new876868767

[new876868767]

[ad_1] The opening day of the first Test between West Indies and Australia at the Kensington Oval in Barbados proved to be a spectacle for fans of fast bowling, as pacers from both sides made life difficult for batters. A total of 14 wickets fell on a lively surface that offered seam, swing, and just enough spice to keep everyone guessing. But the highlight of the day — without doubt — belonged to West Indies speedster Shamar Joseph, who produced a delivery for the ages to dismiss Australia’s Beau Webster.Shamar Joseph lights up Barbados with a jaffa to dismiss Beau WebsterIt was the final ball of the 44th over during Australia’s first innings when Joseph delivered what can only be described as a bowler’s dream. Coming wide of the crease, he angled one in sharply towards Webster, only for the ball to pitch and straighten viciously — almost like a fast leg-break. Webster, drawn across and completely squared up, could only watch as the delivery sneaked past his outside edge and kissed the top of off-stump.Here’s the video:Also READ: WI vs AUS 2025, Test Series: Broadcast, Live Streaming details – When and where to watch in India, Australia, UK, USA & other countriesJayden Seales, Joseph run riot before Aussies hit backAfter Australia won the toss and opted to bat, West Indies pacers Jayden Seales and Shamar Joseph got into action early. The pitch, offering movement off the seam, proved to be a paradise for fast bowlers. Seales was relentless in his spells, mixing seam and swing to devastating effect and eventually bagging a brilliant five-wicket haul. Joseph chipped in with crucial breakthroughs, including the unplayable delivery to Webster.Australia crumbled under pressure and were bowled out for just 180 runs in the first innings — a score that looked subpar on a surface assisting the pacers.Just when it seemed West Indies were in complete control, the Australians responded with fire. Pat Cummins and his pace partners wasted no time, removing both Windies openers cheaply. Keacy Carty and debutant Zachary King tried to steady the ship with a brief stand, but Cummins struck again with a superb delivery to get rid of Carty.Left-arm spinner Jomel Warrican was sent in as nightwatchman but his stay was short-lived — lasting only two balls before he fell. By stumps, West Indies were four down for 57, still trailing by 123 runs.Also WATCH: WI vs AUS – Shamar Joseph delivers twin blows to remove Sam Konstas and Cameron Green as Australia falters early on Day 1 of Bridgetown Test [ad_2] Source link

[new876868767]

[ad_1] Swedish meatballs at an IKEA in Causeway Bay is listed as out of stock after after Czech authorities detected horse meat in the company's meatballs which are supposed to make up of pork and beef only. South China Morning Post | Getty ImagesIkea shoppers will see price cuts of up to 50% at many of the company's restaurants globally, as the Swedish retail giant aims to attract cost-conscious consumers.The steep price cuts will be a temporary measure to help consumers "stretch their budgets" at a time of heightened economic uncertainty and high cost-of-living pressure, the company said, without specifying when the cuts will come into effect. The home and furniture retailer said it would also offer free meals for children."Consumer confidence has decreased. People are holding on to the money that they have in their pockets or in savings," Tolga Öncü, COO at Ikea Retail, told CNBC's Emily Tan Wednesday.The flat-pack furniture seller slashed wholesale prices by an average of 15% last year, allowing retailers to cut prices for consumers.Efforts to enhance affordability cost 2.1 billion euros to the company last year, according to Öncü, even as lower prices saw revenue drop about 9% and retail sales decline 5.3%.Ikea also plans to open 58 new stores globally during fiscal year 2025 ending in August, with its first outlet in Seoul — fifth in South Korea — up and running since April.By cutting prices so deeply, Ikea is bucking the trend as a slew of Western retail brands have warned of price hikes, passing onto consumers part of the higher duty costs importing into the U.S.Retail giants such as Walmart, Target, Costco and Nike said in their latest quarterly earnings reports that they have already raised prices or plan to do so in the coming weeks.Although global firms took a sigh of relief after the Trump administration had suspended sweeping "reciprocal" tariffs for three months and struck a preliminary deal with China, Walmart CEO Doug McMillon said in May that "we aren't able to absorb all the pressure given the reality of narrow retail margins."Ikea is not "immune" to the higher tariffs, which are expected to fuel inflation and weigh on consumer confidence, said Öncü, although it has been able to "somewhat absorb the impact and not pass on the total impact to customers in the U.S."The price reductions are, however, an urgent need in China — a key market for Ikea — where local businesses are cutting prices aggressively to stay competitive and attract customers amid sluggish consumer demand.Ikea has 39 stores in China, although the share of its global sales in the country has been sliding in recent years and was at 3.5% in 2023-24 financial year."Big-ticket demand in China will be held back by decreased consumer confidence," said John Mercer, head of global research for Coresight Research. Mercer pointed out that "economic optimism" among China-based consumers fell to its lowest level in well over two years in May."There will be limits to how much a big-ticket retailer can stimulate demand in an uncertain context, but an aggressive price stance is likely to support market-share gains as cautious consumers trade down," Mercer added.Retailers in China are betting big on food and beverage as one of the few offline segments where consumers continue to spend, though with less emphasis on value and cost, said a marketing agency advising European brands operating in China.Outside the food business, Ikea is also looking to expand its home furnishing product range to tap into China's growing elder population.Öncü emphasized the need to tap into China's "silver economy" — a sector that provides goods and services for people over 50.Economists estimate that by 2040, around 30% of China's population will be over 60 years old, compared to about 15% in 2024. The elderly population will also present a promising market opportunity as they tend to be more financially sound, having accumulated wealth along with China's economic rise."Multi-generational homes are increasing. That's why we have introduced the new bedding and range. We are now testing to answer to those needs that has come from the silver economy in China," Öncü said."If anyone knows how to cater to global consumers with a highly price-competitive offer in furniture and furnishings, it's IKEA," Coresight's Mercer said, but "whether planned price cuts will be sustainable is for IKEA to determine."The Swedish company said it also planned to introduce new items catering to Asian cuisine and flavors, which it hoped would bring in around 8 million new customers."We will soon launch our very first falafel, adding this popular food to our restaurants, and later, to our Swedish food markets," Lorena Lourido Gomez, global food manager at Ingka Group, the worldwide franchiser for the brand, said in a statement. [ad_2] Source link

[new876868767]

