Q!

[Q! @Qalasesquire]

Begs the question if the UK-US ‘special relationship’ can endure in this current multipolar environment. Worth investigating and that’s the premise for my intended PhD research.

[Roland Paris @rolandparis]

Starmer is right: the UK has an interest in working with the US, just as all of America's allies do. But his awkward responses to the tough questions in this interview show how difficult it will be. There's a thin line between flattery and meekness.

[Femi @0baluaye]

The acting in 'Slow Horses' is on another level. British actors are peerless

[Peter Girnus 🦅 @gothburz]

I am a member of the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

There are five of us. Five people, appointed by a parliament most of the planet could not find on a map, who decide, once a year, which human being the world has agreed to call good.

I know. I know. I think about it on the tram.

We meet in a building on Henrik Ibsens gate, a street named after a man who wrote almost exclusively about people discovering they are frauds, which nobody on the committee finds funny except me. There is a room with a long table and the portraits of the dead laureates looking down, Mandela, the Dalai Lama, a great many earnest men in spectacles, and one portrait we do not discuss, which is Kissinger, 1973, awarded while the bombs were still falling, after which two of our predecessors resigned and the satirist Tom Lehrer said political satire was now obsolete. We keep him on the wall. A reminder. Every family has the uncle.

It is October in Oslo, which means the sun gives up around four in the afternoon like a civil servant, and it rains the particular Norwegian rain that isn’t quite falling, just hanging there, judging you. I arrive with wet shoes. I always arrive with wet shoes. There is coffee, because this is Norway and there is always coffee, we drink more of it per person than almost anyone alive, and someone’s wife has sent kanelboller, the cinnamon buns, and we sit, five Norwegians, damp, caffeinated, sugared, and we decide the moral standing of the entire species.

Let me tell you how it actually works, because the world imagines a cathedral and it is, I promise you, a book club with a mandate.

287 nominations this year. 208 people, 79 organizations. Anyone can nominate, that’s the secret nobody understands: a professor, a parliamentarian, a former laureate, so the “nominee” list is meaningless, it’s a suggestion box, and every autumn some congressman nominates his own golden retriever and the press writes “SHORTLISTED.” Nobody is shortlisted. There is no short list the public ever sees. There is us, and the coffee, and the rain, and the portraits, and a Norwegian stubbornness that is older than the prize itself.

We read reports. The institute’s advisers write them, thick dull documents, and we argue. Our chairman told the BBC once that in the final meeting “there is a high temperature.” High temperature, for a Norwegian, means someone slightly raised an eyebrow and then apologized for it. We don’t do high temperature. We do a long silence, and then Kristin says “well,” and everyone knows exactly what “well” meant, and it’s settled. That’s our shouting. “Well.” You’d have to be raised here to hear the violence in it.

Now. This year. I will not say the name, because we never say the name, but you know the name.

A certain head of state wanted this prize the way a child wants a thing in a shop window, which is to say loudly, and in public, and with the full belief that wanting it was itself the argument. He said he deserved it. He said he’d ended eight wars, a number that grew most times he said it, like a fish. He had other heads of state phone us. Israel’s prime minister posted it on the internet, “Give him the Nobel.” The leaders of Cambodia and Pakistan announced they’d nominated him, as though announcing it were part of it, as though we tally mentions. A man flew around the globe collecting endorsements for a Norwegian committee the way you’d collect signatures for a petition to the council about a noisy dog.

And here, uff da, is the detail I treasure, the one that makes me smile into my coffee. The nomination deadline is the 31st of January. He took office on the 20th. So for all the phone calls, all the posts, all the gilded lobbying, the only nominations that could possibly count for this year’s prize were filed in the first eleven days of his term, before he had, by his own arithmetic, ended a single one of the eight wars. He campaigned all year for a prize whose window had shut while he was still hanging up his coat. We didn’t have to reject him. The calendar did. We just watched. Norwegians are very good at watching. We have long winters.

