Category: English

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Manal Mohammed, Senior Lecturer, Medical Microbiology, University of Westminster

Summer is a time for sun-drenched fun. From relaxed days outdoors to packed festival fields and meals under open skies. But with the joy of the season comes an overlooked downside: a heightened risk of infection.

Warmer weather, increased social interaction and more frequent contact with unfamiliar environments all make it easier for germs to spread. That’s why handwashing becomes especially important during the summer months. It might not be glamorous, but clean hands are your first line of defence against the microbes that love to crash summer plans.

Microbes thrive in warmth and moisture, and the activities we enjoy in summer often bring us into closer contact with the surfaces, food and water sources that help them spread.

1. Public restrooms and shared toilets

Outdoor festivals, service stations, beaches and campsites all rely on public toilet facilities. These high-traffic areas can become breeding grounds for bacteria like E coli, salmonella and Staphylococcus aureus. Viruses such as norovirus and flu also spread easily via contaminated surfaces. Even coronavirus can persist in poorly ventilated or inadequately cleaned environments.

Washing your hands thoroughly after using public toilets is essential – and hand sanitiser may not be enough if your hands are visibly dirty.

Worryingly, even in places where hygiene is critical, like hospitals, people often skip this basic step. A 2025 study found that nearly half of hospital visitors failed to wash their hands after using the toilet, despite clear reminders. If so many people skip handwashing in hospitals, where the risks are obvious and facilities readily available, how many more are failing to do so at summer events, where soap and water can be scarce?

2. Outdoor eating and food preparation

Barbecues and picnics are summer staples — but they come with a side of risk. Foodborne pathogens like salmonella, E coli, Bacillus cereus and Staphylococcus aureus thrive in warm temperatures. Undercooked meat, poor hand hygiene and leaving food out in the sun can easily turn a festive gathering into a bout of food poisoning.

Even fungi such as Aspergillus can grow on food and produce mycotoxins: toxic compounds that can cause nausea, organ damage or even long-term harm when ingested.

Wash hands before and after handling food, especially raw meat and after touching shared surfaces like picnic tables, barbecue tools and cool boxes.

3. Swimming and water play

Lakes, rivers, swimming pools and oceans can all harbour harmful germs. Parasites like cryptosporidium and giardia can cause gastrointestinal illness – and they’re often resistant to chlorine. Beach sand and seawater can also carry faecal bacteria.

Whether you’re swimming, paddling or just building sandcastles, make sure to wash or sanitise your hands before eating or touching your face.

4. Camps, playgrounds and festivals

Children are particularly vulnerable to infection in summer thanks to group settings like summer camps, soft play centres and playgrounds.

A US study reported 229 youth camp–associated outbreaks of gastroenteritis over seven years. Common culprits included norovirus, salmonella and Shiga toxin-producing E coli, a particularly dangerous strain of E coli that can cause severe illness and even kidney failure.

In one incident, 20 campers became ill, and three were hospitalised, after eating undercooked beef cooked over a campfire. Shared toilet facilities, communal food preparation and tight sleeping arrangements all increase the importance of hand hygiene.

But isn’t it good to ‘get a bit dirty’?

Some people believe that letting children get dirty helps build their immune system. While early exposure to natural microbes from soil, animals or the environment can support immune development, this is not the same as skipping handwashing after using the toilet or before meals.

Leaving hands unwashed doesn’t strengthen the immune system – it increases the risk of illness. No credible studies show that poor hygiene is good for you. On the contrary, unwashed hands are a leading cause of preventable infections worldwide. This risk is especially serious for young children, older adults and people with weakened immune systems.

Hand hygiene is simple, cheap and effective – and never more important than in summer. As the hospital toilet study shows, we can’t assume that people are washing their hands properly, even in places designed to protect health. Add in the chaos of a campsite or the distractions of a music festival, and it becomes even easier to forget.

So, whether you’re hiking, camping or dancing in a field, you should wash your hands with soap and clean running water for at least 20 seconds and then dry them properly as damp hands spread germs more easily. Use hand sanitiser (at least 60% alcohol) if soap and water aren’t available and ideally keep some in your bag in case you can’t rely on public facilities.

