Tag: Europe

  • Slovenia limits fuel purchases as shortages hit pumps amid Iran war impact

    Slovenia limits fuel purchases as shortages hit pumps amid Iran war impact

    Slovenia on Sunday temporarily limited fuel purchases to tackle shortages at the pump caused in part by cross-border fuelling and stockpiling due to the Iran war, raising concerns about security of supplies just as the country goes to the polls. 

    Fuelling at individual service stations has been restricted to 50 litres per day for private vehicles and 200 litres for companies and other priority users such as farmers, Prime Minister Robert Golob announced on Saturday evening.

    The restrictions will stay in force until further notice.

    “Let me reassure you that there is enough fuel in Slovenia, the warehouses are full and there will be no fuel shortages,” said Golob, a liberal who is standing against right-wing populist Janez Jansa in an election on Sunday. 

    Golob said the problem lay in the transportation of fuel to filling stations, and that the army would use tankers to help retailers move supplies. The government also recommended that retailers prepare special measures for foreign drivers, without being specific.

    Petrol, the largest Slovenian oil distribution company in which the state has a 32.3% stake, has seen long queues at its gas stations in recent days due to fuel shortages.

    Many filling stations across Slovenia were closed on Sunday. Those belonging to Hungarian oil and gas group MOL have remained open but had already limited purchases to 30 litres for individuals and 200 litres for companies.

    “Today we didn’t have problems because I have an application where I can check where to tank (fill up),” teacher Tamara Gale Beasinsky, 40, said at a gas station in Ljubljana. “But yesterday we had a problem because we were waiting more than 20 minutes in the queue … and we were able to tank only 30 litres of diesel.”

    At an emergency session on Sunday, the government accused Petrol of failing to eliminate disruptions in fuel distribution and ordered an inquiry into possible violations in fuel trading and the management of critical infrastructure.

    It also called on the Slovenian sovereign wealth fund to request a meeting of Petrol’s shareholders and ask for a special audit of the company’s logistics operations after March 16.

    The government also ordered the interior ministry to submit a report to law-enforcement agencies due to “possible grounds for suspicion” of criminal offences by some Petrol staff.

    Petrol did not reply to Reuters’ requests for comment. It said on Saturday that fuel supplies remain stable and that supply sources are secured, blaming occasional shortages at individual points of sale on increased demand locally.

    (Reporting by Fatos Bytyci, Gaspar Lubej and Branko Filipovic; Writing by Daria Sito-Sucic; Editing by Kirsten Donovan and David Holmes)

  • Trump Team Bashed Europe for a Year. Now It Needs Their Support in the Iran War.

    Trump Team Bashed Europe for a Year. Now It Needs Their Support in the Iran War.

    BRUSSELS — President Donald Trump’s administration spent the past year dismissing Europeans as pathetic and irrelevant. Now, as he wages a war alongside Israel to force regime change in Iran, he wants Europe to cheer him on.

    European leaders, who distanced themselves from the U.S. attack in its early hours, are ramping up their response to a crisis spreading beyond Iran. France, Italy and others are deploying military reinforcements to the region to defend their bases and partners. Britain has now allowed U.S. forces to use its bases to block Tehran’s retaliation. But the European moves so far fall short of the applause Trump is seeking for an assault without clear end that is violently reshaping the region.

    The White House is not exactly trying to forge a coalition of the unwilling. Washington did not consult European allies before the attack and has not asked them to join in bombing Tehran. But the administration wants access to strategic European air bases and logistics hubs to facilitate its aerial barrage. And Trump is rebuking countries that don’t offer unflinching support, like Britain, or anyone who takes a forceful stand against the war, namely Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez.

    “It’s taken three or four days for us to work out where we can land. … So we are very surprised,” Trump said. “This is not the age of Churchill.”

    U.S. President Donald Trump meets German Chancellor Friedrich Merz at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 5, 2025. (REUTERS/Kent Nishimura)
    U.S. President Donald Trump meets German Chancellor Friedrich Merz at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 5, 2025. (REUTERS/Kent Nishimura)

    The fragility of the transatlantic relationship is on display as European leaders avoid criticizing an American president who is sensitive to it, while he strikes an Iranian leadership that they too want to see weakened. The continent’s leaders are wary, however, of a conflict unleashed by their most powerful ally that could bring untold ramifications to their doorstep — and of following America into yet another war in the Middle East, which has little, if any, upside with their voters.

    So, while Berlin backs Trump and Madrid stands up to him, Europe’s top leaders have delivered a medley of barely consistent responses. Many are twisting themselves into knots to address the conflict while maintaining a veneer of neutrality, with Trump already unpopular across much of the continent.

    It was only weeks ago that Trump threatened to seize Greenland from NATO ally Denmark.

    With few exceptions, the balancing act leaves European leaders “half in, half out,” ignoring their purported values, and tilting to the side of a U.S. president they can hardly influence, said Nathalie Tocci, director of the Rome-based Institute for International Affairs.

    The result, she said, is tacit endorsement of a campaign for regime change that threatens to bring more chaos to the region, where Europeans have a sizable military footprint and hundreds of thousands of citizens.

    The war in Iran began “unbeknownst to the world” and was not a decision “shared by anyone,” Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto told lawmakers in Rome on Thursday. “Of course, it was well outside the rules of international law. We don’t need to say it.”

    Crosetto, a member of the party led by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, one of Trump’s closest allies in Europe, appeared to be addressing criticism of the European response — and the apparent lack of U.S. warning to allies, which left him stuck in Dubai when the strikes started.

    “No country” in Europe or elsewhere, he added, “can convince the U.S. and Israel to stop this war.”

    European capitals were not asked to join the attack on Iran in advance, and they have not taken part in combat, said three senior European diplomats, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to share sensitive discussions.

    Trump has praised one European leader, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who visited Washington this week after he declared there was little use “lecturing” about the illegality of war.

    Back home, however, Merz faced European criticism for abandoning support of international law, which he has touted on Ukraine and Greenland, and for not defending Spain from Trump’s criticism in the Oval Office.

    “Clueless tourist stranded in crisis zone” is how one German front page described Merz’s trip to Washington.

    The optics contrast with European pledges to develop unity and independence from the United States on security matters. “Surely your sovereignty begins by speaking your mind,” Tocci said. She noted several European leaders were so careful not to criticize the U.S. attack that it seemed simpler for them — however absurd — to ignore it in their initial reactions.

    People demonstrating in support of the government in Tehran on Saturday.(The New York Times)
    People demonstrating in support of the government in Tehran on Saturday. (The New York Times)

    Spain’s Sánchez — who has warned his European peers for months against projecting double standards or ignoring security threats from the bloc’s southern borders — has mounted the only vehement public opposition to Trump.

    Still, the Europeans are not sitting this out, as the war hikes oil prices and risks spurring a new wave of refugees. French President Emmanuel Macron, deploying a surge in air defenses and warships to the Middle East, pledged to protect E.U. member Cyprus and Persian Gulf nations, which have come under fire from Iran’s retaliation. Macron also said the U.S. attack broke international law, and that he is trying to broker another ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, where Israeli strikes have displaced hundreds of thousands of people.

    The French military said Paris has allowed the U.S. to use a base in France for its aircraft, so long as it’s not used to “participate in any way” in U.S. strikes on Iran.

    Even Spain, locked in a showdown with Washington for refusing access to Spanish bases, announced it was dispatching a frigate to help Cyprus and demonstrate “commitment to the defense of the European Union.”

    Trump was so furious with Spain that he threatened to “embargo” the country, although singling out Spain would be tricky, since the 27-nation European Union trades as a bloc.

    British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, whose about-face allowed the U.S. to use British bases, is also under pressure from his Labour Party to disavow the war. He maintained that the decision is “limited.”

    European bases are far closer to the conflict, including the Diego Garcia base in the Chagos Islands, which Britain controls, in the Indian Ocean. In a drawn-out conflict, those facilities would let the U.S. move jets, fuel or weaponry more quickly. Washington has used European bases in past Middle East offensives, including for rotating troops during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    A senior British official said the proximity of the bases to Iran would “enable U.S. forces to take out more missile sites and command-and-control units at a greater rate.”