People think we sit there weighing his deeds. We don’t. That’s the thing I can’t make the world understand. We’re not grading his homework. We don’t owe anyone the prize for a ceasefire, however real, however loud the announcement. “He made peace” is not a sentence that ends in a medal, the way he believes it does, the way he believes every good thing ends in his name on it. The will of a dead Swede says the prize goes to whoever did the most for fraternity between nations. A dead Swede, I should add, who made his entire fortune inventing dynamite and selling arms, and spent his last years horrified at his own obituary, which called him a merchant of death, and so bought his way to immortality as a man of peace. The whole prize is one guilty arms dealer’s attempt to launder his name. We are, all of us, administering a dead man’s public relations. I find this clarifying. It keeps me humble. It should keep everyone humble, and it keeps, by my count, no one humble at all.

So who did we give it to?

An eighty-five-year-old woman. A judge. Born in Durban, under apartheid, granddaughter of a Tamil man who came to South Africa as indentured labor, a bus driver’s daughter from the poor Indian quarter, who became the first non-white woman to run a law practice in her province, who defended Mandela’s people when defending them was dangerous, who sat on the Rwanda tribunal and the court at the Hague, and who, at eighty-five, is right now a judge weighing whether a genocide is a genocide. When we told the world, our chairman said the rule of law “underpins the system we have set up to ensure peace,” and that “peace requires justice.” She wasn’t even in Oslo. She was in Nuremberg. In courtroom 600. The actual room where they tried the Nazis. You cannot stage that. God staged that, and God, it turns out, is a better satirist than any of us.

She did not phone us. She did not post. No prime minister demanded it for her on the internet. She had, as far as our deliberations are concerned, the one qualification the loud man could never manufacture, which is that she wanted the work and not the medal. The medal finds those people. It flees the ones who chase it. This is not a rule we wrote. It’s just the only pattern the hundred-odd years of our mistakes has ever shown.

The reaction from across the ocean was immediate. His spokesman posted that we “place politics over peace.” Ja. Perhaps. We’re five damp pensioners in a rainy city; of course it’s political, it was always political, it was political when we gave it to a sitting American president nine months into his first term for the promise of things he had not yet done, and we have been quietly embarrassed about that one for fifteen years, so believe me, we had a particular reason this year to prefer a woman with fifty years of verdicts behind her over a man with eight wars in front of him and a deadline already behind him.

Here is what he will never understand, the thing I’d tell him on the tram if he ever took one. We are the one prize he cannot buy, cannot post his way to, cannot have a friendly dictator phone in for him. Not because we’re incorruptible, nei, we’re as vain and wrong and human as the portraits on our wall. But because the entire point of the thing, the only power a small cold country’s book club has ever held, is that it goes to the person not performing the wanting. The moment you demand it, you’ve proven you don’t understand what it’s for, and proving that is itself the disqualification. He ran the most expensive campaign in the history of the prize and the campaign was the reason. He was never losing to Navi Pillay. He was losing to the concept.

It’s dark now. Four o’clock dark. The buns are gone. Kristin said “well” an hour ago and we all went home. I’m on the tram with my wet shoes, and somewhere across the water a very powerful man is explaining to a camera that the prize is rigged, that we’re corrupt, that he’ll win it next year, and he genuinely might, we’re only five idiots and we’ve been wrong before, Kissinger is still on the wall.

But not this year. This year an old woman in Nuremberg, in the room where the law once stared down the exact kind of man who thinks wanting a thing loudly enough should make it his, got a phone call she didn’t ask for.

That’s the job. We don’t reward the man who ends the war and announces it.

We reward the woman who spent fifty years deciding what a war was.

He’ll never see the difference. That’s rather the whole point of him.

Takk for i dag. I have to change trams.

[Andy Burnham @andyburnham]

In a difficult and dangerous world, a decade on from Brexit, there is a risk that Britain loses the confidence to lead and stand up for its values.

I’m not prepared to let that happen. It is more important than ever that Britain stands for something.

We have called for years for a two-state solution in the Middle East, but we must recognise that those words are meaningless unless we back them up with action.

For too long, we have been hesitant to act, fearful of being accused of being anti-Israel.

Today we are announcing carefully judged, targeted steps that are not aimed at the Israeli people, but at the unacceptable policies of the current Israeli government.

