Connect with us

News

Starmer warned he cannot sidestep Brussels in bid to reset UK-EU relations

Published

on

Starmer warned he cannot sidestep Brussels in bid to reset UK-EU relations

Sir Keir Starmer cannot sidestep Brussels as he seeks to improve the UK’s post-Brexit ties with the EU, officials in the bloc have warned after the British prime minister’s trips to Berlin and Paris.

In the last few days Starmer met German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and French President Emmanuel Macron in the latest flurry of diplomacy with EU leaders since he entered Downing Street last month.

During the two-day tour he talked up his proposed UK-EU “reset” and emphasised his desire for “a closer relationship on a number of fronts, including the economy, including defence, including exchanges”.

However, he also reiterated his red lines on Brexit, which include no UK re-entry to the EU single market or customs union, or the return of free movement.

Within the bounds of these strictures, EU diplomats said there was little scope to improve ties with the UK.

Advertisement

EU member states had some “wriggle room” to allow easier access for British workers and students and industrial collaboration, one diplomat said.

“But you can only get a reset by going to Brussels. The red lines haven’t changed. Something needs to give on the UK side if it wants to restore the relationship,” they added.

The UK is aiming to negotiate a new bilateral treaty with Germany by early 2025 © Clemens Bilan/ EPA/Shutterstock

The UK’s attempts this week to talk up the breadth and depth of a new bilateral treaty being negotiated with Germany, which both sides hope to finalise by early 2025, raised eyebrows in the EU.

German officials dismissed a suggestion by Downing Street that the two nations would discuss “market access” as part of the treaty, highlighting how the single market and trade were EU competencies, not national ones.

One said the treaty would not change anything covered by the EU-UK post-Brexit deals.

Advertisement

“A visit to Germany is not a game-changer,” said one EU official, adding: “There’s a huge focus on the bilateral dimension between the UK and Germany or France, but the EU is composed of 27 states and of course the sole interlocutor if you want to reset relations is not Berlin, Paris, Rome or Tallinn — it’s Brussels.”

The official said it was “very good news” the UK was pitching a “reboot” of relations with the EU, but repeated the bloc’s line that any British proposals that threatened to jeopardise the single market would be “tricky” to take forward.

People with faces painted with EU and unions flags
The EU’s main ask from the UK is a youth mobility scheme © Wiktor Szymanowicz/Alamy

Starmer is expected to meet European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen before the end of the year.

The EU’s main ambition regarding the UK is a youth mobility scheme, with a proposal made by the bloc in April. It also wants Britain to rejoin the Erasmus student exchange programme to allow its citizens to study in the UK more cheaply.

The EU’s offer this spring elicited a cold response from Labour officials, then in opposition, who said they viewed youth mobility as synonymous with free movement. But some Labour figures, including London mayor Sadiq Khan, are pushing for a deal.

This week Starmer said he has “no plans” to negotiate a formal youth mobility scheme, but did not explicitly rule out launching talks on one in future.

Advertisement

The previous UK Conservative government offered bilateral mobility deals to several states including Germany, which prompted the commission to table the EU-wide proposal. Officials do not rule out some member states being able to go it alone if EU-wide progress proves impossible.

One of the Starmer government’s priorities is a new UK-EU security pact “to strengthen co-operation on the threats we face”.

The EU views the current informal co-operation between the bloc and the UK on defence and security as working well — with co-ordination on sanctions, Ukraine and China taking place via the G7, Nato and other forums.

However, EU officials said the bloc would be amenable to formalising a more structured dialogue, as it does with the US.

Following years of tensions under the Conservatives, the new Starmer government believes there is mileage in overhauling the tone of UK-EU relations and has criticised the “botched” Brexit deal negotiated by former prime minister Boris Johnson.

Advertisement

Starmer said after meeting Macron on Thursday that the pair had discussed “the wider reset” with the EU, as well as developments in Ukraine and the Middle East, plus bilateral trade, illegal migration and security issues.

The British prime minister described “growing the economy” as the “number one mission” of the UK-EU reboot.

Anand Menon, director of the UK in a Changing Europe think-tank, said Starmer’s warmer rhetoric on UK-EU relations was “desirable” and would genuinely “smooth the wheels of diplomacy” by making it easier for politicians and officials on both sides to work together.

But he added the UK and the EU were playing a “defensive” game and it was too early to see how it could lead to “substantive” change in the relationship.

