Merz rejects reported EU plan to force rental firms to buy EVs from 2030
Friedrich Merz
on Monday criticised a reported draft EU plan to oblige car rental firms and large companies to buy only electric vehicles from 2030, saying it could contribute to destroying the bloc's important automotive industry.
German tabloid Bild Zeitung had on Saturday reported that the EU Commission was considering the move, citing anonymous EU sources. Such corporate fleets make up about 60% of new car sales, it said.
Merz said the proposals "completely miss the point of the current joint needs we have in Europe", noting the automotive industry was one of the region's core industries.
"We must not allow it to be destroyed by focussing on technologies that might not be market-ready enough by a given date for one to rely exclusively on that single technology," he told reporters. "That's why we oppose such rigid specifications."
"Europe is not open enough, not fast enough, not dynamic enough - and I want to help change that" he said.
Germany has a right to help formulate the EU's strategic outlook given it finances a quarter of the bloc's budget, he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
3 hours ago
- News18
Has India Stopped Buying Oil From Russia As Trump Claimed? What We Know So Far
Last Updated: The US has imposed 25 per cent tariff on Indian goods entering America, along with a separate penalty related to purchases of Russian oil and military hardware United States President Donald Trump on Saturday claimed in Washington that India is no longer going to be buying oil from Russia. 'I understand that India is no longer going to be buying oil from Russia. That's what I heard, I don't know if that's right or not. That is a good step. We will see what happens," he said. Days ago, the US imposed 25 per cent tariff on Indian goods entering America, along with a separate penalty related to purchases of Russian oil and military hardware. Trump also warned that countries buying Russian oil could face tariffs as high as 100 per cent if Moscow does not agree to a peace deal by mid-August. In a strongly worded post on Truth Social, Trump lashed out at India's trade practices and its reliance on Russian defence and energy sectors. 'Also, they have always bought a vast majority of their military equipment from Russia, and are Russia's largest buyer of energy, along with China, at a time when everyone wants Russia to stop the killing in Ukraine — All things not good!" How much oil does India buy from Russia? As of 2025, Russia remains India's largest supplier of crude oil, accounting for approximately 35–36% of India's total oil imports. Official figures indicate that India imported an average of 1.75–1.76 million barrels per day (mb/d) of Russian crude during the first half of 2025 and the entire fiscal year 2024–25. In May 2025, Russian oil imports peaked at around 1.96 mb/d, the highest monthly level in nearly a year. Is buying Russian oil illegal? Sources told ANI that Russian oil has never been sanctioned, instead, it was subjected to a G7/EU price-cap mechanism designed to limit revenue while ensuring global supplies continued to flow. India acted as a responsible global energy actor, ensuring markets remain liquid and prices stable. India's purchases have remained fully legitimate and within the framework of international norms. 'Had India not absorbed discounted Russian crude combined with OPEC+ production cuts of 5.86 mb/d, global oil prices could have surged well beyond the March 2022 peak of US$137/bbl, intensifying inflationary pressures worldwide," sources told ANI. It is also pertinent to note that Russian oil has never been sanctioned and it is still not sanctioned by either US or EU. Indian OMCs have not been buying Iranian or Venezuelan crude which is actually sanctioned by the US. OMCs have always complied with the price cap of $60 for Russian oil recommended by the US. Recently EU has recommended a price cap of $47.6 dollars for Russian crude which will be enforced from September. Commenting on European Union's import of Russian origin liquified natural gas (LNG) during this period, sources added, 'EU was the largest importer of Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) during this period, buying 51% of Russia's LNG exports, followed by China at 21% and Japan at 18%. Similarly, for pipeline gas, the EU remained the top buyer with a 37% share, followed by China (30%) and Turkey (27%)." Is India buying oil from Russia or not? top videos View all With Reuters, ANI Inputs About the Author News Desk The News Desk is a team of passionate editors and writers who break and analyse the most important events unfolding in India and abroad. From live updates to exclusive reports to in-depth explainers, the Desk More Get Latest Updates on Movies, Breaking News On India, World, Live Cricket Scores, And Stock Market Updates. Also Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: August 03, 2025, 18:21 IST News explainers Has India Stopped Buying Oil From Russia As Trump Claimed? What We Know So Far Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Mint
4 hours ago
- Mint
The EU needn't have yielded to the US on a trade deal
