by history. Nazenin Ansari Journalist, managing editor of Kayhan-London (Persian) and Kayhan-Life (English) Nazanin Boniadi Human rights activist, actress, board director of Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran, 2023 Sydney Peace Prize Laureate Ladan Boroumand Human rights activist, historian, co-founder of Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran Shirin Ebadi Lawyer, 2003 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Shéhérazade Semsar-de Boisséson Entrepreneur, former CEO of POLITICO Europe, chair of the board at Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran

LONDON — Pornhub will no longer be fully available in the U.K. from Feb. 2, its parent company Aylo announced Tuesday, citing the consequences of Britain’s Online Safety Act. Aylo said it made an effort to comply after the act’s Children’s Codes came into force last summer, requiring adult sites to have highly effective age-assurance. But visitors — both adults and under-18s — are flocking to non-compliant sites en masse, Alexzandra Kekesi, vice president of brand and community at Aylo, said. Despite sharing these findings with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the U.K.’s communications watchdog Ofcom, “we’re still continuing to see more of the same,” she said. Aylo says users who go through age assurance prior to the Feb. 2 cut-off date will still be able to access the site. During a press conference, Aylo’s lawyers were keen to argue that the blame for its decision should be put at the government’s feet, rather than Ofcom’s, and argued only device-based age-assurance by the likes of Google, Apple, and Microsoft would solve the problem. “This law, not our regulator, this law by its very nature is pushing both adults and children alike to the cesspools of the internet, to the most dangerous material possible,” Solomon Friedman, a partner at Ethical Capital Partners and a lawyer representing Aylo said. “And while there [were] six months by Aylo of good faith effort to be part of this ecosystem, to gather data and share it with the government, the data now really speaks for itself. This law not only is not protecting children, it’s putting children and adults in greater danger online,” he added.