Toyota Corolla GL 1.3 Manual Silver/Grey
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
Latest posts...
-
0
Trade Talks Between US and China Hit a Snag, Says Treasury Secretary
Trade Talks Between US and China Hit a Snag, Says Treasury Secretary Trade negotiations between the United States and China have stalled, according to US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, casting doubt on the recent optimism surrounding progress in the economic relationship between the world’s two largest economies. Less than three weeks after a temporary truce saw both nations agree to roll back certain tariffs, Bessent confirmed on Thursday that talks have lost momentum. “I think that given the magnitude of the talks, given the complexity, that this is going to require [leaders of both the countries] to weigh in with each other,” Bessent said in an interview with Fox News. His remarks come as a reality check following the announcement of a tentative agreement reached earlier this month in Switzerland, which aimed to ease tensions by canceling some tariffs and suspending others for a 90-day period ending May 14. The trade detente had been seen as a step forward after years of escalating tariffs, particularly during Donald Trump’s administration, which had imposed aggressive import taxes on a broad range of Chinese goods. However, the momentum appears to have waned, and further progress is now uncertain. The temporary deal had seen the United States reduce tariffs on Chinese imports from 145% to 30%, while China lowered its retaliatory tariffs on US goods from 125% to 10%. Despite this mutual concession, the road to a more comprehensive agreement appears rocky. Bessent emphasized that discussions are still ongoing but acknowledged that the pace has slowed. “I believe that we will be having more talks with [China] in the next few weeks and I believe we may at some point have a call between the president and [Chinese President Xi Jinping],” he said. He also noted the importance of direct engagement between the leaders, suggesting it could be key to reigniting progress. According to Bessent, President Trump and President Xi maintain “a very good relationship,” and he expressed optimism that Beijing would respond to Trump’s involvement. “I’m confident that the Chinese will come to the table when President Trump makes his preferences known,” he added. Meanwhile, Trump’s broader tariff strategy faced legal challenges this week. A court ruling determined that he had exceeded his authority in implementing certain trade measures, delivering a setback to his administration’s trade policy. The ruling has been temporarily suspended following an appeal by the White House, allowing the tariff plans to continue for now. While the recent developments suggest a possible opening for renewed dialogue, the stalling of formal negotiations underlines the ongoing complexity of the trade relationship. With the 90-day suspension of some tariffs due to expire soon, and with high stakes for industries on both sides, the next few weeks may prove pivotal in determining whether this temporary thaw can be turned into lasting progress. Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-05-31 -
0
UN Warns of Escalating Climate Crisis with No Relief in Sight
UN Warns of Escalating Climate Crisis with No Relief in Sight A new report from the United Nations paints a grim picture for the planet’s climate future, warning that global temperatures are set to surpass critical warming thresholds in the coming years. According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the UN’s weather and climate agency, there is a 70 percent chance that the average global temperature between 2025 and 2029 will exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels—a threshold widely seen as a crucial benchmark for avoiding the most catastrophic effects of climate change. “We have just experienced the 10 warmest years on record,” said Ko Barrett, deputy secretary-general of the WMO. “Unfortunately, this WMO report provides no sign of respite over the coming years, and this means that there will be a growing negative impact on our economies, our daily lives, our ecosystems and our planet.” The 1.5-degree target, set as part of the 2015 Paris Agreement, was intended as a limit to stave off the worst effects of climate disruption. However, rising carbon dioxide emissions—driven largely by continued reliance on coal, oil, and gas—have pushed global temperatures steadily upward. Many climate scientists now argue that meeting the 1.5-degree goal is no longer feasible. Compiled using data from the UK’s Met Office and several global forecasting centers, the WMO’s report projects that annual global surface temperatures from 2025 to 2029 will likely fall between 1.2°C and 1.9°C above the 1850-1900 average. “This is entirely consistent with our proximity to passing 1.5C on a long-term basis in the late 2020s or early 2030s,” said Peter Thorne, director of the Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units group at the University of Maynooth. “I would expect in two to three years this probability to be 100 percent” for the five-year outlook, he added. In addition, there is an 80 percent chance that at least one of the years between 2025 and 2029 will become the hottest year ever recorded, breaking the record set in 2024. Climatologist Adam Scaife of the Met Office emphasized the growing risks, stating, “It is shocking,” and noting that “that probability is going to rise.” He recalled that only a decade ago, the chances of surpassing 1.5°C in a single year were seen as minimal, but that scenario became reality in 2024. Some forecasts even indicate a small but real chance—around one percent—that a year within the next five could exceed 2°C of warming, a level previously considered virtually unthinkable. “It's the first time we've ever