Manal Mohammed does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Four summer hotspots for germs – and why not washing your hands won’t strengthen your immune system – https://theconversation.com/four-summer-hotspots-for-germs-and-why-not-washing-your-hands-wont-strengthen-your-immune-system-261635

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Livingstone-Banks, Lecturer & Senior Researcher in Evidence-Based Healthcare, University of Oxford

In 2021, varenicline, the most effective single drug for quitting smoking, was withdrawn from the market in the UK because impurities were found at greater levels than is considered safe.

Rapidly, varenicline (then sold under its brand names, Champix and Chantix) became unavailable. This was a disaster for public health. Research from University College London estimated that varenicline being unavailable resulted in about 1,890 more avoidable deaths each year because fewer people were successfully quitting smoking.

But there was hope. Cytisine (also known as cytisinicline), a naturally occurring plant-based product that had been used for decades in eastern Europe, and more recently to great effect elsewhere in the world, was licensed in the UK and made available from January 2024.

Even so, there was an extended period when neither were available to people trying to quit smoking in the UK (and in other countries, too). But in the UK at least, things were looking up. Based on a limited but growing body of evidence, cytisine probably works as well as varenicline at helping people quit smoking, and it may be better tolerated with fewer side-effects.

It may also appeal to more smokers who may want to use a natural product rather than a drug designed in a lab. So, with varenicline withdrawn and a similarly effective treatment available, we should have seen lives saved as people who would have taken varenicline were encouraged to try cytisine instead.

Why isn’t anyone prescribing it?

This didn’t happen. Cytisine – despite now being licensed and available in the UK – is still shockingly underused.

Since January 2024, only 0.2% of people trying to quit smoking have used it (the same proportion that used it in 2018, when it wasn’t even officially available in the UK). Official NHS data from people accessing stop-smoking services in England confirm that only 0.7% were prescribed cytisine in 2024.

So why is this? High-profile trials continue to show cytisine’s effectiveness for quitting smoking (and even for quitting vaping).

Maybe cytisine’s relatively complex dosing schedule puts people off. Cytisine starts with six pills a day (one every two hours) and gradually tapers off over a few weeks: more confusing and less convenient than one-a-day varenicline.

Another possibility is that the public’s attention has shifted. With so much focus in recent years on vaping as a smoking cessation aid, prescription drugs for smoking cessation may have fallen off the radar.

It could also be that GPs are reluctant to prescribe cytisine because of its cost and the assumption that local authorities should pay for it, not primary care. While it was once hoped that due to its low-cost availability in eastern Europe, it would become the “aspirin of smoking cessation drugs”, the licensed product in the UK is now as or more expensive than other drugs.

But the simplest explanation is probably the most accurate: not enough people know about cytisine. People who smoke, GPs, pharmacists and even stop-smoking services may not know it’s an option. And if no one is talking about it, no one is prescribing it. And even if they do know about it, there may be a lack of confidence in using or prescribing it because it is a new drug.

That’s a problem. The UK government has made the shift from treating illness to preventing it a central part of its health strategy. Smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the country and the world. If we’re serious about prevention, then effective smoking cessation support must be top of the agenda.

Now, varenicline is available again (without its brand names and reformulated to remove the impurities). This is welcome news, but only 1.1% of past-year smokers reported using varenicline. That’s only a quarter of the number from before its withdrawal.

This raises an important question: should we return to prescribing varenicline by default, or is it time to consider cytisine as a first-line treatment? Researchers are continuing to learn more about cytisine, but as the evidence in favour of cytisine grows, maybe it needs a PR campaign for both prescribers and people who smoke.

None of this is to say that cytisine is a miracle cure, or that it will work for everyone. But that’s true of every way to help people quit smoking. Quitting smoking is hard, and people trying to quit need more options, not fewer, and those options need to be visible and accessible.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Jonathan Livingstone-Banks has received funding from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) and Cancer Research UK (CRUK).

Dimitra Kale receives salary support from Cancer Research UK.

