US President Donald Trump has given members of South Africa’s Afrikaner community refugee status, alleging that a genocide was taking place in the country.

Nearly 60 of them have arrived in the US after being granted asylum.

The South African government allowed the US embassy to consider their applications inside the country, and let the group board a chartered flight from the main international airport in Johannesburg – not scenes normally associated with refugees fleeing persecution.

South African History Online sums up their identity by pointing out that “the modern Afrikaner is descended mainly from Western Europeans who settled on the southern tip of Africa during the middle of the 17th Century”.

A mixture of Dutch (34.8%), German (33.7%) and French (13.2%) settlers, they formed a “unique cultural group” which identified itself “completely with African soil”, South African History Online noted.

Their language, Afrikaans, is quite similar to Dutch.

But as they planted their roots in Africa, Afrikaners, as well as other white communities, forced black people to leave their land.

Afrikaners are also known as Boers, which actually means farmer, and the group is still closely associated with farming.

In 1948, South Africa’s Afrikaner-led government introduced apartheid, or apartness, taking racial segregation to a more extreme level.

This included laws which banned marriages across racial lines, reserved many skilled and semi-skilled jobs for white people, and forced black people to live in what were called townships and homelands.

They were also denied a decent education, with Afrikaner leader Hendrik Verwoerd infamously remarking in the 1950s that “blacks should never be shown the greener pastures of education. They should know their station in life is to be hewers of wood and drawers of water”.

Afrikaner dominance of South Africa ended in 1994, when black people were allowed to vote for the first time in a nationwide election, bringing Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress (ANC) to power.

Afrikaners currently number more than 2.5 million out of a population of more than 60 million – about 4%.

None of South Africa’s political parties – including those that represent Afrikaners and the white community in general – have claimed that there is a genocide in South Africa.

But such claims have been circulating among right-wing groups for many years and Trump also referred to a genocide during his first term.

The claims stem from attacks on white farmers, or misleading information circulated online.

In February, a South African judge dismissed the idea of a genocide as “clearly imagined” and “not real”, when ruling in an inheritance case involving a wealthy benefactor’s donation to white supremacist group Boerelegioen.

South Africa does not release crime figures based on race but the latest figures revealed that 6,953 people were murdered in the country between October and December 2024.

Of these, 12 were killed in farm attacks. Of the 12, one was a farmer, while five were farm dwellers and four were employees, who are likely to have been black.

Defending his decision to give Afrikaners refugee status, Trump said that a “genocide” was taking place in South Africa, white farmers were being “brutally killed” and their “land is being confiscated”.

Trump said that he was not sure how he could attend the G20 summit of world leaders, due to be held in South Africa later this year, in such an environment.

“I don’t know how we can go unless that situation’s taken care of,” he added.

South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa has said it was “completely false” to claim that “people of a certain race or culture are being targeted for persecution”.

Referring to the first group who have moved to the US, he said: “They are leaving because they don’t want to embrace the changes that are taking place in our country and our constitution.”

The government denies that land is being confiscated from farmers, saying that a bill Ramaphosa signed into law in January was aimed at addressing the land dispossession that black people faced during white-minority rule.

But the law has been condemned by the Democratic Alliance (DA), Ramaphosa’s main coalition partner in government. The DA say it will challenge the law in South Africa’s highest court, as it threatens property rights.

Trump’s close adviser Elon Musk, who was born in South Africa, has referred to the country’s “racist ownership laws”, alleging that his satellite internet service provider Starlink was “not allowed to operate in South Africa simply because I’m not black”.

To operate in South Africa, Starlink needs to obtain network and service licences, which both require 30% ownership by historically disadvantaged groups.

This mainly refers to South Africa’s majority black population, which was shut out of the economy during the racist system of apartheid.

The Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa) – a regulatory body in the telecommunications and broadcasting sectors – told the BBC that Starlink had never submitted an application for a licence.

Musk has also accused the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), the fourth-largest party in South Africa, of “actively promoting” a genocide through a song it sings at its rallies.

EFF leader Julius Malema’s trademark song is “Shoot the Boer, Shoot the farmer”, which he sings at political rallies.

Afrikaner lobby groups have tried to get the song banned, saying it was highly inflammatory and amounted to hate speech.

However, South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal has ruled that Malema is within his rights to sing the lyrics – first popularised during the anti-apartheid struggle – at political rallies.

The court ruled that a “reasonably well-informed person” would understand that when “protest songs are sung, even by politicians, the words are not meant to be understood literally, nor is the gesture of shooting to be understood as a call to arms or violence”.

Instead, the song was a “provocative way” of advancing the EFF’s political agenda – which was to end “land and economic injustice”.

Lobby group AfriForum filed an appeal against the ruling, but South Africa’s highest court refused to hear the case, saying it had little chance of succeeding.

In 2023, South Africa’s former President Thabo Mbeki urged Malema to stop singing the song, saying it was no longer politically relevant as the anti-apartheid struggle was over.

The ANC says it no longer sings it, but it cannot “prescribe to other political parties what they must sing”.

It doesn’t look like it.

In March, a business group said that close to 70,000 Afrikaners had expressed interest in moving to the US following Trump’s offer – from an estimated population of 2.5 million.

On Monday, the US embassy in South Africa released a statement clarifying the criteria for resettlement, saying it covered people from any racial minority, not just Afrikaners, who could cite an incident of past persecution or fear of persecution in the future.

South Africa’s most recent census, done in 2022, shows that Coloureds, (an officially used term meaning people of mixed racial origin) are the largest minority, making up 8% of the population. They are followed by white people, including Afrikaners, at 7%, and Asians at 3%.

After Trump’s offer, Afrikaner lobby group Solidarity posted an article on its website headlined: “Ten historical reasons to stay in South Africa”.

In parliament last week, the leader of the right-wing Freedom Front Plus party said they were committed to South Africa.

“We are bound to Africa and will build a future for ourselves and our children here,” Corné Mulder said.