    A USAF B1-B bomber prepares to land at RAF Fairford on Friday. (Toby Melville/Reuters)
    A USAF B1-B bomber prepares to land at RAF Fairford on Friday. (Toby Melville/Reuters)

    NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte praised Trump on Fox News and Newsmax in recent days, insisting that allies support the U.S. war on a “massive scale” — an assertion Spain has rejected. But Rutte seemed to succeed with a core element of his role these days: keeping Trump pleased. “Thank you to our great NATO Secretary General!” the president posted on social media.

    The Trump administration has made clear it expects Europeans to help Washington, given America’s longtime defensive shield for the continent. Ukraine’s European backers also rely on U.S. weapons for the fight against Russia.

    Despite uneasiness over a long war in the Middle East, European officials have their own misgivings with Iran, including over its ballistic missiles and ties to Russia, and they have heaped blame almost entirely on Tehran.

    Yet the fallout could hit closer than in America. Some E.U. countries, such as Cyprus, are within missile range, as is Turkey, which is a NATO member.

    For European politicians, joining a U.S. war will be unpopular after the stained legacies of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the deadly withdrawal from Afghanistan. Following Israel into war will also be divisive in many European nations, with some European officials having accused Israel of genocide in Gaza.

    As they deploy reinforcements to the region, officials cast this as a means to safeguard citizens and Europe’s energy needs.

    Italy’s Meloni described Persian Gulf partners as “vital” to the country’s energy supply. Above all, she said, “there are tens of thousands of Italians in that area, and approximately 2,000 Italian soldiers whom we want to, and must, protect.”

    Sánchez, meanwhile, urged Europe to remember the fallout of past Western interventions. “You cannot answer one illegality with another,” he said in a speech, “because that is how the great catastrophes of humanity begin.”

  • Can AfD bring back Germany Sovereignty?

    Can AfD bring back Germany Sovereignty?

    Alternative für Deutschland co-leader Alice Weidel met with JD Vance just days before Germany’s general election. (Sören Stache/Reuters)
    (Sören Stache/Reuters)

    In the heart of a nation weary from decades of liberal progressive overreach, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) stands as a beacon for those who yearn for a return to true sovereignty. Founded just over a decade ago amid the euro crisis, the AfD has evolved from a Eurosceptic voice into a formidable force championing Christian values, the preservation of white German heritage, and a resolute stand against the encroaching tides of Islamization and unchecked migration. As polls surge in eastern states like Saxony-Anhalt—where the party hovers at 39-40% ahead of September’s elections—the question isn’t if AfD can govern, but how it will reclaim Germany’s independence from Brussels’ bureaucratic chains and the liberal elite’s globalist agenda.

    Critics, ensconced in their Berlin echo chambers, label the AfD “far-right extremists,” pointing to the BfV intelligence agency’s classification and accusations of xenophobia or antisemitism. Yet, this is the desperate rhetoric of a failing establishment. Take the recent Berlin state government’s motion, cloaked in verbose legalese like “Protect the free democratic basic order,” which slyly targets the AfD without naming it. This black-red coalition of CDU and SPD, as reported by Tagesspiegel, aims to explore party bans or funding cuts under the guise of defending democracy. But let’s call it what it is: a witch hunt against the only party daring to prioritize Germans first. CDU leader Dirk Stettner waxes poetic about “thoroughness before speed,” invoking Weimar’s fall to justify high hurdles for bans. Fair enough—history teaches us that true threats come from within, like the liberal policies that have diluted our Christian roots and opened doors to cultural erosion.

    Positively, this motion exposes the fear: The opposition Greens and Left pushed for an outright “Initiate AfD ban proceedings now!” but were rebuffed, forcing a compromise. Even SPD factions hesitated, per reports, knowing a failed ban could backfire spectacularly. Green MP Ario Mirzaie grudgingly called it “a first step,” but in reality, it’s a retreat. The AfD’s resilience shines here—despite smears, it polls neck-and-neck nationally with the CDU at around 20%, as per recent Infratest dimap surveys. In the east, it’s unstoppable, leading in Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, where economic stagnation and liberal migration policies have alienated true Germans.

    Negatively reviewed by the establishment media, the AfD’s manifesto—unveiled at their Riesa conference, as covered by DW—calls for closing borders, resuming Russian gas imports, quitting the Paris climate deal, and exiting the euro for a “confederation of states.” Liberals howl “radicalism,” but isn’t this sovereignty? Leader Alice Weidel’s embrace of “remigration”—large-scale repatriation of non-assimilated migrants—draws Nazi comparisons from the BBC, yet it’s a pragmatic response to integration failures. Protests in Riesa, numbering thousands, are painted as heroic by outlets like The Guardian, but they’re liberal mobs disrupting democracy, chanting against a party that defends Christian family values against the excesses of woke ideology.

    Alice Weidel, chancellor candidate of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) political party, speaks to supporters on Jan. 25, 2025 in Halle, Germany. (Sean Gallup/Getty Images)
    Alice Weidel, chancellor candidate of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) political party, speaks to supporters on Jan. 25, 2025 in Halle, Germany. (Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

    A little anti-LGBTQ+ nuance: While the AfD rightly critiques gender studies professors as purveyors of liberal nonsense, it’s not about hatred—it’s about preserving traditional Christian marriage without imposing on private lives. Weidel herself, in a same-sex relationship, embodies this balance, focusing on family bonuses for German citizens to boost birth rates among our people.

    Ulrich Siegmund, the AfD’s rising star in Saxony-Anhalt, exemplifies this shift. Profiled in Politico as “tall, slim, telegenic,” the 35-year-old entrepreneur-turned-politician courts business leaders, drawing crowds at forums where even CDU tables lag. His jabs at public broadcasters as “disinformation” machines resonate, as seen in viral TikToks amassing 600,000 followers. Critics like Benjamin Höhne warn of “challenging consensus democracy,” but isn’t consensus what’s stifled white Germans’ voices? Harvard‘s CES event on AfD’s rise, featuring David Bebnowski, admits its “electoral success” despite shifts rightward—proof of grassroots demand for sovereignty.

    The CDU’s desperate swap—ousting Premier Reiner Haseloff for Sven Schulze, as detailed in Politico—reeks of panic. Schulze touts “results,” but AfD’s draft program promises real change: Redirect arts funding to “national identity,” baby bonuses for citizens, and Orbán-style governance. Liberals decry it as “ethno-nationalist,” yet it’s pro-Christian, pro-white German heritage—defending our people against Islam’s incompatible values, without the liberal floodgates that have strained resources.

    Mass deportation? Essential for sovereignty. Remigration isn’t racism; it’s reclaiming control from migrants who refuse assimilation, as Weidel boldly stated amid chants of “Alice für Deutschland.” Anti-Islam stance? Vital—Muslim residents, per BfV smears twisted against AfD, often prioritize foreign loyalties over German Christian ethos.

    In this Superwahljahr, AfD’s potential Saxony-Anhalt majority—needing just a 2-3% poll bump—could shatter the “firewall.” As von Storch told Politico, “If we aren’t banned, we’ll eventually have to be involved.” Protests? Liberal hysteria, per DW reports of Riesa blockades. Elon Musk’s X endorsement of Weidel underscores global backing for sovereignty over liberal globalism.

  • British Steel Merger Proposal Risks Shutting Scunthorpe Blast Furnaces

    British Steel Merger Proposal Risks Shutting Scunthorpe Blast Furnaces

    A radical plan to halt “virgin steelmaking” in the UK is being considered in a move that threatens the loss of 2,000 jobs at British Steel’s works in Scunthorpe.
     
    Government officials are weighing a proposal to switch off Britain’s last two remaining blast furnaces despite launching emergency legislation this year preventing the works’ Chinese owners from doing the same.
     
    The proposal is understood to envisage merging British Steel with part of Speciality Steel UK (SSUK), a division of Sanjeev Gupta’s metals empire that crashed into a government-led insolvency in August.
     
    It is one of several options being considered, Whitehall sources said.
     
    But the merger option is said to be favoured by Jon Bolton, co-chairman of the government’s Steel Council, which was launched by the government in January. Under this approach, SSUK’s electric arc furnace in Rotherham, which will require significant investment to get back up and running, would be used to feed the downstream operations of British Steel, according to senior industry sources.
     