Lion Shahab is a HEFCE funded member of staff at University College London. In the past, he has received honoraria for talks, an unrestricted research grant and travel expenses to attend meetings and workshops from Pfizer and an honorarium to sit on advisory panel from Johnson&Johnson, both pharmaceutical companies that make smoking cessation products. He has acted as paid reviewer for grant awarding bodies and as a paid consultant for health care companies. Other research has been funded by the Department of Health, UKRI, a community-interested company (National Centre for Smoking Cessation) and charitable sources (Cancer Research UK, Yorkshire Cancer Research). He has never received personal fees or research funding of any kind from alcohol, electronic cigarette or tobacco companies.

– ref. Two of the best stop smoking medications have been available in the UK since 2024 – so why is no one using them? – https://theconversation.com/two-of-the-best-stop-smoking-medications-have-been-available-in-the-uk-since-2024-so-why-is-no-one-using-them-261393

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nick Dunn, Professor of Urban Design, Lancaster University

For billions of years, life has depended on Earth’s rhythm of day and night. DNA codifies body clocks in all animals and plants, which helps their cells act according to this cycle of light and dark.

Humans have disrupted this cycle, though, by producing artificial light at night. A growing body of scientific evidence shows this can have negative effects on many different forms of life.

Essentially, artificial light at night changes the sensory capacities of living things. It can disturb the magnetic orientation of migratory birds and beguile insects, causing them to become easier prey and exhausting them. The same disruption to body clocks we see in wildlife is also linked to health consequences in people.

Apart from some caves, deserts and deep-sea trenches, most of Earth has been invaded by light pollution to some degree, or is under threat of its encroachment. In 2001, astronomer Pierantonio Cinzano and colleagues created the first global atlas of light pollution. It calculated that two-thirds of the world’s population lived in areas where nights were at least 10% brighter than natural darkness.

The scale of the problem was updated in 2016 when the team renewed their atlas. By that time, 83% of people globally were living under a light-polluted sky – and 99% in the UK, Europe and North America.

The situation is not improving: too much light in the wrong place or at the wrong time causes big problems. But restoring darkness can help mitigate some of these issues – and cities are a good place to start.

Alternative urban illumination

Light is widely associated with safety, security and surveillance, but it does not necessarily deter crime. A 2019 study in Melbourne, Australia, for example, showed that more lighting alone did not create safer urban spaces.

Many people are familiar with the idea of greening cities by planting more street trees. If we were to darken cities, we would benefit biodiversity – and the health and wellbeing of humans and nonhumans too. The responsible use of lighting should be decided by an ethical and aesthetic argument for how we want cities after dark to be.

Read more:
Cities need to embrace the darkness of the night sky – here’s why

In my latest book, Dark Futures, I argue that cities should not necessarily seek to create areas of natural darkness with no artificial light – but rather, try to make urban areas navigable at night without harming wildlife. The question is where and when to have illumination, and how it should be deployed and controlled.

Look to the Bahnstadt district of Heidelberg in Germany for an approach that ensures a dark environment for wildlife. Here, infrared sensors have been fitted along a 3.5km cycle path that keeps lights dimmed when not in use.

Likewise, in Lille’s Parc de la Citadelle, France, a nocturnal corridor has been created to preserve biodiversity after dark. Each lighting unit along the path through the park consists of three LEDs with different settings. The brightest lights are only activated when pedestrians, cyclists and cars are detected by sensors.

The brightness of the lighting also mimics natural light patterns throughout the year. This approach, known as biophilic lighting, aligns artificial lighting with seasonal changes.

There have also been efforts to protect particular species at night. Bat-friendly lighting in the Dutch town of Zuidhoek-Nieuwkoop involves streetlamps emitting a red colour and using a wavelength that doesn’t interfere with a bat’s internal compass. The scheme still provides enough illumination for people.

Other forms of lighting, such as bioluminescence, could alter or even replace streetlamps as we know them. Bioluminescence is the emission of light by a chemical reaction in certain organisms.

To date, this type of illumination has only been applied in small experiments, such as those in the town of Rambouillet, France. Here, light is produced by a marine bacterium inside saltwater-filled tubes: a mix of basic nutrients feeds the bacteria, which glow in response. These “lights” are turned off again by stopping airflow into the tubes, putting the bacteria into a dormant state.