Millions of people are walking a financial tightrope, with one in 10 UK adults saving no money at all, a major report has concluded.

This leaves many exposed to economic shocks and vulnerable to rising bills, according to the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) Financial Lives survey.

Moreover, anxiety and stress levels were relatively high, particularly among those burdened by debt.

But the regulator said the situation had not worsened since the start of the cost of living squeeze and free help was available for those facing trouble.

The FCA’s Financial Lives survey is a benchmark for the state of the nation’s finances, with nearly 18,000 people questioned about how they deal with money.

The findings suggest that 13 million people – a quarter of the UK adult population – have low financial resilience. That means they have debts that are hard to manage, low savings, and have missed a series of bill payments.

This was unchanged when compared with the previous Financial Lives survey, published in 2022, despite the pressure caused by inflation and rising essential bills on personal finances.

Some 10% of those asked had no cash saved at all. Another 21% had less than £1,000 tucked away.

Other key findings in the wide-ranging report include

• A total of 2.8 million people have persistent credit card debt
• Nearly 12 million people feel overwhelmed or stressed dealing with financial matters, including 40% of adults with credit or loans saying they suffer anxiety and stress
• Some 3.8 million retirees are worried they don’t have enough money to last their retirement
• Difficulties getting to a bank branch face nearly 10 million people

“Our data shows that finances are stretched for many – with some unable to save for a rainy day,” said Sarah Pritchard, from the FCA.

The report also suggests that the use of buy now, pay later has risen significantly in recent years.

Some 40% of lone parents and 35% of women aged between 25 and 34 use these deferred credit products, which remain unregulated.

Overall, nearly half of adults have outstanding unsecured debt, where the money borrowed is not backed up by assets.

The FCA said the median average amount of debt outstanding among those with debt was £6,300.

Among 18 to 34-year-olds with debt, the median average amount of debt outstanding was £12,500. But, after excluding student loans, that dropped to £1,300.

Debt advisers say they routinely speak to people with mental health issues, which either result in financial difficulties or are caused by money worries.

They say it takes courage to pick up the phone to ask for help, but free debt advice is available and has no impact on someone’s credit score.

Matt Dronfield, managing director of Debt Free Advice – a coalition of charities which can negotiate with creditors on behalf of borrowers – said rent or mortgage arrears, council tax and falling behind on utility bills were the three most common forms of debt.

He said many callers were juggling multiple jobs, but unable to cover their essential expenses.

“It is so common. If you’re not worried, then a friend or family member is definitely going to be,” he said.

“We know you are more likely to tell your pet than your partner or loved one about your financial situation. So, speak to an expert debt adviser about the situation that you are in.

“If you were worried about your health, you’d see a doctor. If you’re car wasn’t working, you’d go to a mechanic. So, if you are worried about your finances, speak to an independent debt adviser, for free.”

He also said that people with no savings should consider “paying yourself first”, by putting a few pounds into a savings account when their receive their income.

This could help get them into a savings habit, while still being able to cover the priority bills.

The average amount people have saved is £5,000 to £6,000, the FCA’s report suggests.

To live along the Line of Control (LoC) – the volatile de facto border that separates India and Pakistan – is to exist perpetually on the razor’s edge between fragile peace and open conflict.

The recent escalation after the Pahalgam attack brought India and Pakistan to the brink once again. Shells rained down on both sides of the LoC, turning homes to rubble and lives into statistics. At least 16 people were reportedly killed on the Indian side, while Pakistan claims 40 civilian deaths, though it remains unclear how many were directly caused by the shelling.

“Families on the LoC are subjected to Indian and Pakistani whims and face the brunt of heated tensions,” Anam Zakaria, a Pakistani writer based in Canada, told the BBC.

“Each time firing resumes many are thrust into bunkers, livestock and livelihood is lost, infrastructure – homes, hospitals, schools – is damaged. The vulnerability and volatility experienced has grave repercussions for their everyday lived reality,” Ms Zakaria, author of a book on Pakistan-administered Kashmir, said.

India and Pakistan share a 3,323km (2,064-mile) border, including the 740km-long LoC; and the International Border (IB), spanning roughly 2,400km. The LoC began as the Ceasefire Line in 1949 after the first India-Pakistan war, and was renamed under the 1972 Simla Agreement.

The LoC cutting through Kashmir – claimed in full and administered in parts by both India and Pakistan – remains one of the most militarised borders in the world. Conflict is never far behind and ceasefires are only as durable as the next provocation.

Ceasefire violations here can range from “low-level firing to major land grabbing to surgical strikes“, says Happymon Jacob, a foreign policy expert at Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). (A land grab could involve seizing key positions such as hilltops, outposts, or buffer zones by force.)

The LoC, many experts say, is a classic example of a “border drawn in blood, forged through conflict”. It is also a line, as Ms Zakaria says, “carved by India and Pakistan, and militarised and weaponised, without taking Kashmiris into account”.

Such wartime borders aren’t unique to South Asia. Sumantra Bose, a professor of international and comparative politics at the London School of Economics, says the most well-known is the ‘Green Line’ – the ceasefire line of 1949 – which is the generally recognised boundary between Israel and the West Bank.

Not surprisingly, the tentative calm along the LoC that had endured since the 2021 ceasefire agreement between the two nuclear-armed neighbours crumbled easily after the latest hostilities.

“The current escalation on the LoC and International Border (IB) is significant as it follows a four-year period of relative peace on the border,” Surya Valliappan Krishna of Carnegie India told the BBC.

Violence along the India-Pakistan border is not new – prior to the 2003 ceasefire, India reported 4,134 violations in 2001 and 5,767 in 2002.

The 2003 ceasefire initially held, with negligible violations from 2004 to 2007, but tensions resurfaced in 2008 and escalated sharply by 2013.

Between 2013 and early 2021, the LoC and the IB witnessed sustained high levels of conflict. A renewed ceasefire in February 2021 led to an immediate and sustained drop in violations through to March 2025.

