Connect with us

News

UK and India strike trade deal after three years of talks

Published

on

UK and India strike trade deal after three years of talks

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Britain and India on Tuesday announced a “landmark” trade deal that included concessions to New Delhi on access to UK employment markets in return for big cuts to Indian tariffs on exports of whisky and cars.

The deal will exempt the UK operations of Indian employers from paying national insurance on Indian staff relocating to the UK for up to three years, making it cheaper to move people to Britain than previously.

The UK’s Labour government hailed the deal as a “bright shining light” at a time when US President Donald Trump’s tariffs have roiled the world economy.

Advertisement

But it faced domestic criticism over the national insurance move, just days after the anti-immigration Reform UK party swept local elections in England.

Reform leader Nigel Farage claimed that UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer had “betrayed working Britain”.

India pushed hard during the three-year long negotiations for the “Double Contribution Convention”, which will give Indian employers in the UK relief from Britain’s 15 per cent national insurance levy paid by companies. The deal to avoid double taxation also covers national insurance contributions paid by employees.

New Delhi has agreed to cut whisky and gin tariffs, which will be halved from 150 per cent to 75 per cent before falling to 40 per cent by the tenth year of the deal. Car tariffs will fall from more than 100 per cent to 10 per cent, subject to a quota.

Talks on the deal accelerated in the wake of Trump’s imposition of global tariffs last month, with London and New Delhi keen to seal closer trade ties.

Advertisement

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi posted on X that the deal was “ambitious and mutually beneficial”, adding that Starmer would visit India soon.

British ministers hope the India trade deal could be a prelude to the signing of an agreement with Trump in the coming days, ahead of a deal with the EU to start improving bilateral trade links at a summit on May 19.

The UK government estimates the India deal will boost Britain’s economy by 0.1 per cent by 2040. Officials insisted it would not involve changes to the British visa system or broader immigration strategy, at a time when Reform and the Conservatives are campaigning hard on the issue.

British officials said Indian employees relocating to the UK would still be subject to salary thresholds for visas and have to pay the NHS surcharge for immigrant workers, despite the national insurance exemption.

The agreement comes after UK chancellor Rachel Reeves controversially raised national insurance contributions for employers at her first Budget last October.

Advertisement

Dame Harriett Baldwin, the Conservative party’s shadow minister for business and trade, said in parliament that the deal “looks like it’s subsidising Indian labour while undercutting British workers”.

The centrist Liberal Democrats also questioned the national insurance agreement, saying the move needed careful scrutiny by MPs.

Trade minister Douglas Alexander told MPs the national insurance part of the trade deal was “reciprocal” and would “benefit UK workers and their employers as the opportunity within India expands”.

The UK government said the national insurance agreement was similar to arrangements it had with countries such as Switzerland, Norway and Canada. Indian employers are among the biggest users of intra-company transfer visas into the UK.

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

Advertisement

The UK government said cuts in tariffs on Indian products would help provide British shoppers with “cheaper prices and more choice” in areas including clothes, footwear and food products such as prawns.

India will keep tariffs in place for dairy products, while the UK is keeping restrictions in place on some agriculture products such as milled rice.

Although full details are not yet available, the trade pact is expected to be one of the most significant new agreements signed by Britain since it left the EU, following accords with Australia and Japan.

Based on 2022 trade, the deal would involve India cutting tariffs worth more than £400mn a year when the agreement came into force, rising to about £900mn after 10 years, said the UK government.

It added that it expected the deal to increase bilateral trade by £25.5bn and UK GDP by £4.8bn in the long run. Bilateral trade between the UK and India was £42.6bn in 2024 while UK GDP was £2,851bn.

Advertisement

The announcement said the deal would bring “market certainty” to UK services exports currently worth £500bn a year. However, the Law Society of England and Wales said the deal had failed to include legal services and was a “missed opportunity”.

Sam Lowe, trade lead at consultancy Flint Global, said that being among the first countries to strike a trade deal with India was a win for the UK, but the ultimate benefits would only become clear over time. 

Additional reporting by Amy Borrett

News

California Candidates to Appear in First Major Debate After Swalwell

Published

on

California Candidates to Appear in First Major Debate After Swalwell

Candidates in California’s volatile race for governor will meet Wednesday night for the first televised debate since Eric Swalwell dropped out, each looking to seize momentum in the tight contest.