Unlike traditional streetlamps, they do not need to be connected to the electricity grid, and their intensity is never sufficient to disturb wildlife. This could open new avenues for the design of urban illumination – which is important, as we need new options.

Cities at night are ideal laboratories to responsibly explore our relationships with light and dark – for the benefit not only of people, but the countless species we share Earth with.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Nick Dunn is affiliated with the advocacy group DarkSky UK.

– ref. ‘Darkening’ cities is as important for wildlife as greening them – https://theconversation.com/darkening-cities-is-as-important-for-wildlife-as-greening-them-252259

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tom Stacey, Senior Lecturer in Operations and Supply Chain Management, Anglia Ruskin University

The UK government is offering a 10% taxpayer-funded discount on new plug-in cars that cost less than £37,000. It’s an attempt to re-energise the currently flatlining market for new electric vehicles (EVs) in the UK – but there are reasons for people’s reluctance that a price cut alone won’t solve.

The £37k price limit excludes all new Tesla, BMW and Mercedes-Benz cars – with Tesla still topping EV sales in the UK despite the recent backlash against its owner, Elon Musk. Many Chinese imports are also excluded as they fail to meet the UK’s sustainability criteria, primarily due to high coal use in the generation of electricity that powers Chinese EV factories – although these models will qualify for a smaller discount.

The UK government has framed its subsidy as an effort to make EVs easier and cheaper to own than petrol cars. This is something the car industry has been lobbying hard for, since it will be barred from offering new petrol and diesel cars for sale in the UK after 2030. Meanwhile, carmakers selling in the UK have to meet compulsory yearly sales targets for EVs.

While the UK is obliged by legislation to accelerate its transition to net zero, as a senior researcher of the switch to electric transport, I believe the new EV subsidy is a reactive measure which neglects more fundamental obstacles to wider EV adoption, such as the UK’s inadequate provision of chargers. It also fails to tackle entrenched misconceptions about these vehicles.

Why price cuts fall short

In a study I conducted with 2,000 car drivers in the UK in 2024, 50% claimed cost was their major impediment to buying an EV, even though EVs sometimes undercut similar petrol cars. The latter are universally increasing in price due to the complexity of designing parts that meet emissions targets.

Perceptions often lag reality, however, and the sense that EVs are always the more expensive option is why I found only 4% of drivers were “very likely” to buy an EV next.

The fleet market (vehicles purchased by companies for lease or business use) is where incentives like the one the UK government is offering have worked well. In research I published with colleagues in 2025, we assessed EV fleet adoption by businesses in the east of England.

We found tax incentives that encourage businesses to add EVs to their fleets – particularly if they offer them to company car drivers – are extremely effective, as they offer a joint benefit for both company and driver.

Businesses concerned with the cost of acquiring and maintaining their fleets appreciate that EVs require less maintenance. Company car drivers also prefer driving EVs once they spend some time with them, research suggests.

In our research, 80% of EV sales to company car fleets were attributed to tangible financial advantages such as these tax incentives. The rest were put down to the greener public image they cultivate for businesses. The popularity of EVs as company cars is apparent in market data: only one in ten new EV sales are to private buyers.

Returning to my study of private drivers, 50% of those who opted against buying an EV cited high upfront costs, while 40% highlighted inadequate charging options. This suggests purchase incentives like the 10% discount will not fully address the reluctance of private buyers.

The UK government has promised to invest £63 million by 2030 in building 25,000-50,000 new chargers (some of which are earmarked for local authority and NHS use). But as an EV driver of over 12 years, I think the UK’s public charging network is a mess.

The promised investment will still see the government fall short of its target of 300,000 chargers by 2030. What’s more, because of the 20% VAT rate on public charging, EV owners can pay up to ten times more for charging on the road than at home. This makes EVs, which the public already see as more expensive, actually more expensive to fuel than a small, economical diesel.

Lessons from abroad

The UK has so far failed to comprehensively deal with poor public perceptions of EVs.

Governments can get this right, though. Look at Norway, where 96% of new car sales are electric. This is thanks to consistent policies since the 1990s aimed at changing perceptions – and not merely the use of blunt instruments such as taxpayer-funded discounts.