“During periods of intense cross-border firing we’ve seen border populations in the many thousands be displaced for months on end,” says Mr Krishna. Between late September and early December 2016, more than 27,000 people were displaced from border areas due to ceasefire violations and cross-border firing.

It’s looking increasingly hairy and uncertain now.

Tensions flared after the Pahalgam attack, with India suspending the key water-sharing treaty between India and Pakistan, known as the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). Pakistan responded by threatening to exit the 1972 Simla Agreement, which formalised the LoC – though it hasn’t followed through yet.

“This is significant because the Simla Agreement is the basis of the current LoC, which both sides agreed to not alter unilaterally in spite of their political differences,” says Mr Krishna.

Mr Jacob says for some “curious reason”, ceasefire violations along the LoC have been absent from discussions and debates about escalation of conflict between the two countries.

“It is itself puzzling how the regular use of high-calibre weapons such as 105mm mortars, 130 and 155mm artillery guns and anti-tank guided missiles by two nuclear-capable countries, which has led to civilian and military casualties, has escaped scholarly scrutiny and policy attention,” Mr Jacob writes in his book, Line On Fire: Ceasefire Violations and India-Pakistan Escalation Dynamics.

Mr Jacob identifies two main triggers for the violations: Pakistan often uses cover fire to facilitate militant infiltration into Indian-administered Kashmir, which has witnessed an armed insurgency against Indian rule for over three decades. Pakistan, in turn, accuses India of unprovoked firing on civilian areas.

He argues that ceasefire violations along the India-Pakistan border are less the product of high-level political strategy and more the result of local military dynamics.

The hostilities are often initiated by field commanders – sometimes with, but often without, central approval. He also challenges the notion that the Pakistan Army alone drives the violations, pointing instead to a complex mix of local military imperatives and autonomy granted to border forces on both sides.

Some experts believe It’s time to revisit an idea shelved nearly two decades ago: turning the LoC into a formal, internationally recognised border. Others insist that possibility was never realistic – and still isn’t.

“The idea is completely infeasible, a dead end. For decades, Indian maps have shown the entire territory of the erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir as part of India,” Sumantra Bose told the BBC.

“For Pakistan, making the LoC part of the International Border would mean settling the Kashmir dispute – which is Pakistan’s equivalent of the Holy Grail – on India’s preferred terms. Every Pakistani government and leader, civilian or military, over the past seven decades has rejected this.”

In his 2003 book, Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace, Prof Bose writes: “A Kashmir settlement necessitates that the LoC be transformed – from an iron curtain of barbed wire, bunkers, trenches and hostile militaries to a linen curtain. Realpolitik dictates that the border will be permanent (albeit probably under a different name), but it must be transcended without being abolished.”

“I stressed, though, that such a transformation of the LoC must be embedded in a broader Kashmir settlement, as one pillar of a multi-pillared settlement,” he told the BBC.

Between 2004 and 2007, turning the LoC into a soft border was central to a fledgling India-Pakistan peace process on Kashmir – a process that ultimately fell apart.

Today, the border has reignited, bringing back the cycle of violence and uncertainty for those who live in its shadow.

“You never know what will happen next. No one wants to sleep facing the Line of Control tonight,” an employee of a hotel in Pakistan-administered Kashmir told BBC Urdu during the recent hostilities.

It was a quiet reminder of how fragile peace is when your window opens to a battlefield.

On a warm morning earlier this month, a group of Metropolitan Police diplomatic protection officers sat in an anteroom off the ornate entrance hall in London’s Lancaster House, sipping tea and nibbling chocolate biscuits, while upstairs a core group of European politicians discussed the future of European cooperation.

It was an apt setting: everywhere you look in Lancaster House, there is evidence of the long, entangled histories of the UK and Europe. The double sweep of its grand staircase deliberately echoes the Palace of Versailles. Queen Victoria sat in these rooms listening to Frederic Chopin play the piano in 1848. Tony Blair hosted Russian President Putin here for an energy summit in 2003.

The important issues on the agenda at the Lancaster House meeting, which was hosted by the Foreign Secretary David Lammy, included the latest developments in the war in Ukraine, Europe’s response to ensure the continent’s security, and – for the first time since Brexit – a summit between the UK and the European Union, which will take place on 19 May.

The British government believes it’s a significant moment.

Before Brexit, British prime ministers would travel to Brussels four times a year or more for summits with the heads of the EU’s institutions and its 27 member states. The haggling would go on late into the night. After Brexit those large summits stopped.

Now, the Labour government, elected last year on a manifesto that promised “an improved and ambitious relationship with our European partners”, envisages new and regular interactions with the EU. Monday’s marks the first.

Sir Keir Starmer will host the most senior EU leaders to launch a new “partnership”.

Pedro Serrano, the EU ambassador to London, has described it as the “culmination of enhanced contacts at the highest levels since the July 2024 [UK] elections”. But what will it amount to?

Is what’s coming a “surrender summit” as the Conservatives warn; “the great British sellout” undoing bits of Brexit that Reform UK fear; or “a huge opportunity” the UK may be about to squander, as Liberal Democrats say? Or could it be an example of how, in Sir Keir Starmer’s words, “serious pragmatism defeats performative politics” by delivering practical things that will improve people’s lives?

In those long, drama-filled nights of 2020, when the then-prime minister Boris Johnson was negotiating Brexit, the possibility of a Security and Defence Partnership was discussed. But the UK’s main priority was diverging from Brussels. So nothing was agreed – a notable omission, some think.

Now a new UK-EU security pact has been worked on for months, the plan is for it to be the centrepiece of what’s agreed.

Kaja Kallas, the EU’s foreign policy chief, who is overseeing negotiations, was at the early talks at Lancaster House. “Our relationship has had some difficulties,” she told me, but “considering what is going on in the world […] we need to move forward with this partnership.”

Yet some think the UK should not seize this outstretched hand.