[ad_1] The allegations of a “white genocide” against Afrikaner farmers that emerged during the tense Oval Office meeting between the US president, Donald Trump, and South Africa’s president, Cyril Ramaphosa, on May 21 shocked many around the world. But it was merely the latest example of what has been a long-running obsession for Trump, which has been evident since well before he took office in January. In early February, Trump issued an executive order: “Addressing Egregious Actions of The Republic of South Africa”. The order included the allegation of “unjust racial discrimination” against the white Afrikaner community and recommended the establishment of an Afrikaner refugee scheme. In his meeting with Ramaphosa, Trump doubled down on US hostility to the South African government. He repeatedly claimed – and produced purported evidence of – so-called genocide against Afrikaner farmers. This level of hostility towards multi-racial, post-apartheid South Africa may seem to have come out of the blue. Some may think it was inspired by Trump’s close relationship, at the time at least, with South Africa-born business leader Elon Musk – who could be seen standing in the corner of the Oval Office watching the uncomfortable scene unfold. But the claim that white Afrikaners are victims of violent and vengeful black South Africans has a much longer history. It’s a history that goes back almost five decades. It connects white supremacy in southern Africa and the apartheid government’s international disinformation strategy with the evangelical Christian right in American politics. Some of the individuals and institutions that were vocal advocates of white-minority rule against the threat of black government in South Africa are the same people who have the Trump administration’s ear today. As the South African academic Nicky Falkof has observed, the claim of white victimhood is nothing new. She believes that “entire political agendas develop around the idea that white people must be protected because they face exceptional threats”. Read more: Trump and South Africa: what is white victimhood, and how is it linked to white supremacy? The apartheid years The idea that white South Africans face an existential threat emerged in the violent final decade of apartheid rule. It was a key narrative that the National Party government of president P.W. Botha liked to present to the outside world. In 2021, a former apartheid intelligence officer named Paul Erasmus published his autobiography detailing his work for Stratcom, the apartheid government’s international covert communications and intelligence agency. Erasmas detailed his work in the US and, in particular, Stratcom’s close links with Republican policymakers. One of the primary US conservative contacts was said to be Dr Edwin Feulner, a founder and president of the Heritage Foundation. Erasmus wrote that Feulner, who was a foreign policy advisor to Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, was “already well positioned to serve Stratcom the kind of high-level advice that we needed to temper growing international affection for the ANC as the first ruling party of a democratic South Africa”. The Conversation approached Dr Feulner through the Heritage Foundation to seek his comments on specifically whether he had any past association with the apartheid-era government in South Africa and received no reply on the matter. But in 1986, during Feulner’s presidency of the Heritage Foundation, it published a report presenting alleging “close links between the ANC [African National Congresss] and the communists and the way in which the communists exploit the ANC to manipulate Western opinion”. This history is key to understanding Trump Oval Office meeting with the South African president. The Heritage Foundation continues to have close links with Afrikaner nationalists. And it is well known that the foundation is central to Trump’s governing strategy, having published its Project 2025 on which much of this administration’s policy is based. The South African media outlet, the Daily Maverick, has investigated links between the self-defined Afrikaner minority rights movement, Afriforum, the Heritage Foundation and the Republican Party. Since Trump was first inaugurated in 2017, Afriforum representatives – including CEO Kallie Kriel and his deputy Dr Ernst Roets – have made several visits to Washington, most recently in February 2025, to speak with senior representatives of the Trump administration and representatives of the Heritage Foundation. For some time, Afriforum has claimed there is a white genocide against Afrikaner farmers. When asked directly about its relationship with Afriforum, a Heritage Foundation spokesperson denied any particularly close links between the two organisations, saying: “We meet with hundreds of individuals and groups every year.” He pointed to the Heritage Foundation’s recent round table and stressed the foundations’s “well-documented and long-running effort to work with leaders from across Africa”. Trump began to tweet about the killing of farmers in South Africa in 2018 and is very opposed to South Africa’s recently passed Expropriation Act. This act allows for the expropriation of land without compensation, but only if it is “just and equitable and in the public interest” to do so. In May 2024, the Heritage Foundation called for the cancellation of US aid to South Africa. It accused the ANC government of supporting Hamas and not aligning “with American values”. Religious links America’s evangelical Christian community was a strong supporter of the apartheid regime in South Africa. This is a key constituency of Trump’s electoral base. The historian Augusta Dell'Omo has documented the South African government lobbying of US televangelists such as Pat Robertson – an outspoken supporter of apartheid South Africa. As Dell'Omo argues, Christian evangelicals were not just vexed by threats to apartheid in South Africa. They were drawing a “direct link between the causes of Black grievances in the US and South Africa and a global threat to conservative and religious values”. There is not just an historical – but also an ideological – link between Trump’s attitudes to farm killings and land expropriation in South Africa and his vehement opposition to diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) programmes in the US. This white grievance politics continues to consider South Africa as a symbol of the overthrow of white privilege and the disorder that multiculturalism and black-led government ostensibly creates. As academic Nicky Falkof has argued in The Conversation: “The architecture of white supremacy depends on the idea that white people are extraordinary victims. This is the driving notion beneath the great replacement theory, a far-right conspiracy theory claiming that Jews and non-white foreigners are plotting to ‘replace’ whites.” Trump’s accusations against the current government in South Africa have their roots in the murky international disinformation campaigns of apartheid’s final years and the willing cooperation of key actors on the right of US politics and society. That white-supremacist politics from the past would continue to have currency in today’s White House is shocking. It should be opposed by all who support a democratic, multiracial and prosperous South Africa. [ad_2] Source link

[new876868767]

[ad_1] Foreign Investments Reshaping South America's Gaming Industry Wednesday, June 25th 2025 - 04:17 UTC Photo: Freepik Neon reflections shimmer across a brand‑new casino floor in Recife while servers hustle caipirinhas to tables ringing with multilingual chatter. The scene repeats from Bogotá to Buenos Aires, powered not by chance but by a torrent of overseas capital that has re‑wired an industry once confined to provincial lotteries and riverboat halls. Latin America’s gaming market now stands on the cusp of a five‑fold revenue surge, swelling from an estimated US$2.5 billion in 2024 to US$12.3 billion by 2028. This is all thanks mainly to foreign direct investment and rapid regulation. Smartphones, fintech rails, and newly minted laws combine to transform casual pastimes into a high‑growth digital economy that attracts Wall Street funds and European blue‑chips alike. Introduction to Foreign Investment Trends Readers keen to find casino bonus deals will spot many offers backed by the same international groups now pouring hundreds of millions into South America’s newly regulated markets. Overseas stakes account for a significant percentage of gaming capital expenditure since early 2023, driven by landmark acquisitions and strategic partnerships. In May 2025, Flutter Entertainment paid US$350 million for a 56% share of Brazil’s Betnacional owner NSX Group, merging the local hero brand with global heavyweight Betfair under one roof. Analysts view such deals as accelerants: imported trading algorithms, anti‑fraud tech, and cross‑border marketing know‑how arrive instantly, compressing development cycles that once took years. Colombia offers a living case study. Since introducing a full iGaming framework in 2016, the country has licensed over 20 operators, many backed by European or North American equity, and now posts more than US$1 billion in annual gaming revenue for public health coffers. Key Players and Their Market Strategies Money moves fastest where regulators open doors widest, and the roster of entrants reads like the index of a global exchange. Spain‑based Cirsa, owned by Blackstone, filed an intention‑to‑float in Madrid this June, targeting up to €460 (~$533.5) million to bankroll fresh acquisitions across Latin America and debt reduction. The prospectus names Colombia, Peru, and Mexico as immediate expansion zones, signaling a regional land‑grab before domestic upstarts scale. Flutter pursues a twin‑brand tactic, letting Betfair serve experienced bettors while Betnacional speaks street‑level Portuguese. It’s an approach designed to capture every strata of Brazil’s estimated 213‑million‑strong audience. Swedish operator Betsson leans instead on sport, splashing its name across Boca Juniors shirts and national volleyball broadcasts to imprint familiarity in markets where trust still hinges on household clubs. Although strategies diverge, one lure unites them: lavish welcome packages and retention rewards, the very incentives catalogued in those bonus directories that first‑time players consult before depositing. Regulatory Challenges and Compliance Issues The legal mosaic underpins the opportunity yet raises costs in equal measure. Brazil’s government shocked licensees on 12 June 2025 by hiking gross‑gaming‑revenue tax from 12% to 18% via a provisional measure. It will take effect on 1 October 2025. Operators had only digested a hefty R$30 (~$5.1) million five‑year licence fee, enforced alongside rules mandating local servers and responsible‑gaming hotlines. Enforcement moved just as swiftly: telecommunications agency Anatel blocked over 2,000 unlicensed domains last October, the first salvo in a clampdown that has since pushed total closures above 5,000. Argentina illustrates a different headache. While 14 provinces permit online betting, the national Chamber of Deputies approved a bill in December 2024 to ban gambling advertising across all media, forcing brands to rework sponsorship and bonus‑promotion tactics overnight. Colombia, long considered the regulatory gold standard, surprised investors in February with a 19% VAT on player deposits as part of an emergency fiscal package. This underscored how quickly tax stability can shift. Economic Benefits and Potential Risks Governments nevertheless revel in new revenue streams and headline job growth. Brazil’s treasury forecasts the fresh tax tier will channel around R$1.7 (~$307 million) billion per year into public programs once the market fully matures by 2026. Colombia’s regulator, Coljuegos, reported record contributions exceeding US$2 billion to health budgets in 2024. A milestone directly linked to foreign‑funded platform expansion and improved anti‑fraud oversight. Experts project that regulated online gambling across Latin America will quintuple to US$12.3 billion GGR by 2028, cementing the sector as a fiscal pillar alongside mining and agriculture. Yet prosperity carries shadows. Brazilian researchers found 73% of bettors still wager on illegal sites, despite mass blockades. This is evidence that enforcement must keep pace or risk addiction and money laundering leaks. Public health advocates in Argentina warn that blanket ad bans may drive consumers to offshore platforms lacking safeguards, illustrating the delicate balance between protection and prohibition. Conclusion: The Future of International Influence in South American Gaming Foreign capital now writes the next chapter of South American gaming, sculpting skylines with resort towers while coding algorithms that price micro‑bets in milliseconds. Cirsa’s Madrid listing, Flutter’s Betnacional merger, and Betsson’s sponsorship blitz reveal a landscape where scale, technology, and compliance expertise determine survival. Regulators, too, evolve rapidly, raising taxes, tightening advertising, and blocking rogue domains, pressing investors to pivot without pause. Against that backdrop, transparent welcome offers and responsible gaming tools, catalogued in bonus directories and mandated by licensing codes, will likely emerge as trust badges for discerning players. If policy favors clarity over confusion, South America stands ready to rival Europe in revenue and regulation, proving that when foreign money meets local passion, the house is no longer the only winner.   [ad_2] Source link

[new876868767]

[ad_1] Zack Polanski (Credit: Matt Priestley Photographer UK / Alamy Stock Photo) 4 min read17 June There is a legal row over whether the Green Party's leadership contest rules are compliant with the recent Supreme Court gender ruling, PoliticsHome can reveal. The party currently requires leaders and deputy leaders who are job-sharing to be “of a different gender” from each other. Its constitution specifies that “gender is self-determined”. A spokesperson told PoliticsHome that the party believes this to be "legally sound". However, Green Women’s Declaration (GWD), a group initiated by Green Party members believing in the right to advocate for women as a sex, argue that it directly contravenes the recent Supreme Court ruling that a woman is defined by biological sex, rather than by self-identification, for the purpose of the Equality Act. The group wrote to the Green Party Executive (GPEx) in May outlining their concerns about what they describe as the incompatibility of the ruling and party rules, but at the time of writing, they had not received a response. Zoe Hatch, advocacy director of GWD, told PoliticsHome that the group is now seeking legal advice on the matter. Maya Forstater, chief executive of charity Sex Matters, said: “The Green Party cannot even say how many ‘self-identified genders’ there are, let alone make a case that some are underrepresented. Its policy puts it at odds with the law. And this has been clear since For Women Scotland’s earlier victory in February 2022. “If it continues with this unlawful policy, the Green Party is exposing itself to legal liability which it can ill afford.”  Nominations for the party’s internal elections for leader and deputy leaders opened on 2 June. Those who have so far confirmed they are running for the deputy leadership are Mothin Ali and Thomas Daw, both men; Rachel Millward, Amanda Onwuemene and Antoinette Fernandez, all women; and Ani Townsend, who identifies as non-binary. All are running as individual candidates, but two will be elected to serve together if Green members choose a single leader, namely Zack Polanski, rather than co-leaders Ellie Chowns and Adrian Ramsay. If this situation arose and a female non-binary deputy leadership candidate were to win alongside another female candidate, GWD says the Green Party could be exposed to direct sex discrimination – treating candidates differently based on gender identity rather than the legally protected characteristic of biological sex – or ultra vires action – operating outside legal powers by using definitions that contradict established law – under the Equality Act 2010. The Green Party can only change such rules via a two-thirds majority vote of the membership at the annual conference taking place in September.  Approached by PoliticsHome, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), responsible for enforcing equalities legislation in the UK, said it could not comment on a specific case such as the Green Party rules. However, PoliticsHome was pointed towards EHRC guidance, which states that those with duties under the Equality Act 2010, including political parties, should be following the law as set out in the Supreme Court judgement, and looking at what changes need to be made to existing policies. Townsend, who is running to be deputy leader, told PoliticsHome: “Green Party policy is clear, trans women are women, trans men are men and non-binary identities are valid. Our policies and constitution are voted for by the membership, and when challenged, the membership has repeatedly reaffirmed this position. “I wholeheartedly support the party position on this topic. The Green Party, alongside many human rights organisations and lawyers, has challenged the Supreme Court ruling and EHRC for being ill-considered and impractical.” The leadership campaigns of Polanski and of Chowns and Ramsay did not respond to a request for comment. The Good Law Project, which is challenging the Supreme Court Judgement, refused to comment on the basis that it is seeking active litigation against the EHRC guidance. A Green Party Spokesperson told PoliticsHome: "The Green Party's internal rules state that if a single leader is elected, there must be two deputy leaders of different genders, noting that gender is self-defined. We are confident that this is a legally sound position to hold. "The Green Party has long championed equality of all genders and is proud to have provided leadership on gender equality over many years."   [ad_2] Source link

[new876868767]

[ad_1] Join Star columnist Bruce Arthur as we follow all the news, rumours and draft selections involving the Raptors and the rest of the NBA. [ad_2] Source link

[new876868767]

[ad_1] Police say there is no active threat to residents in the Mississauga Road and Bovaird Drive West area where the shooting happened Wednesday night. [ad_2] Source link

[new876868767]

