Europe

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      European voters – even some on far-right – want Harris victory, poll finds

      by

      Most western Europeans – and even many who vote for far-right parties – would like Kamala Harris to win the US presidential election, polling suggests, but fewer are confident that she will and most expect violence if Donald Trump is not elected.The YouGov Eurotrack survey of voters in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and Denmark found that the Democratic vice-president was the preferred winner in every country , with sizeable majorities in favour of Harris in all except Italy.Denmark’s voters were the most eager to see Harris in the White House at 81%, followed by 71% in Germany, 65% in Spain, 62% in France and 61% in the UK; the 46% of Italians who shared the same view was still almost double the percentage of those who instead opted for Trump.Unsurprisingly, support for the Democratic candidate was strongest among Europe’s left-leaning and centrist voters, reaching 80% to 90% among backers of parties such as the Social Democrats and the Greens in Germany, Sumar in Spain, Emmanuel Macron in France, the Social Democrats in Sweden, and the Liberal Democrats in the UK.However, those who recently cast their votes for traditional centre-right parties also preferred Harris over Trump, by often significant margins: 89% of Venstre voters in Denmark, 78% of Christian Democrat (CDU/CSU) voters in Germany, 66% of People party voters in Spain and 58% of Conservative party voters in Britain.And even among western Europeans who recently voted for far-right, nationalist and populist parties, sizeable numbers of respondents in all seven countries said they would rather see Harris elected president than her Republican rival.Trump was the favoured candidate of far-right voters in Spain, the UK, Germany and Italy, with 54% of Vox voters (against 23% who preferred Harris), 51% (27%) of Reform UK voters, 50% (36%) of Alternative for Germany voters in Germany and 44% (32%) of Brothers of Italy voters saying they wanted the former president to secure a second term.But among far-right Sweden Democrat voters, 49% said they would prefer Harris in the White House against 31% who favoured Trump, while 46% who voted for Marine Le Pen in the second round of France’s 2022 presidential election said they would rather the US Democratic party candidate won, against 31% who preferred Trump.Western Europeans were less sure, however, that their wish would become reality. The general expectation was that Harris would emerge victorious on 5 November, but the numbers were lower, ranging from 43% in Italy, 46% in Sweden and the UK, 47% in France and 52% in Spain to 61% in Germany.Asked whether they considered the outgoing Democratic president, Joe Biden, had done a great, good, average, poor or terrible job, the most common assessment across the countries surveyed was “average”, with percentages of people sharing that view ranging from 39% in Britain to 46% in Spain and 47% in Germany.They mostly think Harris would do a better job, with the most widely-held belief in each country being that the current vice-president would make either a “great” or a “good” head of state. About 37% of Italians held that view, climbing to 45% in Spain, 57% in Germany and a high of 64% in Denmark.Expectations were markedly worse for Trump. In each country, the most common view – ranging from 48% in Italy, through 59% in France and 69% in the UK to 77% in Denmark – was that the Republican candidate would make a “poor” or “terrible” president.If Trump is defeated at the ballot box next week, western Europeans expect violence. As many as 73% in Denmark think there will “definitely” or “probably” be violence if Harris wins, with between 62% and 67% sharing the same assessment in most of the other countries surveyed.Italy was again the exception, with the poll, carried out over a period of 10 days in mid-October, suggesting only 47% thought violence was likely. But there, too, the percentage was greater than the 32% who thought violence was unlikely. More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Airbus, With Eye on U.S. Race, Says It Will Be Ready for Higher Tariffs

      by

      The giant European airplane maker’s chief executive said it would pass along any higher charges to its customers.Airbus, the world’s largest commercial airplane manufacturer, said on Wednesday that it was preparing for the possibility that the United States would impose new tariffs on all imports, and that the company would deal with the higher charges by passing them along to its airline customers.In a call with reporters, Airbus’s chief executive, Guillaume Faury, said the European company was monitoring the U.S. presidential election next week and would be prepared for the possibility of a new 10 percent tariff. Former President Donald J. Trump, the Republican candidate, has made sweeping tariffs a critical plank of his economic platform if he wins.Mr. Faury said any new tariff would be passed along to Airbus’s airline customers, in much the same way that Airbus dealt with a tariff that Mr. Trump put on European aircraft in 2020 as part of a long-running airplane subsidy dispute.“So that’s something we will be discussing with our customers” if necessary, Mr. Faury said. “But it puts them in a difficult place of adding an additional cost on what they have ordered and what they’re procuring,” he said. “That’s basically mainly a decision of the state that has to be borne by the companies.”He added: “So we are prepared. We know what it feels like. We don’t believe that’s helping aviation and the competitiveness of the airlines and the aviation industry, but it’s something we would be able to manage.”Airbus on Wednesday announced a 22 percent jump in its net profit for the first nine months of the year despite major problems in its supply chain. Mr. Faury said that Airbus’s net profit rose to 983 million euros, or $1.1 billion, through September, and that its third-quarter adjusted earnings before interest and taxes were €1.4 billion.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      ECB Cuts Interest Rates Again as Eurozone Inflation Slows