“The cornerstone of our defence is Nato,” Alex Burghart, a Conservative frontbencher, told the Commons this week. “We know of no reason why Nato is insufficient.”

Reform UK’s deputy leader Richard Tice has his own view. “There’s no value at all,” he argues. “We do not want to be constrained by a bungling top-down bureaucratic military structure. Our defence is guaranteed by Nato.”

The government fires back on that point, arguing that a partnership will in no way undermine Nato; rather it will complement it, they say, because it will stretch to areas beyond defence, like the security of our economies, infrastructure, energy supplies, even migration and transnational crime.

Some industry experts also believe that a security pact could boost the UK economy. Kevin Craven, chief executive of ADS Group, a UK trade association that represents aerospace, defence and security firms, is among them.

Take, for example, the SAFE (Security Action For Europe) programme that is being set up by the EU, aiming to provide up to €150bn (£126bn) in loans for new projects. If the UK strikes a security partnership with the EU, then British weapons manufacturers could potentially access some of that cash.

“There is a huge amount of interest from European partners,” says Mr Craven. “One of the challenges for defence companies in the last couple of years, since the advent of Ukraine, is being able to scale up their own capacity to meet demand.” He estimates the UK could boost the EU’s defence output by a fifth.

The Liberal Democrat’s Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Calum Miller, similarly believes that a security pact is a huge opportunity for the British defence industry – but, he adds, “as importantly, it’s a new strategic opportunity for the UK to be part of that ongoing conversation about how we arm as a continent”.

Others point out that the UK has already been working with the EU on defence ever since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – at Nato, and most recently via the so-called Coalition of the Willing.

So, in practice, does it make huge amounts of difference to the UK’s place in Europe?

No, argues Jill Rutter, a former senior civil servant who is now a senior fellow at the UK in a Changing Europe think tank. “Because relations [on defence] have already been improving quite a long way.”

Some of those working on the partnership, however, argue that it will set in train new ways for the UK to engage and cooperate with its neighbours.

More contentious is the UK’s desire to sign what’s called a ‘veterinary’ deal to remove some border checks on food and drink. Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Cabinet Office minister leading these negotiations, told the Commons this week that the objective to lower food and drink costs is in the manifesto, so there is a mandate for it.

Inside the food industry, calls for reform have been growing. Julianne Ponan, whose firm Creative Nature makes vegan snack bars, exports to 18 countries but only a small proportion goes to the EU. She says this is because of the paperwork and inspections since Brexit.

One of her employees had to carry samples in her luggage on a passenger flight to Spain for a meeting to make sure the food wasn’t held up at the border, she says.

“I think this will open up huge opportunities for businesses like mine.”

But a veterinary deal may carry political danger. It would require the UK to align some of its rules on food and drink with EU ones, and move in-step with Brussels over time. And those rules are subject to oversight by EU courts.

“I call it the surrender summit,” says Andrew Griffith, the Conservative Shadow Business and Trade Secretary. Under this deal the UK would lose “our freedom to set our own rules”, he adds.

The Conservatives say they “fought long and hard” to “take back control of our laws, our borders, our money” – and that this should not now be reversed.

Reform UK has not held back in its language: “We think prepare for the Great British sell out. That’s the bottom line, and it will be dressed up as a reset,” Richard Tice says.

“Why would you want to reset and get closer to a patently failing economic model? The EU is struggling even more than we are. We should be diverging as fast as we can away from that.”

But Labour’s Thomas-Symonds dismisses these views as a “rehash of the arguments of the past”.

On the other end of the spectrum is the accusation that Sir Keir is far too cautious. Calum Miller of the Liberal Democrats says he knows of businesses “gnashing their teeth in frustration that they just can’t exploit opportunities to work with and trade with Europe”.

His party wants the UK to explore a Customs Union with the EU. It would make moving goods easier, but mean we couldn’t sign our own trade deals.

David Henig, a former senior trade negotiator, has been talking to both sides “hoping to help, to sort of navigate them in”.

“The summit is a step forward, not a step change,” he says, “A slight deepening of the trade ties, rather than something dramatically new.”

A deal on food and drink checks would deliver very little, he believes, because food and drink is such a limited part of trade. “If you were, for example, aligning UK and EU rules on industrial products, you’d get a much bigger economic impact”.

Jill Rutter thinks that a veterinary deal would not prove “economically earth shattering” – but if it goes well, she argues that it could provide “early proof of concept” for further UK-EU cooperation.

After Brexit, many British fishermen were disappointed when Boris Johnson’s government agreed to let EU boats continue much as before, taking significant catches from UK waters. Those arrangements expire next year. The EU wants them extended.

David Davis who, as Brexit minister, led some of the original negotiations for the UK, told me fishing was “totemic” for Brussels. London conceded too easily, he thinks.

“Europeans got what they wanted first, and then we had a haggle from a weak position.”

So he adds, “If I was giving advice to the government, I would say, tough it out” and use fishing as a lever to seek concessions.

But, as the UK found before, Brussels has cards to play. Much of the fish caught by British fishermen is sold to buyers on the Continent and the UK needs access to that market.

Some EU coastal states, like France and Denmark, are prepared to drive a hard bargain, demanding that London concedes on fishing rights in return for things it wants. Early on, even signing the Security Partnership was being linked to agreement on a fishing deal. The haggling will be tough.

And finally, there’s an idea that has prompted much interest in recent months: a youth mobility deal, through which under-30s from the UK and EU could live and work in each other’s countries.

For a long time the government said there were “no plans” for such a deal – but earlier this month they changed course, with Labour’s Thomas-Symonds saying that “A smart, controlled youth mobility scheme would of course have benefits for our young people”.

It’s likely that would mean very limited numbers allowed to enter the UK, and only with a visa, for a limited time.

Under those conditions, ministers hope it would not inflate net migration numbers. It’s far from what the EU would like.

The UK already has similar schemes with 13 countries, including Australia, New Zealand and Japan.