[ad_1] NATO has sort of agreed to raise defense spending to 5% of Gross Domestic Product, although Spain has openly balked and has refused to do so. This sort of NATO target does not require unanimous agreement because it isn’t mandatory. That means each NATO member will try to reach the goal, or not at all in the case of Spain, but there is no penalty if they do not. NATO’s secretary general said that NATO will check on national defense contributions in 2029, or more than four years in the future. That should not make the Kremlin shake in its boots. NATO also reaffirmed its commitment to collective defense, which is already agreed in the NATO Charter, mostly Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. President Trump, on board Air Force One on his way to the NATO meeting, said there are different ways to interpret Article 5, adding that it is up to the US President (and all the other NATO members) to decide for themselves (a) whether to respond and (b) how to respond to any attack on a NATO member. One of the worries in the US and elsewhere is that a NATO member will provoke the Russians, leading to a declaration under Article 5. Trump’s big caveat, already part of the language of Article 5 in any case, was intended to make clear that Article 5 is subject to interpretation and is not an automatic obligation under the NATO Treaty. Here is the key language: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security. ​Article 6 of the NATO Treaty says that an attack on a NATO member can include: an armed attack: on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer. ​Neither Article 5 nor Article 6 defines an attack as restricted to a nation-state, so a terrorist attack could be (and, in one case, was) interpreted under Article 6. When 9/11 happened in the United States, the US asked NATO to support it under Article 5. NATO dithered for some weeks, and finally sent some AWACS planes to fly around the US for no appreciable purpose. End of story. Other terrorist attacks in Europe have not led to any declarations under either article. Multinational AWCS crew in 9/11 (NATO photo). There is a good reason why Article 5 has not been declared. Imagine that Turkey declares it has been attacked by Iraq, supporting the Kurds. Would NATO join Turkey to fight the Kurds and Iraq? Not exactly. President Truman signs the NATO Treaty. In fact, the language of Article 6, which tries to define the scope of what is meant by an attack, is wonky in the extreme, and out of date to boot. It ought to be rewritten, but that is unlikely given the rumble of dissent and unhappiness within NATO itself. Beyond the actual treaty language and the alleged obligations under it, the bigger question is whether the NATO alliance really will be able to boost defense spending meaningfully. The major issues are: (1) affordability; (2) industrial base; (3) manpower. Right now there isn’t a single NATO country that has the budget for or the possibility of actually funding a 5%-of-GDP defense obligation. The big countries, Germany for example, or France, are in recession, and while the euro currency is still holding value, many think that it will soon crash simply because the economies supporting it are failing. It follows that 5% isn’t affordable if it is a real obligation – but if it is fake, as it probably is since the targets won’t be met, it hardly matters. The second problem is the industrial base. While there are a few industrial stars in Europe, some of the big ones such as BAE in the UK and Airbus Industries in France (and elsewhere), either are making money elsewhere or have viable commercial businesses. BAE does big business in the US where it has significant manufacturing. BAE Systems Inc., ​the US subsidiary, include​s the design, development, manufacturing, and support of a wide range of products, including armored combat vehicles, naval guns, and electronic warfare systems. The company also has a strong presence in shipbuilding and submarine manufacturing. MBDA Consortium. ​Airbus Industries makes its money in the civil sector selling commercial aircraft. Other European companies, such as Siemens, also have strong commercial businesses. None of these companies can really compete head to head with America’s behemoths such as Lockheed, General Dynamics and RTX (formerly Raytheon). There are some successful consortia, most notably MBDA, but MBDA is an exception, not the rule. Beyond that, Europe’s defense businesses are not consolidated, are highly redundant, are extremely wasteful and expensive and produce products that aren’t too good. In addition to these serious structural and operational issues, the rise of new technologies – such as artificial intelligence applied to military products and programs – is beyond European capabilities. Europe lacks a strong semiconductor industry, although there are some bright spots in semiconductor manufacturing equipment such as ASML (Advanced Semiconductor Materials Lithography)​ in the Netherlands. Only one important European company, Leonardo, while it has a big US subsidiary (DRS Systems), has gone ahead and dumped its civil businesses in energy, railroads and even some defense operations (WASS torpedoes). ​Reforming and consolidating the European defense industrial base is, for the most part, unlikely in the short term and, for political reasons impossible overall, since each nation’s security is often a higher priority than collective defense and any consolidation and reform will cost jobs. As Europe’s defense sector is highly unionized, and unions play an even bigger political role than in the United States, chopping off jobs and closing plants is not likely to happen anytime soon. Finally there is the troubling issue of manpower, both for the military services and for industry. Europe’s armies are badly understaffed and not many volunteers are lining up to fill the gaps, even if finance becomes available to support them. Germany is seriously considering conscription to fill the black hole of empty army brigades, but that is a politically explosive proposition and unlikely to happen (if the current government hopes to get reelected, or even remain in office for its full term). Britain’s army is smaller than it was at the time of the American Revolution, and less deployable. A close look at the troops is worrisome: they do not look very fit or capable, even on parade. Much of the equipment armed forces have in Europe is old and poorly maintained, adding to the manpower problem since skilled people are needed to keep the old stuff going. The worst problem is in land armies, but naval capabilities are also limited. Air forces are slightly better, but air operations eat up a lot of skilled manpower. Unfortunately, NATO did not ask a serious question at the latest summit and continued to kick the can down the road when it comes to costly and fruitless adventures such as Ukraine. Some of NATO’s best hardware is being turned into scrap in Ukraine and is unlikely to be replaced quickly. What this means is that much of the initial 5% increase is going to be spent replacing what has been handed over to the Ukrainians, not on strengthening NATO. The NATO summit did not address when or whether the Germans will replace their lost Leopards, their expensive air defense systems and the other equipment consumed on Ukraine’s battlefield. Ukraine is a fight that is outside of Article 5 or Article 6 of the NATO Treaty. It is part of NATO’s ambitious expansion program, and it is looking more and more like a lost cause. The serious question that NATO has sidestepped in the latest confab at the Hague is whether it can rein in NATO expansion and return NATO to a true collective defense system protecting its members. It is obvious that NATO cannot afford Ukraine and needs time to restructure and rebuild the alliance’s self-defense capabilities. Continued expansion will leave a huge gap and invite conflict with Russia, which perhaps some want, but it is a huge risk. Meanwhile the Russians have expanded their offensive in Ukraine, causing great anxiety without any real answers. [ad_2] Source link

[new876868767]

[ad_1] Massive hail strikes a town in western France as severe thunderstorms sweep through the region.PARIS -- The City of Lights was temporarily more like the City of Lightning Wednesday after a ferocious thunderstorm brought damaging winds and torrential rains across Paris and central France. A lightning bolt is seen over the roofs of buildings during a thunderstorm in Paris on June 25, 2025. (Photo by Thibaud MORITZ / AFP) (Photo by THIBAUD MORITZ/AFP via Getty Images) (Getty Images)Gusts reached 65-70 mph in Paris, with a gust of 71 mph in Montauban and 73 mph in Muids, according to Meteo France. Over in Bernay, a supercell brought a gust of 78 mph with 2 inches of rain reported in just one hour. next TOPSHOT - A lighting bolt lights up the sky as people prepare to leave the beach during a thunder storm over the city of La Baule, in western France, on June 25, 2025. (Photo by Loic VENANCE / AFP) (Photo by LOIC VENANCE/AFP via Getty Images) ( ) prevnext A lighting bolt lights up the sky over Sacre Coeur Basilica in Montmartre during a thunderstorm, northern Paris, on June 25, 2025. (Photo by Julie SEBADELHA / AFP) (Photo by JULIE SEBADELHA/AFP via Getty Images) ( ) prevnext People run for shelter on a street in the 20th Arrondissement during a thunderstorm, in Paris, on June 25, 2025. (Photo by Christophe DELATTRE / AFP) (Photo by CHRISTOPHE DELATTRE/AFP via Getty Images) ( ) prevnext A man runs for shelter on a street in the 20th Arrondissement during a thunderstorm, in Paris, on June 25, 2025. (Photo by Christophe DELATTRE / AFP) (Photo by CHRISTOPHE DELATTRE/AFP via Getty Images) ( ) prevnext A lighting bolt lights up the sky over Sacre Coeur Basilica in Montmartre during a thunderstorm, northern Paris, on June 25, 2025. (Photo by Julie SEBADELHA / AFP) (Photo by JULIE SEBADELHA/AFP via Getty Images) ( ) prevnext TOPSHOT - This photograph shows a lightning bolt falling near Sacre Coeur Basilica in Montmartre during a thunderstorm, in Paris on June 25, 2025. (Photo by Olivier MORIN / AFP) (Photo by OLIVIER MORIN/AFP via Getty Images) ( ) prevnext A lighting bolt lights up the sky over Sacre Coeur Basilica in Montmartre during a thunderstorm, northern Paris, on June 25, 2025. (Photo by Julie SEBADELHA / AFP) (Photo by JULIE SEBADELHA/AFP via Getty Images) ( ) prevnext A lighting bolt lights up the sky over Sacre Coeur Basilica in Montmartre during a thunderstorm, northern Paris, on June 25, 2025. (Photo by Julie SEBADELHA / AFP) (Photo by JULIE SEBADELHA/AFP via Getty Images) ( ) prev A cyclist rides in the rain during a thunderstorm in Rue de Bagnolet, Paris, on June 25, 2025. (Photo by Christophe DELATTRE / AFP) (Photo by CHRISTOPHE DELATTRE/AFP via Getty Images) ( )Large hailstones were reported in Peyrehoarde and Montegut, Meteo France said.Paris' Orly Airport reported several flight delays due to severe weather, with Charles de Gaulle Airport clocking a gust of 53 mph as the storms blew through. People run for shelter on a street in the 20th Arrondissement during a thunderstorm, in Paris, on June 25, 2025. (Photo by Christophe DELATTRE / AFP) (Photo by CHRISTOPHE DELATTRE/AFP via Getty Images) (Getty Images)The storms came amid a blistering heat wave in the heart of France. The high temperature at Paris-Orly was 99 degrees before rapidly cooling off during the thunderstorms.Meteor France said severe thunderstorms remain possible later into the night with up to 1-2 inches of rain in 1-2 hours, 1-2 inch hail stones, wind gusts of 70-75 mph and frequent lightning. [ad_2] Source link

