Human rights groups ‘appalled’ at Egypt being added to safe countries list




Justice Minister Helen McEntee announced that Egypt was among a list of countries considered as ‘safe’ for immigration purposes (Liam McBurney/PA)

By Cate McCurry, PA

Today 

Human rights groups have criticised the decision to add countries such as Egypt and Malawi to Ireland’s list of “safe” countries for asylum applications as concerning and “reckless”.


The Government made five additions to its list of safe countries on Tuesday: Brazil, Egypt, India, Malawi and Morocco.

Countries added to this list are viewed by the Irish government as places where “there is generally and consistently no persecution”, no torture, and no armed conflicts.

The proposal by Minister for Justice Helen McEntee was approved at Cabinet on Tuesday, meaning protection applications from these countries are to be accelerated from Wednesday following an “extensive review” by the department.




Applications from the ‘safe countries’ will now be expedited (Niall Carson/PA)

Amnesty Ireland said it was “appalled” at the decision by Ms McEntee to add Egypt, an act it called “deeply reckless”.

“This categorisation is particularly shocking, given the protracted human rights and impunity crisis in Egypt, where thousands are arbitrarily detained, and where Amnesty International has consistently documented the use of torture and other ill-treatment and enforced disappearances.”

Amnesty is opposed to the “safe countries” list, arguing that it is discriminatory.

It said that if Irish authorities consider countries such as Egypt safe, it will place those applying for asylum at “higher risk of being returned to persecution (and) torture” and other violations.

“No country is safe for everyone. But, putting Egypt with its abysmal human rights record on such a list is deeply reckless. Under Irish and EU law, the Minister for Justice may do so only if there is generally no persecution, torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment in that state. That absolutely cannot be said of Egypt.”

Egypt Researcher at Amnesty International, Mahmoud Shalaby, said that since 2013 the Egyptian authorities have been “severely repressing” the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.

“Dissidents in the country remain at risk of persecution solely for expressing critical views,” he said.

“Thousands of people including human rights defenders, journalists, protesters, and opposition politicians remain arbitrarily detained solely for exercising their human rights or after grossly unfair trials or without legal basis.”

Chief executive of the Irish Refugee Council, Nick Henderson, said they were very concerned at the designation of Morocco, Malawi and Egypt as “safe”.

“Frankly, when you look at some of the human rights information from countries such as Egypt, I’m quite staggered and flabbergasted how they could be designated as safe,” he told RTE’s News at One.

“In Malawi, there are frequent examples of abuse of LGBT people, same-sex relations in Malawi remain a crime.”

He said the bar to designate a country as safe was high, and accused the Government of not applying its tests to assess countries’ safety correctly.

The other 10 countries that are designated as safe countries of origin are: Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Georgia, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and South Africa.

The introduction of accelerated processing in November 2022 has had a significant impact on the number of applications from those countries, which have dropped by more than 50% in that time.

Since Botswana and Algeria were added to the list by the minister earlier this year, applications from those countries fell by 71% and applications have fallen by 47% from Nigerian applicants since the country with the most applicants was accelerated.

The designation of a state as a safe country of origin does not mean that a claim is inadmissible or that a person forfeits the right to make an application, however, it places the onus on the applicant to demonstrate why, and by way of exception, they are in need of protection.

Human rights organisations said it gives applicants less time to get legal advice before being interviewed, and means they cannot appeal the decision in person.

Ms McEntee intends to continue to review what additional countries can be designated safe, or if further categories can be accelerated.

Doctors Without Borders calls on big pharma to continue supply of insulin pens as contract ends

Illustrative image: People with diabetes who are dependent on state care will have to switch to vials and syringes for their insulin injections. (Photos: iStock)

By Estelle Ellis

DAILY MAVERICK, SA
02 Jul 2024 0

The scramble for semaglutide-containing injectables as an aid to weight loss means manufacturers are prioritising them over insulin pens.

People with diabetes who rely on state healthcare will have to be taught to use insulin in vials and syringes again as the long-term supplier of insulin pens to the Department of Health will no longer provide these devices.

Pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk will not be tendering again for the contract.

Globally, big pharmaceutical companies have turned their attention to the manufacture of semaglutide-containing weight-loss injectables in­­stead of insulin pens. Ozempic is the best known of them, but Novo Nordisk makes an alternative called Wegovy.

The International Diabetes Federation estimates that 4.2 million adult South Africans are living with diabetes and only about 16% of them have access to private healthcare.