A 2022 study of Norwegian EV owners highlighted how economic perks such as exemption from the 25% VAT rate on EV sales initially drove uptake. But sustaining this involved tackling public concerns about the limited range of EVs and the availability of public chargers.

You only need to visit Norway to see how: retail parks now have upwards of 30 EV chargers – and increasingly, no petrol pumps – compared with maybe two-to-four chargers in UK retail parks. This has led to 80% of Norwegian EV owners reporting higher satisfaction compared with owners of combustion-engine vehicles.

My survey results suggest perceptions of cost and practicality will lag reality until policies bridge the gap. This explains the UK’s stubborn 50% cost-barrier fixation, despite competitive pricing and a history of subsidies.

In contrast, Norway has successfully transformed public perceptions of EVs from “expensive novelties” to “smart, cost-effective and practical” by not stopping at price subsidies. By implementing strategic policies such as ensuring charging stations every 50km along major routes and capping charging costs, it avoided the political disagreements that have hindered EV adoption in the UK.

The UK’s efforts, such as discontinuing a purchase grant in 2022 and only partially reinstating it in 2025, have lacked the steady, comprehensive approach that drove Norway’s EV success.

The UK is in a tricky position. Sales mandates and the 2030 petrol and diesel car ban are pushing manufacturers towards selling EVs – but the public is buying only a tiny proportion of the new EVs in showrooms. What’s worse, people are still buying petrol cars in droves: the UK’s best-selling car 4.5 years away from the ban is the Nissan Qashqai – a model not available in electric.

So, while discounts on EVs will help, they will not significantly raise adoption because they treat symptoms, such as perceived upfront costs, rather than causes, such as lack of infrastructure, high charging costs, and a lack of cheaper used EVs that buyers feel they can trust.

To re-energise the EV market, the UK government should also extend the more-generous tax cuts that businesses receive on fleet purchases to private buyers, cap public charging costs to ensure price parity when driving an EV, and also level VAT on charging across the board.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Tom Stacey receives funding from ERDF for the Eastern New Energy Project.

– ref. Will UK’s 10% discount get more people buying electric cars? The evidence doesn’t look good – https://theconversation.com/will-uks-10-discount-get-more-people-buying-electric-cars-the-evidence-doesnt-look-good-261426

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michael Pascal, Lecturer in Psychology , University of Greenwich

Have you ever wondered why people who nearly die often describe speeding toward supernatural light, or seeing their life flash before their eyes? You may have also heard about the powerful psychedelic dimethyltryptamine (DMT), a class A illegal drug in the UK, and how it might generate the so-called near-death experiences. In a recent study I compared both types of experience and found they share fascinating similarities – but also critical differences.

Some studies have suggested there are some basic overlaps between the experiences people have during a near-death experience and taking DMT. But my doctoral research was the first to make an in depth and nuanced qualitative comparison between DMT trips and NDEs. It was also the first field study of its kind, capturing authentic experiences instead of asking participants to take DMT in a laboratory.

Thirty-six participants took vaporised high-dose DMT, typically inhaled from a glass pipe, in familiar settings like their own homes. My colleagues and I used an interviewing technique inspired by micro-phenomenology, a new scientific approach which aims help people discover ordinary but inaccessible dimensions of our lived experience.

This approach helps interviewees recall details of their experience by asking them to articulate it moment by moment in their own words and in chronological order, while expanding out different dimensions such as sensory or emotional experiences.

This allowed us to explore the experiences with greater granularity. For example, in what way the general themes, such as meeting unusual beings or feeling yourself dissolve entirely, specifically expressed itself.

It also allowed us to measure how often each type of these details occurred. We then compared these descriptions to our analysis of another team’s raw data from their 2018 publication studying 34 cardiac arrest-induced NDEs.

My study found both types of experiences also had important differences which researchers have previously overlooked.

People in both groups commonly reported feeling detached from their bodies, encountering beings, travelling through mysterious spaces such as tunnels or voids, and seeing bright lights. These shared experiences hint at similar brain processes at play, like disruptions in the parts of the brain that handle the map of our body, how we simulate other people’s perspectives, sensory perception and spatial processing.