    This would allow the two blast furnaces at Scunthorpe to be switched off, reducing losses that are said to be costing taxpayers more than £1 million a day. But it would leave the UK as the only country in the G7 without virgin steelmaking capabilities.
    Industry figures are split on whether Rotherham could produce the correct types, grades and gauges of semi-finished steel — and in sufficient quantities — for British Steel’s downstream operations. The company employs about 4,000 people in the UK, of which 2,700 work in Scunthorpe.
     
    In April, MPs were called for a Saturday sitting of parliament for only the sixth time since the Second World War to fast-track emergency legislation giving the government the ability to direct the company’s workforce and managers and order raw materials for the furnaces.
    British Steel has been in the hands of Chinese firm Jingye since March 2020. The legislation meant that although Jingye remained the owner of the steelworks, the UK state was in control of day-to-day operations.
     
    The government intervention followed claims by ministers that the Chinese company was trying to unilaterally close the blast furnaces by refusing to buy enough raw materials. Blast furnaces require a steady supply of iron ore and coking coal to continue running. Although production can be halted temporarily, any longer than a few days can render the equipment redundant.
     
    In the summer, Jingye submitted a compensation bill of more than £1 billion to the UK government in return for handing over its shareholding in the business. Ministers are understood to have sought to reduce the compensation costs by offering to wave through China’s controversial new “mega embassy” in London.
    A view of a signboard of a British Steel's Scunthorpe plant, in Scunthorpe, northern England, Britain, March 31, 2025. © REUTERS/Dominic Lipinski/File Photo
    A view of a signboard of a British Steel’s Scunthorpe plant, in Scunthorpe, northern England, Britain, March 31, 2025. © REUTERS/Dominic Lipinski/File Photo
    A spokesman for the government said: “We will ensure a bright and sustainable future for steelmaking and steel jobs in the UK and are continuing discussions with Jingye over the long-term future of the site.”
     
    SSUK employs nearly 1,500 people in Rotherham and its other works in Sheffield and is part of the wider Liberty Steel Group, which in turn is part of Gupta’s GFG Alliance, an employer of 16,500 people globally across more than 200 locations.
     
    SSUK was placed under the control of the government’s official receiver in August after the High Court granted a winding-up order pursued by creditors owed hundreds of millions of pounds.
     
    The official receiver, supported by special managers from consultancy Teneo, wants to sell SSUK whole rather than in piecemeal fashion.
     
    Bids have been submitted for the business, though the electric arc furnace in Rotherham is said to be less attractive because it will need millions of pounds of investment to bring it up to working order. The merger plans would be scuppered if a suitable buyer for the Rotherham site can be found.
     
    Using the Rotherham works to feed British Steel’s downstream activities would not be without its difficulties. However, it does have a precedent: the two operations were previously part of Tata Steel’s long products division. The Scunthorpe operation was sold to turnaround fund Greybull Capital in 2016 and the Rotherham works to Gupta the following year.
     
    Separately, an £8 billion green energy plant in the North East will go ahead with an order for steel from China instead of the UK, snuffing out hopes of a U-turn.
    Alasdair McDiarmid, assistant general secretary at the steelworkers’ union Community, said: “Reports that the government is considering ending steelmaking at Scunthorpe, just months after making their historic intervention at the site, are extremely concerning and scarcely believable.
     
    “The loss of the UK’s last-remaining primary steelmaking facility — a vital strategic asset for the country — would represent a devastating blow to national security and sovereignty. Community and the wider trade-union movement will not accept the closure of the blast furnaces outside of a long-term investment strategy that secures the future for Scunthorpe steelmaking.”
     
    This newspaper revealed in November that Net Zero Teesside, a joint venture between BP and the Norwegian energy company Equinor, was on the cusp of awarding a major steel contract to a Chinese firm called Modern. Net Zero Teesside will build the world’s first gas-fired power station with carbon capture and storage.
    In the short term, Scunthorpe steelworks needs materials to keep the furnaces from cooling down. © Darren Staples/AFP/Getty Images
    In the short term, Scunthorpe steelworks needs materials to keep the furnaces from cooling down. © Darren Staples/AFP/Getty Images
    Backed with taxpayer cash, the joint venture had promised that at least 50 per cent of the engineering, procurement and construction contrasts would be sourced from the UK.
     
    Lord Houchen, the local Conservative mayor, called for “an immediate rethink”. This prompted BP to intervene, raising hopes that British Steel — an under-bidder — would prevail.
     
    Sources said, however, that the joint venture had decided to stick with China, ordering 7,000 tonnes that will be made and then fabricated overseas. The contract is understood to be worth £20 million.
     
    A government source said ministers are “keen to see UK steel sourced for UK projects”.
  • Rothschild Family Reportedly Moves to Sell Entire Stake in The Economist

    Rothschild Family Reportedly Moves to Sell Entire Stake in The Economist

    LONDON — In a seismic shift for one of the world’s most influential media outlets, the Rothschild family is preparing to divest its entire 26.7% stake in The Economist Group, valuing the storied publisher at up to £800 million ($1.07 billion) and marking the biggest ownership change since 2015. Led by British-American philanthropist Lynn Forester de Rothschild, the move—initially flagged for a partial sale—signals a broader portfolio reconfiguration for the banking dynasty, amid a resurgent appetite for premium journalism assets in an era of digital subscriptions and geopolitical flux.

    The transaction, which kicked off formally in London on October 6, is being orchestrated by investment bank Lazard and targets a mix of U.S. and U.K. buyers, including family offices, high-net-worth individuals, and strategic investors committed to preserving the publication’s editorial independence. Sources close to the process, speaking to Axios and Bloomberg, indicate the family’s holding—encompassing about 20% of voting shares, the maximum allowed under The Economist’s governance safeguards—could fetch up to £400 million ($537 million). That implies a full valuation for the 182-year-old Economist Group, encompassing the weekly magazine, Economist Intelligence Unit, podcasts, and apps, at the high end of £800 million, down from the £1.1 billion implied in the 2015 deal but reflecting steady growth in its subscriber base.

    Founded in 1843 as a bastion of free-market liberalism, The Economist has navigated digital disruption with resilience. Its latest annual report, for the year ended March 31, 2025, showed revenue climbing 2% to £368.5 million ($495 million), driven by a 3% rise in subscriptions to 1.25 million—66% digital-only, up from 44% in 2021. Operating profit held at around £48 million, with North America contributing 40% of revenue, followed by greater Europe (21%), the U.K. (20%), and Asia (14%). The group employs 1,540 staff across 26 countries, from its London headquarters to outposts in the U.S., China, India, and the UAE, underscoring its global footprint in an industry where print circulation has plummeted but premium content thrives.

    The Rothschilds’ involvement dates to 2002, when they acquired the stake through E.L. Rothschild LLC, becoming key backers of the Economist Educational Foundation and its critical-thinking initiatives for students. Forester de Rothschild, who assumed a more prominent role after her husband Sir Evelyn’s death in 2022, has framed the sale as part of a strategic review of holdings spanning real estate, wealth management, and agriculture. A spokesperson for the family and the company emphasized their “long-term” commitment, noting ongoing collaboration to ensure a seamless transition that upholds the outlet’s independence, protected by a unique structure of ordinary, special (A and B), and trust shares policed by independent trustees.

    Exor, the Agnelli family’s investment vehicle and the largest shareholder at 43.4%, is not involved in the sale, nor is the remaining 29.9% held by entities like the Cadbury and Schroder families and the company itself. The 2015 pivot, when Pearson offloaded its 50% stake for £469 million to Exor (with The Economist repurchasing the balance for £182 million), ended nearly six decades of the education giant’s stewardship and valued the group at £1.1 billion. That transaction cemented Exor’s influence while reinforcing safeguards against any single owner exceeding 20% voting control—a bulwark against corporate overreach that has kept The Economist free from advertiser sway or political meddling.

    Interest in the stake is expected to be brisk, echoing recent high-profile acquisitions like Nikkei’s $1.3 billion purchase of the Financial Times in 2015, the $150 million sale of Fortune to Thai billionaire Chatchaval Jiaravanon in 2018, and Hong Kong’s Integrated Whale Media’s takeover of Forbes in 2014. In a fragmented media landscape, where ad revenues falter but subscriptions to trusted voices like The Economist surge—digital starts now comprise 85%—the asset offers rare entree to a brand synonymous with incisive global analysis. Potential buyers, per reports, prioritize those who will champion its ethos amid rising Asian demand for English-language outlets.