“When we are comfortable having those relationships, why are we so averse to having it with our nearest neighbours?” Calum Miller asks, “It just doesn’t really make sense”.

Paula Surridge, a professor of political sociology at Bristol University, argues that public views on immigration are more nuanced than many people think. “Voters care most about what they perceive as illegal migration – small boat crossings and so on,” she says, “People coming here to study or to work, particularly young people, are not a particular cause for concern” for most.

“There will definitely be a group of voters that are upset [about potential deals], but they were never going to vote Labour.”

Of those who backed Labour in 2024, she adds, about three quarters previously voted Remain in the Brexit referendum. The political risk to the government of signing pacts with the EU is “smaller than it appears”, she adds.

Conservative pollster Lord Hayward is more cautious – and is concerned that a deal may pose a “bear trap” for the government if it’s seen as providing free movement to young Europeans. “It will provide serious difficulties for them to come to an agreement on something which could easily be portrayed as EU membership 2.0.”

Even before Sir Keir’s upcoming summit on Monday, his opponents are raising that spectre.

“All of his muscle memory has been to get closer to the European political union,” says Mr Griffith. “I am worried about our prime minister, with that baggage, with those preconceived ideas, […] trying to negotiate a better deal with the EU.”

Richard Tice says his party could simply undo any deals with the EU. “If I’m right about our fears, and we win the next general election, we will just reverse the lot. The whole lot.”

But Mr Thomas-Symonds is of the view that Monday will show the government is “not returning to the Customs Union, Single Market, or Freedom of Movement”, all red lines it has pledged not to cross.

Instead it will be about “making Brexit work in the interests of the British people”.

Back at Lancaster House, the politicians have moved on, heading to more meetings in Albania and Turkey to grapple with the issues facing the continent. But in a quiet hallway in the house is a painting from the 1850s of the Duke of Wellington inspecting troops in London’s Hyde Park.

In it, he sits on a black stallion, raising his white-feathered hat to salute the cavalry – a tribute to the prime minister and military hero who defeated Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo.

The upcoming summit won’t be as momentous an event in the UK’s complicated history with Europe. But a modern British leader about to plunge into the fray of European politics might pause for thought here – perhaps, for just a moment.

BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.

The Eurovision Song Contest is back – this time in Basel, Switzerland.

The UK’s entry this year is Remember Monday – a country-pop trio who will perform their song What The Hell Just Happened.

The Eurovision Song Contest is an annual televised competition organised by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU).

The theme for the 2025 edition is “Welcome Home”, as the first contest was held in Switzerland in 1956.

Songs must be original and no more than three minutes long. They cannot have been released or publicly performed before 1 September 2024.

Lead vocals must be live, with no lip-syncing or auto-tuning allowed and a maximum of six singers and dancers.

The grand final of the contest will take place in St Jakobshalle, an indoor arena in Basel, on Saturday 17 May.

It will be broadcast live on TV on BBC One and BBC iPlayer from 20:00 BST, hosted by Graham Norton.

You can also listen on BBC Radio 2 and BBC Sounds, hosted by Scott Mills and Rylan Clark.

Inside the arena, the international Eurovision coverage will be hosted by presenters Hazel Brugger, Sandra Studer and Michelle Hunziker.

A total of 37 countries are taking part in Eurovision 2025 – all but one took part in last year’s contest in Malmö, Sweden.

Montenegro returns to the competition this year for the first time since 2022, replacing Moldova – which withdrew because of financial and logistical challenges.

Most Eurovision countries are European, but Australia takes part every year, after being invited to join Eurovision’s 60th anniversary celebrations in 2015. Australia, however, cannot host if it ever wins.

Other non-European countries including Israel participate because they are members of the EBU.

Russia has been banned since 2022, following its invasion of Ukraine.

Switzerland is playing host to Eurovision 2025 after contestant Nemo won the 2024 contest with the song The Code.

Nemo is due to appear as a guest performer this year too, despite accusing the contest of not supporting artists enough in 2024.

This is the third time that Switzerland has hosted Eurovision. Its contestant this year is Zoë Më, with the song Voyage.

The “big five” nations who provide extra financial support to Eurovision get an automatic qualification for the final. These are the UK, Italy, Spain, France and Germany.

Switzerland also gets a golden ticket to honour last year’s victory.

In the first semi-final on 13 May, Céline Dion, who won the contest for Switzerland in 1988, delivered a pre-recorded message celebrating the “beautiful” return of the contest to Basel.

These countries qualified from the first semi-final:

• Albania: Shkodra Elektronike – Zjerm
• Estonia: Tommy Cash – Espresso Macchiato
• Iceland: VÆB – RÓA
• Netherlands: Claude – C’est La Vie
• Norway: Kyle Alessandro – Lighter
• Poland: Justyna Steczkowska – GAJA
• Portugal: NAPA – Deslocado
• San Marino: Gabry Ponte – Tutta L’Italia
• Sweden: KAJ – Bara Bada Bastu
• Ukraine: Ziferblat – Bird of Pray

The following countries qualified from the second semi-final:

• Armenia: PARG – SURVIVOR
• Austria: JJ – Wasted Love
• Denmark: Sissal – Hallucination
• Finland: Erika Vikman – ICH KOMME
• Greece: Klavdia – Asteromáta
• Israel: Yuval Raphael – New Day Will Rise
• Latvia: Tautumeitas – Bur Man Laimi
• Lithuania: Katarsis – Tavo Akys
• Luxembourg: Laura Thorn – La Poupée Monte Le Son (pictured above)
• Malta: Miriana Conte – SERVING

And here are the unlucky 11 who were knocked out:

• Australia: Go-Jo – Milkshake Man
• Azerbaijan: Mamagama – Run With U
• Belgium: Red Sebastian – Strobe Lights
• Croatia: Marko Bošnjak – Poison Cake
• Cyprus: Theo Evan – Shh
• Czechia: ADONXS – Kiss Kiss Goodbye
• Georgia: Mariam Shengelia – Freedom
• Ireland: EMMY – Laika Party
• Montenegro: Nina Žižić – Dobrodošli
• Serbia: Princ – Mila
• Slovenia: Klemen – How Much Time Do We Have Left

This takes place on Thursday 15 May. It is being broadcast on BBC iPlayer, BBC One, Radio 2 and BBC Sounds from 20:00. You can also watch it on the BBC News website live stream.

