EU and US optimistic about trade deal before July 9 tariff deadline
Investing.com -- The European Union and the United States are expressing confidence about reaching a trade agreement before the July 9 deadline, when significant tariffs are set to take effect on both sides.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told EU leaders during a closed-door summit on Thursday that she believes a deal can be secured before the deadline, according to a report from Bloomberg, citing people familiar with the matter. This would prevent an economically damaging escalation between the two major trading partners.
Von der Leyen informed leaders that the Trump administration had presented a new proposal this week. During discussions, EU leaders reportedly showed greater willingness to accept some imbalance in a potential trade agreement to avoid a tariff war.
If no agreement is reached by July 9, the US plans to impose a 50% tariff on nearly all EU products, while the European bloc is prepared to implement its own set of countermeasures.
US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick shared similar optimism in a Thursday interview with Bloomberg TV. Lutnick noted that the EU had accelerated negotiations in recent weeks, establishing groundwork that could lead to an accord.
Related articles
EU and US optimistic about trade deal before July 9 tariff deadline - Bloomberg
Deutsche Bank sees limited grounds for Spirit's JetBlue-United objection
Jefferies starts Armada Hoffler at Buy, says dividend-cut sell-off is overdone
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court Put Nationwide Injunctions to the Torch
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Yesterday, in a 6–3 decision in Trump v. Casa, the United States Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration in a case involving an executive order that purports to eliminate birthright citizenship. Confusingly, the Court's decision wasn't about the constitutionality of the birthright-citizenship order. Instead, the case proceeded on the assumption that the order was unconstitutional. The only question for the justices was about remedy: What kind of relief should federal courts provide when a plaintiff successfully challenges a government policy? The lower courts had, in several birthright-citizenship cases across the country, entered what are known as 'universal' or 'nationwide' injunctions. These injunctions prevented the executive order from applying to anyone, anywhere—even if they were not a party to the case. The Trump administration argued that nationwide injunctions were inappropriate and impermissible—injunctions should give relief only to the plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit, no one else. In a majority opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration and put nationwide injunctions to the torch. That's a big deal. Not only does it represent a major setback to the states and advocacy groups that brought the lawsuit, it also amounts to a revolution in the remedial practices of the lower federal courts. [Nicholas Bagley: The birthright-citizenship case isn't really about birthright citizenship] But it is not, as the dissenting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson would have it, 'an existential threat to the rule of law.' It won't even mean the end of sweeping injunctions in the lower federal courts. To the contrary, the opinion suggests that relief tantamount to a nationwide injunction will still be available in many cases—including, in all likelihood, in the birthright-citizenship case itself. Barrett's opinion for the Court begins and ends with history. In 1789, the first Congress gave the federal courts jurisdiction over 'all suits … in equity.' That conferral of authority allowed the courts to grant equitable remedies, one of which is the injunction. But that grant of power was not originally understood to give courts the power to enter injunctions extending beyond the parties to the suit—still less to cover the whole nation. Instead, the courts hewed to a more traditional conception of judicial power. They sat to resolve disputes among parties, nothing more. That tradition held sway for more than 200 years. It only started to break down in the late 20th century as courts grew more comfortable with universal relief and became more concerned about executive overreach. By the time President Barack Obama took office, nationwide injunctions had become commonplace. For Barrett, the novelty was enough on its own to condemn the practice. 'The universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation's history,' she wrote. 'Its absence from 18th- and 19th-century equity practice settles the question of judicial authority.' The federal courts thus lack the power to issue nationwide injunctions. Period. Full stop. In my book, that's a positive development. In 2020 testimony to the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate, I argued that nationwide injunctions 'enable opportunistic behavior by politically motivated litigants and judges, short-circuit a process in which multiple judges address hard legal questions, and inhibit the federal government's ability to do its work. By inflating the judicial role, they also reinforce the sense that we ought to look to the courts for salvation from our political problems—a view that is difficult to square with basic principles of democratic self-governance.' Although the Supreme Court divided along partisan lines, with the liberal justices dissenting, I don't see this as a partisan issue. (The outrageous illegality and sheer ugliness of President Donald Trump's executive order that lies underneath this fight may go some distance to explain why the three liberals dissented.) Nationwide injunctions are equal-opportunity offenders, thwarting Republican and Democratic initiatives alike. Today, it's Trump's birthright-citizenship order and USAID spending freezes. Yesterday it was mifepristone, the cancellation of student debt, and a COVID-vaccine mandate. Why should one federal judge—perhaps a very extreme judge, on either side—have the power to dictate government policy for the entire country? Good riddance. Even as it ended nationwide injunctions, the Supreme Court left the door open for other forms of relief that are not nationwide injunctions—but that look a whole lot like them. That's good news for opponents of the birthright-citizenship order. First, Barrett confirmed the equitable principle that the federal courts can award 'complete relief' to plaintiffs, even if that relief also incidentally protects third parties. She uses the example of a lawsuit in which 'one neighbor sues another for blasting loud music at all hours of the night.' An order that tells the noisy neighbor to stop would also help others on the block. That's totally okay. Barrett even signals that the principle of complete relief might—might!