The debate, being held at the television studio of KRON4 in San Francisco, will include four Democrats and two Republicans who are tightly bunched in recent polls, with many voters still undecided less than six weeks before the June 2 primary.

Mr. Swalwell, a Democrat, had just begun to emerge as a Democratic front-runner when his campaign swiftly collapsed after he was accused of sexual assault in news reports on April 10.

Candidates have taken relatively few risks so far in debates around the state, but every candidate is now eyeing a chance to jump to the front of the pack.

“Even though we have seen some movement in the last couple of weeks, it continues to be a fairly crowded, fractured field,” said Sara Sadhwani, an assistant professor of politics at Pomona College. “So candidates need to be able to grab attention in a debate like this.”

Advertisement

The debate comes as Xavier Becerra, a Democrat and former California attorney general, has enjoyed a surge of support in polls since Mr. Swalwell dropped out of the race.

Mr. Becerra and Matt Mahan, the mayor of San Jose, did not originally meet the threshold to participate in Wednesday’s debate when Mr. Swalwell was running. But they both qualified after receiving enough support in a follow-up poll that debate organizers commissioned once Mr. Swalwell had dropped out.

The other Democrats scheduled to participate are Tom Steyer, a former hedge fund manager, and Katie Porter, a former congresswoman, each of whom have been polling near the top of the Democratic field for several weeks. The Republicans in the debate are Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host who has been endorsed by President Trump, and Chad Bianco, the sheriff of Riverside County.

All candidates run on the same ballot in California’s nonpartisan primary, with the two who receive the most votes advancing to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation. The large number of Democratic candidates has created fear among state party leaders that their voters could splinter, potentially allowing two Republicans to sweep the primary in this heavily Democratic state.

The odds of that happening have decreased since Mr. Swalwell dropped out and another Democrat, Betty Yee, withdrew on Monday. But Rusty Hicks, the chairman of the California Democratic Party, still believes there are too many Democrats in the race and has urged those lagging in polls to end their campaigns. (The actual ballot will include 61 candidates for governor, most of whom are completely unknown to voters.)

Advertisement

The messy race to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom, who cannot run for re-election because of term limits, has played out as the most unpredictable contest California has seen in a generation. It has attracted a sprawling field but no one with the star power of former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger or the political might of Mr. Newsom or former Gov. Jerry Brown.

Much of California’s Democratic establishment is still figuring out whom to back in the turbulent race.

Mr. Newsom has not endorsed anyone, saying he trusts voters to elect someone “who reflects the values and direction Californians believe in.” Representative Nancy Pelosi, the influential former House speaker from San Francisco, and Senator Alex Padilla also have not announced their favorites. Senator Adam Schiff endorsed Mr. Swalwell earlier this year but quickly withdrew his support after the accusations against him were published.

On Tuesday, Ms. Yee endorsed Mr. Steyer, praising his work to fight climate change and engage young voters. Mr. Steyer has swamped his competitors with a raft of advertising by pouring $134 million from his personal fortune into his campaign.

Also on Tuesday, Mr. Becerra, whose campaign had appeared to be flailing until Mr. Swalwell dropped out, received the endorsement of Robert Rivas, the Democratic speaker of the California State Assembly. Mr. Rivas said he had encouraged Mr. Becerra to run for governor because he was impressed by his work as California’s attorney general during President Trump’s first term.

Advertisement

“He understands both the policy and the politics,” Mr. Rivas said in an interview. “And he has a track record, in my opinion, of delivering results under pressure.”

The 90-minute debate on Wednesday begins at 7 p.m. PT and will be broadcast and streamed by KRON and other California stations.

Continue Reading

News

Here’s What the New Virginia House Map Looks Like

Published

on

Here’s What the New Virginia House Map Looks Like

Virginians approved a new congressional map on Tuesday that would aggressively gerrymander the state in the Democrats’ favor, giving the party as many as four more U.S. House seats.

The new map draws eight safely Democratic districts and two competitive districts that lean Democratic, according to a New York Times analysis of 2024 presidential results. It leaves just one safe Republican seat, compared with the five seats the G.O.P. holds on the current map.

The proposed map was drawn by Democratic state legislators and approved by Gov. Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat. It eliminates three Republican-held seats in part by slicing the densely populated suburbs in Arlington and Fairfax Counties and reallocating their overwhelmingly Democratic voters into five congressional districts, some stretching more than a hundred miles into Republican areas.