This is the running order:

• Australia: Go-Jo – Milkshake Man
• Montenegro: Nina Žižić – Dobrodošli
• Ireland: EMMY – Laika Party
• Latvia: Tautumeitas – Bur Man Laimi
• Armenia: PARG – SURVIVOR
• Austria: JJ – Wasted Love
• United Kingdom: Remember Monday – What The Hell Just Happened?
• Greece: Klavdia – Asteromáta
• Lithuania: Katarsis – Tavo Akys
• Malta: Miriana Conte – SERVING
• Georgia: Mariam Shengelia – Freedom
• France: Louane – maman
• Denmark: Sissal – Hallucination
• Czechia: ADONXS – Kiss Kiss Goodbye
• Luxembourg: Laura Thorn – La Poupée Monte Le Son
• Israel: Yuval Raphael – New Day Will Rise
• Germany: Abor & Tynna – Baller
• Serbia: Princ – Mila
• Finland: Erika Vikman – ICH KOMME

Girl band Remember Monday are made up of Lauren Byrne, Holly-Anne Hull and Charlotte Steele.

They will be performing a song titled What The Hell Just Happened, full of harmonies and pop melodies.

The band formed at school in Farnborough, Hampshire, and appeared on TV talent show The Voice, in 2019. Lauren and Holly-Anne have also appeared in West End shows like Phantom of the Opera and Six: The Musical.

They’ll be hoping to turn around the UK’s fortunes, after the last two contestants Olly Alexander and Mae Muller both finished at the bottom end of the table in 2024 and 2023 respectively.

More than 70 former Eurovision contestants, including Britain’s Mae Muller, have signed an open letter demanding that Israel’s public broadcaster KAN be banned from the contest, alleging that it was “complicit in Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza”.

Eurovision, which has always billed itself as non-political, has resisted calls for Israel to be excluded.

Yuval Raphael, Israel’s contestant this year, told BBC News she was “expecting” to be booed during her performance.

The inclusion of Israel sparked controversy last year, when its contestant Eden Golan also faced boos during a rehearsal and thousands of pro-Palestinian protesters gathered outside the venue.

Golan was also forced to change the lyrics of her entry, titled Hurricane, to remove references to the deadly attacks by Hamas on Israel, on 7 October 2023.

The last major music event Raphael attended was the Nova festival, in Israel, when it came under attack by Hamas gunmen during the 7 October attacks and more than 360 people were killed.

Around 1,200 people were killed in Israel by gunmen led by Hamas that day, and 251 were taken hostage. During Israel’s ensuing military campaign in Gaza more than 53,000 people have been killed, according to the territory’s Hamas-run health ministry.

In the final, every participating country is awarded two sets of scores – one from a jury of music experts and one from fans around Europe.

Fans get a maximum of 20 votes, cast via phone call, SMS or via the official Eurovision app. They can vote for as many different acts as they like, but votes for your home country are banned.

Once the lines close, each country will have chosen a “Top 10” of their favourite songs. The most popular song gets 12 points, the second choice gets 10, and the rest are scored from eight to one.

Viewers from countries that don’t participate in Eurovision also get a say. Their choices are bundled into a single bloc known as the “rest of the world vote”.

Farm inheritance tax changes should be delayed by a year and alternative schemes that will not harm small family businesses need to be properly considered, a committee of MPs has warned.

Government plans to tax inherited agricultural assets worth more than £1m at a rate of 20% – half the usual rate – saw protests across the UK after they were announced in the Autumn Budget.

In a report released on Friday, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Efra) Committee said the changes were made without “adequate consultation, impact assessment or affordability assessment”.

The government said its inheritance tax reforms were “vital” and its commitment to farmers was “steadfast”.

Efra’s report said the tax reforms “threaten to affect the most vulnerable” but delaying the implementation of the policy until April 2027 would give those farmers more time to seek “appropriate professional advice”.

National Farmers’ Union (NFU) president Tom Bradshaw said a delay “doesn’t take the terrible pressure off older farmers”.

He said the policy remained “fundamentally unfit, destructive, badly constructed and must be changed”.

The government says the changes will only affect the wealthiest 500 farms each year, but the NFU and the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) estimate that up to 70,000 farms could be affected overall.

The committee also warned that the government’s sudden closure of the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) environmental payments scheme “affected trust in the government” and left many farmers “at risk of becoming unviable”.

When the SFI scheme, which more than 50,000 farm businesses are signed up to, was closed in March, the NFU described it as another “shattering blow” to farmers.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has since announced it will allow SFI applications that were in progress within two months of its closure.

But the committee said that lessons should be learned and that “a restoration of trust is urgently required”.

Efra committee chairman Alistair Carmichael said the confidence and wellbeing of farmers had been affected negatively.

“The government, however, seems to be dismissing farmers’ concerns and ignoring the strength of feeling evidenced in the months of protests that saw tractors converge on Westminster and up and down the country,” he added.

The CLA, which represents 28,000 farmers and rural businesses, urged the government to rethink its “current disastrous policy” on inheritance tax.

It said the government should consider an alternative “clawback” scheme, under which 100% agricultural and business property reliefs would remain but inheritance tax would be applied to assets if sold within a certain period of time post-death, payable out of the proceeds of the sale.

CLA president Victoria Vyvyan said the “clawback” proposal would limit the damage to family businesses while targeting “those who have bought land to shelter wealth for short-term gain”.

“The government has dug itself into a deep hole by targeting family farms and businesses, and must now pause, listen and consult,” she said.

