EU will be reeling over how to tackle trade talks after Trump's 30% tariff threat
But Saturday's shock threat to impose tariffs of 30% on the EU is a blow to the bloc's confidence, which had already secretly capitulated during negotiations with diplomats revealing they had to sacrifice trade for the wider prize of security and defence of the continent.
It is worth pausing to consider what happened in the last three weeks in the EU. Up to the middle of June, Brussels had brandished its economic power in negotiations with €1.4bn (£1.2bn) at stake for one of the US's most important trading partners.
Officials and diplomats were openly critical of the position Keir Starmer had taken in the UK, saying they would never sign up to a deal as thin as that involving just cars, beef, plane parts and ethanol. One questioned whether Westminster's deal was even 'legally implementable'. Another vowed: 'We will never do a deal like Starmer.'
Another characterised the deal they wanted to land as 'somewhere between rollover UK and retaliatory China'.
'If the EU doesn't stand up to Trump or demand the rigours of rules, the question will be: what is left of the international rules-based system?' one diplomat told the Guardian, speaking of the risk to employment rights, free speech, social welfare and public care.
The tough talk even extended to threats of tax on services including X, Google and Microsoft alongside trade war stables such as cars and alcohol.
But by last week, the position had changed. The EU was going for a bare bones deal just like the UK, hoping for relief from the 27.5% tax on car exports, the 50% import duties on steel in exchange for a 10% tariff for most imports. The deal was put on Trump's table and since Wednesday the EU has waited.
Why the change? One word: Russia. As one diplomat conceded last week the Nato summit in mid-June had some hard truths – the EU could take five to 10 years to build up aircraft, missiles and intelligence capacity in the air and on the ground to defend itself from a military attack.
Some protested at the obsequiousness shown towards the US president with the Nato chief even referring to him as 'Daddy', but as one diplomat said last week: 'We got what we wanted – Trump is continuing to supply weapons for Ukraine.'
Another said the EU could never have continued to hardball like Japan. 'It doesn't depend on the US for defence.'
Sign up to Headlines Europe
A digest of the morning's main headlines from the Europe edition emailed direct to you every week day
after newsletter promotion
When asked about the negotiation pivot, one diplomat in Brussels said on Thursday: 'This has been extremely tough. I think it is difficult to look at these negotiations in isolation. They affect the whole spectrum of EU-US relations, including security and the defence of Ukraine.
'There is also a short-term perspective and a long-term perspective. And in an institution [EU] like this, we are negotiating to find the balance between the pain you inflict on yourself in the short term and the pain you might inflict for the long term.'
Diplomats conceded the deal they had hoped for was already a big concession. But the tables have been turned again, this time by Trump. A 30% tariff will almost certainly trigger a trade war, even a 15% tariff will be difficult to 'eat' (the now widely used term for absorbing tariffs).
Trade ministers meet in Brussels on Monday, just hours before midnight when the current pause on their own retaliatory tariffs against the US expires.
There will almost certainly be calls from France and others to change tack back to hardballing.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
13 minutes ago
- The Sun
The best type of fan for cooling down your home revealed
AS the hot weather continues, keeping your home cool can feel like a challenge. But experts agree that oscillating fans are the best option for spreading cooler air effectively. 1 Unlike stationary fans, oscillating fans move from side to side, circulating air across a wider area. Experts at Ovo Energy have long said oscillating fans are the best choice for keeping rooms cool. This is because they circulate air across the entire room, rather than concentrating on one specific area. Meanwhile Katie Lilywhite, air treatment expert at also agrees. She said: "When you're using your fan to cool down your home this summer, it's far better to have it oscillating than running it still. "Oscillating fans help spread air across a larger space, making it easier to cool down the entire room." Whether you're trying to sleep through the heat, work comfortably, or relax at home, an oscillating fan ensures a steady flow of air reaches you wherever you are. This makes them ideal for bedrooms, living rooms, and even home offices. If you're looking for a fan that's affordable, there are plenty of options. Most fans now have an oscillating feature, but it's worth checking before you buy. We've trawled through online retailers to find the best deals on a host of fans - and there are plenty of bargains to be had - and prices start at £1.50. Meanwhile, we've revealed four of the best ways to bag a Dyson fan for less. You can of course, search for dupes, such as Lidl's £70 alternative. But if you have your heart set on the real deal, then it may be worth checking out these offers to avoid paying full price. Plus, read out ultimate guide on keeping cool this summer. JUST because something is on offer, or is part of a sale, it doesn't mean it's always a good deal. There are plenty of comparison websites out there that'll check prices for you - so don't be left paying more than you have to. Most of them work by comparing the prices across hundreds of retailers. Here are some that we recommend: Google Shopping is a tool that lets users search for and compare prices for products across the web. Simply type in keywords, or a product number, to bring up search results. Price Spy logs the history of how much something costs from over 3,000 different