Perhaps the most extreme new district is the Seventh, which begins at the Potomac River and stretches to the west and south in a manner that resembles a pair of lobster claws. Several well-known Virginia Democrats have already announced their candidacies and begun campaigning in the district.

Reid J. Epstein contributed reporting.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Southern Poverty Law Center indicted on federal fraud charges

Published

on

Southern Poverty Law Center indicted on federal fraud charges

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche speaks as FBI Director Kash Patel listens during a news conference at the Justice Department on Tuesday in Washington.

Jacquelyn Martin/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jacquelyn Martin/AP

WASHINGTON — The Southern Poverty Law Center was indicted Tuesday on federal fraud charges alleging it improperly raised millions of dollars to pay informants to infiltrate the Ku Klux Klan and other extremist groups, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said.

The Justice Department alleges the civil rights group defrauded donors by using their money to fund the very extremism it claimed to be fighting, with payments of at least $3 million between 2014 and 2023 to people affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan, the United Klans of America, the National Socialist Party of America and other extremist groups.

“The SPLC was not dismantling these groups. It was instead manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose by paying sources to stoke racial hatred,” Blanche said.

Advertisement

The civil rights group faces charges including wire fraud, bank fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering in the case brought by the Justice Department in Alabama, where the organization is based.

The indictment came shortly after SPLC revealed the existence of a criminal investigation into its program to pay informants to infiltrate extremist groups and gather information on their activities. The group said the program was used to monitor threats of violence and the information was often shared with local and federal law enforcement.

SPLC CEO Bryan Fair said the organization “will vigorously defend ourselves, our staff, and our work.”

Blanche said the money was passed from the center through two different bank accounts before being loaded onto prepaid cards to give to the members of the extremist groups, which also included the National Socialist Movement and the Aryan Nations-affiliated Sadistic Souls Motorcycle Club. The group never disclosed to donors details of the informant program, he said.

“They’re required to under the laws associated with a nonprofit to have certain transparency and honesty in what they’re telling donors they’re going to spend money on and what their mission statement is and what they’re raising money doing,” he said.

Advertisement

The indictment includes details on at least nine unnamed informants were paid by the SPLC through a secret program that prosecutors say began in the 1980s. Within the SPLC, they were known as field sources or “the Fs,” according to the indictment. One informant was paid more than $1 million between 2014 and 2023 while affiliated with the neo-Nazi National Alliance, the indictment said. Another was the Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America.

The SPLC said the program was kept quiet to protect the safety of informants.

“When we began working with informants, we were living in the shadow of the height of the Civil Rights Movement, which had seen bombings at churches, state-sponsored violence against demonstrators, and the murders of activists that went unanswered by the justice system,” Fair said. “There is no question that what we learned from informants saved lives.”

The center has been targeted by Republicans

The SPLC, which is based in Montgomery, Alabama, was founded in 1971 and used civil litigation to fight white supremacist groups. The nonprofit has become a popular target among Republicans who see it as overly leftist and partisan.

The investigation could add to concerns that Trump’s Republican administration is using the Justice Department to go after conservative opponents and his critics. It follows a number of other investigations into Trump foes that have raised questions about whether the law enforcement agency has been turned into a political weapon.

Advertisement

The SPLC has faced intense criticism from conservatives, who have accused it of unfairly maligning right-wing organizations as extremist groups because of their viewpoints. The center regularly condemns Trump’s rhetoric and policies around voting rights, immigration and other issues.

The center came under fresh scrutiny after the assassination last year of conservative activist Charlie Kirk brought renewed attention to its characterization of the group that Kirk founded and led. The center included a section on that group, Turning Point USA, in a report titled “The Year in Hate and Extremism 2024” that described the group as “A Case Study of the Hard Right in 2024.”

FBI Director Kash Patel said last year that the agency was severing its relationship with the center, which had long provided law enforcement with research on hate crime and domestic extremism. Patel said the center had been turned into a “partisan smear machine,” and he accused it of defaming “mainstream Americans” with its “hate map” that documents alleged anti-government and hate groups inside the United States.

House Republicans hosted a hearing centered on the SPLC in December, saying it coordinated efforts with President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration “to target Christian and conservative Americans and deprive them of their constitutional rights to free speech and free association.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending