PARTLY FACETIOUS: The trend in this country is not to invest in Pakistan but outside
'Trump dished the French President.'
'Dished? Like what? As in barbecue, curry?'
'Or pizza – Nawaz Sharif does like pizza doesn't he?'
'I am not sure it's the pizza that he likes, I reckon he likes the location - Harrods in London.'
'Location should be more important to Trump – he is a real estate tycoon though recently he has been involved in all sorts of business – cryptocurrency has reaped billions for his family, billions mind you not millions like…like…'
'Foreign direct investment inflows?'
'Shut up.'
'Hear me out – the billions Trump family has raked in due to his easing oversight of the cryptocurrency industry yet there are serious ethical and legal questions…'
'I would advise you to shut up and don't try to put up because there is nothing that you can put up.'
'Well my argument…'
'Shut the hell up. Moving forward the Trump family is also selling some items like gold mobile phones which incidentally are a steal at less than 500 dollars…'
'Why can't our prime and chief ministers engage in business ventures, you know invest their own money in the private sector, provide jobs to people and…and wait…generate growth…'
'Two things first of all take away chief ministers from this plan because other than the Punjab chief minister who belongs to the ruling family the others are second to third tier leaders.'
'OK but…'
'Wait and second the trend in this country is not to invest in Pakistan but outside – and that too mostly in real estate.'
'But…'
'And look at the glass as fully full, because the FDI that is coming into the country is not facing any ethical and legal issues…'
'That is because thankfully all are on the same page and that's the way the cookie must crumble. Poor Trump is facing pressure from everyone – the Israelis, the Arabs who have pledged billions of dollars of investment in the US, his own MAGA base and last but not least his own cabinet…'
'I propose Trump changes the constitution to get a third term, and we have lawyers with the experience and…'
'Oh shut up.'
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
G7 agrees on tax exemption framework for US, UK companies
A man walk past the G7 members flags at the Manoir Richelieu before the G7 Foreign Ministers summit in La Malbaie, Quebec, Canada March 12, 2025. Photo: Reuters Listen to article The United States and the Group of Seven nations have agreed to support a proposal that would exempt US companies from some components of an existing global agreement, the G7 said in a statement on Saturday. The group has created a 'side-by-side' system in response to the US administration agreeing to scrap the Section 899 retaliatory tax proposal from President Donald Trump's tax and spending bill, it said in a statement from Canada, the head of the rolling G7 presidency. The G7 said the plan recognizes existing US minimum tax laws and aims to bring more stability to the international tax system. UK businesses are also spared higher taxes after the removal of Section 899 from President Donald Trump's tax and spending bill. Read More: G7 leaders seek unity on Ukraine and Mideast as Trump defends Putin Britain said businesses would benefit from greater certainty and stability following the agreement. Some British businesses had in recent weeks said they were worried about paying substantial additional tax due to the inclusion of Section 899, which has now been removed. "Today's agreement provides much-needed certainty and stability for those businesses after they had raised their concerns," finance minister Rachel Reeves said in a statement, adding that more work was need to tackle aggressive tax planning and avoidance. G7 officials said that they look forward to discussing a solution that is "acceptable and implementable to all". In January, through an executive order, Trump declared that the global corporate minimum tax deal was not applicable in the US, effectively pulling out of the landmark 2021 arrangement negotiated by the Biden administration with nearly 140 countries. He had also vowed to impose a retaliatory tax against countries that impose taxes on US firms under the 2021 global tax agreement. This tax was considered detrimental to many foreign companies operating in the US.
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Birthright citizenship challenge still looms for Trump
Olga Urbina and her 9-month-old son Ares Webster participate in a protest outside the US Supreme Court over President Donald Trump's move to end birthright citizenship as the court hears arguments over the order in Washington on May 15, 2025. PHOTO:AFP Listen to article The US Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship - a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called "universal" injunctions. The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the US Constitution's 14th Amendment. The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days, a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts. The court's six conservative justices delivered the majority ruling, granting Trump's request to narrow the injunctions issued by the judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Its three liberal members dissented. The ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020, emphasized the need to hem in the power of judges, warning against an "imperial" judiciary. Judges can provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them, Barrett wrote. A host of policies That outcome was a major victory for Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly denounced judges who have impeded his agenda. It could make it easier for the administration to implement his policies, including to accelerate deportations of migrants, restrict transgender rights, curtail diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsize the federal government - many of which have tested the limits of executive power. In the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling left open the potential for individual plaintiffs to seek relief beyond themselves through class action lawsuits targeting a policy that would upend the long-held understanding that the Constitution confers citizenship on virtually anyone born on U.S. soil. Bray said he expects a surge of new class action cases, resulting in "class-protective" injunctions. "Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal," Bray said. Some of the challengers have already taken that path. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, asked the presiding judge who had issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action to protect all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we'll ultimately get, there is no difference," said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. "We're going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed." The ruling also sidestepped a key question over whether states that bring lawsuits might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to answer it first. States challenge directive The challenge to Trump's directive also included 22 states, most of them Democratic-governed, who argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face required a nationwide block on Trump's order. George Mason University constitutional law expert Ilya Somin said the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not decided so far by the Supreme Court. "As the majority recognizes, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups," Somin said. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but sketched out a path forward on Friday. The ruling, Platkin said in a statement, "recognized that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm - which is true, and has always been true, in our case." Platkin committed to "keep challenging President Trump's flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War" of 1861-1865. Legal experts said they expect a lot of legal maneuvering in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and the challengers still face an uphill battle. Compared to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often harder to successfully mount. States, too, still do not know whether they have the requisite legal entitlement to sue. Trump's administration said they do not, but the court left that debate unresolved. Meanwhile, the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump's order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others. "The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as US citizens," said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic.
Express Tribune
12 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Trump denies reports of $30bn nuclear offer to Iran
US President Donald Trump walks on the day of a "One Big Beautiful" event at the White House in Washington, DC., US, June 26, 2025. PHOTO: REUTERS Listen to article US President Donald Trump dismissed media reports that said his administration had discussed possibly helping Iran access as much as $30 billion to build a civilian-energy-producing nuclear program. CNN reported on Thursday and NBC News reported on Saturday that the Trump administration in recent days had explored possible economic incentives for Iran in return for its government halting uranium enrichment. The reports cited sources. CNN cited officials as saying that several proposals were floated and were preliminary. "Who in the Fake News Media is the SleazeBag saying that 'President Trump wants to give Iran $30 Billion to build non-military Nuclear facilities.' Never heard of this ridiculous idea," Trump wrote on Truth Social late on Friday, calling the reports a "HOAX." Since April, Iran and the US have held indirect talks aimed at finding a new diplomatic solution regarding Iran's nuclear program. Tehran says its program is peaceful and Washington says it wants to ensure Iran cannot build a nuclear weapon. Trump, earlier this week, announced a ceasefire between US ally Israel and its regional rival Iran to halt a war that began on June 13 when Israel attacked Iran. The Israel-Iran conflict had raised alarms in a region already on edge since the start of Israel's war on Gaza in October 2023. The US struck Iran's nuclear sites over the last weekend and Iran targeted a US base in Qatar on Monday in retaliation, before Trump announced the ceasefire. Israel is the only Middle Eastern country widely believed to have nuclear weapons and said its war against Iran aimed to prevent Tehran from developing its own nuclear weapons.