[new876868767]

[ad_1] Arsenal manager Mikel Arteta personally wants the Gunners to seal a statement signing before summer deadline day on September 1, and they've been alerted to the marquee costs of a potential deal. Related £150k-per-week Premier League star in London after agreeing Arsenal move Arsenal are about to make a signing. It is absolutely imperative that the new sporting director, Andrea Berta, starts making progress soon when it comes to the club's key forward targets, and in an ideal world, Arteta would be able to work with them for pre-season. Arsenal transfer spending under Arteta (via Sky Sports) Money on new signings 19/20 - winter £0 20/21 - summer £81.5m 20/21 - winter £900k 21/22 - summer £156.8m 21/22 - winter £1.8m 22/23 - summer £121.5m 22/23 - winter £59m 23/24 - summer £208m 23/24 - winter £0 24/25 - summer £101.5m 24/25 - winter £0 According to some reports, Arteta personally wants Arsenal to bring in their desired new striker in time for their tour of Asia late next month, with the Spaniard seemingly keen to assess his squad in detail ahead of another Premier League title race. Alongside their chase for a new number nine, links are also seriously re-emerging in regard to a potential swoop for Real Madrid star Rodrygo. Arsenal held some talks over signing the Brazil international last month, and between "all parties", meaning both club officials and the player's representatives were involved in discussions over a switch to the Premier League. Rodrygo has bagged 14 goals and 11 assists throughout 2024/2025, including their Club World Cup campaign, and teammate Jude Bellingham is convinced that the 24-year-old is Real's most underrated player. "Rodrygo, so underrated,” Bellingham said to CBS Sports. “For me he’s probably the most talented and most gifted player in the squad. The things he can do with the football — we’ll be messing around and he’ll flick the ball up somehow, and you’re like, ‘How do you do that?’. I’m trying to do it, twisting up my ankles and everything like that. He’s a pleasure to play with.” Mikel Arteta personally wants Arsenal to sign Rodrygo According to CaughtOffside and journalist Mark Brus, though, Los Blancos ideally want around £94 million for their top talent - even if there is a theory behind-the-scenes that they could accept closer to £72 million. This, combined with Rodrygo's £205,000-per-week wages, would surely make him one of the most expensive signings of the summer in terms of overall cost - but it is an option now under serious consideration by Arsenal due to Nico Williams' pending switch to Barcelona. Arteta personally wants Arsenal to strike a deal for Rodrygo over the coming months, and he is believed to be a big fan of the South American who Xabi Alonso would ideally like to keep at the Bernabeu. Man United and Chelsea are named as other suitors for the ex-Santos star, so this could potentially drive the price up even more. [ad_2] Source link

[new876868767]

[ad_1] Questions swirling around the success of U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites are raising fears on Capitol Hill that more could be coming. President Trump is insisting Saturday’s strikes against three Iranian nuclear facilities were an unqualified success, “obliterating” Tehran’s nuclear capabilities and setting back the program for years. Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s director of national intelligence, amplified that assertion Wednesday, as did CIA Director John Ratcliffe. Yet U.S. intelligence officials at the Defense Department have arrived at a starkly different assessment, according to numerous news reports, saying the attacks failed to destroy either Iran’s stockpiles of enriched uranium or its nuclear infrastructure. The Pentagon analysts estimated the strikes set the program back by months, not years.  On Capitol Hill, where lawmakers have not yet been briefed on the strikes, the conflicting messages from the administration have sparked a combination of confusion about the effectiveness of the attacks and new anxieties that Trump might pursue further intervention if the initial mission is found to have fallen short of objectives. “Is it, in fact, the case that Iran's nuclear program has been completely and totally obliterated?” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) asked. “There apparently are reasons to believe that that was a blatant misrepresentation made by Donald Trump to the American people.” Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.), the senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, said the sharp contrast between Trump’s claims and the reports detailing the preliminary assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), a branch of the Pentagon, has heightened lawmaker concerns that Trump could order additional strikes to eliminate any perceptions that the mission was a failure. “We've got the president saying one thing … and based on the DIA analysis, it's different,” Thompson said. “His approach, potentially, could get us in trouble. If we don't up our diplomacy game, then all bets are off. “The worst thing we need is a broader conflict.” Fueling the apprehension and uncertainty, Trump has kept Congress in the dark surrounding Saturday’s strikes. On Tuesday, administration officials were scheduled to brief House and Senate lawmakers on the operation, but they canceled the meetings hours beforehand. The meetings have been rescheduled for later in the week — Thursday for the Senate and Friday for the House — but some lawmakers are questioning whether they will ever happen.  “As a member of Congress, as the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have to respectfully say: I have no clue,” Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) said. “This administration does not communicate." Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) said it’s impossible to know how the famously impulsive president will ultimately react to revelations that the Pentagon’s assessment conflicts with his rosier narrative. In one scenario, the response could involve more strikes on Iran; in another, Trump might just claim victory and move on. “He could use this news to do whatever he wants,” Frost said. “He could go after [Iran] again, but that's conceding that the first strike didn't really work out the way he said it was — he said he completely obliterated Iran. The other option for him is saying, ‘[DIA analysts] are wrong and we did it,’ and then move on.” "No one knows what's going on,” he added, “not even people in his own administration.” Complicating any decisions for Trump, the initial strikes — as well as his hints at regime change — severed the MAGA movement that constitutes his base of support. Some of those loyalists supported the strikes, encouraged by Trump’s promises to make them a one-and-done incursion that wouldn’t bog the United States in another marathon Middle Eastern conflict. Others were furious that Trump would launch new military operations in the region, deeming it a betrayal of the “America First” agenda that swept him into the White House in 2016 and again in 2024. “It feels like a complete bait and switch to please the neocons, warmongers, military industrial complex contracts, and neocon tv personalities that MAGA hates and who were NEVER TRUMPERS!" Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), one of Trump’s staunchest congressional allies, posted on the social platform X earlier this week. Some of those same Republicans, including Greene, on Tuesday cheered Trump’s push for a ceasefire between Iran and Israel — the latest indication of the fealty the president has won from his party but also a sign they could be unhappy with any further escalation. Saturday’s strikes, which came amid a two-week conflict between Israel and Iran, targeted three Iranian nuclear sites in an effort to dismantle Tehran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons. And Trump wasted no time claiming victory, saying the mission had “completely and totally obliterated” Tehran’s nuclear capabilities.  But the DIA’s preliminary assessment, first reported by CNN on Tuesday, found that intelligence officials in Trump’s own Pentagon were more skeptical. They found that Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was still intact and suggested some of the existing enriched uranium had been moved to other locations before the strikes, according to the reports.  The president and top administration officials have railed against both the DIA assessment and the news publications that reported on it. "Real scum come out and write reports that are as negative as they could possibly be," Trump said Wednesday during a NATO summit in The Hague. Gabbard, the national intelligence chief whose assessments about Iran’s nuclear capabilities have clashed recently with Trump’s, backed the president Wednesday, saying all three targeted sites had been “destroyed” and “would likely take years” to rebuild. She accused “the propaganda media” of cherry-picking pieces of the DIA report to cast Trump in a bad light.  Trump’s allies on Capitol Hill are also rushing to his defense, saying they believe the president over the bureaucrats in the Pentagon and the news media. "They're calling that fake news,” said Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas). “I think the reporting is wrong." Most Democrats, meanwhile, say they don’t trust Trump at all. “He’s lying again,” said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.). “I don't trust him, I don't believe him and we need to try and get the truth out of what has happened.” The controversy over the effectiveness of Saturday’s strikes is fueling the push from a growing number of lawmakers for a war powers resolution designed to block further military action in Iran without the explicit approval of Congress. “What he did the other day was an act of war. And that act of war — which he called a one-off military excursion, did not produce, clearly, the impact that he's claiming,” said Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.). “We just simply cannot depend on Donald Trump as a sober, serious-minded president to involve this nation in military conflict without congressional approval.” [ad_2] Source link