retailers, including Argos, Amazon, eBay and the supermarkets. Once you select an individual product you can quickly compare which stores have the best price and which have it in stock. Idealo is another website that lets you compare prices between retailers. All shoppers need to do is search for the item they need and the website will rank them from the cheapest to the most expensive one. CamelCamelCamel only works on goods being sold on Amazon. To use it, type in the URL of the product you want to check the price of. How much energy does a fan use? First you'll need to work out how much electricity your fan uses. You can do this by finding out its "wattage", which will tell you how much power it uses. Then you need to find the total output you will have to turn that wattage into kilowatt hours. You will need to do some maths here. To convert watts into kilowatts, you divide the wattage by 1,000. For example, if your fan uses 70 watts, dividing 70 by 1,000 gives 0.07 kilowatts (kW). Then you'll need to multiply this number by the number of hours you've used the fan. For example, if you use the fan for 12 hours, the calculation is 0.07 kW x 12 hours = 0.84 kWh. Once you've calculated your fan's energy usage in kilowatt-hours (kWh), multiply this by the cost per kWh as stated on your energy bill. Electricity prices vary across the UK, so check your energy bill for the exact price per kWh. According to the July 2025 Ofgem price cap, the maximum rate for those on the standard variable tariff is 25.73p per kWh. Based on the example above, you'd take 0.84kW and multiply it by 25.73p - equalling 21.61p. The equation is: cost = power (kilowatt) × time (hour) × cost of 1 kWh (pence). So if your fan costs 21.61p to have on for 12 hours and you have it on for a full week, that adds up to £1.51. If you repeated that across a month of 4.5 weeks, the cost would be £6.81. Of course, costs will vary depending on what type of fan you have, how long you're using it, what setting it's on and how much you pay for your energy. How to calculate your appliance costs HERE'S how to work out how much your appliances are costing you: Find the wattage: Look for a sticker on your appliance. It will tell you the wattage (W). If it's in kilowatts (kW), remember 1kW = 1000W. Convert to kilowatts: Divide the wattage by 1000 to get kilowatts (kW). For example, a 500W appliance is 0.5kW. Figure out usage: How many hours a day do you use the appliance? Calculate daily kWh: Multiply the kilowatts (kW) by the hours of use. For example, a 0.5 kW appliance used for 4 hours a day would use 2kWh (0.5 x 4 = 2). Factor in electricity cost: Ofgem's current electricity price cap is around 25.73p per kWh (this can vary slightly depending on your supplier and region so it is always worth double checking). Multiply your daily kWh by this price to get the daily cost. Monthly cost: Multiply the daily cost by the number of days in the month.
The Guardian
16 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Shameful' that black boys in London more likely to die by 18 than white boys, says Met chief
The head of the Metropolitan police has said it is 'shameful' that black boys in London are more likely to be dead by 18 than white boys. Sir Mark Rowley spoke on Sky News' Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips where he said racial disparity among suspects and victims of crime in the capital was a 'difficult' issue for the force. The Met police commissioner said there was a history between policing and black communities 'where policing has got a lot wrong, and we get a lot more right today', adding: 'But we do still make mistakes. That's not in doubt. I'm being as relentless in that as it can be.' He said: 'The vast majority of our people are good people. But that legacy, combined with the tragedy that some of this crime falls most heavily in black communities, that creates a real problem because the legacy creates concern.' 'It's not right that black boys growing up in London are more likely to be dead by the time they're 18, far more likely than white boys,' the commissioner added. 'That's, I think, shameful for the city. The challenge for us is, as we reach in to tackle those issues, that confrontation that comes from that reaching in, whether it's stop and search on the streets or the sort of operations you seek. 'The danger is that's landing in an environment with less trust. And that makes it even harder. But the people who win out of that, [are] all of the criminals.' He added: 'I'm so determined to find a way to get past this because if policing in black communities can find a way to confront these issues, together we can give black boys growing up in London equal life chances to white boys, which is not what we're seeing at the moment.' Rowley said policing was not the only area that needed scrutiny, with black boys more likely to be excluded from school than white boys as an example. He went on to say that the criminal justice system was 'close to broken' and could be 'frustrating' for officers. He said: 'The thing that is frustrating is that the system – and no system can be perfect – but when the system hasn't managed to turn that person's life around and get them on the straight and narrow, and it just becomes a revolving door. When that happens, of course that's frustrating for officers. 'So the more successful prisons and probation can be in terms of getting people on to a law-abiding life from the path they're on, the better.' Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Rowley backed 'vital' proposals called for by Sir Brian Leveson in his report on the criminal justice system published this week. Among other changes, Leveson called for some offences to be tried without jury. He gave the example of Snaresbrook crown court in London, which he said had more than 100 cases listed for 2029. He said: 'If it's someone on bail … and going in for a criminal court trial that could be four years away … That's pretty unacceptable, isn't it?'