“Both people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes are prescribed premixed insulin pens,” said Dr Patrick Ngassa Piotie, project manager of the School of Health Systems and Public Health at the University of Pretoria, and chairperson of the Diabetes Alliance. “Indeed, individuals with type 1 diabetes need to inject insulin from the time of diagnosis.

“People living with type 2 diabetes start insulin injections when oral medications are no longer sufficient to control their blood glucose levels.”

Piotie said there are estimates of the number of people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in South Africa, but it is not really known how many people have it.

He said, of the 4.2 million estimated to have a form of diabetes, about 10% to 15% are living with type 1 diabetes.

“Of those with type 2 diabetes, up to 50% will eventually need insulin.

“During the implementation of the Tshwane Insulin Project at primary care level, we found that 25% to 50% of patients with type 2 diabetes should be prescribed insulin.”
A step backwards

Piotie said that compelling diabetes patients to return to syringes and vials of insulin is like compelling phone users to go back to using landlines.

“Just think how that would impact your life,” he said. “Except that we are talking about a life-saving medication here.

“I truly believe that only people living with diabetes can tell us how that backward move will affect their lives.

“I cannot speak on behalf of the 75-year-old woman who has arthritis and failing eyesight, and who has been using insulin pens for years and relies on the sound the pen makes to ensure that she is injecting the right dose.

“Her arthritis makes it difficult or even impossible for her to operate a syringe and a vial,” Piotie said.

“I cannot speak for the seven-year-old or the teenager who got used to the convenience of using a pen. With the pain, they didn’t have to confront their fear of needles and now they are expected to carry syringes and vials and to operate those with the same dexterity of a professional nurse.

“In terms of danger, first you have the dosage errors as the risk of incorrect dosing is higher with syringes and vials.

“Injecting more insulin or less insulin is dangerous as hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia threatens the patient’s life. Insulin pens are therefore much safer than syringes and vials.

“We can also mention the issue of convenience, which is closely related to better adherence. Poor adherence will result in suboptimal glucose control, exposing the person living with diabetes to complications,” Piotie said.

He led research that was published earlier this year in the Journal of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Diabetes of South Africa, which indicated that patient data collected in 23 public health facilities showed that control targets were already not being met.

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) Southern Africa has described the latest development as a major setback for people with diabetes.

Previously, Novo Nordisk has been the primary supplier of human insulin pens to the Department of Health and supplied more than 14 million to South Africa over the past three years.

In May, the department issued a circular to health facilities predicting a shortage of stock. It asked for existing stock to be used sparingly, and for the elderly, children and the visually impaired to be prioritised when distributing the pens.

“It is, however, important to highlight the global shortage of insulin pen sets, which is likely due to an increased demand of more profitable products requiring similar production needs as insulin pen sets, and manufacturers prioritising this production,” the circular explained.

The department also cautioned: “Where insulin vials are prescribed and dispensed, enhanced counselling and adherence monitoring is required to ensure appropriate administration and use.”
Neglecting responsibility

MSF warned in a statement that transitioning people with diabetes to vials and syringes in the absence of insulin pens could present major consequences for many of them.

It has called on Novo Nordisk and other manufacturers of insulin pens to acknowledge their responsibility and take immediate action to ensure a continuous supply of insulin pens to South Africa, where it is sorely needed. “Forcing tens of thousands of people with diabetes to switch from pens to vials and syringes on short notice is ­unacceptable and will have very serious consequences.

“We are astonished by the thoughtless irresponsibility of insulin manufacturers who didn’t consider warning the government in advance about their decision to no longer sell insulin pens in South Africa.

“We urge Novo Nordisk and other insulin makers to recognise their responsibility towards people with diabetes in South Africa and globally, while they continue to reap exorbitant profits on their products from high-income markets, and take immediate steps to continue supplying pen devices, which are essential for quality diabetes care,” said Camren McAravey, country operational representative for MSF in South Africa. DM


This story first appeared in our weekly Daily Maverick 168 newspaper

Hungary's Orban urges ceasefire on Kyiv visit

By Gordon Corera, @gordoncorera, 

Security correspondent

Reuters
The body language between the two leaders was not warm

Viktor Orban arrived in Ukraine on Tuesday for an unannounced visit having just taken over as rotating president of the European Union.

While in Kyiv, the Hungarian prime minister said a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine could speed up negotiations to end the war that has followed Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022.