When US President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen shook hands at Trump's Scottish golf resort last week, they weren't just announcing a new trade deal—they were formalizing Europe's economic and ideological surrender. By agreeing to 15% tariffs on most exports to the US, the EU has capitulated to Trump's zero-sum world-view. In doing so, it has abandoned the principles of multilateralism that have long guided global trade. The economic consequences will likely be immediate and severe. European exporters now face tariffs nearly ten times higher than the previous trade-weighted average of 1.6%. Volkswagen alone has reported a $1.5 billion hit due to higher US tariffs. Also Read: Global shake-up: America's retreat spells a big opportunity for Europe But this is just part of the problem. The real damage is what the EU agreed to pay for the 'privilege' of maintaining access to the US market: buying $750 billion worth of US energy over three years and investing another $600 billion in the US economy. These staggering sums will inevitably divert resources from European development and innovation while legitimizing bilateral coercion over the multilateral rules-based World Trade Organization system. As critics have rightly pointed out, this massive outflow comes directly at the expense of domestic investment. What makes the EU's surrender especially troubling is how unnecessary it was. As America's largest economic partner, the EU has considerable leverage. The bloc's $270 billion services deficit with the US offered clear avenues for retaliation, from digital taxes to restrictions on American tech giants. Also Read: The IMF's 'World Economic Outlook' is too coy for a Trump-shaken world Weeks earlier, anticipating a stalemate, European policymakers had prepared counter-tariffs targeting $107 billion worth of American goods. But the EU had far more potent weapons at its disposal. Its Anti-Coercion Instrument, for example, could have barred US companies from government contracts, revoked intellectual-property rights and imposed broader trade restrictions. Yet, national leaders, fearing Trump's retaliation and under pressure from domestic industries eager to maintain access to the US market, refused to authorize Von der Leyen to use any of these tools, forcing her to negotiate from a position of weakness. The contrast with other US trading partners could not be starker. When the UK secured a 10% tariff rate from Trump in May, European leaders expressed concern about accepting similar terms. Now, they hail 15% tariffs on EU exports as a diplomatic breakthrough. Britain, acting alone, negotiated better terms than the EU as a whole. Also Read: How Trump got the upper hand over the EU on tariffs This failure exposes the fundamental weakness of European governance. Lacking a true EU-wide governance system, the bloc remains incapable of translating competing national agendas into a unified position. With Von der Leyen hamstrung by member states prioritizing narrow domestic interests over European cohesion, the result was a deal that pleases no one but Trump and locks Europe into a state of structured dependency. The EU's failure to push back against Trump is especially troubling given its stated goal of achieving strategic autonomy. Some may argue that the deal—technically not a formal trade agreement, but rather a set of statements outlining an ongoing negotiation process—buys time. By appeasing Trump, the argument goes, the Commission has maintained transatlantic ties while creating space for future carve-outs. But if this were truly a time-buying strategy, we would expect the EU to take concrete steps to advance strategic autonomy: boosting defence spending, accelerating supply-chain diversification and investing in retaliatory capabilities. Instead, after years of pledging to reduce reliance on foreign powers, EU leaders chose to replace Russian energy imports with American supplies and commit to massive purchases of US military equipment. Also Read: Mint Explainer: Why does the EU keep sanctioning Russia? Europe's subordination both reflects and reinforces the continent's dependence on US power. It has created a structural imbalance that extends across defence, trade and energy, leaving Europe in a state of permanent vassalization. Trump's ability to extract sweeping economic concessions and defence-spending commitments shows how effectively the US can weaponize Europe's security anxieties to pursue broader geopolitical objectives. The $600 billion investment pledge, much of it earmarked for military-equipment purchases, forces Europe to subsidize American defence contractors while undermining its own industrial base. By giving in to Trump's demands, the EU validated Trump's transactional approach, emboldening not only future American administrations but also other global powers eager to turn trade into an instrument of geopolitical coercion. While the immediate crisis may have passed, the long-term damage to EU credibility and autonomy will be long-lasting. The widespread perception that Europe surrenders without resistance will undoubtedly invite further challenges to European interests. Until European leaders are able to break the cycle of dependency by empowering EU institutions to act decisively against external coercion, these humiliating capitulations will only multiply, reducing the continent to a prosperous yet powerless appendage of the US empire. ©2025/Project Syndicate The author is professor of European Union Law at HEC Paris and visiting professor at the College of Europe in Bruges and Natolin.