But a government spokesman said that under its changes three quarters of estates would continue to pay no inheritance tax at all, while the remaining quarter would “pay half the inheritance tax that most people pay”.

He added that payments could be spread over 10 years, interest-free.

Details of a new SFI scheme will be announced after the upcoming spending review.

MPs will debate a bill to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales for the first time since significant changes were made to it.

The bill passed the first stage of the Commons last November – but since then the details have been pored over and dozens of amendments added by both sides.

A vote to pass or reject the bill is not likely to take place on Friday, but rather in June.

Friday’s debate comes as the government quietly made changes to its impact assessment on assisted dying, admitting errors in calculating how many people could take up the service if it becomes law.

It reduced its upper estimate for the number of assisted deaths in the first year from 787 to 647.

Several MPs opposed to the bill have described the process as “chaotic”.

But Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP behind the bill, said it was coming back to the Commons “even stronger”.

She urged MPs to “grasp this opportunity with both hands”.

“The law as it stands is not working for dying people or their loved ones; that much is clear,” she said.

“A majority of MPs recognised this when they backed my bill in November. When they come to debate it once again today, they can be confident that it returns even stronger.”

Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – which would allow some terminally ill adults in England and Wales to choose to end their own lives – cleared its first parliamentary hurdle by 330 to 275 votes back in November.

Since then, the bill has gone through six months of intense scrutiny by a parliamentary committee and several changes, including removing the need for a High Court judge to sign off each request for an assisted death. Instead, a panel of experts – including a legal professional, psychiatrist and social worker – would oversee the process.

Another amendment would prevent doctors from discussing the option of an assisted death with under 18s, unless the patient has raised it first.

MPs have been given a free vote, meaning they can decide based on their conscience rather than having to follow a party line.

The issue has split Parliament, with strong opinions on both sides.

Those opposed to assisted dying say the mood has altered among MPs, but so far only a handful have said they’ve changed their minds since November and it would take dozens to block the bill.

The Commons is unlikely to vote to give the bill final approval until 13 June at the earliest.

On 2 May, the government published its long-awaited impact report on the bill – projecting NHS savings ranging from £919,000 to £10.3 million.

But on Wednesday, officials published a “correction notice” at the bottom of the 150-page document.

The change revises the upper estimate for the number of assisted deaths in the first year after the bill is published from up to 787 to 647.

Labour MP Melanie Ward, who previously voted against the bill, told the BBC: “This shows just how chaotic this whole process has been.

“With the bill being amended by supporters just days before it is debated and the impact assessment being quietly corrected, MPs on either side of the debate can’t really know what they are being asked to vote on.

“It calls into question again whether this bill is fit for purpose and whether this private member’s bill process is suited to deal with such significant and profound issues of life and death.”

Independent peer Paralympian Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, who has campaigned against the bill and will get a vote if the bill goes to the Lords, said it had been “very disappointing to see this process”.

The amended impact assessment “has come out the night before very important debates,” she said.

“It might make the numbers look marginally better but it’s a significant error – what else have they got wrong?”

Meanwhile, Sarah Pochin, Reform’s newest MP after winning the Runcorn by-election earlier this month, confirmed she would support the bill, telling ITV she was “confident” there were enough checks and balances to ensure terminally ill people were protected.

Broadcaster Dame Esther Rantzen, who has been campaigning for assisted dying after revealing her terminal lung cancer diagnosis last year, accused opponents of having “undeclared personal religious beliefs which mean no precautions would satisfy” their concerns.

Labour MP Jess Asato, who voted against the bill, described Dame Esther’s comments as “particularly distasteful” and “disrespectful to those with faith and without”.

The new bill in England and Wales would allow any doctor to be involved in assisted dying. GPs are often a large part of the practice in countries where it is legal.

A BBC investigation found family doctors in England are deeply divided on the issue.

Of the 1,000 GPs who responded to a survey conducted by the BBC, 500 said they were against an assisted dying law, with 400 saying they were in favour.

The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) said it believed there were “concerning deficiencies” with the bill that would need addressing, including tougher safeguards such as using doctors known to the patient for prognosis, face-to-face checks to prevent coercion and no cuts to other care.

Earlier this week, the Royal College of Psychiatrists said it had “serious concerns” and could not support the bill in its current form.

Both colleges said they remained neutral on the principle of assisted dying.

MPs will debate a bill to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales for the first time since significant changes were made to it.

The bill passed the first stage of the Commons last November – but since then the details have been pored over and dozens of amendments added by both sides.

A vote to pass or reject the bill is not likely to take place on Friday, but rather in June.

Friday’s debate comes as the government quietly made changes to its impact assessment on assisted dying, admitting errors in calculating how many people could take up the service if it becomes law.

It reduced its upper estimate for the number of assisted deaths in the first year from 787 to 647.

Several MPs opposed to the bill have described the process as “chaotic”.

But Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP behind the bill, said it was coming back to the Commons “even stronger”.

She urged MPs to “grasp this opportunity with both hands”.

“The law as it stands is not working for dying people or their loved ones; that much is clear,” she said.

“A majority of MPs recognised this when they backed my bill in November. When they come to debate it once again today, they can be confident that it returns even stronger.”

Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – which would allow some terminally ill adults in England and Wales to choose to end their own lives – cleared its first parliamentary hurdle by 330 to 275 votes back in November.

Since then, the bill has gone through six months of intense scrutiny by a parliamentary committee and several changes, including removing the need for a High Court judge to sign off each request for an assisted death. Instead, a panel of experts – including a legal professional, psychiatrist and social worker – would oversee the process.

Another amendment would prevent doctors from discussing the option of an assisted death with under 18s, unless the patient has raised it first.

MPs have been given a free vote, meaning they can decide based on their conscience rather than having to follow a party line.

The issue has split Parliament, with strong opinions on both sides.

Those opposed to assisted dying say the mood has altered among MPs, but so far only a handful have said they’ve changed their minds since November and it would take dozens to block the bill.