[new876868767]

[ad_1] Two new state laws meant to protect New York’s young web surfers took effect this week.  Billed as the nation’s most stringent effort to protect children on social media, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on June 20 signed into law the New York Child Data Protection Act (S.7695B/A.8149A) and the Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act (S.7694A/A.8148A). See the full article at Brooklyn Paper Landmark child data protection law by Gounardes and Rozic goes into effect [ad_2] Source link

[new876868767]

[ad_1] Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) says up to 4.8 million new homes will need to be built over the next decade to restore affordability levels last seen in 2019, based on projected demand.The national housing agency released its latest supply gaps estimate report today, which says between 430,000 and 480,000 new housing units are needed per year across the ownership and rental markets by 2035.That would represent around double the current pace of home construction in Canada, with 90,760 housing starts recorded so far this year, through May. [ad_2] Source link

[new876868767]

[ad_1] If you are familiar with the IHG One Rewards program, you likely know the IHG One Rewards Premier Credit Card (see rates and fees) and IHG One Rewards Premier Business Credit Card (see rates and fees) offer an anniversary free night with a redemption value of up to 40,000 points after each account anniversary.But this article is about the free night certificates with a redemption value of up to 60,000 points you can earn through the IHG Premier's current welcome offer.That's right. The IHG One Rewards Premier Credit Card is currently offering five free nights, each with a redemption value of up to 60,000 points, after you spend $5,000 on purchases in the first three months from account opening. So, here's what you should know about these free night certificates, including some of the best places to use these certificates.Note that all prices and points listed were accurate at the time of publication.How to use 60,000-point IHG free night certificatesEach of the five free nights available through the current IHG Premier welcome offer is valid for one night at an IHG One Rewards property with a redemption level up to 60,000 points. Unfortunately, you can't top off these free night certificates with points from your account, so you can only use each certificate for a night costing 60,000 points or less.Normally, you must book separate back-to-back reservations when redeeming IHG anniversary night certificates. However, the terms of the current IHG Premier welcome offer state, "Multiple free nights can be booked at once so long as free night inventory is available each night of booking."INTERCONTINENTAL PRESIDENTE CANCUN RESORT/FACEBOOKYou must redeem and complete your stay with each free night within 12 months of IHG issuing the certificates into your account. However, be aware that it may take up to eight weeks for IHG to deposit the free nights into your account once you meet the minimum spending requirements for the bonus.Since the time between when you apply for the IHG Premier card and when you get access to use the certificates will likely be months, don't set your heart on using these certificates for a specific stay. After all, IHG's dynamic award pricing means that the cost of each award night will vary depending on the property you want to book, the dates you want to stay and the time at which you book.This being said, you can use 60,000-point free night certificates in plenty of ways. So, here are some IHG hotels and resorts that offer award nights costing 60,000 points or less per night on many dates.Daily NewsletterReward your inbox with the TPG Daily newsletterJoin over 700,000 readers for breaking news, in-depth guides and exclusive deals from TPG’s expertsBy signing up, you will receive newsletters and promotional content and agree to our Terms of Use and acknowledge the data practices in our Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.Related: The 19 best IHG hotels in the worldInterContinental New York Times SquareThe InterContinental New York Times Square is in Midtown Manhattan's Theater District near Times Square. I found award nights at this hotel ranging from 28,000 to 121,000 points per night and paid rates starting at $220 per night. However, keep in mind these rates don't include the mandatory amenity fee of $40 per night.ADAM DROZDOW/INTERCONTINENTAL NEW YORK TIMES SQUARE/FACEBOOKI stayed at the InterContinental New York Times Square in 2022 and didn't enjoy the soft bed and nightly amenity fee. But I'm still including this option since New York City is a compelling option for using 60,000-point free night certificates due to the sheer quantity of IHG hotels and resorts. So even if you don't use your certificates at the InterContinental New York Times Square, you'll find plenty of other options in New York City for using your certificates.Related: The top InterContinental hotels across the worldKimpton Vero Beach Hotel and SpaThe Kimpton Vero Beach Hotel and Spa is an oceanfront resort with a heated oceanside pool and a resident mermaid program. Some rooms at this property offer ocean views and kitchens, but note that the interior essential rooms (which offer the lowest award night rates) only have a tiny window.KIMPTON VERO BEACH HOTEL & SPA/FACEBOOKI found award nights ranging from 35,000 to 121,000 points per night and paid rates starting at $182 per night, excluding the $53 resort fee. However, if you're willing to visit Kimpton Vero Beach Hotel and Spa during non-peak dates, you may find five consecutive nights that cost less than 60,000 points per night.Related: The top Kimpton Hotels across the world, according to IHG Diamond membersHotel Indigo San Diego-Gaslamp QuarterI went to San Diego for the first time last year, and I loved the city. If San Diego is a city you want to visit, the Hotel Indigo San Diego-Gaslamp Quarter may be the perfect place to use a few 60,000-point free night certificates. Just one block from Petco Park and steps from the Gaslamp Quarter, this Hotel Indigo is well located in East Village.HOTEL INDIGO SAN DIEGO/FACEBOOKI found award nights ranging from 31,000 to 121,000 points per night and paid rates starting at $218 per night. However, note that these rates exclude the mandatory $32 per night amenity fee.Related: The best hotels in San DiegoKimpton Surfcomber HotelYou