The suffering of the Palestinian people is a scar on the conscience of the world. Innocent Palestinians, including children, continue to be killed in Gaza. And there is still a humanitarian crisis, with far too little aid getting in.

The scale of destruction is hard to comprehend. More than 70,000 people lie dead - at least 20,000 of them children. Families and communities have been torn apart. Millions displaced. And the population of Gaza is now penned into just one third of the territory.

I know that people across the UK feel very deeply about this issue - and so do I.

Before I became Prime Minister, I said our country’s response had been too slow and simply not good enough. That’s why I committed to changing the government’s approach.

I will not stand by as the horrific suffering continues to grow and the prospect of a two-state solution - the best hope for peace and stability in the region - comes under attack.

More settlements have been approved under the four years of this Israeli government than in the previous 20 years. The UN has reported more than 1,500 incidents of settler violence so far this year, aimed at driving out Palestinians. And the situation is growing worse, fast.

The Israeli government has now approved 104 new settlements since it took office in December 2022, and ahead of the October elections in Israel, it is allowing tenders for the construction of the E1 mega settlement to go ahead. This would cut a swathe through the heart of the West Bank - snuffing out the hope of realising a two-state solution. It cannot be allowed to happen.

That’s why we are announcing a new package of tough measures to put pressure on the Israeli government:

First, we will ban the trade in goods with illegal settlements in Palestine.

Second, we have formally changed the view of the British government to say for the first time that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful - independent of, but in line with, the conclusion of the international court of justice.

And third, we will sanction individuals and companies that support, facilitate or profit from illegal settlements. That includes any businesses or investors that take part in the construction of the E1 settlement.

In addition, we are announcing a new package of desperately needed humanitarian aid to Gaza.

We are taking these steps because it is the right thing to do.

I have condemned the monstrous terrorist attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 in the strongest possible terms - and continue to condemn Hamas. However, it does not justify the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza or the West Bank.

The measures we are taking are about targeting illegal settlements and increasing the pressure on the Israeli government to change course. We are not imposing sanctions on Israel as a whole, which would punish the Israeli people, many of whom disagree with their government’s position.

The Israeli people are not responsible for the actions of their government. And nor is the Jewish community in the UK. Blaming British Jews for the actions of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is wrong, plain and simple. And it is antisemitism, plain and simple.

I met the representatives of the Jewish community just last week. I know the fear they live with day by day. My government will stop at nothing to ensure they are safe and to stamp out antisemitism in every part of our society.

The measures we are announcing today are about protecting the only solution that could see the Israeli and Palestinian people living side by side in peace and security - something that people up and down the UK desperately want to see.

The government I lead will keep working with our partners around the world to keep that hope alive.

[Politics UK @PolitlcsUK]

🚨 NEW: The UK will experience its biggest solar eclipse since 1999 after 6pm

Up to 96% of the Sun will be behind the Moon - do not look directly at the Sun

[Levent Kemal @leventkemaI]

The Mecca Agreement’s core provision is a collective-defence clause, treating an attack on one state as an attack on all three, to strengthen deterrence and defence cooperation. https://t.co/QYa7SOAnfW

[Bruno Maçães @MacaesBruno]

There seems to be a lot of jealousy and resentment in Europe at how Spain has become a global leader in recent years

[Apple TV @AppleTV]

Spy fall.

#SlowHorses — New Season September 16

[Idris @Crhedrys]

The greatest speech given by any player dead or alive! The GREATEST OF ALL TIME

Cristiano Ronaldo 🐐❤️

[Simi @simikunleoni]

i want to be able to add stuff to my instagram highlights without necessarily posting them on my story first

[Keir Starmer @Keir_Starmer]

I am proud of everything we have achieved together.

To everyone who has supported this Labour government: thank you.

[Cristiano Ronaldo @Cristiano]

Portugal Sempre

[David Ornside @David_Ornside]

🚨🗣 Egypt's Coach Hossam Hassan couldn't control himself after full-time:

"I will say what's on my mind regardless of the consequence, this was clearly a rigged match and the whole world saw it"

"And I want to say one more thing, if they want them [Argentina] to win so bad, why call everyone to come and participate?"