Mr Orban has been a critic of Western support for Ukraine and is seen as the European leader closest to Russian President Vladimir Putin. This was his first visit to Ukraine in 12 years, although he has met Mr Putin repeatedly during that time.

During his joint appearance with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky the body language between them was not warm and neither took questions from the media after they gave their statements.

Mr Orban has previously slowed agreement on a €50bn ($54bn; £42bn) EU aid package designed to support Ukraine in its defence against Russia.

But for the next six months his position as head of the European Council means he has an influential role as a figurehead for Europe. He came to Ukraine on his second day in that role for discussions, saying there was a need to solve previous disagreements and focus on the future.

In his statement following their meeting, Mr Zelensky said it was “very important to have Europe’s support for Ukraine maintained at sufficient level… it’s important for cooperation between all the neighbours in Europe to become more meaningful and mutually beneficial".

In his own statement, Mr Orban stressed the need to work together but also said he had raised the idea of a ceasefire to hasten negotiations with Russia.

"I explored this possibility with the president and I am grateful for his honest answers and negotiation,” he said.

President Zelensky did not respond to those comments.

However, many Ukrainians believe such a ceasefire would simply cement Russia’s hold over territory it has taken from Ukraine and, if negotiations were to take place, they would prefer them to be conducted from a position of strength rather than on the back foot.

Ukraine's Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said his country was open to "work with everyone and solve problems".

"This work is difficult and time-consuming, but it eventually yields tangible results,” he told the BBC.

“During the visit, President Zelensky had a candid but constructive discussion with Prime Minister Orban about ways to achieve a just peace, not simply a ceasefire or peace talks.”

The two leaders also discussed bilateral issues including the 100,000 ethnic Hungarians who reside in Ukraine.

The EU opened membership talks for Ukraine the week before Hungary assumed the EU Council Presidency.

Poll predicts record win for Labour Party at UK election

Reuters
Tue, 2 July 2024 

British opposition Labour Party leader Starmer meets voters across the country as campaign continues

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's Labour Party is set to sweep to power with a record number of seats at Thursday's national election, a forecast by polling company Survation showed on Tuesday.

Survation's central scenario showed Keir Starmer's Labour winning 484 of the 650 seats in parliament, far more than the 418 won by the party's former leader Tony Blair in his famous 1997 landslide win and the most in its history.

The Conservatives, who have been in power for the last 14 years, were predicted to win just 64 seats, which would be the fewest since the party was founded in 1834.

The right-wing Reform UK party were projected to win seven seats.

The Survation analysis used the Multilevel Regression and Post-stratification (MRP) technique that estimates public opinion at a local level from large national samples. Pollsters describe it as a model that uses polling data, rather than a poll itself.

Other MRP analyses have shown smaller margins of victory for Labour, but none have shown a different overall outcome.

Earlier, a regular poll by Redfield and Wilton Strategies which measured vote share nationwide showed a slight narrowing in Labour's lead, but still put the party on course for a comfortable victory.

(Reporting by William James; Editing by Jan Harvey)

Survation MRP: Labour 99% Certain To Win More Seats Than in 1997

With two days until polls open, Survation predict that Labour will win the 2024 general election with 484 out of a total 650 seats. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are in a close race to form the official opposition.

 

These predictions come from a multilevel regression and post-stratification (MRP) model which uses data from over 30,000 respondents to make seat-level forecasts. The model’s implied vote share indicates that Labour will win around 42% of the vote, just under twenty percentage points ahead of the Conservative party on 23%.

 

Our method uses probabilities to estimate each party’s chances of winning individual seats, then combines these estimates to project the overall election outcome. For instance, if a party has a 50% chance of winning in four different seats, we would assign them an expected total of two seats.

 

 

The scale of the Labour victory forecast by our model is unprecedented. Labour is virtually certain (probability greater than 99%) to win more than they won in 1997 under Tony Blair, when Labour won 418 seats by polling 13 percentage points ahead of the Conservatives.

 

Labour is also likely (probability of around 78%) to win more seats than Stanley Baldwin’s Conservatives did in 1931, when they won 470 of 615 seats.

 

The Conservative party is virtually certain to win a lower share of the vote than at any past general election, and to poll lower than they have done in any nation-wide election save their disastrous performance in the 2019 European Parliament election when they polled 8%.

 

The Conservatives are slightly more likely than not (probability: 53%) to win more seats than the Liberal Democrats and become the official opposition, but despite this Sir Ed Davey stands a reasonable chance of becoming the first Liberal or Liberal Democrat Leader of the Opposition since Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman (1900 – 1905).

 

Labour is set to displace the SNP as the largest party in Scotland. Our probabilistic seat count suggests Labour will win 38 of Scotland’s 57 seats, the SNP 10, Liberal Democrats 5, and Conservatives 4. 

 

Finally, the Reform Party is likely to become the third most-voted party whilst only winning a handful of seats, with major implications for the proportionality of the electoral system, which we explore below in more detail.

 

 

Seat Changes

Our model estimates that both Labour and the Liberal Democrats will make significant gains directly from the Conservatives. Our central estimate for seats changing hands from the Conservatives to Labour is 248 - over four times the number of seats (54) that the Conservatives won from Labour in the 2019 General Election. The Liberal Democrats are likely to gain most of their seats (50) from the Conservatives, and 3 from the SNP, while Labour is likely to become the largest party in Scotland by taking 37 seats from the Scottish National Party. 

 

 

The Conservatives have been under pressure from both the Liberal Democrats and Labour in their heartlands in the South and East of England. We are projecting many of these ‘Blue Wall’ seats - defined as constituencies the Conservatives currently hold where a majority are estimated to have voted to Remain in 2016 and the proportion of graduates is above the national average - to change hands on Thursday. Of these 52 seats, our estimates suggest the Conservatives will hold just 10.

 

The Liberal Democrats will gain 23 and Labour 19. Many of these seats have large Conservative majorities, but the Conservatives’ vote share is down by an average of 22% across these constituencies. Included in the Conservative losses would be Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt’s seat (Godalming and Ash) and Theresa May’s former seat (Maidenhead), both falling to the Liberal Democrats.

 

 

Seats MRP Predicts Poorly

MRP is able to produce seat level predictions by using information about the demographic breakdown of the seat together with characteristics of the local area. Sometimes, however, those predictor variables can be unusual, and lead us to make predictions in which we have low confidence.

 

Specifically, we have low confidence in our estimates for Beaconsfield, Exmouth and Exeter East, and South West Hertfordshire. These are all seats where there was a strong independent challenge in 2019, and where there is no continuing independent challenger. The model, seeing low shares for the main parties, and seeing that higher shares "last time" generally lead to strong performance "this time", overconfidently predicts a strong performance by others or by Reform. 

 

Similar reasoning applies to seats which changed hands in by-elections, where past electoral history may be a poor guide to presenting voting intention just because voters changed tack mid-parliament, such as North Shropshire. In cases like Tiverton and Honiton, however, we have been able to conduct additional fieldwork in order to get a better estimate.

 

Implications for Disproportionality

This election is almost certain to be the most disproportional election in the postwar period.

There are various ways of measuring disproportionality between vote and seat shares. Here we use the most commonly used measure, the Gallagher index. This index is a number between zero and one (sometimes between zero and one hundred). A value of zero is a perfectly proportional outcome. A value of one happens where one party wins all of the seats without winning any of the votes.

 

 

Figure 1 shows historical values of the Gallagher index for elections in Great Britain. In calculating the Gallagher index we’ve included information on the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green, SNP, Plaid, and UKIP/Brexit Party/Reform vote and seat shares; all other parties are grouped under “others”.

 

The most proportional elections were the elections of the nineteen fifties; the most disproportional election, the election of 1983, when the SDP won under four percent of seats on 25% of the vote.

 

 

Figure 2 expands that chart to show a range of possible outcomes for the 2024 election. Our best guess as to the value of the Gallagher index in 2024 is 0.28 units; we’re 90% sure it will fall between 0.25 and 0.3 units.

 

Values of the Gallagher index greater than 25 units are exceptionally rare, and generally only occur in small island nations with a small number of seats, where it becomes possible to “run the table” and win almost all of the seats. If our MRP model is even close to being accurate, Britain is about to become a world leader in electoral disproportionality.

 

Technical Notes

These estimates are based on a model of voting behaviour where there are nine possible outcomes: eight parties (including all others) and a "not voting" category. All outcomes are included in a single model, and so "not voting" is modelled in just the same way as "voting Labour" or "voting Conservative". This makes the model a multilevel multinomial model. The model is estimated using the Stan probabilistic programming language. 