      by

      Policymakers who set interest rates for the 20 countries that use the euro have lowered rates in back-to-back meetings for the first time since 2011.The European Central Bank cut interest rates on Thursday for the third time in about four months, as inflation in the eurozone has cooled faster than expected and economic growth has been sluggish.Policymakers who set interest rates for the 20 countries that use the euro lowered their key rate by a quarter point, to 3.25 percent. Thursday’s decision came just five weeks after a cut at the bank’s previous meeting, and on a day that a report showed the eurozone’s inflation rate slowing to 1.7 percent in September, falling below the bank’s 2 percent target for the first time in more than three years.“The disinflationary process is well on track,” Christine Lagarde, the president of the central bank, said at a news conference in Ljubljana, Slovenia.The rate move was also influenced by weaker-than-expected economic data in the past few weeks. Whether it was the inflation data or surveys of economic activity, “it is the same story,” she said: “It’s all heading in the same direction — downwards.”After years of trying to force inflation down with high interest rates, central bankers around the world are walking a tightrope as they consider how quickly to cut interest rates. Lowering rates too fast could reignite simmering inflationary pressures, but keeping rates too high for too long risks slowing the economy substantially and inflation becoming too weak.In recent weeks, policymakers have suggested that rate cuts could be more aggressive as inflation has slowed significantly and economic growth has been lackluster. Last month, the U.S. Federal Reserve cut rates by a half-point, paving the way for quicker or bigger rate cuts in Europe, analysts said. On Wednesday, traders increased their bets that the Bank of England would pick up the pace of its rate cuts after data showed inflation in Britain fell to 1.7 percent in September, below the bank’s 2 percent target.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Walgreens Says It Will Close 1,200 Stores

      by

      The pharmacy giant said it would close the stores over the next three years and plans to “redeploy” the majority of the workers at the closed stores.Walgreens plans to close about 1,200 stores over the next three years, its parent company said on Tuesday, in an effort by the struggling pharmacy giant to cut costs and change focus.The chain, which is owned by Walgreens Boots Alliance, announced the closures in its latest quarterly earnings report, released on Tuesday.The closures will allow Walgreens to “respond more dynamically to shifts in consumer behavior and buying preferences,” Tim Wentworth, the chief executive of Walgreens Boots Alliance, told investors during an earnings call on Tuesday.There are more than 8,000 Walgreens stores in the United States, Mr. Wentworth said, and about 6,000 of those stores were profitable.“While the decision to close the store is never an easy one, we feel confident in our ability to continue to serve our customers,” Mr. Wentworth said, “and we intend to follow our historic practice to redeploy the majority of the work force in those stores that we closed.”About 500 of the closures will take place in the current fiscal year, which runs through September 2025, but the company did not say where they would occur.The company reported an operating loss of nearly $1 billion in the three months through August, roughly twice as much as the loss in the same period last year. Its stock price jumped more than 10 percent in early trading on Tuesday, as the results were slightly better than analysts had expected.Walgreens said in June that it would most likely close a significant amount of stores as part of a plan to turn around its business in the United States. At the time, Walgreens said spending by lower-income consumers in particular was lagging, driven by high inflation and depleted savings. The closures announced on Tuesday include 300 stores that had previously been approved to shut under that plan.Mr. Wentworth said that the company was also making changes to how it stocks its stores, by being “more selective” with the brands it carries, as well as expanding its own brands. This, he said, would enable the company to be “a destination for categories for which we believe we are uniquely positioned to lead, like health and wellness and, specifically, women’s health.” More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Athens Democracy Forum: Young Activists on What Drives Them

      by

      Six young people from around the world who attended the Athens Democracy Forum spoke about what drives them and the challenges they face.Young people from around the world who actively champion democracy are an integral part of the global effort to gain, preserve and protect freedoms. The following six were among the group of young activists who attended and participated in the Athens Democracy Forum last week.Before the forum began, we interviewed them by phone, video and email about their work and experiences. Their responses were edited and condensed.Persiana AksentievaLaettersPersiana AksentievaHamburg, Germany; 28; Youth fellow, International Youth Think TankBorn in Sofia, Bulgaria, Ms. Aksentieva has spent the last five years advocating democracy in Europe. An International Youth Think Tank fellow, she recently traveled to Sofia and spoke to high school students about the importance of voting. She also works for a beauty and personal care company in Hamburg.Nicole KleebAnsichtssache Britta SchröderNicole KleebBerlin; 27; Project manager, Bertelsmann StiftungMs. Kleeb works for Bertelsmann Stiftung, a social reform foundation, in Gütersloh, Germany, as well as in youth engagement in democracy throughout Europe. She also leads the foundation’s #NowEurope initiative that encourages young people to vote and volunteers as vice president for the Young German Council on Foreign Relations.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Fears of a Global Oil Shock if the Mideast Crisis Intensifies