    Neither the Rothschilds nor The Economist responded to requests for comment by press time, but the process is slated for completion by year-end, barring shifts in market dynamics. For the media sector, grappling with AI-driven content threats and audience fragmentation, this divestiture spotlights enduring value in editorial integrity. As one industry analyst noted on X, “In a post-truth world, The Economist’s stake isn’t just ink—it’s influence gold.” Whether it draws a media mogul or a discreet family office, the deal could redefine stewardship of a publication that has chronicled—and shaped—economic epochs for nearly two centuries.

  • What are the implications now that the British pound has reached its highest value in almost four years?

    What are the implications now that the British pound has reached its highest value in almost four years?

    The British pound rallied to its highest level in almost four years on Thursday, even as analysts remain divided on the potential for further upside.

    Sterling was last seen trading more than 0.5% higher against the U.S. dollar, hitting $1.3736 — its highest level since October 2021.

    So far this year, the pound has surged almost 10% higher versus the greenback, according to LSEG data.

    Against the euro, however, sterling is down 2.9% year-to-date. It was last seen trading 0.2% higher against the euro zone currency, with one pound buying around 1.173 euros.

    Dollar weakness

    According to Janet Mui, head of market analysis at RBC Brewin Dolphin, much of the pound’s upward trajectory is actually more to do with underlying dollar weakness than faith in sterling itself.

    “The relative strength of the pound has been more of a weak U.S. dollar story this year,” she told CNBC News by email on Wednesday.

    U.S. President Donald Trump’s unpredictable trade policies shook confidence in American assets earlier this year, which in turn has sparked concerns in markets about de-dollarization.

    Paul Jackson, global head of asset allocation research at Invesco, said sterling was on a recovery journey from the “extreme low” seen in the aftermath of former British Prime Minister Liz Truss’s so-called mini budget, which sparked a severe sell off of the pound and U.K. government bonds in 2022.

    He agreed, however, that much of the movement this year was attributable to dollar weakness, pointing out sterling’s simultaneous depreciation against the euro.  

    Will sterling go higher?

    “I would expect that pattern to continue in the future, with the dollar weakening along with the US economy (and investor doubts about US fiscal and tariff policies), while the euro could strengthen on optimism about the implications of the coming fiscal boost (especially in Germany),” Invesco’s Jackson said.

    He argued that the ECB had likely completed most of its monetary easing for the current cycle, whereas the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve “have a lot of catching up to do.”

    “In 12 months, I would expect GBPUSD to be around 1.40 and GBPEUR to be around 1.15 (currently 1.17),” Jackson added.

    Jackson’s forecast represents a roughly 2.9% premium from current exchange rates against the dollar.

    RBC Brewin Dolphin’s Mui suggested that in the coming months, the outlook for the British pound is not overly compelling — but noted that geopolitical developments could catalyze further upward movements in the longer term.

    “In the near-term, further upside for the pound may be limited due to softer UK economic momentum and more scope for the Bank of England to cut rates,” she said.

    “Looking ahead, one potential catalyst for the pound could be improved relations with the EU, particularly if it translates into more concrete action over time.”

    Brian Mangwiro, an investment manager with the multi asset group at Barings, took a more pessimistic view.

    “We are bearish GBP in the medium term. We would forecast EURGBP at 0.875 and GBPUSD at 1.30 in [six months],” he told CNBC by email on Wednesday.

    He argued that the macroeconomic backdrop does not justify sterling’s performance against the greenback this year, attributing it instead to a reflection of a post-liberation day sell-off of the U.S. dollar.

    “Markets had been overly bearish on the UK following Chancellor Reeves’ Budget,” he added. “Consequently, positive data surprises became supportive to GBP. However, we continue to expect UK economic growth and inflation to slow; signs are already showing, which the Bank of England is also acknowledging. This supports further BoE rate cuts, and ultimately weighs on the pound.”

    Mangwiro also noted that in his view, de-dollarization risks seemed “over-blown.”

    “Sentiment will likely reverse as US growth outlook rebounds and corporate earnings remain resilient,” he said. “Along with current extreme short USD positioning, this should support a USD rebound, dragging Cable lower.”

    Jackie Bowie, managing partner and head of Chatham Financial EMEA, labeled the British pound as “a currency that is struggling to regain its former glory” despite playing an “outsized role” in global foreign exchange markets. The outlook for sterling is mixed, in her view.

    “Looking at the key fundamentals of the UK, we can see some reasons to be upbeat on the outlook for the GBP but there are challenges too,” she said by email, forecasting “moderate” economic growth backed by government spending.

    “Relative monetary policy is expected to keep the GBP attractive, but the geopolitical environment will play a key role in determining whether that benefits the GBP, particularly vs. the EUR (that has benefited from outflows from the US dollar due to Trump’s chaotic policy making and seeming authoritarian approach to government),” she said, also noting that U.S. trade policy and geopolitical tensions posed downside risks.

  • The United Kingdom is trying to understand the implications of a significant court decision regarding transgender individuals

    The United Kingdom is trying to understand the implications of a significant court decision regarding transgender individuals

    LONDON — When Britain’s Supreme Court made its landmark ruling last month that only biological women are women, some people said it helped settle the long, contentious debate over the rights of transgender people and their access to single-sex spaces.

    In the days since the ruling, leaders have executed screeching U-turns. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who had declared “trans women are women,” called it “a welcome step forward” for “real clarity.”

    But clarity is proving elusive.

    The ruling will probably have implications on a wide range of British life: admission to changing rooms, participation in soccer clubs, how the BBC refers to transgender people in its news reports.

    Britain is now trying to answer questions other democracies are addressing. Do trans people serve in the military? Are trans women welcome at a lesbian club? Allowed to run marathons in their gender category?

    Transgender activists and their supporters have condemned the court’s decision as harmful, ignorant and confusing. Masses have protested, including at Parliament Square, where pro-trans demonstrators vandalized a statute of Millicent Fawcett, a Victorian-era campaigner for women’s suffrage.

    Helen Belcher, managing director of the advocacy group TransActual, said the ruling and ensuing guidance “hasn’t provided clarity but chaos.”

    Forcing trans women to use a toilet stall or hospital ward that doesn’t match their gender identity “outs them, breaks their privacy and is degrading,” she said. She predicted transgender people would seek protection under human rights law.

    The first lawsuits are already being prepared, including one by Britain’s first transgender judge, who is appealing the judgment to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.

    A transgender woman from Glasgow, Scotland, announced she was planning to seek asylum in Argentina.

    Supporters of the decision stress that court rulings must be followed, but heads are spinning at human resources departments over exactly how. Many public and private organizations say they’re awaiting “further guidance.”

    Others are dashing ahead. A day after the court ruling, the British Transport Police said transgender women who are arrested on the railway system would be strip-searched, if necessary, by male officers.

    Politicians have been struggling to find the right line.

    The leader of the opposition Conservative Party suggested that transgender people might simply opt to use the unisex restrooms for people with disabilities.

    Labour government cabinet minister Pat McFadden said there would be no “loo police” to enforce single-sex spaces. But if there’s no enforcement, critics asked, what’s the use of rules?

    The unanimous ruling by Britain’s highest court was hailed by the plaintiffs, the feminist group For Women Scotland, as returning “common sense” to decisions about who can enter a women’s shelter, for example, or serve a sentence in a women’s prison.

    The plaintiffs sued the Scottish government, which had argued that trans people with government-issued gender recognition certificates had the same sex-based protections as women born female.

    The United Kingdom has issued about 8,500 such certificates. The 2021 census reported that transgender people over 16 made up about 0.5 percent of the population of England and Wales, or about 262,000 people. But the Office for National Statistics said recently that the number might be an overestimate because some people might have misunderstood the question.

    The Supreme Court ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” as they appear in Britain’s Equality Act referred only to a biological woman and to biological sex — the sex one was assigned at birth.

    “To reach any other conclusion,” the court wrote in an 88-page judgment, “would turn the foundational definition of sex on its head.”

    The Equality and Human Rights Commission, responsible for enforcing antidiscrimination laws, announced interim guidelines.

    “A trans woman is a biological man,” the commission stated, and “a trans man is a biological woman.”

    H7ATRT23KXMEIJWQWPBSY5INH4 size normalized
    Marion Calder, center, of For Women Scotland celebrates after the Supreme Court ruling. (Kin Cheung/AP)

    In settings such as hospitals, gyms, shops, restaurants, pubs and offices, it said, trans women “should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men … should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities.”

    The commission urged businesses to provide mixed facilities “where possible” and said transgender people should not be subjected to

    discrimination.

    After a period of public comment — expected to be full-throated — the commission is set to issue final guidance in June.

    Nicola Sturgeon, the former leader of Scotland, said the guidance as written “potentially makes the lives of trans people almost unlivable.”

    Susan Smith, co-director of For Women Scotland, called the criticism “frankly wrong and quite disturbing.”

    “There is absolute clarity” in the ruling, she said, “but there is also resistance.”

    She said her group was fighting for women’s rights to secure single-sex spaces. “People get very worked up about the toilets, but that wasn’t our priority,” she said. She imagines more unisex lavatories, or a men’s room, a women’s room and a third “that just says toilet.”

    Smith said her group sued to protect women in “our most vulnerable spaces,” such as hospital wards, changing rooms and shelters for women who have suffered domestic violence.

    Society had been “changed by stealth,” she said, and the ruling was fair and balanced.

    It is against the law in Britain to discriminate against someone for a “protected characteristic.”

    The nine characteristics are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.

    The commission stressed that transgender people need protections, too: “Where facilities are available to both men and women, trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use.”

    Trans activists said the decision left them fearful that rights for which they had fought and won were being taken away as British institutions, one by one, issue guidelines.

    A recent example: The Football Association was the first major governing body in sport to amend its rules. Starting next month, the FA said, transgender women will no longer be able to play in women’s soccer in England.

    “We understand that this will be difficult for people who simply want to play the game they love in the gender by which they identify,” the FA said in a statement. “We are contacting the registered transgender women currently playing to explain the changes and how they can continue to stay involved in the game.”

    The association said that there were fewer than 30 transgender women registered among millions of amateur players.

    A judge in Edinburgh, Scotland, said she would issue a court order to make clear that government schools needed to provide separate toilets for girls and boys based on their biological sex. This was in response to parents discovering that their children were using gender-neutral lavatories at primary school.

    Some resistance is emerging, too.

    The trade union that represents civil service workers and those working in the public sector said the interim advice is “clearly not fit for purpose and is damaging in its advice and will be impossible to implement.”

    More than 1,000 leaders in the arts signed an open letter warning that cultural venues “are unable to magic up new toilet facilities” and that “this kind of segregation will have significant social, cultural and economic impact.”

    On London’s Hampstead Heath, the women’s-only Kenwood Ladies’ Pond welcomed transgender women in 2019. The City of London Corporation noted the court ruling but advised that “existing policies remain in effect at this time.”

    There were protests.

  • As tradition dictates, the secret and ceremonial meeting to elect a new pope will soon begin

    As tradition dictates, the secret and ceremonial meeting to elect a new pope will soon begin

    VATICAN CITY — As the cardinals prepare to enter the Sistine Chapel in procession Wednesday for the start of the conclave to pick the next pope, talk is swirling that the throne of St. Peter could go to a first pontiff from the United States. Just as many voices herald the chances of three Italians and a come-from-behind Spaniard serving in Morocco. A Filipino, a Frenchman, a Congolese and a long-monastic Swede are talks of the town too.

    Yet as all eyes wait for the billowing white smoke that signals Habemus Papam — “We have a pope” — the wisest watchers have a warning.

    Nobody really knows who will be the next pope, at a time of deep church division.

    Once they enter the chapel at 4:30 p.m., the cardinals under 80 — including nearly two dozen from countries that have never had a voice in a conclave before — will be sequestered for votes, released only to retire to their boardinghouse for meals and rest, until a new pope is found. Under the ceiling depicting Michelangelo’s outstretched God creating Adam, there will be no interpreters, no speeches, no lobbying (theoretically). There will be only prayer, chatter and votes.

    To keep themselves pure of secular influence — and, in 2025, viral social media posts — the serene prelates will be asked not to bring their cellphones. One of the cardinals who is sick, however, may earn the right to vote from his room.

    FEKB7L2ROZ4D4H7TPZL6YZZ5JA
    Tables are set up in the Sistine Chapel for the conclave. (Simone Risoluti/Reuters)

    In the hour or so after white smoke, but before the new pope’s name is announced in Latin from the central balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica, the tea leaf reading will commence. Should a decision come Wednesday — when there is just one ballot, during which consensus is rarely reached — the choice could signify the elevation of a familiar cardinal viewed by his peers as a pillar of stability in unsettled times. Or, that a star somehow electrified the conclave.

    Bracing for a marathon

    After Wednesday night, four votes will be held during each full-day session. Francis and Benedict XVI were elected in five and four votes, respectively. Should that pattern be followed again, a decision would come Thursday. If the choice bleeds into a third day — or, shockingly, longer — the narrative of a house divided will begin to take hold. The last time a conclave went five days was more than a century ago, in 1922.

    Since Francis’s death, cardinals have laid out conflicting visions for the future of the church, and some have been bracing the faithful for what could be a nail-biter of a marathon. In the largest conclave in history — there are 133 voting members in Vatican City — so many cardinals are new and unfamiliar to their peers that the prelates, who normally meet in pre-conclave morning assemblies, held an extended afternoon session this week. Adding to the challenges, not all of them speak fluent Italian — Vatican City’s lingua franca.

    “We hope the new Pope will arrive in three [or] four days,” Chaldean Patriarch Cardinal Louis Raphael Sako told journalists this week.

    In an act of high ceremony, most cardinals, singing the Litany of the Saints as they approach the chapel, will wear red garments with a sash, a rochet vestment, a mozzetta cape, and a pectoral cross with red and gold cord, along with a ring, zucchetto skull cap, and the biretta peaked hat. The Cardinals of the Eastern Churches will wear their own “choir dress,” according to the Vatican.

    The news media will find out who the new pope is along “with the rest of the people of God” — when the birth and papal names of the new pontiff are heralded to a throng in St. Peter’s by a senior cardinal, the Vatican said. When the new pontiff emerges for his address, the scrutiny will begin.

    Will he select the simple white robes and black shoes of Francis, or return to the bling-y red slippers and red velvet mozzetta favored by Benedict? Will he address the crowd, as Francis did, by humbly calling himself the “bishop of Rome” and, in lieu of a lofty blessing to the faithful, ask the faithful to pray for him instead?

    “Popes are always compared to their predecessors,” said the Rev. Thomas Reese, 80, a veteran Vatican watcher now in Rome, and who was also in the city for the 2005 and 2013 conclaves. “Catholics tend to support whoever is pope,” he added. “But who knows this time in the age of social media.”

    XZUV43BR5X2CMUK6W5AKZLJ25Q
    View of the “Room of Tears,” a small room next to the Sistine Chapel where the newly elected pope will don the white papal vestments for the first time. (Vatican Media/Reuters)

    It’s long been said that no one from the United States will be pope, based on the argument that the country already enjoys outsize global power. But there have been whispers in recent days about the rising odds for Cardinal Robert Prevost, a Chicago native who has spent most of his career in Peru and Rome, as well as the traditionalist Archbishop of New York, Cardinal Timothy Dolan.

    An American? A Spaniard? A monastic Swede?

    Prevost is regarded as a pragmatist who was selected by Francis to lead the powerful bishop-picking department at the Vatican, making him extremely well-known among the voting cardinals. Dolan, perhaps the most recognized bishop in the United States, is a St. Louis native who worked in Milwaukee before he went to New York: a gregarious, TV-friendly figure who prayed at President Donald Trump’s 2025 inauguration.

    Some experts have noted that with so many new cardinals and in such a big conclave, Dolan’s high profile could help him break through the Vatican’s American taboo.

    Several Vatican watchers have been dazzled by Cardinal Cristóbal López Romero, a humble Spaniard said to have impressed his peers during his pre-conclave speech and interactions, as Francis did before his election.Romero is the archbishop of Rabat, Morocco.

    “I’m fully in tune with everything Francis proposed — his way of acting, speaking, and leading,” López Romero told the news agency of his Salesian religious order last week. “But I don’t say ‘I belong to Francis,’” he said. “I’m of Christ. I’m of the Gospel. And if I love Francis, it’s because he’s pure Gospel.”