seen such an event in our computer predictions,” said Scaife. WMO’s climate services director Christopher Hewitt explained that to measure long-term warming, climate scientists use a mix of past observations and future projections. One such model estimates that the 20-year average temperature from 2015 to 2034 will reach 1.44°C above pre-industrial levels. Meanwhile, the EU’s Copernicus climate monitoring agency places current warming at around 1.39°C and forecasts the 1.5°C mark could be breached by mid-2029 or even earlier. The consequences of this warming are already being felt. “We've already hit a dangerous level of warming,” warned Friederike Otto, a climatologist at Imperial College London. She pointed to “deadly floods in Australia, France, Algeria, India, China and Ghana, wildfires in Canada,” and added, “Relying on oil, gas and coal in 2025 is total lunacy.” The WMO also highlighted concerning regional trends. Arctic temperatures are expected to continue increasing at rates higher than the global average. Forecasts for 2025-2029 also show expected reductions in sea ice in the Barents Sea, the Bering Sea, and the Sea of Okhotsk. South Asia is likely to experience wetter than average conditions, while the Amazon region could see below-average rainfall. Other areas such as the Sahel, northern Europe, Alaska, and northern Siberia are predicted to be wetter than normal. As the planet barrels toward increasingly hazardous climate conditions, the WMO’s report makes one thing clear: the world is running out of time—and excuses. Adapted by ASEAN Now from AFP 2025-05-31 -
0
France: Smoking Ban Set for Public Spaces Near Children, Beaches, Parks, Gardens
France to Clear the Air: Smoking Ban Set for Public Spaces Near Children France is set to implement a sweeping ban on smoking in outdoor public spaces frequented by children, in what officials describe as a crucial step towards improving public health and protecting younger generations. From July 1, smoking will no longer be permitted on beaches, in public parks, gardens, near schools, bus stops, or sports venues, according to an announcement by Health and Family Minister Catherine Vautrin. “Tobacco must disappear where there are children,” Vautrin told Ouest-France, underscoring the government's intent to prioritize clean air for minors. She added pointedly, “The freedom to smoke must end where the freedom of children to breathe fresh air begins.” The ban, however, will not extend to the popular terrasses — outdoor seating areas of cafés and bars — which will remain exempt. Violations of the new rules will result in a fine of €135 (£113; $153), Vautrin said, though she emphasized that enforcement would not rely solely on law enforcement. “I am a great believer in self-regulation,” she noted, suggesting that public awareness and mutual respect would also play a key role in the policy’s success. Electronic cigarettes are not covered under the new restrictions, but Vautrin revealed that additional regulations may be on the horizon. She is currently working on proposals to limit the nicotine content in vaping products, reflecting concerns about rising e-cigarette use, especially among young people. The latest data from the French Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction indicates that smoking rates in France have reached a historic low. As of the most recent survey, 23.1% of the population smokes daily — a decline of more than five percentage points since 2014. Despite the encouraging downward trend, tobacco use remains one of France’s most serious public health issues. According to the National Committee Against Smoking, more than 75,000 deaths each year are attributed to tobacco-related illnesses, accounting for roughly 13% of all fatalities in the country. France previously banned smoking inside establishments such as restaurants and nightclubs back in 2008. And while a broader national ban on outdoor smoking was originally planned for 2024, the required legal decree was never officially adopted. Nonetheless, more than 1,500 municipalities have taken the initiative, instituting local bans in public spaces, and hundreds of French beaches have been designated smoke-free for several years. Public support for expanding the smoking ban appears strong. A recent report by La Ligue Contre le Cancer, France’s cancer association, found that nearly 80% of the population supports prohibiting smoking in public outdoor areas such as parks, beaches, woodland, and even terrasses. With the July rollout, the French government is hoping to catch up with the proactive stance many local governments and citizens have already embraced. The overarching aim, as Vautrin described it, is to foster a healthier, smoke-free environment where children can breathe easy — literally. Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-05-31 -
0
Starmer's Attorney General: Calls to quit ECHR like rise of Nazism
Attorney General Sparks Fury with Nazi Germany Comparison in Human Rights Treaty Debate Lord Hermer, the Attorney General under Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour leadership, has provoked a storm of criticism after likening calls to abandon the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to legal rhetoric from Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Speaking at a security lecture hosted by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), Lord Hermer argued that suggestions to withdraw from international law echoed those made by German jurists who paved the way for the Nazi regime. In a speech aimed squarely at growing political momentum on the right to exit the ECHR, Lord Hermer accused politicians such as Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, and Robert Jenrick, the Conservative shadow justice secretary, of embracing a dangerously nationalist mindset. Both have advocated leaving the ECHR, arguing