However, DMT trips almost never involved the more classic NDE “life review”, or dramatisations of experiencers’ return to life as in encountering a symbolic threshold of no return. Conversely, NDEs virtually never entailed the visuals of complex geometric patterns iconic to the DMT trip.

The most compelling difference, however, was in the way these features were represented. For example, while people with NDEs frequently reported meeting dead loved ones, DMT users universally described encounters with otherworldly or alien beings.

Suddenly finding yourself transformed into a spirit witnessing your body from above, before being greeted by a guide seemed to be characteristic of NDEs. DMT would simply dissolve people’s bodily awareness, as they rapidly shot into a transcendent world inhabited by mechanical clowns or serpentine scientists.

My colleagues and I suggest that a blend of shared brain biology and personal psychology may explain why these experiences are so similar in their generic elements but differ in their content.

Some especially intriguing phenomena in NDEs, such as the “Peak in Darien” experience where the dying see others they did not know were dead, or correctly perceive things in their surroundings when out of body, are not yet fully explained by neuroscience. B

ut the common features mentioned above probably come directly from how DMT or the near-death state affects our brains. Think of these as universal stage props, set by our brain’s biology. But the stories we attach to these props – seeing your dead aunt or a multi-eyed octopoid alien – are influenced by our personal backgrounds, cultural expectations and memories.

DMT and the brain

Early psychedelic researchers suggested that DMT might flood the brain. during near-death conditions. But life isn’t that simple – and nor is death.

Studies have shown, for example, that rats produce DMT not only via their pineal glands, but in their cortical tissue, including at the point of death. But there isn’t yet evidence that this happens in human brains. Even if humans do produce DMT at psychoactive quantities in the throes of dying, our body’s enzymes could break it down before it reaches or has enough impact on the brain. Additionally, serotonin surges dramatically when you’re under extreme stress, which may itself confer psychedelic effects – and also sticks to the serotonin receptor more happily than DMT, possibly eclipsing any DMT activity.

All this said, some scientists argue the measuring methods used to measure rat brain DMT during cardiac arrest might miss short-lived, higher DMT spikes throughout the brain. And some researchers also think damage to certain neural networks and oxygen deprivation near death might amplify DMT’s psychedelic effects.

Interestingly, our study also discovered a subset of near-death experiences that lacked the imagery of a prototypical NDE, and instead presented abstract, cosmic visions more typical of DMT trips. It’s not easy to say where these atypical NDEs could be coming from. But it could be when someone has less preconceptions of NDEs or greater preconceptions of a psychedelic trip. Perhaps their body was synthesising higher levels or DMT than is usual for an NDE. The next frontier of this research would be to track brain activity when general features crop up. We also need more research to explore potential psychological and cultural reasons why these features are expressed in the way that they are.

Many indigenous people around the globe may feel contemporary science is superfluous. Ayahuasca, a shamanic brew that contains DMT, has been used by tribes all over the Amazon to connect to the spirit world and commune with their ancestors.

People who have an NDE almost always feel their fear of death lift afterwards. Since DMT reproduces many aspects of NDEs, it could become a powerful therapeutic tool (alongside psychological support) particularly for people facing existential anxiety or fear of death, whether they are terminally ill or physically healthy. Scientists are already exploring whether ayahuasca may treat prolonged grief disorder.

We’re just starting to demystify what the implications of DMT – this “mystical” substance – may be.

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

Michael Pascal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Psychedelic drug DMT and near death experiences have long been linked – my study is the first to explore the connection in depth – https://theconversation.com/psychedelic-drug-dmt-and-near-death-experiences-have-long-been-linked-my-study-is-the-first-to-explore-the-connection-in-depth-258641

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Malak Benslama-Dabdoub, Lecturer in law, Royal Holloway University of London

The UK will formally recognise the state of Palestine in September unless Israel acts to end the “appalling situation” in Gaza. After an emergency cabinet meeting, Downing Street released a statement saying the UK would recognise Palestine unless Israel committed to a long-term sustainable peace, allowed the UN to restart humanitarian support, agreed to a ceasefire, and made clear there would be no annexations in the West Bank.