Times
32 minutes ago
- Times
A wealth tax looks seductive to Labour but must be resisted
Anyone switching on the radio yesterday will have heard Sharon Graham of the Unite union complaining bitterly about the failure of the government to adequately compensate her members in Birmingham, rejecting any suggestion that the state simply cannot afford her demands. Graham supports the increasingly fashionable idea of a 'wealth tax', as does Lord Kinnock, Labour's leader from 1983 to 1992, who popped up last week to suggest a 2 per cent levy on people with assets valued at more than £10 million, which would raise as much as £11 billion a year. He said it would 'secure resources' and allow Labour to declare that 'we are the government of equity'. It must be hoped that Kinnock was freelancing rather than flying a kite on behalf of a cabinet member. Labour's left has been emboldened by Sir Keir Starmer's U-turns on more than £6 billion of winter fuel and welfare cuts. The reversals, combined with possible productivity downgrades from the independent fiscal watchdog, could leave Rachel Reeves scrambling to fill a £20 billion hole by autumn. Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, proposed up to £4 billion of extra taxes on high-earners and the wealthy before the spring statement. Starmer's spokesman refused to rule out a wealth tax when questioned last week, although Reeves is known to oppose it. Labour, which still bears the scars of Kinnock's defeat in 1992, put itself in a straitjacket by promising not to raise taxes on 'working people' before last year's election. Starmer and Reeves were entitled to point out that the Conservatives left a dreadful fiscal legacy, having splurged during Covid and allowed borrowing to balloon. But it was Labour's pre-election pledge that guided the chancellor's decision to soak business in the October budget. That loaded £25 billion on to employers' national insurance contributions, imposed inheritance tax on farms and family-owned companies and increased taxes on capital gains and carried interest. It was also the chancellor who toughened up the Conservatives' measures on non-doms by making all their global assets liable for UK inheritance tax after 10 years. • Emma Duncan: It's a bit rich Labour raising taxes on this lot Labour's first budget has already sapped animal spirits. Although numbers are difficult to check and are often produced by vested interests — Henley and Partners, a relocation specialist, claims the UK will lose a net 16,500 dollar millionaires this year — anecdotal evidence, plus a newfound vibrancy in rival domiciles such as Italy, suggests the non-dom reforms in particular may be causing an exodus of the wealthy. The Labour left prefers not to confront fiscal reality, committed to high taxation and redistribution. But make no mistake: a wealth tax, on top of last autumn's harsh medicine, would be arsenic for the UK's economy. In considering a new tax, it pays to look at past examples. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 12 countries had wealth taxes in 1990. Just four still levied them by 2017. Spain introduced a wealth tax in 2022, broadly payable on assets over €2 million for a couple, which brought in €632 million in 2023 — 0.25 per cent of the government's total tax revenue for that year. The equivalent yield in the UK would be £2 billion, less than a third of the savings forgone by the Labour leadership in its recent U-turns on winter fuel payments and welfare. Wealth taxes are not just economically harmful but burdensome to administer. The rich are more mobile than ever, so the biggest fish rarely get caught. Refusing to exempt assets such as principal residences amounts to political suicide, but exemptions bring complications and opportunities for avoidance. A 'flash' wealth tax carried out once, without warning, would capture more revenue. But it would also destroy confidence in the rule of law. It is also worth remembering that the top 1 per cent of earners in the UK contribute almost 30 per cent of income tax revenue. The top 10 per cent stump up about 60 per cent of it. • Why a wealth tax won't work Starmer's failure to convince many of his backbenchers of the need for fiscal discipline has left the government caught between a rock and a hard place. Cuts to the welfare bill, although politically toxic, are still needed. Ministers will have to remake the argument but are unlikely to do so before the autumn budget. Reeves will inevitably look at a variety of stealth measures to try to square the tax-and-spend circle. But she should avoid a wealth tax that would accelerate the flight of entrepreneurs. The rich may appear to pay the price at first, but it is Labour's 'working people' who will eventually pick up the bill.