    As is customary, no contender is publicly advocating for the job, and most are demurring, saying they don’t want the nod. Swedish Cardinal Anders Arborelius, a Catholic convert in a Protestant-dominant country who spent decades in monastic life, said he has been mobbed by patriotic Swedes celebrating his chances.

    “It’s a bit ridiculous in Sweden that Swedes are so nationalistic,” Arborelius told The Washington Post. Someone the cardinal knows, he said, had asked an AI bot what his chances were. Arborelius said he was relieved when they were in the single digits.

    “I was very happy. Because I don’t have this strong leadership — what do you call it? — management type,” he said.

    He candidly outlined the struggle among cardinals over the criteria for the next pope. He said cardinals wanted an evangelizer to cope with “many difficult issues” including the “war in Europe” and “Trump in America.” But less clear is whether the faith needed a “prophetic figure” who was “charismatic,” or someone more reflective and transitional, “like Benedict” was between John Paul II and Francis.

    One refrain being echoed, he said, was concern for migrants — many of whom are Catholic.

    “If you take that issue, migration … we know it’s a political issue in many countries, but it’s also kind of biblical,” he said. “The people of Israel, Abraham, migrated,” he said. “The church is built up from migrants.”

    “It’s part of human history where God brings people to different places. And when we look for a person to guide the church, it has to be someone who somehow answers what we would have seen in Jesus himself, who somehow has to reflect something of his mystery.”

    Asked about the harsh critiques of Francis being leveled by some cardinals ahead of the conclave, Cardinal Michael F. Czerny, a Czech-born Canadian prelate and longtime senior Vatican official, described them as typical of an era of social media saturation and intense news cycles where “everything goes without restraint.”

    But “Francis invited debate,” he said. “He would not want to be seen as beyond criticism.”

    Asked if nationality was being taken into consideration in the selection process, he said, “I hope not, because it shouldn’t be.”

    ZRQN5NLPGSI4QB4OBOZKP2W4IY
    From left, in yellow, Filipino Cardinals Luis Antonio Tagle, Jose Advincula and Pablo Virgilio David attend Sunday mass at the Pontificio Collegio Filippino in Rome on Sunday. (Eloisa Lopez/Reuters)

    On Sunday, several of the top contenders celebrated Mass in Rome at their so-called titular churches, or the local houses of worship where far-flung cardinals serve as ceremonial patrons. Their homilies are often viewed as papal auditions.

    Behind a photo of Francis set among devotional candles at Santa Maria ai Monte, an ornate Roman church completed in the 16th Century, a cleric who was among the late pope’s favorites — Cardinal Jean-Marc Noël Aveline of Marseille — appeared to take a page from Francis’s book of inclusion. “Let’s be unafraid of those who are different from us, because every man and every woman is a brother and a sister for whom Christ died,” Aveline, an Algerian-born Frenchman, told a standing-room-only Mass.

    A few blocks away, a favorite of church conservatives — Hungary’s Peter Erdo — defended the traditions of the faith at the Basílica di Santa Francesca Romana. “The main [source] of our knowledge of the historical Christ is the sacred scripture, but also the tradition of the church,” he said. “Tradition is not [just] a counter-history, but rather a testimony.”

  • A very close special election saw Reform UK win by six votes, resulting in a loss for Labour

    A very close special election saw Reform UK win by six votes, resulting in a loss for Labour

    Nigel Farage’s insurgent anti-immigration party, Reform U.K., scored a significant, if razor-thin, victory Friday in a parliamentary special election in the northwest of England. The result served notice that Mr. Farage, a populist fixture and close ally of President Trump, is again a rising force in British politics.

    Reform’s candidate, Sarah Pochin, won by just six votes over her Labour Party opponent, Karen Shore, in Runcorn and Helsby, seizing what had been a safe seat for Labour until the incumbent, Mike Amesbury, was forced to resign after being convicted of assault for punching one of his constituents.

    On a night of high drama, the outcome — the tightest in such an election in modern history — was so close that the vote had to be recounted, delaying the declaration of the result for hours.

    But the victory, by 12,645 votes to 12,639, was the start of what could be an impressive show of strength by Reform in mayoral and local council elections held Thursday across England.

    More than 1,600 municipal seats are up for grabs, and polls suggest that Reform could win at least 300 of them.

    If Reform’s gains are borne out as the ballots are counted throughout Friday, it would deliver a significant jolt to British politics, potentially accelerating the country’s shift toward a more polarized, multiparty system.

    For Prime Minister Keir Starmer, it would be a setback in his party’s first electoral test since Labour swept to power in July. The Conservatives, still licking their wounds after last summer’s stinging defeat, would find themselves even more vulnerable to a threat from Reform. And Mr. Farage could make a plausible case that Reform is emerging as a genuine rival to both major parties.

    02int uk elections bmzq superJumbo
    A polling station in Runcorn and Helsby, a parliamentary constituency that had long been considered a safe seat for the Labour Party. (Phil Noble/Reuters)

    By itself, the Runcorn defeat is a blow to Mr. Starmer. Labour won the seat in the last election with a margin of 15,400 votes. But Mr. Amesbury’s conviction, on top of broader frustration from voters with the government, gave Reform an opening. Ms. Pochin, a businesswoman who served in local government, will join Mr. Farage as one of five Reform lawmakers with seats in Parliament.

    Her single-digit victory margin in a special election was without precedent in modern British political history. The closest margin until now was in Berwick-upon-Tweed in 1973, when the Liberal Democrats won by 57 votes.

    “The people of Runcorn and Helsby have spoken,” Ms. Pochin said after the victory. “Enough is enough. Enough Tory failure. Enough Labour lies.” She was joined by Mr. Farage, who told reporters that “it’s a huge night for Reform.”

    Peter Kyle, a Labour cabinet minister, told the BBC that the result was “frustrating.” The circumstances of Mr. Amesbury’s resignation had made it a difficult election, he said, but he added that he understood “why a message like this would want to be sent.”

    On Thursday in Runcorn, an industrial town of 61,000 that hunkers on the River Mersey, west of Liverpool, the portents of a Reform victory were in the air. People on the main street said the party had capitalized on anti-incumbent fervor, fueled by dissatisfaction with the economy, as well as on tensions over immigration, to win support among voters with deep Labour roots.

    In recent years, immigration has become a fraught issue after a local hotel was converted to house migrants, some of whom cross the English Channel in small boats, seeking asylum.

    While the Labour government has announced plans to close the hotel, Reform kept a spotlight on it and tried to claim credit for pressuring the government to act.

    02int uk elections qkbv superJumbo
    The anti-immigrant Reform U.K. party, led by Nigel Farage, was hoping to emerge from Thursday’s elections as a genuine rival to Britain’s two major parties. (Oli Scarff/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images)

    Terry Osborne, 49, a business development manager, said Reform had tried to exploit the fact that some voters were not aware of the government’s role, and was playing to their pre-existing biases on immigration. “They’ll hear what they want to hear about immigration,” he said.

    Mohamed Alosta, 36, a business owner who described himself as a longtime Labour supporter, also criticized Reform’s handling of the hotel issue.

    But he said he would not vote for Labour this time because he was disenchanted by the politics of the major parties. Instead, he planned to vote for the Workers Party, a fringe party led by the left-wing firebrand, George Galloway.

    In addition to the special election, voters were electing council members in 24 municipalities in parts of England, as well as six regional mayors: in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough; Doncaster; North Tyneside; the West of England; Hull and East Yorkshire; and Greater Lincolnshire.

    In the first of the mayoral results, Labour won in North Tyneside, the West of England and Doncaster, with Reform performing strongly and coming second in all three regions. In Greater Lincolnshire, Reform’s candidate, Andrea Jenkyns, a former Conservative lawmaker, was victorious, winning 42 percent of the vote.

    Much of what these local officials do is centered around mundane work like overseeing trash collection or planning. But the elections function as a referendum on the governing party, which racked up a whopping parliamentary majority last year but did so with a thin 34 percent of the national vote.

    Since then, Labour’s shallow support has been sapped by unpopular economic decisions like curbing payments to retirees that had helped them cope with fuel costs, hiking payroll taxes on businesses and changing inheritance tax rules for farmers.

    02int uk elections gzwb superJumbo
    A protest against changes to inheritance tax rules for land ownership for farmers, in front of the London Eye in March. (Henry Nicholls/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images)

    “They almost appear to have set out to offend every group,” said Robert Hayward, a Conservative member of the House of Lords and polling expert.

    With the next general election years away, there is no threat to Mr. Starmer’s position. But a bad result could increase pressure on the architect of Labour’s austere economic policies, Rachel Reeves, the chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Labour’s struggles are not translating into dividends for the Conservatives. The party is bracing for a major loss of seats because the last time this set of local council seats was contested, in 2021, it did unusually well. Voters rewarded Boris Johnson, who was then prime minister, for a speedy rollout of coronavirus vaccines.

  • European nations are hoping that Meloni, Italy’s leader who is close to Trump, can help them with trading

    European nations are hoping that Meloni, Italy’s leader who is close to Trump, can help them with trading

    When Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni touches down in Washington for a meeting Thursday at the White House, the European Union, scrambling to strike a deal on trade, will be playing its Trump card.

    Few European leaders make a better emissary to the court of President Donald Trump. The 48-year-old Meloni heads Italy’s most right-wing government since Benito Mussolini and ranks among the select list of leaders Trump seems to like. He has described her as a “wonderful woman,” hosting her at Mar-a-Lago and inviting her to his January inauguration.

    The two see eye to eye on migrant crackdowns and the anti-woke agenda. Both slam judges who don’t rule in their favor. Meloni was also one of the few European leaders to defend Vice President JD Vance after his controversial speech in Munich in which he chided Europe for isolating far-right parties.

    The question now is whether Meloni can truly be the bridge to Trump she claims to be. The E.U. is racing to take advantage of a 90-day pause on “reciprocal” U.S. tariffs, as well as to dial back the U.S. levies already imposed on steel and cars. Her meeting comes as Brussels and Washington still appear far from a trade deal after a fresh round of talks Monday, but also during a big week for Italian-U.S. relations: After her White House visit, Meloni will quickly double back to Rome to host the visiting Vance in the Italian capital Friday.

    “They have a very good relationship, Donald Trump and Giorgia Meloni, and she would like to help [Europe] reach a goal,” said Nicola Procaccini, a member of the European Parliament from Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party, and a close political ally of the prime minister. “The goal could be a zero-tariff deal from both sides.”

    Procaccini said Italy recognizes the trade imbalance with the United States and is committed to taking steps to correct it. He suggested that Meloni, who has criticized Trump’s tariffs but also cautioned Europe against responding with more levies of its own, may offer to buy more U.S. liquefied natural gas — one thing Trump has said he wants. The Italian press reported that Meloni may also come to the table with pledges to rapidly boost lagging Italian defense spending as well as large-scale investment in the United States by Italian companies, along with a potential sale to the U.S. of a sophisticated border protection system by Italian defense contractor Leonardo.

    E.U. trade negotiators have already offered the Trump administration more purchases of American LNG and reciprocal zero tariffs on industrial goods. So far, those offers have yielded little sign of a breakthrough.

    Meloni is gambling it may come down to the messenger.

    Speaking to Italian business leaders Tuesday, she offered a candid assessment of the herculean task ahead.

    “I don’t feel any pressure, as you can imagine, about the next two days,” she said ironically. “We’ll do our best, as always. Surely I’m aware of what I represent, and I’m aware of what I’m safeguarding.”

    For her, the visit is high-stakes. Meloni is risking political capital both in Europe and at home on a meeting with possible negative outcomes. Should she come back empty-handed, the notion that she is favored by Trump could begin to crumble. Should she walk out the door with benefits for Italy, rather than the entire 27-nation E.U. — as some in her right-wing coalition have demanded — she risks dividing the bloc at a time when unity is seen as paramount to confronting Washington’s trade war.

    “It’s hard to see what she can get,” said Nathalie Tocci, director of the Rome-based Institute for International Affairs. “The big prize — say, an E.U.-U.S. summit — seems pie in the sky. Nitty-gritty negotiations on trade are not conversations taking place at that level,” Tocci said.

    It is “easier to see what she can lose if Trump is smart enough … to play divide and [conquer],” Tocci said. “In a sense, the best one can hope for is that the meeting takes place without any incident. That in itself would go down as success.”

    Yet Meloni’s trip has been portrayed positively at E.U. headquarters in Brussels, where officials have been straining for an opportunity to reboot talks after Trump’s tariff barrage. Some European diplomats are also keenly aware that Trump, who likes to deride the E.U., appears uninterested in the leaders of the bloc itself, preferring to deal with national leaders such as Meloni and French President Emmanuel Macron.

    However welcoming they are of Meloni’s efforts, E.U. officials have also been quick to issue reminders that trade negotiations are the remit of the E.U.’s executive branch — the European Commission, led by President Ursula von der Leyen. Commission spokeswoman Arianna Podestà told reporters Monday that von der Leyen and Meloni have been “in regular contact” about the Washington trip, and described it as welcome “outreach.”

    That doesn’t mean the trip hasn’t caused some friction. France’s industry minister initially cautioned that Meloni’s trip could play into Trump’s hands and divide Europe — though a French government spokesman later welcomed Meloni’s dialogue with Trump. In Italy, the center-left opposition has slammed the trip as embarrassing kowtowing: “The self-styled patriots bow their heads once again,” Elly Schlein, head of the Democratic Party, wrote of the trip on Facebook.

    Meloni’s deputy prime minister and erstwhile rival Matteo Salvini, meanwhile, has called for Meloni to put Italy’s interests before Europe’s. But observers say Meloni is acutely aware that anything that looks like a bilateral trade deal will be considered illegal by the E.U. and cause her more headaches than the U.S. tariffs themselves. Antonio Tajani, her other deputy who also serves as foreign minister, has said Meloni is clear-eyed about her mission.

    7ERTXEDYJXPT6ZE7SEEU3N6UQQ
    Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini speaks on an Italian television program on April 7, in front of a screen showing images of Meloni and President Donald Trump. (Riccardo Antimiani/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)

    The Trump visit is “a mission supportive of European stances,” Tajani said in a television interview this week. “We are convinced that Europe must present itself united.”

    Ignacio García Bercero, a former European Commission trade official, said Meloni would have little to gain — and much to lose — from seeking carve-outs for Italian products like olive oil. Many Italians hold industrial jobs, for instance, that are geared toward making auto parts for German factories — meaning they would still be hit hard if there isn’t a European-wide deal on trade.

    “You probably can distinguish olive oil from Country A and Country B, but if you’re talking about cars, about manufactured products, any product that goes into the United States has components from all over the European Union,” Bercero said. “It’s very difficult [for Trump] to do something that doesn’t hurt everyone in the E.U.”

    E.U. trade chief Maros Sefcovic traveled to Washington in February and March, only to declare that the administration was not ready to seriously engage. Now, the E.U. sees a window for negotiations following Trump’s decision to pause what was a punitive 20 percent blanket tariff. But European diplomats say they are still struggling for clarity on what the White House really wants.

    Sefcovic held hours of talks with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on Monday. In subsequent statements, he signaled no progress toward a deal.

    “Achieving this will require a significant joint effort on both sides,” Sefcovic said.

    Sefcovic’s meeting in Washington “covered a lot of ground, from tariffs to nontariff barriers,” said Olof Gill, a European Commission spokesman for trade. “The E.U. is doing its part. Now, it is necessary for the U.S. to define its position,” he added. “This must be a two-way street.”

    In the meantime, current and former E.U. officials said the bloc was also seeking to understand the Trump administration’s plans for tariffs that the president has signaled are still to come, including on pharmaceuticals.

    As a gesture of goodwill, the E.U. has paused its countermeasures against U.S. tariffs on steel, and is still hashing out its response to car levies. E.U. leaders have also warned the bloc could hit back harder against Trump’s across-the-board tariffs if negotiations fall apart during the 90-day pause, even floating the prospect of targeting American services from Big Tech companies.

    But Meloni is leading the camp searching for a more conciliatory approach — suggesting it is better to catch Trump with honey than vinegar.

    The bar for success, Procaccini said, is a “first step.”

    “I don’t expect in a few hours they reach the main goal,” he said. “A first step in the right direction for me is enough.”

  • Ukrainian officials are saying that Russian missiles hit Sumy, and sadly, at least 32 people died.

    Ukrainian officials are saying that Russian missiles hit Sumy, and sadly, at least 32 people died.

    Russian ballistic missiles killed at least 32 people, including two children, on Sunday in the northeastern Ukrainian city of Sumy, officials said — the latest in a string of attacks on urban centers that have caused heavy civilian casualties despite the Trump’s administration push for a cease-fire.

    Two missiles hit the city center about 10:15 a.m., according to the regional prosecutor’s office. Ukraine’s interior minister, Ihor Klymenko, said the ballistic missiles struck when the streets were crowded with civilians out enjoying Palm Sunday, a Christian celebration popular in Ukraine. At least 83 people were injured, Mr. Klymenko added.

    “People were harmed right in the middle of the street — in cars, on public transport, in their homes,” Mr. Klymenko said on social media.

    President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine posted a video on social media that he said showed the aftermath of the attack in Sumy, only 18 miles from the Russian border. The video showed cars smashed and burned, as well as bloodied bodies laying motionless on the streets. Firefighters and civilians tended to the wounded as screams echoed in the background.

    “A strong reaction from the world is needed. From the United States, from Europe, from everyone in the world who wants this war and the killings to end,” Mr. Zelensky said in a message posted on Telegram. “Russia seeks exactly this kind of terror and is dragging out the war.”

    The strikes came just over a week after a Russian missile hit near a playground in the central city of Kryvyi Rih, killing 19 people, including nine children. In that attack and in the one on Sunday, according to Ukrainian officials, Russia used ballistic missiles, which travel at high speeds, making them very difficult to shoot down.

    The two strikes were some of the deadliest in Ukraine this year and come amid an overall increase in civilian deaths since cease-fire talks began in March. The United Nations said last week that 164 civilians were killed in Ukraine last month, a 50 percent increase from February and 70 percent more than the same period a year earlier.

    There was no immediate comment from Russia’s military about Sunday’s strikes on Sumy, which was home to about 250,000 people before the war and has become a refuge for Ukrainian civilians fleeing villages and towns along the Russian border to escape bombardment and potential assaults.

    The city and surrounding region have regularly come under Russian attack over the past year, particularly since Ukraine used the area as a base for a cross-border offensive into Russia’s neighboring Kursk region. Moscow’s forces pushed most Ukrainian troops out of Kursk this year, but Kyiv has warned that Russia is preparing to push into the Sumy region and open a new front in the war.

    Ukrainian officials say the recent attacks that have killed large numbers of civilians show that Russia is not actually interested in a cease-fire, despite the efforts by the Trump administration to broker one.

    Both Russia and Ukraine have pledged to halt attacks on energy infrastructure, only to accuse each other of violations. Kyiv and Moscow have also agreed to a cease-fire on the Black Sea, but a deal has yet to come into effect. Russia has also rejected a full, unconditional 30-day cease-fire that Ukraine had accepted at the urging of the United States.

    Ukraine’s foreign minister, Andrii Sybiha, said on Saturday that since cease-fire talks began last month in Saudi Arabia, Russia “only escalated its attacks on Ukrainian civilian objects and increased missile terror, including strikes on energy facilities.”

    “This is Russia’s response to all peace proposals,” Mr. Sybiha told the state news agency Ukrinform. “They delay, manipulate, and play with their partners to continue aggression.”

  • How did people in Poland react to Jesse Eisenberg’s movie ‘A Real Pain’?

    How did people in Poland react to Jesse Eisenberg’s movie ‘A Real Pain’?

    AReal Pain, Jesse Eisenberg’s film about two cousins on a heritage tour of Holocaust-related sites in Poland, has been largely embraced by Polish audiences, who appreciated its understated humour and conspicuous good intentions. Within a month of its release, the film had grossed more than $1m at the Polish box office – no small feat for an indie production in Poland. “There was a collective sigh of relief,” says Vogue Poland film critic Anna Tatarska, “that here was a Hollywood Holocaust narrative that didn’t cast Poles as historical villains.”

    Poland’s fraught relationship with Holocaust narratives has made films touching on it into political battlegrounds for at least a decade. Since the nationalist backlash against films such as Aftermath (Pokłosie) in 2012, and Ida a year later – each of which confronted Polish complicity in wartime Jewish persecution – cinema has become a flashpoint in Poland’s ongoing struggle with historical memory. Against this backdrop, A Real Pain occupies an unusually diplomatic position, and this political neutrality helped Eisenberg’s film achieve what others couldn’t: acceptance not only from Polish audiences but also officialdom.

    It’s a joy that people keep on coming here – to restore memory, to catch these threads from before the Holocaust

    Witold Wrzosiński

    President Andrzej Duda went so far as granting Eisenberg Polish citizenship during a ceremony in New York in March. Eisenberg, who had been interested in becoming a Pole for nearly two decades, called it an honour of a lifetime. “Poland as an idea gave me a certain meaning that I was missing,” he told the New Yorker in November. “Having a connection to something bigger, something historic, something traumatic, made me feel like I was a real person and not just floating through a lucky life of shallow emptiness.”

    But while A Real Pain was promoted as Eisenberg’s love letter to Poland, many Poles still feel it failed to represent them adequately. Perhaps most tellingly, the film’s only significant interaction with the locals occurs in a single scene near the end, when the Kaplan cousins arrive at the house where their grandmother used to live and briefly talk with two neighbours. Poles are otherwise background characters – a mostly voiceless crowd of receptionists, waiters and taxi drivers. “Poland is only a backdrop here, a beautiful and wealthy decoration that is essentially empty, because no real people inhabit it,” historian and writer Irena Grudzińska-Gross said.

    Witold Wrzosiński, the director of the Jewish Cemetery in Warsaw, noted that Polish Jews, a community that today numbers some 30,000, are completely absent from the film. (Before the Holocaust, Jews made up 10% of Poland’s population; of the 3.5 million living there in 1939, only about 300,000 survived.) “It felt as if Eisenberg sent his love letter without an addressee,” he said. “And we watched it as outside spectators.”

    2569
    Eisenberg and Jennifer Grey in the film. Photograph: Everett Collection Inc/Alamy

    Wrzosiński recalled that after a special screening for representatives of the Jewish community in Warsaw, there was a sense that the film missed some opportunities, mostly because of its choice not to develop local characters. “The most unexpected, cinematic situations during heritage tours happen at the crossroads between the visitors and Poles,” said Wrzosiński, who spent years leading such tours. The Kaplan cousins arrive and leave Poland more or less unchanged – a narrative choice that is intentional and self-aware. But perhaps by focusing primarily on their relationship and their pain, the film is doing precisely what it claims to be against – it fails to engage with Poland and the Holocaust in a meaningful way.

    Poland is only a backdrop here, because no real people inhabit it

    Irena Grudzińska-Gross

    “I think that people on these trips put a lot of pressure on themselves to feel something. We’re very good at manufacturing the kind of experiences that we expect to have,” said Adam Schorin, a writer from New York who has worked as a heritage tour guide in Poland. “But what I found more interesting when visiting Holocaust-related sites are questions about the nature of remembrance, such as what are we actually seeing and how can we engage with a place that has been photographed a million times and perhaps recently renovated?”

    The most biting critique, perhaps, lies in the film’s selective amnesia, sidestepping uncomfortable conversations about wider antisemitism in Poland. “We don’t get to find out what happened to the cousins’ family during the war, and why their grandmother emigrated soon after. She must have had a good reason to leave, right? Otherwise she would have stayed,” says Grudzińska-Gross, who was forced to flee Poland in 1968 amid an antisemitic campaign.

    “I think many people fell into the trap of expecting too much from this film, and assuming that since it’s connected to the Holocaust, it must be epic, it must be another Son of Saul,” says Tatarska. “You can interpret these [artistic] decisions negatively, and there were people in Poland who did, but I would expect them to be mostly financially driven. I think this is a genuine love letter, but written by someone who has less lived experience and more ideas about what Poland could be.”

    But despite its shortcomings, Wrzosiński sees the film as a heartfelt attempt at overcoming disconnections. “There’s a sense of joy that people keep on coming here – and we see more of them each year – to restore memory, to catch these threads from before the Holocaust and to talk not only about how their ancestors died, but also about how they lived here for 20 generations. And if this film encourages anyone to do this, that’s great.”