 

The model includes as individual-level predictors the respondent's age group, their highest level of qualifications, their gender, and their 2019 vote. Also included are interactions between age group and qualifications, and between age group and past vote. 

 

The model includes as area-level predictors the vote shares won by parties in the 2019 election; the presence of candidates from each party in that area; the number of councillors from that party in that area; and several other variables derived from the Census or other administrative data sources, including the proportion of the 16+ population that is economically active, the proportion that is nonwhite, gross weekly income, the proportion of homeowners, the proportion over 65, and the proportion in bad health. 

 

The model also includes some predictors which are used to model responses, but which are not used in post-stratification. These include date of fieldwork, and the survey mode. 

 

Predictions from the model are post-stratified using a post-stratification frame which is built on the most recent census data (2021 for England and Wales, 2011 for Scotland). Past vote was imputed and then adjusted to match notional 2019 results for each constituency. We applied mortality adjustments to the post-stratification frame to account for differential mortality between supporters of different parties who vary in their average age.

 

The model was estimated on data running up to the 1st July. Almost all of the data was collected in June, with a small number of older constituency polls left in to improve coverage. In total we used responses from 34,558 individuals.wh

 

Estimates from the model are draws from a posterior distribution, or a set of 100 simulated outcomes. If we say an outcome has a five percent probability of happening, then it happened in five out of our hundred simulations. We treat outcomes that never happened in our simulations as having a probability of less than one percent.

 

FAQs

Why are the vote shares from your MRP model different to the vote shares from your traditional polling?

The results from the MRP model can differ from the results of traditional polling for several different reasons. 

 

First, the MRP model uses more data spanning a longer period. Although we model changes in parties' baseline levels of support over time, modelling changes of support over time is not guaranteed to give the same results as just analysing data from the most recent period.

 

Second, the traditional polling is based on a turnout filter, and vote shares are based on those who pass that turnout filter. Although we use that turnout filter as part of the MRP model (i.e., we treat those who do not pass the turnout filter as "will not vote", and model that response), the fact that we are modelling the choice to turn out and vote, and the fact that our modelling is never perfect, means that we end up making vote choice predictions for some types of voter who likely would not pass our turnout filter if we called them or asked them online.

 

Third, both the MRP model and traditional polling are subject to uncertainty. In the same way that we would not be surprised if the actual vote shares are one or two percentage points different to what we predict here, we should not be surprised if two attempts to estimate actual vote shares also differ by a similar or larger amount. 

 

Why is the number of seats different from the number of leading parties?

Our headline figures are based on the average number of seats won by each party across all of our simulations. This generally gives a different figure to taking the predicted vote shares for each seat and tallying the party in the lead in each seat. This is because the model is uncertain about vote shares, and that uncertainty means that the leading party in each still can still lose. 

 

A comparison can help. In a horse race, the favourite is always the most likely to win the race (if they were not, they would not be the favourite). But this does not mean that every horse race is won by the favourite. Similarly, the Labour party is the most likely to win in a large number of seats, but they will not win all of the seats in which they are favourite. They will win a large number of seats where they are favourite, and a small number of seats where we predict them in second place with a reasonable chance of winning. 

 

How wrong might you be?

We think that the most likely number of seats won by Labour is 484, but we think that the chances of us getting this exactly right are pretty low. Only in 3 percent of simulations did the Labour seat tally turn out to be exactly 484.

 

In fact, we can go through each simulation, and work out how “wrong” we’ll be, where by “wrong” we mean how far off the Labour seat tally will be from our central estimate. If we do that, we should expect to be off by on average 14 seats.

 

In practice we will likely be wrong on the Labour seat tally by a larger number. The figure of 14 assumes that we get the distribution of outcomes exactly right, which is unlikely. We are therefore likely to be off on the Labour seat tally by plus or minus fifteen seats or more.

 

 

---

Get the data

Survation conducted MRP analysis of 34,558 adults aged 18+ in Great Britain on their voting intentions. Fieldwork was primarily conducted between 15th June - 1st July 2024. The full results are available to download here.

________________________________________

If you are interested in commissioning MRP or to learn more about Survation’s research capabilities, please contact John Gibb on 020 3818 9661, email researchteam@survation.com or visit our services page.

For press enquiries, please call 0203 818 9661 or email media@survation.com

 

Survation. is an MRS company partner, a member of the British Polling Council and abides by their rules. To find out more about Survation’s services, please visit our services page.

 

You can sign up to our press release list here. Follow Survation on Twitter: @Survation