—support an injunction that applies nationwide. The state plaintiffs, led by New Jersey, argued that they needed the order frozen across the whole country because people are mobile. If someone's citizenship blinks on and off depending on whether they entered a state that was or wasn't subject to a judicial injunction, states such as New Jersey would struggle to administer burdensome and confusing rules governing citizenship in their state programs. The Court didn't say that the state plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction that covered the whole country. But it didn't rule it out either. Instead, the Court punted—'we decline to take up these arguments in the first instance'—and told the lower federal courts to resolve the question. Second, Barrett clarified that parties who want expansive relief can still file a class action. Not every putative group of plaintiffs will be eligible to form a class: Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, class actions are appropriate (and thus can be 'certified') only when certain conditions are met, including that class members are making very similar legal or factual claims. What's more, the Court has tightened those restrictions in recent decades. But class actions will be available in a substantial number of cases challenging government action. That's certainly the case when it comes to the birthright-citizenship order, which harms hundreds of thousands of people in identical ways. The Court has also confirmed recently that class-wide injunctions can be secured even before a class is certified—which is to say, right at the outset of proceedings. Third, the Supreme Court declined to take up the Trump administration's request to reconsider rules governing 'associational standing.' Those rules allow an association to sue on behalf of all of its members—even if the association has hundreds of thousands of such members. (One of the plaintiffs in the birthright-citizenship case, CASA, has more than 155,000 members.) The persistence of associational standing will give large membership organizations the ability to secure relief that extends very widely—so widely, in fact, that the administration may be left with no practical choice except to put its policy on hold across the whole country. Fourth, and finally, the Supreme Court left open the possibility that nationwide relief would still be available in lawsuits that challenge government action under the Administrative Procedure Act. As I explained for this magazine two years ago, 'as nationwide injunctions get a bad odor, 'universal vacatur' under the APA is taking its place.' The APA wasn't at issue in the birthright-citizenship case, but it's central to the large majority of lawsuits that challenge government policy. If nationwide injunctions are dead, but universal vacatur is alive, then Trump v. CASA will only rarely make a difference on the ground. All of which is to say that the end of nationwide injunctions is unlikely to usher in a new era of judicial minimalism and restraint. Nor will it massively curtail litigants' ability to protect their rights. That shouldn't be surprising. Nationwide injunctions are a symptom of a legal culture that affords judges a central role in American policy making. Without changing that legal culture, and the many different laws and doctrines that underwrite it, any single change—even one as significant as ending nationwide injunctions—will yield only a modest course correction. [Amanda Frost: The question the Trump administration couldn't answer about birthright citizenship] That's not to diminish the importance of Trump v. CASA. Ending nationwide injunctions will matter in some cases, some of the time. Perhaps most important, the case represents a stark rejection of a conception of the judiciary as a free-roving expositor of federal law. That may, in time, orient judges to a healthier understanding of their (limited) role in our constitutional system. It would be easy to read Trump v. CASA as a victory for the defenders of the executive order ending birthright citizenship. I think that would be a mistake. On this, I agree with Samuel Bray, the University of Chicago law professor who led the academic attack on universal injunctions and whom Barrett cites in her opinion more than a dozen times: 'I do not expect the President's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect.' Why? Because the flagrantly unconstitutional order is a prime candidate for expansive relief that is not a nationwide injunction. Barrett closed her opinion with an instruction that the lower courts 'move expeditiously' to rewrite their injunctions while keeping in mind the principle that injunctive relief typically provides plaintiffs with complete relief. That's one avenue for a broad injunction. She likewise clarified that the Court's decision would not take effect for 30 days, affording advocacy groups an opportunity to file class actions and seek immediate relief. That's another. It's remotely possible that the birthright-citizenship order will take effect in some states and will affect some people after those 30 days. But I doubt it. Even if it does, I'd expect the Supreme Court to invalidate it in relatively short order. For all its breadth, Trump v. CASA won't meaningfully set back the fight to preserve birthright citizenship. It matters much more for what it says about federal judicial power—even if what it says is somewhat ambivalent. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
BBC: Kneecap's Glastonbury set will not be live streamed but could go on-demand