Mint
9 hours ago
- Mint
Puma's New Boss Takes Helm Trailing Adidas and a Recovering Nike
(Bloomberg) -- For more than two years, Puma SE's top brass spoke of 'elevating' the German brand and making its sneakers and apparel more aspirational. Since arriving last month, Chief Executive Officer Arthur Hoeld has delivered a fairly blunt verdict: Puma, if anything, is now perceived as cheap. Hoeld, a decades-long veteran of cross-town rival Adidas AG, has the task of turning Puma around and charting a return to profit and growth. It's not the first time the 77-year-old brand has needed a makeover, and former bosses like Jochen Zeitz, now head of Harley-Davidson Inc., and Bjorn Gulden, who became CEO of Adidas in 2023, both found ways to revitalize Puma's leaping cat. But Hoeld has significant hurdles to clear. Fast-growing brands like On Holding AG, New Balance and Hoka are winning customers and taking more shelf space at retailers. Adidas is still riding high on its retro Sambas, while industry leader Nike Inc. is bouncing back under company veteran Elliott Hill with products like the Vomero 18 running shoe, after a rare rough patch for the Swoosh. Then there are challenges Puma can do little to control: a fast-appreciating euro and US President Donald Trump's trade tariffs ramping up industry costs. Hoeld took the first step toward what looks like a textbook reset on July 24, delivering a brutal financial reappraisal that sees a 20% plunge in sales in the coming months and Puma losing money this year. 'That tells you that something is really quite wrong,' said Piral Dadhania, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets. 'This is a fairly high-risk sort of turnaround. The execution becomes much more relevant in that situation.' Hoeld first has to stop the bleeding. He is inheriting a growing pile of unsold sneakers and apparel in warehouses around the world that could take Puma more than a year to work through and to convince retailers to buy from the brand again, Deutsche Bank analyst Adam Cochrane said in a note. 'It's pretty toxic,' said Ingo Speich, a portfolio manager with Deka Investment in Frankfurt, a major Puma shareholder. 'If you produce more and more shoes and widen your product range — at the same time as you get less retail space because other brands are far stronger — then it gets difficult.' After Puma's profit warning, Hoeld linked the inventory challenge to big-picture questions that could take months to answer and even longer to execute on. 'Do we have the right products for our consumers and our wholesale partners?' he asked. 'If so, why is our brand not achieving the required visibility and engagement?' He promised to unveil his strategy in late October. The slump is badly timed. The sneaker world has transformed in the past decade as Adidas and Nike pulled back from many retail partners, prioritizing direct-to-consumer sales channels in hopes of boosting profits. That approach backfired, with consumers embracing smaller brands like On, Hoka and New Balance that secured their products more space on retailers' shelves. Puma, though, failed to capitalize on Nike's stumbles, while Adidas quickly reversed course under Gulden, winning back retailers who couldn't get enough of the three-striped Sambas and similar models. Since Hill returned to Nike last fall, he's been repairing relationships with retail partners including Inc., and the company appears set for a new era of growth. For decades, Puma has occupied a tricky spot in the sporting goods world. Though it competes in everything from football and basketball to running, it's much smaller than its main rivals Adidas and Nike in that multi-sport game. Its products typically command lower prices, though it's had success when it carves out a niche, often as the underdog brand. When Gulden arrived at Puma in 2013, he refocused the company on performance sports and leaned heavily on the brand's one genuine superstar: sprinter Usain Bolt. The Jamaican inspired the slogan 'Forever Faster' and featured on a TV ad frolicking with women in a hot tub. 'Calling all troublemakers,' he said. 'For danger, risk and potential fugitive status.' Fast-forward just over a decade and there was little of that rebellious spirit in Puma's 'Go Wild' ad this spring, which was aimed at everyday runners looking for feel-good vibes. The campaign struggled to stand out against Adidas's no-stress 'You Got This' push, or On's video featuring Sesame Street's Elmo urging runners clad in the brand's plushly cushioned trainers to not be so hard on themselves — because 'soft wins.' Yet it's Puma's Speedcat sneaker that typifies the brand's turmoil. In 2023, Puma was slow to bring back its retro Palermo trainer to compete with Adidas's Samba. At the time, Puma leaders said they would punch back by owning the likely follow-up trend for thin-soled, 'low-profile' sneakers. Their hopes were pinned on the '90s-era Speedcat — originally a product of Zeitz's push to get Puma into motorsports — becoming a blockbuster. Celebrities including Jennifer Lawrence began to wear them in 2024 and Puma finally scaled up production earlier this year, with ex-CEO Arne Freundt saying it could be one of the hottest shoes of the summer. Puma now acknowledges the shoe simply hasn't caught on. Adding insult to injury, Adidas swooped in with its similar Taekwondo franchise to capture post-Samba demand, and it's now outperforming Puma's Speedcat models on StockX, according to the resale platform. The Speedcat was key to Puma's strategy to elevate the brand and help it command higher prices for other products. Instead, some versions of the €110 ($127) sneaker can be purchased for as low as €88 on its website. Versions of the €100 Palermo are discounted as much as 30%. Adidas sells some versions of its Samba for nearly twice as much. Speich hopes Hoeld's decades of sales experience at Adidas will help. He spent years overseeing its retro footwear and apparel business, and led the Europe, Middle East and Africa division. He was head of global sales until October. If Puma can produce some hot new products, Hoeld may do a better job of getting them into the right stores in front of the right customers, according to Speich. It's not a matter of turning the brand 'upscale,' he added. Hoeld singled out the running franchise as having immediate potential. In 2021, Puma reentered the sport with its 'Nitro' foam shoes, winning praise from hardcore runners and professionals. But it was slow to target more casual buyers, and Puma is currently only available in 20 of running-chain Fleet Feet's nearly 300 locations in the US, for instance. 'When we talk innovation in our industry, running is one of these sports that matters,' Hoeld told reporters. 'We are going to make sure that Nitro is going to be seen globally as a key platform for future success of Puma.' More stories like this are available on