The Commons is unlikely to vote to give the bill final approval until 13 June at the earliest.

On 2 May, the government published its long-awaited impact report on the bill – projecting NHS savings ranging from £919,000 to £10.3 million.

But on Wednesday, officials published a “correction notice” at the bottom of the 150-page document.

The change revises the upper estimate for the number of assisted deaths in the first year after the bill is published from up to 787 to 647.

Labour MP Melanie Ward, who previously voted against the bill, told the BBC: “This shows just how chaotic this whole process has been.

“With the bill being amended by supporters just days before it is debated and the impact assessment being quietly corrected, MPs on either side of the debate can’t really know what they are being asked to vote on.

“It calls into question again whether this bill is fit for purpose and whether this private member’s bill process is suited to deal with such significant and profound issues of life and death.”

Independent peer Paralympian Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, who has campaigned against the bill and will get a vote if the bill goes to the Lords, said it had been “very disappointing to see this process”.

The amended impact assessment “has come out the night before very important debates,” she said.

“It might make the numbers look marginally better but it’s a significant error – what else have they got wrong?”

Meanwhile, Sarah Pochin, Reform’s newest MP after winning the Runcorn by-election earlier this month, confirmed she would support the bill, telling ITV she was “confident” there were enough checks and balances to ensure terminally ill people were protected.

Broadcaster Dame Esther Rantzen, who has been campaigning for assisted dying after revealing her terminal lung cancer diagnosis last year, accused opponents of having “undeclared personal religious beliefs which mean no precautions would satisfy” their concerns.

Labour MP Jess Asato, who voted against the bill, described Dame Esther’s comments as “particularly distasteful” and “disrespectful to those with faith and without”.

The new bill in England and Wales would allow any doctor to be involved in assisted dying. GPs are often a large part of the practice in countries where it is legal.

A BBC investigation found family doctors in England are deeply divided on the issue.

Of the 1,000 GPs who responded to a survey conducted by the BBC, 500 said they were against an assisted dying law, with 400 saying they were in favour.

The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) said it believed there were “concerning deficiencies” with the bill that would need addressing, including tougher safeguards such as using doctors known to the patient for prognosis, face-to-face checks to prevent coercion and no cuts to other care.

Earlier this week, the Royal College of Psychiatrists said it had “serious concerns” and could not support the bill in its current form.

Both colleges said they remained neutral on the principle of assisted dying.

Top US diplomat Marco Rubio says he does not have high expectations for Ukraine-Russia peace talks due to be held in Turkey – and that Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin need to meet for progress to be made.

“I don’t think we’re going to have a breakthrough here until President Trump and President Putin interact directly on this topic,” he said after a meeting of Nato foreign ministers in southern Turkey.

Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed Ukraine would send a delegation for the talks in Istanbul, but criticised the “low-level” delegation being sent by Moscow.

Its head, presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky, insisted the Kremlin team had “all the necessary competencies”.

Earlier in the day, Trump – who is visiting the Middle East – also suggested that significant progress in peace talks was unlikely until he and Putin met in person.

Asked by the BBC on board Air Force One if he was disappointed by the level of the Russian delegation, he said: “Look, nothing’s going to happen until Putin and I get together”.

“He wasn’t going if I wasn’t there and I don’t believe anything’s going to happen, whether you like it or not, until he and I get together,” he added. “But we’re going to have to get it solved because too many people are dying.”

Trump said he would attend talks in Turkey on Friday if it was “appropriate” but later said he would probably return to Washington.

Delegations from Turkey, the US, Ukraine and Russia had been due to meet in Istanbul on Thursday for the first face-to-face Ukraine-Russia talks since 2022. As of Thursday evening, no time for them to take place had been set. Some reports suggest they may now happen on Friday.

Vladimir Putin proposed direct talks on 15 May in Istanbul in response to a call by European leaders and Ukraine for a 30-day unconditional ceasefire.

Zelensky then challenged Putin to meet him in person, but on Thursday the Kremlin said that the Russian president was not among officials due to travel.

Following a bilateral meeting with Erdogan in Ankara, Zelensky accused Moscow of “disrespect” towards Trump and Erdogan because of the Russian delegation’s lack of seniority and reiterated his challenge to the Russian leader to meet him personally.

“No time of the meeting, no agenda, no high-level of delegation – this is personal disrespect to Erdogan, to Trump,” he said.

Meanwhile, Medinsky told reporters in Istanbul that Russia saw the talks as a “continuation” of failed negotiations in 2022 that took place shortly after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of its neighbour.

“The task of direct negotiations with the Ukrainian side is to sooner or later reach the establishment of long-term peace by eliminating the basic root causes of the conflict,” Medinsky said.

The Ukrainian delegation will be headed by its Defence Minister Rustem Umerov, according to a decree from Zelensky issued on Thursday. It will also include its deputy heads of intelligence, military general staff and foreign ministry.

Medinsky, who led previous rounds of failed negotiations with Ukraine in 2022, will lead the Russian delegation, a statement from the Kremlin said. Russia’s deputy defence minister, deputy foreign minister and military intelligence head will also be there.

The Istanbul talks mark the first direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine since the unsuccessful effort in 2022.

Russia has indicated it wants to pick up where they left off.

The terms under discussion included demands for Ukraine to become a neutral country, cut the size of its military and abandon Nato membership ambitions – conditions that Ukraine has repeatedly rejected as tantamount to capitulation.

Fighting in Ukraine rages on, with Russia saying its forces had captured two more villages in the eastern Dontesk region on Thursday.

Moscow now controls approximately 20% of Ukraine’s territory, including the southern Crimea peninsula it illegally annexed in 2014.

UK Defence Minister John Healey called on Ukraine’s allies to “put pressure on Putin”. Speaking after a meeting with German counterpart Boris Pistorius in Berlin on Thursday, Healey urged further sanctions on Russia “to bring him to the negotiating table”.