Kneecap's performance at Glastonbury Festival will not be live-streamed but is likely to be made available on-demand, the BBC has said. A number of politicians have called for the Irish rap trio to be removed from the line-up and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said their performance would not be 'appropriate' after one of the members was charged with a terror offence. A BBC spokesperson said: 'As the broadcast partner, the BBC is bringing audiences extensive music coverage from Glastonbury, with artists booked by the festival organisers. 'While the BBC doesn't ban artists, our plans ensure that our programming meets our editorial guidelines. 'We don't always live-stream every act from the main stages and look to make an on-demand version of Kneecap's performance available on our digital platforms, alongside more than 90 other sets.' It is understood the BBC needs to consider the performance before making a final decision. The band said on Instagram: 'The propaganda wing of the regime has just contacted us…. 'They WILL put our set from Glastonbury today on the iPlayer later this evening for your viewing pleasure.' Liam Og O hAnnaidh, 27, was charged with allegedly displaying a flag in support of proscribed terrorist organisation Hezbollah, while saying 'up Hamas, up Hezbollah' at a gig in November last year. On June 18 the rapper, who performs under the stage name Mo Chara, was cheered by hundreds of supporters as he arrived with bandmates Naoise O Caireallain and JJ O Dochartaigh at Westminster Magistrates' Court in Free Mo Chara T-shirts. He was released on unconditional bail until the next hearing at the same court on August 20. Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch said she thinks the BBC 'should not be showing' the group's set. In an X post from last Saturday, she said: 'The BBC should not be showing Kneecap propaganda. 'One Kneecap band member is currently on bail, charged under the Terrorism Act. 'As a publicly funded platform, the BBC should not be rewarding extremism.' Ahead of the performance, Gemma Gibson, 41, from Newcastle told the PA news agency that she was 'really excited' to see Kneecap perform. Asked if their set should have been cancelled amid the ongoing controversy, she said: 'Well, that would be completely against everything that Glastonbury stands for … This is where they should be.' An Avon and Somerset Police spokesperson told PA: 'Ticket-holders can once again expect to see uniformed officers on site at Glastonbury Festival 24/7 throughout the festival as part of our extensive policing operation ensuring it is safe for everyone attending, as well as those who live nearby.' Saturday has seen performances from the likes of rock band Kaiser Chiefs and US star Brandi Carlile, who released an album with Sir Elton John earlier in the year. Elsewhere, Irish singer CMAT, who played the Pyramid Stage on Friday, performed a secret set at the BBC Introducing stage. Neil Young, best known for songs such as Rockin' In The Free World, Like A Hurricane and Cinnamon Girl, will headline the festival's Pyramid Stage on Saturday night with his band the Chrome Hearts. The corporation will broadcast Young's set after previously saying it would not be shown 'at the artist's request'. On Saturday a BBC spokesperson said: 'We are delighted to confirm that Neil Young's headline set from Glastonbury on Saturday will be broadcast live to audiences across the UK on the BBC.' The set will be shown on the BBC iPlayer Pyramid Stage stream from 10pm, as well as broadcast on BBC Two and BBC Radio 2. Another act expected to draw a big crowd is Brat star Charli XCX, who will headline the Other Stage around the same time Young and Grammy Award-winning rapper Doechii will also perform. The 1975 headlined the festival's Pyramid Stage on Friday night, with the performance seeing singer Matty Healy joke he was his generation's 'best songwriter'. Friday also saw a performance from Scottish music star Lewis Capaldi who told the Glastonbury crowds 'I'm back baby' as he played a surprise set, two years after a performance at the festival during which he struggled to manage his Tourette syndrome symptoms. Celebrities who have been spotted at the festival include singer Harry Styles, Oscar-winning actor Eddie Redmayne, The Crown actor Emma Corrin, and Stranger Things star Joseph Quinn. Saturday could see highs of 26C, 'with high levels of humidity', according to the Met Office. Spokesman Grahame Madge said: 'There is always the chance of a light shower, but there is nothing in the forecast that suggests anything heavier for Saturday for Somerset.' Avon and Somerset Police have said there have been 75 reports of crimes at the festival with 20 arrests made. Performing in the coveted Sunday legends slot this year is Sir Rod Stewart, who previously said he will be joined by his former Faces band member Ronnie Wood, as well as other guests. The BBC is providing livestreams of the five main stages: Pyramid, Other, West Holts, Woodsies and The Park.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Labour should introduce minister for porn, Conservative peer says
Labour should appoint a minister for porn to tackle the wave of 'violent, abusive and misogynistic' images, a Conservative peer has said. Baroness Gabby Bertin, who leads the Independent Pornography Review Taskforce, said that MPs shy away from tackling abuse in the porn industry out of embarrassment. 'We're really British about it so we don't want to have a graphic conversation about sex and porn. But you've got to shout about it as loudly as possible. The reason why we've got into this mess is because nobody has really wanted to talk about it,' she told The Guardian. She is pushing for the government to appoint a ministry for porn to make sure the issue gets addressed. 'You can't leave the pitch on this stuff just because you're worried about being accused of being too strait-laced,' she added. A review, commissioned by Rishi Sunak's government and led by Baroness Gabby, proposed banning degrading, violent and misogynistic pornography. The report, which was published in February this year, urged ministers to give Ofcom further powers to police porn sites for dangerous material. It also suggested banning online porn videos that would be deemed too harmful for any certificate in the offline world. One of the report's recommendations, making strangulation in pornography illegal, has now been accepted by the government. Minister for victims and tackling violence against women, Alex Davies-Jones, said that 'cracking down on the appalling rise of strangulation pornography will protect women and send a clear signal to men and boys that misogyny will not be tolerated'. Recent research published by Ofcom found that eight per cent of children aged eight to 14 have watched online pornography. Boys aged 13 to 14 were the most likely viewers, with two out of 10 visiting adult sites. Major porn sites, including Pornhub, Stripchat and Youporn, have agreed to implement stronger age verification measures, with platforms now facing fines of 10 per cent of their global turnover if they fail to make changes.
