ANDREW NEIL: Labour's hollow drivel can't conceal that the defence of the realm is not safe in their hands
Daddy did it! Donald Trump, designated 'Daddy' by Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte for knocking and Iranian heads together when they were behaving like 'two kids in a schoolyard', pulled off his second triumph of the week when Nato countries committed themselves to massive increases in defence spending.
'You are now flying to another great success in The Hague,' Rutte told Trump, ramping up the sycophancy while the US President was en route to the Nato summit, hard on the heels of the Israeli-Iranian ceasefire he'd engineered.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
28 minutes ago
- Reuters
Even as markets rally, Trump's policymaking causes market angst
June 28 (Reuters) - As Wall Street puts April's tariff shakeout in the rearview mirror and indexes set record highs, investors remain wary of U.S. President Donald Trump's rapid-fire, sometimes chaotic policymaking process and see the rally as fragile. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq composite index advanced past their previous highs into uncharted territory on Friday. Yet traders and investors remain wary of what may lie ahead. Trump's April 2 reciprocal tariffs on major trading partners roiled global financial markets and put the S&P 500 on the threshold of a bear market designation when it ended down 19% from its February 19 record-high close. This week's leg up came after a U.S.-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Iran brought an end to a 12-day air battle that had sparked a jump in crude prices and raised worries of higher inflation. But a relief rally started after Trump responded to the initial tariff panic that gripped financial markets by backing away from his most draconian plans. JP Morgan Chase, in the midyear outlook published on Wednesday by its global research team, said the environment was characterized by "extreme policy uncertainty." "Nobody wants to end a week with a risk-on tilt to their portfolios," said Art Hogan, market strategist at B. Riley Wealth. "Everyone is aware that just as the market feels more certain and confident, a single wildcard policy announcement could change everything," even if it does not ignite a firestorm of the kind seen in April. Part of this wariness from institutional investors may be due to the magnitude of the 6% S&P 500 rally that followed Trump's re-election last November and culminated in the last new high posted by the index in February, said Joseph Quinlan, market strategist at Bank of America. "We were out ahead of our skis," Quinlan said. A focus on deregulation, tax cuts and corporate deals brought out the "animal spirits," he said. Then came the tariff battles. Quinlan remains upbeat on the outlook for U.S. stocks and optimistic that a new global trade system could lead to U.S. companies opening new markets and posting higher revenues and profits. But he said he is still cautious. "There will still be spikes of volatility around policy unknowns." Overall, measures of market volatility are now well below where they stood at the height of the tariff turmoil in April, with the CBOE VIX index now at 16.3, down from a 52.3 peak on April 8. "Our clients seem to have become somewhat desensitized to the headlines, but it's still an unhealthy market, with everyone aware that trading could happen based on the whims behind a bunch of" social media posts, said Jeff O'Connor, head of market structure, Americas, at Liquidnet, an institutional trading platform. Trading in the options market shows little sign of the kind of euphoria that characterized stock market rallies of the recent past. "On the institutional front, we do see a lot of hesitation in chasing the market rally," Stefano Pascale, head of U.S. equity derivatives research at Barclays, said. Unlike past episodes of sharp market selloffs, institutional investors have largely stayed away from employing bullish call options to chase the market higher, Pascale said, referring to plain options that confer the right to buy at a specified future price and date. Bid/ask spreads on many stocks are well above levels O'Connor witnessed in late 2024, while market depth - a measure of the size and number of potential orders - remains at the lowest levels he can recall in the last 20 years. "The best way to describe the markets in the last couple of months, even as they have recovered, is to say they are unstable," said Liz Ann Sonders, market strategist at Charles Schwab. She said she is concerned that the market may be reaching "another point of complacency" akin to that seen in March. "There's a possibility that we'll be primed for another downside move," Sonders addded. Mark Spindel, chief investment officer at Potomac River Capital in Washington, said he came up with the term "Snapchat presidency" to describe the whiplash effect on markets of the president's constantly changing policies on markets. "He feels more like a day trader than a long-term institutional investor," Spindel said, alluding to Trump's policy flip-flops. "One minute he's not going to negotiate, and the next he negotiates." To be sure, traders seem to view those rapid shifts in course as a positive in the current rally, signaling Trump's willingness to heed market signals. "For now, at least, stocks are willing to overlook the risks that go along with this style and lack of consistent policies, and give the administration a break as being 'market friendly'," said Steve Sosnick, market strategist at Interactive Brokers.
The Guardian
29 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Just when the world desperately needs wise elders, its fate is in the hands of old and ruthless patriarchs
Let's attempt something delicate: talking about age without slipping into ageism. Never before in modern history have those with the fate of the world in their hands been so old. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping are both 72. Narendra Modi is 74, Benjamin Netanyahu 75, Donald Trump 79, and Ali Khamenei is 86. Thanks to advances in medical science, people are able to lead longer, more active lives – but we are now also witnessing a frightening number of political leaders tightening their grip on power as they get older, often at the expense of their younger colleagues. This week, at their annual summit, the leaders of Nato – including Emmanuel Macron and Mette Frederiksen (both 47), Giorgia Meloni (48) and Pedro Sánchez (53) – were forced to swallow Trump's demand for increased military spending. The average age of Nato heads of state is 60. Germany's Friedrich Merz is 69, Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is 71. All bowed to a new 5% defence spending target – an arbitrary figure, imposed without serious military reasoning or rational debate, let alone serious democratic debate at home. It was less policy, more deference to the whims of a grumpy patriarch. Nato's secretary general, Mark Rutte – himself just 58 – went so far as to call Trump 'Daddy'. That's not diplomacy. That's submission. This generational clash plays out in other arenas. Ukraine's 47-year-old president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is resisting the imperial ambitions of septuagenarian Putin. Septuagenarian Xi eyes a Taiwan led by a president seven years his junior. Netanyahu, three-quarters of a century old, is overseeing devastation in Gaza, where almost half the population is under 18. In Iran an 86 year old rules over a population with an average age of 32. Cameroon's Paul Biya, 92, has been in power since 1982 in a country where the median age is 18 and life expectancy just 62. There is no gerontocratic conspiracy at work here – no senior citizens' club bent on global domination. But there is something disturbing about a world being dismantled by the very people whose lives were defined by its postwar architecture. Khamenei was six when the second world war ended. Trump was born in 1946, the year the United Nations held its first general assembly. Netanyahu was born a year after Israel was founded. Modi was born in 1950, as India became a republic. Putin entered the world in October 1952, months before Stalin died. Xi in June 1953, just after. And Erdoğan was born in 1954, two years after Turkey joined Nato. These men are the children of the postwar world – and as they near the end of their lives, they seem determined to tear it down. It almost looks like revenge. Dylan Thomas urged us to 'Rage, rage against the dying of the light'. Rarely has the line felt so literal. Yes, the rules-based international order was always messier in practice than on paper. But at least the ideal existed. There was a shared moral framework – shaky, yes, but sincere – built on the conviction that humanity must never repeat the atrocities of the first half of the 20th century and that dialogue and diplomacy were better. That conviction has now evaporated, not least in the minds of those who should cherish it most. This is an unprecedented moment. The architects of the previous global disorder – Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao – were all in their 30s or 40s when they rose to power. A new generation built a new world, and lived with its consequences. Today, that new world is being unmade by an old generation – one that will not live to see the wreckage it leaves behind. It's easier to shout 'drill, baby, drill' when you're statistically unlikely to experience the worst of climate collapse. Après nous le déluge, as the French say. You might think that a generation so fortunate to benefit from longevity would leave behind a legacy of care, gratitude and global stewardship. Instead, we are witnessing the worst resurgence of repression, violence, genocide, ecocide and contempt for international law in decades – waged, more often than not, by ruthless septuagenarians and octogenarians who appear more interested in escaping prosecution than preserving peace. But it doesn't have to be this way. After leaving office, Nelson Mandela founded the Elders, a network of former world leaders working to promote peace, justice and human rights. Inspired by African traditions of consensus and elder wisdom, the Elders are an example of how age can bring clarity, compassion and conscience – not just clout. The problem isn't old age. It's how some have chosen to wield it. The world doesn't need more ageing strongmen clinging to power. It needs elders who are willing to let go – and guide. The kind who think about legacy not as personal glory, but as the world they leave behind. In this age of age, what we need is not domination, but wisdom. And that, in the end, is what separates a ruler from a leader. David Van Reybrouck is philosopher laureate for the Netherlands and Flanders. His books include Revolusi: Indonesia and the Birth of the Modern World and Congo: The Epic History of a People Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Reuters
33 minutes ago
- Reuters
Immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling
WASHINGTON, June 28 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling tied to birthright citizenship prompted confusion and phone calls to lawyers as people who could be affected tried to process a convoluted legal decision with major humanitarian implications. The court's conservative majority on Friday granted President Donald Trump his request to curb federal judges' power but did not decide the legality of his bid to restrict birthright citizenship. That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or legal status. Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. "There are not many specifics," said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. "I don't understand it well." She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. "I don't know if I can give her mine," she said. "I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality." Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit, opens new tab in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating "an extremely confusing patchwork" across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. "Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?" she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. "Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason," he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. "He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution," she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship. "It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights," said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. "That is really chaotic." Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. "I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born," she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. "She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen," she said. "If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?"
