Forgive me, I’m new here (and I’m not OP). But I thought the title was actually valid comment, and basically was at least in part what the BBC title was saying but not in so many words.
I know some groups in “the other place” (which I’m weaning myself off slowly) have a rule that titles have to be the same as that used in the article, but I’ve checked the rules here and that doesn’t seem to be one.
Hi and welcome here. You mean new in Fediverse, Lemmy or this community? Hope you enjoy it here.
Well indeed the rule isn’t specifically stated, but using the correct title makes not only sense ( rule 1 -3) but is the proper format imo. If I click on an OP title to find out it’s something else, it’s misleading and I’m wasting my time.
Comments and opinions can be important and valid, they can be made under content like a note or under the comments section. That’s how most do it.
basically was at least in part what the BBC title was saying but not in so many words.
The only connection to the US tariffwar - afaics - is this: “This comes at a particularly trying geopolitical moment”
If it says anywhere in the article that a deal 2 decades in the making is even partly the result of “repercussion from the US tariff war”, please point it out to me.
I don’t see it in the rules either btw, but I found it confusing and worth pointing out.
Maybe the article has changed since it was posted, but its very heavily about how Trumps trade war is accelerating a deal that has stalled for 20 years:
The choice of guests also carries an important diplomatic message from India - Delhi is accelerating strategic and trade ties with the rest of the world as the impasse over Washington’s 50% tariffs on India spills over into the new year.
“[It] sends a signal that India maintains a diversified foreign policy… and that it is not beholden to the whims of the Trump administration,” Chietigj Bajpaee of the London-based Chatham House think-tank told the BBC.
Some reports say the deal could be announced as early as 27 January when leaders from both sides meet for a high-level summit. Both von der Leyen and India’s Trade Minister Piyush Goyal have called it the “mother of all deals” - highlighting the importance they’ve placed on concluding negotiations that are nearing the finish line after nearly two decades of hard bargaining on both sides.
The pact will be India’s ninth free trade agreement (FTA) in four years, coming off the back of a string of deals with the UK, Oman, New Zealand and other countries. For Brussels, it follows the recently concluded trade deal with the Mercosur trading bloc as well as with Japan, South Korea and Vietnam.
“Both sides now seek reliable trade partners, as threats arising out of the geopolitics have created a tumultuous environment for commerce. The urge is equally strong - for India to offset US tariff issues, and the EU to offset trade dependence on China which it considers unreliable,” says Sumedha Dasgupta, senior analyst at the Economist Intelligence Unit.
There is more, but the last pargraph makes it clear that the OPs headline is correct in its framing:
“Political friction with the US since early 2026 means that EU leaders will now be more welcoming towards this trade deal than they would have otherwise been,” says Dasgupta.
The title of this post is not reflected in the article; neither the term “repercussions” nor “tariff war” are found in it.
The article’s title is
Yes this is clickbait and misleading title. Use original title OP.
Forgive me, I’m new here (and I’m not OP). But I thought the title was actually valid comment, and basically was at least in part what the BBC title was saying but not in so many words.
I know some groups in “the other place” (which I’m weaning myself off slowly) have a rule that titles have to be the same as that used in the article, but I’ve checked the rules here and that doesn’t seem to be one.
Hi and welcome here. You mean new in Fediverse, Lemmy or this community? Hope you enjoy it here.
Well indeed the rule isn’t specifically stated, but using the correct title makes not only sense ( rule 1 -3) but is the proper format imo. If I click on an OP title to find out it’s something else, it’s misleading and I’m wasting my time.
Comments and opinions can be important and valid, they can be made under content like a note or under the comments section. That’s how most do it.
Thanks! New to Lemmy, been on Mastodon for quite a while though.
Yw! Hope it’s to your liking. Should be enough communities for your tastes. And, it’s always possible to start a new one for the bold and brave.
The only connection to the US tariffwar - afaics - is this: “This comes at a particularly trying geopolitical moment”
If it says anywhere in the article that a deal 2 decades in the making is even partly the result of “repercussion from the US tariff war”, please point it out to me.
I don’t see it in the rules either btw, but I found it confusing and worth pointing out.
Maybe the article has changed since it was posted, but its very heavily about how Trumps trade war is accelerating a deal that has stalled for 20 years:
There is more, but the last pargraph makes it clear that the OPs headline is correct in its framing:
It’s in the headline, quote: India and EU set for ‘mother of all deals’ as Trump’s tariff uncertainty looms
It seems to me that the title used is not unreasonable, on the grounds of the headline alone.