[Babanla @biolakazeem]

It is a sign of madness if you have more smoke for Ronaldo than Bruno, Vitinha, Neves, Felix and Leao. Incurable madness actually.

[Neil Renic @NC_Renic]

Methodology

[Dr. Abubakar Bukola Saraki @bukolasaraki]

Dear Blessing,

I just came across your tweet, and it truly inspired me.

To graduate with a First Class in Mathematics from UNILORIN and then earn a fully funded Master's admission in Italy is an extraordinary achievement. You have demonstrated excellence and the promise that exists in so many young Nigerians.

No young person who has worked this hard should have such an opportunity limited by the cost of getting there. It would be my privilege to support your journey by covering what is left in the cost of your relocation.

@nancy_i_i from my office will reach out to you today.

Congratulations once again. Go, excel, and continue to make Nigeria proud.

[Craig Murray @CraigMurrayOrg]

The entire world is witnessing this massive refereeing bias in favour of Argentina.

Messi may be fat and forty, but it is apparently against the rules to beat him to the ball.

[Dr. Abubakar Bukola Saraki @bukolasaraki]

Yesterday, it was a privilege to participate in the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung's Global Strategic Advisory Group meeting at Villa La Collina, Lake Como, for a very important dialogue at a time when the global order is undergoing one of its most profound transformations since the end of the Cold War.

The theme of the meeting — Global Partnerships Without U.S. Leadership — invited us to examine not merely the consequences of changing American foreign policy, but the deeper implications of a rapidly evolving international landscape.

We met at a genuinely historic inflection point in international development — a structural rupture — one that compels governments, multilateral institutions, development practitioners, and policymakers around the world to confront a question that has been deferred for too long: what should international development cooperation look like in the twenty-first century, and who should lead it?

The challenge is not simply how to fill the gap left by a retreating United States. The challenge is whether we can use this moment to build a development architecture that is more sustainable, more equitable, more strategic, and ultimately more effective than the one it replaces.

History teaches us that every major geopolitical shift creates both disruption and opportunity. The real question before us is not whether the United States is stepping back. The real question is whether Africa, Europe, and other emerging partners are prepared to step forward.

My central argument was simple: Africa must seize this moment not to replace one dependency with another, but to redefine development cooperation altogether.

This requires three fundamental transitions: moving from aid to genuine partnership; using development cooperation to strengthen institutions, governance, and democratic accountability; and investing in the next generation of political, economic, and technological leaders who will shape Africa's future.

And this moment — painful as it is — creates the political space to do something we should have done long ago: to build a genuinely different architecture.

Africa today holds more strategic leverage than at any point since independence. The geopolitical competition for African partnership — between China, Europe, the Gulf states, India, Turkey, and others — means that African nations, for the first time in generations, have real partner choice.

Genuine partnership must begin with ending raw material exports as our primary economic model. Africa must firmly say no to the automatic export of raw commodities without value addition.

When we export raw materials, we forfeit jobs, technology, brand development, and the higher-margin profits that come from processing. Manufacturing and value chains create far more employment than raw commodity extraction.

A genuine development partnership from Europe must support — not inhibit — Africa's industrialisation. Trade frameworks that open European markets to African raw materials while maintaining barriers to African manufactured goods are not partnership.

The second imperative is strengthening domestic resource mobilisation as the foundation of sovereignty. Tax-to-GDP ratios across Sub-Saharan Africa average approximately 15.6 per cent, compared to an OECD average of 34 per cent.

During my tenure as Senate President, we placed strong emphasis on fiscal oversight — introducing open budget hearings, confronting the issue of unremitted revenues held outside the treasury system, and working on petroleum sector governance reform. These were not easy fights. But they were necessary ones, because the alternative is permanent external dependency.

The third imperative is investing in institutional quality as the foundation of everything else. When institutions are weak, vision is short-circuited and dependency becomes entrenched.

[Professor Christopher Painter @PrfChrisPainter]

At the risk of becoming repetitive, this level of articulacy is going to be difficult on replace on defence, security and European collaboration.

[Kylian Mbappé @KMbappe]

Idol 👑🐐... @Cristiano

[Cristiano Ronaldo @Cristiano]

ESTAMOS AQUI!