have plenty of options if you want to use your 60,000-point free night certificates in Miami. One of the most popular options is the Kimpton Surfcomber Hotel on Miami's South Beach. There's plenty to do around the hotel, but many guests say they spent most of their vacation at the hotel's pool, beach area and restaurants.KIMPTON SURFCOMBER HOTEL/FACEBOOKWhen I wrote this article, I found award nights ranging from 26,000 to 134,000 points per night at the Kimpton Surfcomber Hotel and paid rates starting at $140 per night. However, these rates exclude the $56 per night resort fee.Related: 14 best Miami Beach hotelsInterContinental Presidente Cancun ResortThe InterContinental Presidente Cancun Resort is a beachfront resort in Cancun, Mexico. Although it's not all-inclusive, it offers white-sand beaches, lagoon-style pools, and ample dining options on-site and at nearby local venues.INTERCONTINENTAL PRESIDENTE CANCUN RESORT/FACEBOOKWhen I wrote this article, I found standard award nights ranging from 33,000 to 111,000 points per night and paid rates starting at $218 per night. These rates don't include the $12 per night resort fee.Related: 14 best all-inclusive resorts in CancunHotel Indigo Grand CaymanMany travelers rave about the Kimpton Seafire Resort and Spa, which unfortunately costs at least 70,000 IHG points per night. But you can stay next door at the Hotel Indigo Grand Cayman for less than 60,000 points per night on most dates. The Hotel Indigo is near Seven Mile Beach, and it offers access to complimentary bike rentals and a beach club as part of its $65 per night resort fee.IHGI found award nights ranging from 47,000 to 50,000 points per night and paid rates starting at $262 per night. These rates exclude the $65 per night resort fee, though.Related: 8 amazing places to use points for a trip to the CaribbeanHoliday Inn Resort Aruba-Beach Resort and CasinoA beach vacation to Aruba is possible with 60,000-point IHG free night certificates if you stay at the Holiday Inn Resort Aruba-Beach Resort and Casino. This resort offers a great beachfront location, complimentary bikes, water sports, minigolf and a kids club.HOLIDAY INN RESORT ARUBA-BEACH RESORT &CASINO/FACEBOOKWhen I wrote this article, I found award nights ranging from 46,000 to 103,000 points per night and paid rates starting at $328 per night.Related: Best all-inclusives in Aruba for a perfect Caribbean vacationCrowne Plaza Paris - RepubliqueYou can also use 60,000-point IHG free night certificates to stay in Paris. I found award nights ranging from 39,000 to 120,000 points per night and paid rates starting at $256 at the Crowne Plaza Paris - Republique. This Crowne Plaza location is in a historic 1866 building on the iconic Place de la République.DAVID-EMMANUEL COHEN/CROWNE PLAZA PARIS - REPUBLIQUE/FACEBOOKYou can use your free night certificates at this Crowne Plaza on many dates. But even on dates when the Crowne Plaza costs more than 60,000 points per night, you may find another IHG hotel in Paris that costs 60,000 points or less per night.Related: The best hotels in ParisKimpton De WittThe Kimpton De Witt in Amsterdam is my favorite hotel for redeeming IHG anniversary night certificates, but it's also a good option for redeeming 60,000-point free night awards. This Kimpton is centrally located near the central train station and within walking distance of most of Amsterdam's tourist sights. But it's the comfortable yet quirky room design and friendly staff that keep me coming back to this hotel.Kimpton De Witt in the Netherlands. KIMPTON DEWITT, AMSTERDAM/IHG.COMI found award nights ranging from 32,000 to 120,000 points per night, and paid rates starting at $209 per night, at the Kimpton De Witt.Related: Travel to Europe using points and miles: How to redeem your rewards for flightsVignette Collection Noku MaldivesMost of the Maldives resorts you can book with points require a ridiculous amount of them. But you can book the Vignette Collection Noku Maldives for 60,000 points or fewer per night on many non-peak dates. I found award nights ranging from 51,000 to 120,000 points per night and paid rates starting at $395 per night.VIGNETTE COLLECTION NOKU MALDIVES/FACEBOOKThis private island Maldives resort offers 20 beach villas and 30 over-water villas. You can book a beach villa without a private pool using points (or free night certificates), but you may be able to upgrade to a pool villa or an overwater villa by paying a cash copay directly to the property after booking. Remember that you'll also need to pay $540 per person for round-trip seaplane transfers.Related: Where is the Maldives, and is the long journey worth it?InterContinental Singapore Robertson QuaySingapore is one of my favorite cities, and the InterContinental Singapore Robertson Quay is in the neighborhood where I stayed during my first trip there. It's along the Singapore River in the active Robertson Quay district, but you'll find it easy to access the rest of Singapore from this location. And if you have an annual Club Lounge access membership through IHG's Milestone Rewards program, you'll be happy to know the hotel has a club lounge.INTERCONTINENTAL SINGAPORE ROBERTSON QUAY/FACEBOOKI found award nights at the InterContinental Singapore Robertson Quay ranging from 34,000 to 120,000 points per night, while paid rates started at $244 per night.Related: IHG elite status: What it is and how to earn itBottom lineThe current IHG One Rewards Premier Credit Card welcome offer is compelling. After all, you can earn five free nights, each with a redemption value of up to 60,000 points, after you spend $5,000 on purchases in the first three months from account opening.You could use the five free nights for a five-night trip, five one-night stays or any other possible combination. But, especially since you can't top-off these free night certificates with points from your IHG account, you likely won't book five nights that cost exactly 60,000 points each.I wouldn't let this stop me from signing up during this welcome offer if I could redeem these certificates for nights costing at least 40,000 points each. But, if you prefer earning points instead of free night certificates as your welcome offer, consider signing up for the no-annual-fee IHG One Rewards Traveler Credit Card (see rates and fees), which is currently offering 120,000 bonus points after spending $2,000 on purchases in the first three months from account opening. [ad_2] Source link

[new876868767]

