Pakistan Navy stages multinational counter-terrorism exercises
10 Feb 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What's in the US-EU trade deal depends on who is doing the talking
President Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen shook hands Sunday over a trade agreement touted as being largely concluded, but days later, there are still plenty of disagreements about exactly what is in the pact. Perhaps nowhere is the divide more stark than in the summaries published by each side — one from the White House and another from the European Commission. They depart in at least five areas, both in terms of the deal and the firmness of the commitments. In just one example, the White House summary touts "historic structural reforms and strategic commitments," while the Europeans call the handshake deal "not legally binding," with more negotiations to come. Trump quipped Sunday that a deal would be "the end of it" and that it would be a number of years "before we have to even discuss it again." That is unlikely to be the case, which even Trump's aides acknowledge. The difference is likely to come to a head quickly as negotiations continue between the US and Europe over legally binding text and as trade watchers wait for a formal joint statement on the deal that the teams still hope to unveil this week. A range of areas of disagreement Clarity on at least one headline area is clear: an agreement for 15% tariffs on nearly all EU goods, including autos, semiconductors, and pharmaceuticals, that will be exempt from separate Trump plans there. But the divides are evident once you go deeper. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick acknowledged that a lot remains to be worked out when he told CNBC on Tuesday that "there's plenty of horse trading still to do," even as he argued that the "fundamentals" are set. Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet Trump has also already set a pattern of fuzzy initial details on his deals, including a recent pact with Japan, but a comparison of the two documents summarizing the Europe deal underlines differences on many of the key aspects. On the issue of new investments by Europe — $750 billion in US energy and additional corporate investments of $600 billion — the summary from the US side described them as firm commitments. The European language is much less solid, saying it "intends to procure" additional energy and that European companies "have expressed interest" in additional investments. More differences are seen on whether the deal will mean European markets are "totally open," as Trump has said. The European summary of provisions around fish says they will allow "limited quantities" and only "certain non-sensitive" agricultural products. Another highly touted part of the agreement from the US side is a provision for Europe to purchase military equipment. As Trump said on Sunday, "They're going to be purchasing hundreds of billions of dollars worth of military equipment." That part isn't even mentioned in the European summary. Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Hands off — Trump's off-base attack on NYC's sanctuary immigration policy
Intentionally misstating New York City's sanctuary immigration policy as thwarting the prosecution of violent criminals, the Trump administration continued its war on local government by filing suit in federal court last week, one of a number of similar lawsuits across the country that conflate civil noncooperation with active criminal interference and attempt to conscript local officials into President Donald Trump's destructive crackdown. This should prove to Mayor Mayor Adams and other state and city leaders that no amount of appeasement is going to forestall the targeting from Trump. Adams met multiple times with immigration coordinator Tom Homan, insisting that the two men had 'the same goal,' making concessions like signing off on the opening up of an ICE office on Rikers Island years after a city sanctuary law had kicked them out. It's clear that Trump and Homan were not and probably could not be placated to the extent that they would leave Adams and New York City alone. The reality is that this is a totalizing project; Stephen Miller and the rest of the White House want to rid the country almost entirely of immigrants, with or without legal status, and regardless of where they are or what effect that will have on our economy and society. They've been routinely violating the law to do so. It's worth noting once more that Trump's is a political movement that often proclaimed itself a defender of state rights and local control, but apparently that only extended to allowing local officials to detain immigrants, pull books from school shelves, limit access to abortion, curb labor and environmental protections and drive LGBTQ people from public life. When it comes to a refusal to participate in federal operations that have so far involved masked and unidentified agents shoving people into unmarked vehicles — just the sort of thing that we would call authoritarianism and tyranny anywhere else — then states and localities get no say beyond being extensions of a central government. We're not particularly worried that any competent judge would accept these nonsensical claims. A day after the New York case was filed, a federal judge in Chicago dismissed the Trump lawsuit against that city's sanctuary immigration policy. We just want to remind readers that sanctuary is not immunity from prosecution, especially prosecution for violent crimes. What it is however is that when someone is treated at a city health clinic for TB or enrolls a child in school or reports a crime to the police as a victim or a witness, the person's civil immigration status is irrelevant. We want everyone in the city to get treated when sick, we want all children to be in school, we want all crime victims and witnesses to come forward to the cops. The idea of anti-commandeering — the notion that the federal government can't force state and local governments to carry out its own agenda and enforcement functions — has been foundational from the genesis of our country's federalized system. The right of jurisdictions to enact sanctuary provisions that block the use of local resources for this federal function has been litigated over and over again, and always found to be on solid legal footing. We are, however, more worried about the U.S. Supreme Court, which has in the past several months taken it upon itself to sign off on Trump's expansive power grabs. It has allowed among other things Trump to fire federal employees and independent agency members in direct contravention of statute, allowed the limiting of a nationwide order blocking Trump's attempt to overturn the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship provisions and allowed parents to impose religious beliefs on whole school curricula. If these questions get up to that high court level, we hope that the justices will exercise some of their independent power, as they did on other absolutely egregious instances like Trump's efforts to remove people without due process under the Alien Enemies Act proclamation. Anything else will destroy the trust of people in their own local officials and governments and strike at the very foundation of this country's system of government. _____
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Shell net profit retreats on lower energy prices
British energy giant Shell on Thursday said its net profit slid 23 percent in the first six months of the year, hit by lower oil and gas prices. Profit after tax dropped to $8.4 billion compared with $10.9 billion in the first half of 2024, Shell said in an earnings statement. Group revenue dropped nearly nine percent to $136.6 billion in the reporting period. Shell pointed to "lower realised liquids and gas prices", while chief executive Wael Sawan said the company had been operating "in a less favourable macro environment". Energy prices have come under pressure in recent months on concerns that US President Donald Trump's tariffs will hurt economic growth, while OPEC+ nations have produced more oil. "Against a backdrop of geopolitical and economic uncertainty we saw knock-on effects on both physical trade flows as well as commodity prices and margins more broadly," Sawan added. "In spite of this, we delivered a robust set of results, with strong operational performance." Shell's adjusted earnings beat market expectations, helping to lift its share price by 2.5 percent in early London trade. Its stock won additional support from Shell's latest dividend payment and news that it plans to repurchase $3.5 billion of shares. "Shell's diversity of operations across oil, gas, chemicals, and retailing regularly allows one area of strength to counter another of weakness," Keith Bowman, equities analyst at Interactive Investor, said following the results update. However he cautioned that "heightened geopolitical tensions and potential for operational disruption remain an investor concern". Shell in March announced plans to slash costs by billions of dollars and increase shareholder returns, as it focuses on its liquified natural gas (LNG) business. Shell aims to reduce costs by between $5 billion to $7 billion by 2028, compared with 2022 levels. Savings to date stand at $3.9 billion, Sawan noted Thursday. Shell's previous target had been for savings of between $2 billion and $3 billion by the end of 2025, which involved hundreds of job cuts across its oil and gas division. Gas is being touted by energy companies as cleaner than other fossil fuels as countries around the world strive to reduce their emissions and slow global warming. Earlier this year, Shell's British rival BP launched a major pivot back to its oil and gas business, shelving its once industry-leading ambitious renewable energy strategy. BP publishes its latest earnings on Tuesday. bcp/ajb/rl