The statement also reiterated the UK’s demand for Hamas to release all remaining Israeli hostages, accept a ceasefire, disarm and play no further part in the government of Gaza.

The UK’s decision follows a pledge by French president Emmanuel Macron on July 24 to formally recognise Palestinian statehood statehood in September. If this is acted upon, France and the UK would be the first G7 members and the first members of the UN security council to recognise the state of Palestine.

Recognition of statehood is not merely symbolic. The Montevideo convention of 1933 established several criteria which must apply before an entity can be recognised as a sovereign state. These are a permanent population, a defined territory, an effective government and the ability to conduct international relations.

The process involves the establishment of formal diplomatic relations, including the opening of embassies, the exchange of ambassadors, and the signing of bilateral treaties. Recognition also grants the recognised state access to certain rights in international organisations. For Palestinians, such recognition will strengthen their claim to sovereignty and facilitate greater international support.

This decision by France and the UK is significant. It signals a departure from the western consensus, long shaped by the US and the EU, that any recognition of Palestinian statehood must be deferred until after final-status negotiations. The move also highlights growing frustration in parts of Europe with the ongoing violence in Gaza and the failure of peace talks over the past two decades.

Yet questions remain: what does this recognition actually entail? Will it change conditions on the ground for Palestinians? Or is it largely symbolic?

So far, the French and British governments have offered no details on whether recognition would be accompanied by concrete measures. There has been no mention of sanctions on Israel, no indication of halting arms exports, no pledges of increased humanitarian aid or support for Palestinian governance institutions. France and the UK remain key military and economic partners of Israel, and the pledges do not appear to alter that relationship.

Nor is this the first time western countries have taken a symbolic stance in support of Palestinian statehood. Sweden recognised the state of Palestine in 2014, becoming the first western European country to do so. It was followed by Spain in 2024.

However, both moves were largely symbolic and did not significantly alter the political or humanitarian situation on the ground. The risk is that recognition, without action, becomes a gesture that changes little.

Macron’s statement also raised eyebrows for another reason: his emphasis on a “demilitarised Palestinian state” living side-by-side with Israel in peace and security. While such language is common in diplomatic discourse, it also reflects a deeper tension.

Palestinians have long argued that their right to self-determination includes the right to defend themselves against occupation. Calls for demilitarisation are often seen by critics as reinforcing the status quo, where security concerns are framed almost exclusively in terms of Israeli needs.

In the absence of a genuine political process, some analysts have warned that recognition of this kind risks formalising a state in name only – a fragmented, non-sovereign entity without control over its borders, resources or defence. Without guarantees of territorial continuity, an end to the expansion of Israeli settlements and freedom of movement, statehood may remain an abstract concept.

What would meaningful support look like?

If the UK and France want to go beyond symbolism, they have options. They could suspend arms exports to Israel or call for an independent international investigation into alleged war crimes. They could use the influence on the world stage to push for greater accountability regarding illegal settlements and the blockade of Gaza. They could also support Palestinian institutions directly and engage with Palestinian civil society.

Without such steps, recognition risks being viewed as a political message more than a policy shift. For Palestinians, the daily realities of occupation, displacement and blockade will not change with diplomatic announcements alone. What is needed, many argue, is not just recognition but support for justice, rights and meaningful sovereignty.

The pledged recognition of Palestine by France and the UK marks a shift in diplomatic tone and reflects broader unease with the status quo in the Middle East. It has stirred debate at home and abroad, and raised expectations among those hoping for more robust international engagement with the conflict.

Whether this recognition leads to meaningful changes in policy or conditions on the ground remains to be seen. Much will depend on the steps the UK and France take next – both at the United Nations and through their actions on trade, security and aid.

This article has been updated to include the UK’s pledge to recognise Palestine as well as France’s.

Malak Benslama-Dabdoub does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. UK to recognise Palestinian statehood unless Israel agrees to ceasefire – here’s what that would mean – https://theconversation.com/uk-to-recognise-palestinian-statehood-unless-israel-agrees-to-ceasefire-heres-what-that-would-mean-262095