Ahead of the UK election, Labour’s specific demands regarding the EU included a veterinary deal, an agreement on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, and greater ease for UK artists to tour within the bloc — proposals which were criticised as underwhelming.

Advertisement

Labour’s demands were “massively unambitious” and of “trivial” economic scale, Menon said, but “despite that, they might be quite hard to get”.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Trump’s appalling desecration of Arlington National Cemetery shows he still can’t be trusted

Published

on

Trump’s appalling desecration of Arlington National Cemetery shows he still can’t be trusted


Are Donald Trump and JD Vance really the leaders we want representing our nation’s military? I don’t.

play

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has continued his divisive antics this week by desecrating a sacred moment of remembrance for the American troops killed in a suicide bombing three years ago in Afghanistan.

In a time that should have been used to comfort and unify the nation, Trump instead saw another opportunity to promote himself. Even worse, Trump’s staff reportedly got into a physical altercation on Monday with an Arlington National Cemetery employee after they were told not to record video inside the cemetery.

Federal laws and U.S. Army regulations prohibit political activities on the cemetery grounds. Trump and his campaign staff blatantly ignored those restrictions, and then attacked the cemetery employee who tried to uphold the law, even describing her as a “despicable individual.”

Army rebukes Trump campaign over Arlington visit, Vance says Harris ‘can go to hell’

“This incident was unfortunate, and it is also unfortunate that the ANC employee and her professionalism has been unfairly attacked,” the Army said in a statement released Thursday. “ANC is a national shrine to the honored dead of the Armed Forces, and its dedicated staff will continue to ensure public ceremonies are conducted with the dignity and respect the nation’s fallen deserve.”

Advertisement

Making Trump’s very bad week even worse, the former president’s running mate, JD Vance, falsely accused Democratic nominee Kamala Harris of politicizing the cemetery visit − and then cursed her.

“And she wants to yell at Donald Trump because he showed up? She can − she can go to hell,” Vance said.

Are Trump and Vance really the leaders we want representing our nation’s military? I don’t. 

Vance attacks Walz’s military service: Vance accused Walz of ‘stolen valor.’ He should thank him for his service instead.

Advertisement

On the same day that Trump participated in the wreath-laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington, he posted on Truth Social that, “Three years ago, Kamala’s and Biden’s incompetence left 13 dead warriors, hundreds of civilians killed and grievously wounded, and $85 billion worth of the finest military equipment on the planet abandoned to the Taliban.” (In reality, the Taliban captured an estimated $7 billion worth of weapons and other military equipment).

But are President Joe Biden and Harris really to blame for the chaotic withdrawal?

Blaming the current administration ignores the decisions that Trump also made leading up to the withdrawal. Under Trump’s leadership, negotiations for the withdrawal led to an agreement with the Taliban that influenced the eventual outcome. By refusing to acknowledge his role in the preparations for the withdrawal, Trump is attempting to shift blame and mislead Americans. 

Plans by the White House, military leaders, intelligence agencies and international partners for the Afghanistan withdrawal were multifaceted and performed with great scrutiny and caution. 

Advertisement

I interviewed Stephen Bender, a former Marine officer, who worked as a private security officer during the evacuation. His role was to coordinate with the U.S. government to ensure the safe processing of Afghan evacuees and U.S. personnel. He recalled the Taliban’s swift takeover.

“It felt like we were in denial about the withdrawal,” Bender said. “One day, they [the Taliban] were just 20 kilometers away, and it felt as though nothing had changed. Suddenly, they were within the city, only 400 meters from our front gate.”

US ‘abandoned’ people of Afghanistan

Bender said that both Biden and Trump need to acknowledge the mistakes they and others in their administrations made in planning for and executing the exit of American forces from Afghanistan.

“The people of Afghanistan were abandoned by our country,” Bender said. “While it may not affect the average American’s daily life, I witnessed firsthand the failures of our politics. Fathers who wanted a better life for their families, seeking safety for their children, faced the worst possible outcome due to our leaders’ refusal to accept responsibility and their tendency to blame others.”

Veterans for Harris: Is the military woke? Democrats make political gains among America’s warriors.

Advertisement

Leadership requires more than assigning blame; it demands the courage to face uncomfortable truths, the ability to bring people together in times of crisis and the humility to honor those who have served without exploiting their memory.

When Trump asserts blame for the withdrawal, perhaps we should ask: Can a leader who refuses to take responsibility for his own actions, and who consistently uses moments of national significance for self-promotion, truly be trusted to lead a nation?