[ad_1] Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) will have major implications for global health. Hassan Damluji writes that while the organisation will survive, its ability to help the world respond to future health threats will be heavily constrained by the loss of US funding. I was reminded of the extraordinary potential of multilateral institutions to bring our world together at a World Health Organization (WHO) event on genomics that I attended in October 2023. Not because of a large pledge of money or the signing of a grand treaty. It was the sight of an Israeli, and a Palestinian from Gaza, both experts in genomics, sharing a quiet moment and hugging each other during a coffee break. It was a reminder, in an increasingly polarised world, of how precious the spaces are where people from all sides are still talking to each other, working together on shared goals. Donald Trump does not agree. His 2018 speech to the United Nations General Assembly set the tone. “We reject the ideology of globalism,” Trump barked at a stunned chamber. But the first term was heavier on rhetoric than action, and he didn’t get around to pulling the US out of the World Health Organization until July 2020, late enough that President Biden was able to reverse the decision before the one-year period – required for the exit to become official – had ended. Trump’s second term has been quite different. Dozens of executive orders were signed on day one, including one that pulled the US out of WHO for a second time. This time, despite some obscure comments from the President, there is no indication that the decision will be revoked. Directed by the White House, Congress has gone as far as to cancel funding from 2024, the previous fiscal year. Since late January, then, WHO has been in crisis, trying to respond to the loss of its biggest donor (the US provided $1.3 billion of the organisation’s $6.8 billion budget in 2023). It faces a $600 million budget gap in 2025, more than half of which represents the salaries of existing staff, who no longer have funds available to pay them. Taken together, the following two years see a budget gap of $1.9 billion. The World Health Organization’s response It seems incredible that the world, so soon after a pandemic which proved beyond doubt that health threats cross borders, would leave its global health agency so badly underfunded. If there was a lesson from COVID-19, regarding WHO, it was that we have far too thin a layer of international cooperation for managing health threats. Even if the US felt its contribution to WHO was too high (although it provides no greater a share of funding than its share of global GDP), it is unconscionable that the world’s richest and most powerful country would decide that its fair share of global health efforts is precisely zero. But here we are. And so begins the response, one which is not short of resilience, nor even a measure of solidarity. Internally, WHO has been working hard to rationalise its operations and make cuts to fit its new budget in a way that minimises the negative impacts on global health. As with any crisis, there lies an opportunity for improvement and efficiency in the discipline forced by these cuts. For example, disease programmes have often been siloed, leading to accusations of duplication and inefficiency (although many would argue that donors are primarily to blame for this siloing). Now it is reported that some disease programmes, such as tuberculosis and HIV, will be integrated into combined programmes that share staff and operational aspects, such as surveillance systems. And beyond the more streamlined disease architecture, the organisation will be more laser-focused on efforts to build health systems and prepare and respond to health emergencies, particularly pandemics. Resilience The World Health Organization is resilient. It will survive this challenging period, and its renewed focus and emphasis on efficiency is welcome. But make no mistake: at a time when health threats are as serious as ever, with dangerous outbreaks more frequent than in the past, WHO’s ability to help the world respond will be more constrained thanks to these cuts. Its ten programmes will reportedly be reduced to just four, its sixty departments reduced to just thirty-four, and a huge but unknown number of its highly qualified staff let go. It is completely untenable to suggest that philanthropy will step into the gap. The Gates Foundation is by far the largest philanthropic organisation in the world in terms of its annual spend, dwarfing all other actors, and it has already nearly “maxed out” the big donations to WHO it already makes. No other philanthropic actor could credibly make a big difference to the huge America-shaped hole in WHO’s budget. For reference, the world’s second largest philanthropic organisation, the Wellcome Trust, has a total annual budget that is around the same as WHO’s lost US funding. The Wellcome Trust will not now suddenly shut down all its global programming and divert its entire endowment towards subsidising a single international organisation. Even if it did, some of the most important health research, which it currently funds, would be the casualty. It is also untenable to hope for the funding gap to be filled by other donors. America’s retreat, not just from global health but from foreign aid altogether, has set off a domino effect, most notably in the drastic cuts made by the UK – until recently the world’s second largest donor. Nearly all government donors are now either expected to make foreign aid cuts or have already announced them. Solidarity in a time of crisis Where, then, is the solidarity? It comes in two forms. Firstly, in financing from the Global South, and secondly in diplomacy. On financing, a historic agreement has been reached to significantly increase the assessed contributions that all countries must contribute to the UN, based on the size of their economy. In a world of rapidly growing middle-income countries, like India, Malysia and Vietnam, much of the world’s economy, and its growth, sits in countries which are not “donors”. Historically, “voluntary contributions” from donors have provided the majority of WHO funding. Now, that balance will shift. Increasing the assessed contributions – which will reach 50% of WHO’s overall funding by the end of the decade, represents an act of solidarity by the wide group of member states, many of whom suffer from deep poverty at home, to contribute to a common good. Diplomatically too, the 190 remaining member states have been pulling together to build a better system. Just weeks after Trump’s hammer blow, this resulted in a remarkable achievement – a new Pandemic Treaty, mired in negotiation since the COVID-19 pandemic, was adopted by all WHO member states at the World Health Assembly annual gathering in Geneva. The treaty still has some significant details to be hammered out – for example, how exactly will the sharing of data and the economic benefits of that data be managed? – but it remains an extraordinary rebuke to Donald Trump and the enemies of multilateralism that this symbolic agreement has been ratified so soon after his withdrawal. And yet, we are only at the beginning of what will be a long four years for the international system. Far more resilience and solidarity will be needed along the way if we are to protect those spaces in which the world works together, in these times of crisis. Note: This article gives the views of the author, not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy or the London School of Economics. Featured image credit: Skorzewiak / Shutterstock.com [ad_2] Source link

[new876868767]

[ad_1] Mexican president eyes legal action against Elon Musk's SpaceX Wednesday, June 25th 2025 - 20:14 UTC Sheinbaum's government is assessing violations of international laws to address the contamination and environmental impact Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum announced Wednesday that she was reviewing taking legal action against SpaceX due to the environmental damage caused by debris from a Starship rocket explosion in Tamaulipas. “The general review is being made, what international laws are being violated, and from there, we will initiate a process, because indeed there is indeed contamination,” said Sheinbaum. The incident, stemming from a launch in Boca Chica, Texas, near the Mexican border, scattered hazardous waste, including micro-debris, along Matamoros beaches, threatening local wildlife, particularly endangered Olive Ridley turtles, which could mistake the fragments of space debris for food, which represents a mortal danger for these animals, it was explained. After launch, the booster detached and exploded upon reentering Earth's atmosphere, breaking apart into hundreds of fragments that fell into the Gulf of Mexico. Some of this debris, carried by waves and currents, washed ashore at Bagdad Beach in Matamoros, raising concerns among environmental groups and local officials. The recovered materials included pieces of rubber, plastic, silicone, aluminum, cooling tanks, and launch-related containers. While cleanup crews have removed the larger items, the primary challenge now lies in addressing micro-debris—tiny particles scattered across more than 40 kilometers of coastline. The legal battle would mark another dispute between Mexico and a US company, in this case SpaceX, owned by South African-born tycoon Elon Musk, who insists on taking humans to Mars. In May, Sheinbaum reportedly sued Google for renaming the Gulf of Mexico as “Gulf of America” pursuant to an executive order from US President Donald Trump. [ad_2] Source link

[new876868767]

[ad_1] Harvey Elliot’s brace sent England Under-21s into the European Championships final as they beat the Netherlands Under-21s 2-1 on Wednesday. The Liverpool midfielder netted either side of Noah Ohio’s brilliant equaliser at Stadion Tehelne pole to send the defending champions through to Saturday’s showpiece match. Lee Carsley’s team will face the winner of the other semi-final between Germany Under-21s and France Under-21s, which takes place later on Wednesday. Elliott handed England a 62nd-minute lead when he collected Elliot Anderson’s pass before rifling the ball home at Robin Roefs’ near post with his weaker right foot. But the Netherlands hit back 10 minutes later through a moment of quick thinking from Ohio, who saw his speculative strike from distance catch James Beadle out. However, Elliott snatched the win late on after cutting inside from the right-hand side, sending a fizzing low drive from just inside the area into the bottom-right corner. Our #YoungLions WE’RE IN THE #U21EURO FINAL!! pic.twitter.com/zU0s5zJhGb — England (@England) June 25, 2025 Data Debrief: Elliot the man of the hour Elliott has expressed his desire to seek first-team football after falling down the pecking order at Liverpool, and he did his chances of a transfer no harm with a stunning showing against the Netherlands. The 22-year-old has now scored four goals at the tournament in Slovakia, a total only bettered by Germany’s Nick Woltemade, while he ended England’s final-four clash with team-high totals for shots (seven) and touches in the opposition box (10). Only Spain and Germany (five each) have won the competition more times than England (three), and with Elliott on song, Carsley’s team will be confident of adding another title to their trophy cabinet. [ad_2] Source link