      by

      The threat of an escalating conflict between Israel and Iran has created an “extraordinarily precarious” global situation, sowing alarm about the potential economic fallout.As the world absorbs the prospect of an escalating conflict in the Middle East, the potential economic fallout is sowing increasing alarm. The worst fears center on a broadly debilitating development: a shock to the global oil supply.Such a result, actively contemplated in world capitals, could yield surging prices for gasoline, fuel and other products made with petroleum like plastics, chemicals and fertilizer. It could discourage investment, hiring, and business expansion, threatening many economies — particularly in Europe — with the risk of recession. The effects would be potent in nations that depend on imported oil, especially poor countries in Africa.The possibility of this calamitous outcome has come into focus in recent days as Israel plots its response to the barrage of missiles that Iran unleashed last week. Some scenarios are seen as highly unlikely, yet still conceivable: An Israeli strike on Iranian oil installations might prompt Iran to target refineries in Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates, both major oil producers. Iranian-supported Houthi rebels claimed credit for an attack on Saudi oil installations in 2019. The Trump administration subsequently pinned the blame on Iranian forces.As it has done before, Iran might also threaten the passage of tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, the critical waterway that is the conduit for oil produced in the Persian Gulf, the source of nearly one-third of the world’s oil production. Such a move could entail conflict with American naval ships stationed in the region.That, too, is currently considered to be improbable. But the upheaval in the region in recent months has pushed out the parameters of possibility, rendering imaginable scenarios that were once dismissed as extreme.As Israel plots its next move, it has other targets besides Iranian oil installations. Iran would have reason for caution in crafting its own retaliation. Broadening the war to its Persian Gulf neighbors would invite a punishing response that could push Iran’s own economy — already bleak — to the brink of collapse.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Ship in Need of Repairs Has Explosive Cargo, but No Dock

      by

      The MV Ruby has meandered around Europe’s northwestern coastline under a cloud of suspicion over its thousands of tons of Russian fertilizer.The MV Ruby has languished off the coast of Britain for more than a week, its hull cracked, its propeller damaged. Yet no port will let the ship dock, fearing that the thousands of tons of Russian fertilizer it carries could lead to a disastrous explosion.Over the weekend, the MV Ruby remained 14 miles off the coast of Kent, in southeastern England, where it has been since last month.For weeks now, the ship has sailed around northern Europe’s coastline, looking for a friendly port. But no country has allowed it to approach, fearing a repeat of the explosion in 2020 in Lebanon that destroyed the Port of Beirut and killed more than 190 people.The ship is reportedly ferrying 20,000 tons of ammonium nitrate, a substance used for fertilizer. An explosion of 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate devastated the Lebanese port and was felt as far away as Cyprus in the Mediterranean. The MV Ruby may be carrying more than seven times as much.The ship’s stalled journey underscores the distrust and suspicion that vessels linked to Russia have faced since the start of the war in Ukraine. While the MV Ruby is registered in Malta and owned by a Maltese company, Ruby Enterprise, and is managed by Serenity Shipping, which is based in the United Arab Emirates, the Russian fertilizer it is ferrying has caused some governments to worry that the ship may be a Trojan horse, sent to sabotage vital shipping and port infrastructure.The ship’s managers and some maritime authorities have tried with little success to assure the public that the cargo poses no threat.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Why the World’s Biggest Powers Can’t Stop a Middle East War

      by

      The United States’ ability to influence events in the Mideast has waned, and other major nations have essentially been onlookers.Over almost a year of war in the Middle East, major powers have proved incapable of stopping or even significantly influencing the fighting, a failure that reflects a turbulent world of decentralized authority that seems likely to endure.Stop-and-start negotiations between Israel and Hamas to end the fighting in Gaza, pushed by the United States, have repeatedly been described by the Biden administration as on the verge of a breakthrough, only to fail. The current Western-led attempt to avert a full-scale Israeli-Hezbollah war in Lebanon amounts to a scramble to avert disaster. Its chances of success seem deeply uncertain after the Israeli killing of Hassan Nasrallah, the longtime leader of Hezbollah on Friday.“There’s more capability in more hands in a world where centrifugal forces are far stronger than centralizing ones,” said Richard Haass, the president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. “The Middle East is the primary case study of this dangerous fragmentation.”The killing of Mr. Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah over more than three decades and the man who built the Shiite organization into one of the most powerful nonstate armed forces in the world, leaves a vacuum that Hezbollah will most likely take a long time to fill. It is a major blow to Iran, the chief backer of Hezbollah, that may even destabilize the Islamic Republic. Whether full-scale war will come to Lebanon remains unclear.“Nasrallah represented everything for Hezbollah, and Hezbollah was the advance arm of Iran,” said Gilles Kepel, a leading French expert on the Middle East and the author of a book on the world’s upheaval since Oct. 7. “Now the Islamic Republic is weakened, perhaps mortally, and one wonders who can even give an order for Hezbollah today.”For many years, the United States was the only country that could bring constructive pressure to bear on both Israel and Arab states. It engineered the 1978 Camp David Accords that brought peace between Israel and Egypt, and the Israel-Jordan peace of 1994. Just over three decades ago, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of Israel and Yasir Arafat, the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, shook hands on the White House lawn in the name of peace, only for the fragile hope of that embrace to erode steadily.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More