it hinders Britain’s ability to deport illegal migrants and foreign criminals. Hermer countered that abandoning such treaties would threaten the UK's security and embolden adversaries like Vladimir Putin. “The claim that international law is fine as far as it goes, but can be put aside when the conditions change, is a claim that was made in the early 1930s by ‘realist’ jurists in Germany, most notably Carl Schmitt, whose central thesis was in essence the claim that state power is all that counts, not law,” Lord Hermer stated. Schmitt, an authoritarian legal theorist who later joined the Nazi party in 1933, provided a framework that helped justify totalitarian rule, Hermer warned. Hermer defended Labour’s position, which he termed “progressive realism,” emphasizing reform within the framework of international law rather than unilateral withdrawal. “This is a rejection of the siren song, that can sadly now be heard in the Palace of Westminster, not to mention the press, that Britain abandons the constraints of international law in favour of raw power,” he told the audience of senior defence and security officials. But the speech quickly drew sharp rebukes. Nigel Farage called the comparison “disgraceful,” arguing that advocating for sovereignty and control over national borders should not be equated with Nazism. “Hermer and Starmer are out of touch with the British public and these insults will only strengthen our case,” Farage said, noting that leaving the ECHR would be a central issue in the next general election. Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, also came under fire from Hermer for her “reckless and dangerous” willingness to consider pulling out of international treaties. A spokesman for Badenoch responded fiercely, saying, “It was ironic that he said he hoped to depolarise the debate and simultaneously called everyone he disagreed with Nazis.” The spokesman added that while Badenoch respects international law, she recognises its limits and prioritises national interest. Robert Jenrick, another key voice pushing for an ECHR exit, dismissed Hermer’s remarks as “a disgusting smear,” stating, “It is appalling that Hermer would insinuate that those who think we should leave the ECHR are like the Nazis. David Lammy tried that disgusting smear with Brexiteers and it didn’t work for him – it won’t work for Hermer either.” Despite the backlash, Hermer stood by his position, warning of the long-term consequences if the UK were to abandon its commitments to international law. “Their temptingly simple narratives not only misunderstand our history and the nature of international law, it is also reckless and dangerous, and will make us less prosperous and secure in a troubled world,” he cautioned. Hermer also warned of the strategic advantage it would hand to adversaries. “Putin does not simply apply a Schmitt-ian approach to the rule of law within the boundaries of Russia and its proxies, he recognises the huge strategic advantage that would flow in undermining the post 1945 international law framework,” he said. However, Hermer acknowledged the need to adapt human rights frameworks to modern realities like illegal migration. “States agreeing to treaties some time ago did not give an open-ended licence for international rules to be ever more expansively interpreted or for institutions to adopt a position of blindness or indifference to public sentiment,” he concluded. Starmer has remained firm that Labour will not support leaving the ECHR, even as tensions over immigration policy and sovereignty continue to mount across the political spectrum. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-05-31 -
0
Starmer Signals Possible U-Turn on Two-Child Benefit Cap Amid Mounting Pressure
Starmer Signals Possible U-Turn on Two-Child Benefit Cap Amid Mounting Pressure In what appears to be his strongest indication yet of a shift in policy, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has said his government “will look at” scrapping the two-child benefit limit, a controversial policy that restricts child tax credit and universal credit to the first two children in a family born after April 2017. The policy, introduced by the Conservative government in 2017, has long been a target of criticism from anti-poverty campaigners and members of the Labour Party. However, in 2023, Starmer explicitly ruled out scrapping it, citing fiscal constraints. Since then, Labour’s position on the cap has wavered, creating confusion and discontent within the party and among voters concerned about rising child poverty. In a marked change of tone, Starmer responded to a question about the cap on Thursday by saying, “We’ll look at all options of driving down child poverty.” His comments come amid growing speculation that the policy may be on the verge of being reversed, especially after reports surfaced that he has asked the Treasury to assess the financial implications of removing the limit. Starmer’s remarks follow a series of conflicting signals from the government in recent months. Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson told Sky News earlier this week that lifting the cap was “not off the table” and added, “it’s certainly something that we’re considering.” This more open language represents a notable shift from the party’s previous hardline stance. After Labour’s election victory last year, Starmer reiterated the party’s intention to remove the cap, but only “when fiscal conditions allowed.” However, that cautious optimism soon gave way to a more rigid approach. He suspended seven Labour MPs shortly after the election for voting with the SNP to abolish the cap, reaffirming that the policy would remain in place for the time being. Starmer’s government appears increasingly under pressure to deliver on promises to address child poverty, especially from within its own ranks. The recent softening of the party’s stance may be an effort to realign Labour with its traditional social justice values, without jeopardizing its reputation for economic prudence. This would not be the first time in recent weeks that the Labour leader has shifted course on a key welfare policy. Just last week, Starmer made a surprise announcement reversing parts of the winter fuel payment cut, a controversial decision made early in his tenure that limited the previously universal benefit to pensioners on pension credit. In a reversal that caught many by surprise, Starmer said the payment would now be available to “more pensioners,” although the specifics of who would benefit — and when — remain unclear. Taken together, these recent moves suggest that Starmer’s administration is willing to revisit some of its earlier positions in light of growing political pressure and public concern. Whether the two-child cap is ultimately scrapped remains to be seen, but for now, Starmer’s latest remarks offer the clearest sign yet that change may be on the horizon. Adapted by ASEAN Now from Sky News 2025-05-31 -
0
Reclaiming the Middle Ground: A Smarter Path Forward for Democrats on Transgender Issues
Reclaiming the Middle Ground: A Smarter Path Forward for Democrats on Transgender Issues The 2024 campaign ad that declared, “Kamala is for they/them — President Trump is for you,” will likely be remembered as one of the most cutting and consequential political messages of our time. With $200 million fueling a narrative that cast Democrats as culturally disconnected, Republicans weaponized transgender issues to devastating effect. Despite this, the Democratic Party has yet to engage in any real recalibration of its approach to the topic. If Democrats are serious about winning again, this silence must end. The time has come for open discussion, genuine dissent, and thoughtful debate — without fear of cancellation. There is a path forward that allows Democrats to support transgender people while reconnecting with the broader American public. It starts with calling out the extremism on both sides. The far right uses transgender issues to sow fear and division, portraying trans individuals as threats to tradition and culture. Meanwhile, elements of the far left attempt to shame and silence anyone who diverges from progressive orthodoxy, particularly around language. While there is no moral equivalence — the cruelty from the right is far more harmful — both extremes are distorting what should be a serious and nuanced national conversation. Democrats need to reject this polarization and present themselves as advocates for reasoned and humane dialogue. To regain the trust of swing voters, Democrats must also engage with people where they are, not where activists might want them to be. While societal views on gender identity are evolving, political messaging must reflect today’s realities. Republicans succeeded in part because Democrats came across as disconnected from mainstream values. Polling data confirms that the public holds a mix of compassionate and pragmatic views: most Americans believe transgender people should be protected from discrimination in housing, employment, and health care, yet they also support limits on participation in sports based on biological sex. Polling from Blueprint revealed a sharp vulnerability: the idea that “Kamala Harris is focused more on cultural issues like transgender issues rather than helping the middle class” was among the top reasons voters cited for not supporting her. Ignoring such clear warning signs could cost Democrats future elections. Democrats must articulate clear, principled positions that align with the concerns of the majority. Most Americans recognize the existence of two biological sexes, while also acknowledging that gender identity is deeply personal and socially influenced. Politicians don’t need to dive into debates over chromosomes; instead, they should affirm that there are two sexes and that people can express gender in diverse ways, deserving of respect and recognition. Regarding minors, Democrats must insist on parental involvement in any medical decisions related to gender transition. No child should receive gender-affirming care — beyond mental health support — without explicit parental consent. This is already the legal and medical standard across the country, though Republicans often ignore that fact in favor of fear-mongering. On the issue of sports, Democrats can argue that decisions should be made by local school boards and athletic associations, not politicians, ensuring fairness without blanket bans. When it comes to adults, the Democratic approach should be one of personal liberty. Transgender adults deserve the freedom to live authentically, with full access to employment, health care, and civil rights. This stance is not only morally correct but is also politically popular. Americans support these freedoms, and a defense of basic liberties resonates far beyond partisan lines. Finally, Democrats must end the cultural gatekeeping that alienates potential allies. If someone’s intentions are kind, they should not be scolded for not using the most current terminology. Overemphasizing terms like “pregnant people” or requiring pronoun declarations from everyone creates unnecessary tension and fuels perceptions of elitism. The language of inclusion must invite, not intimidate. To reclaim the center, Democrats don’t have to abandon their principles — but they do need to express them in ways that reflect both compassion and common sense. Standing against cruelty while advocating fairness and freedom will allow them to support transgender Americans without losing the trust of the broader electorate. Adapted by ASEAN Now from Politico 2025-05-31
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
-
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now