Marla Bautista is a military fellow columnist at USA TODAY Opinion.

Continue Reading

News

Nvidia faces looming test on use of chips

Published

on

Nvidia faces looming test on use of chips

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Rivals of Nvidia, which dominates the market for AI chips, have long hoped that an inflection point would help them make up lost ground.

That point may be at hand. So far, however, there is little sign of Nvidia ceding its lead — though it is still an open question as to whether the AI market will develop in ways that eventually erode its dominance.

The key issue is when the main focus in AI moves from training the large “foundation” models that underpin modern AI systems, to putting those models into widespread use in the applications used by large numbers of consumers and businesses.

Advertisement

With their ability to handle multiple computations in parallel, Nvidia’s powerful graphical processing units, or GPUs, have maintained their dominance of data-intensive AI training. By contrast, running queries against these AI models — known as inference — is a less demanding activity that could provide an opening for makers of less powerful — and cheaper — chips.

Anyone expecting a quick shift will have been disappointed. Nvidia’s lead in this newer market already looks formidable. Announcing its latest earnings on Thursday, it said more than 40 per cent of its data centre sales over the past 12 months were already tied to inference, accounting for more than $33bn in revenue. That is more than two and a half times the entire sales of Intel’s data centre division over the same period.

But how the inference market will develop from here is uncertain. Two questions will determine the outcome: whether the AI business continues to be dominated by a race to build ever larger AI models, and where most of the inference will take place.

Nvidia’s fortunes have been heavily tied to the race for scale. Chief executive Jensen Huang said this week that it takes “10, 20, 40 times the compute” to train each new generation of large AI models, guaranteeing huge demand for Nvidia’s forthcoming Blackwell chips. These new processors will also provide the most efficient way run inferences against these “multitrillion parameter models”, he added.

Yet it is not clear whether ever-larger models will continue to dominate the market, or whether these will eventually hit a point of diminishing returns. At the same time, smaller models that promise many of the same benefits, as well as less capable models designed for narrower tasks, are already coming into vogue. Meta, for instance, recently claimed that its new Llama 3.1 could match the performance of the advanced models such as OpenAI’s GPT-4, despite being far smaller.

Advertisement

Improved training techniques, often relying on larger amounts of high-quality data, have helped. Once trained, the biggest models can also be “distilled” in smaller versions. Such developments promise to bring more of the work of AI inference to smaller, or “edge”, data centres, and on to smartphones and PCs. “AI workloads will go closer to where the data is, or where the users are,” says Arun Chandrasekaran, an analyst at Gartner.

The range of competitors with an eye on this nascent market has been growing rapidly. Mobile chip company Qualcomm, for instance, has been the first to produce chips capable of powering a new class of AI-capable PCs, matching a design laid out by Microsoft — a development that throws down a direct challenge to longtime PC chip leader Intel.

The data centre market, meanwhile, has attracted a wide array of would-be competitors, from start-ups like Cerebras and Groq to tech giants like Meta and Amazon, which have developed their own inference chips.

It is inevitable that Nvidia will lose market share as AI inference moves to devices where it does not yet have a presence, and to the data centres of cloud companies that favour in-house chip designs. But to defend its turf, it is leaning heavily on the software strategy that has long acted as a moat around its hardware, with tools that make it easier for developers to put its chips to use.

This time, it is working on a wider range of enterprise software to help companies build applications that make best use of AI — something that would also guarantee demand for its chips. Nvidia disclosed this week that it expects its revenue from this software to reach an annual run-rate of $2bn by the end of this year. The figure is small for a company expected to produce total revenue of more than $100bn, but points to the increasing take-up of technologies that should increase the “stickiness” of products. The AI chip market may be entering a new phase, but Nvidia’s grip shows no signs of being loosened.

Advertisement

richard.waters@ft.com

Continue Reading

News

Jeff Goldblum was bullied growing up. It made him crave something 'finer' : Wild Card with Rachel Martin

Published

on

Jeff Goldblum was bullied growing up. It made him crave something 'finer' : Wild Card with Rachel Martin

Jeff Goldblum says acting was an escape from a tough culture of “whoever is strongest wins.”

Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images for Loewe


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images for Loewe


Jeff Goldblum says acting was an escape from a tough culture of “whoever is strongest wins.”

Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images for Loewe

A note from Wild Card host Rachel Martin: Jeff Goldblum has a special brand of charisma — the kind that seeps its way into all his roles. Whether it’s in the movie The Fly or Independence Day or Jurassic Park — or his newest show KAOS — every character feels like a version of Jeff Goldblum himself.

He doesn’t need to work too hard at becoming someone else on screen because he knows that the audience really just wants him. His devilish smile. His perfectly deployed comedic asides. It feels like he’s always in on the joke and he wants us to be in on it too.

Advertisement

Jeff Goldblum is honored with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 2018.

David Livingston/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

David Livingston/Getty Images

Advertisement

It’s as if he’s saying, “Hey, I see you out there. I’m having such a good time in this moment, doing this acting thing and I want you to have fun with me. Come closer. Have a seat and let’s see what surprises might unfold.” And we do, because it feels joyful there and a little dangerous, and that’s an intoxicating place to be. Which is why I wanted him to join me on Wild Card.

This Wild Card interview has been edited for length and clarity. Host Rachel Martin asks guests randomly-selected questions from a deck of cards. Tap play above to listen to the full podcast, or read an excerpt below.

Question 1: What’s a part of the culture you grew up in that you knew you didn’t want to take with you?

Jeff Goldblum: I grew up in Pittsburgh. It can be tough — just the culture of bullying, and rough stuff, and coarseness, and ignorance of one kind or another. I certainly can say that I realized even back then that I longed for something finer than the coarse world of whoever is toughest wins and whoever’s got the biggest muscle wins. I didn’t want to take that.

I knew there was something else besides that and I hungered for it. And it led me in part to acting, this world I’ve now pursued. So that othering business, I knew I didn’t want that.

Advertisement

Rachel Martin: Were you othered, or were you bullied explicitly, or you just noticed it from the sidelines?

Goldblum: I both noticed it, noticed it happening to others, and yes, myself here and there, othered and bullied. I realized, “Oh, I better get a little tough or find some way to defend myself.”

Question 2: What have you learned to be careful about?

Goldblum: My health. You know, it’s no joke. I lost a brother when he was 23. You can’t take it for granted. We’re fragile. I mean, we’re resilient and tough, but also fragile. And now, especially, I’ve got kids. I want more now to live as long and healthily as I can. So I try to go to bed on time and do several other things that are in my control. I try to be careful about my well-being.

Martin: Your brother didn’t die of an accident, right? Was it kidney disease?

Goldblum: Yeah, that’s right. It wasn’t an accident — he was traveling around North Africa. He was 23 and he wanted to be a journalist. He was fantastic and I miss him — we were close. But he was kind of going around and living in a cave and living on the beach or something for a couple of days, his friends said, and he got something.

Advertisement

He already knew he was susceptible to this one little anomaly he had in his system. So he had to already be careful. He was a couple of days away from a hospital, or a day away — too long. Had he been near a hospital, he could have been saved, but he quickly fell into kidney failure.

So yeah, I’m careful. I’m careful.

Question 3: Has your idea of what it means to be a good person changed over time?

Goldblum: Well, I suppose that it’s become clearer and more important. My parents taught me early on that being a good boy meant being polite. Which was probably good, nothing wrong with that. And making As in school.

I then went on to realize later that being a good student meant asking, “How much can you learn and use this lifetime for growth?” It meant not just getting the grade or impressing anybody else, but really delving into what you were curious about, connecting with yourself and then delving as deeply as you might, not just to get the grade. So that’s good.

Jeff Goldblum and Laura Dern arrive for the world premiere of Jurassic Park in 1993.

David Ake/AFP via Getty Images

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

David Ake/AFP via Getty Images

Advertisement

But more and more I got clearer about how what I did could impact others and help others and the idea of contribution, and I love that. There’s a George Bernard Shaw quote* that I like a lot that says:

“This is the true joy in life, being used for a purpose considered by yourself as mighty. Being a force of nature instead of a feverish, selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy.

“I am of the opinion that my life belongs to the whole community. And while I live, it is my privilege to do for it whatever I can. I want to be thoroughly used up when I die. For the harder I work, the more I live. I cherish life for its own sake. Life is no brief candle to me. It’s a sort of splendid torch that I’ve got hold of for the moment and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it off to future generations.”

That’s a good one to keep in your pocket or up your sleeve and to live by till the end of your days when you can’t do it any better and better and better and better and better.

* Editor’s note: This passage appears to be paraphrased from two separate George Bernard Shaw quotes.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending