EU prepares for retaliation on Trump tariffs but hopes for agreement
European Union
will continue to prepare retaliatory action after
Donald Trump
said the US would impose a general 50 per cent
tariff
on all European imports in a week's time, a threat that brought the threat of a full-blown transatlantic trade war closer than ever.
But Brussels will continue to seek agreement with the US on tariffs and the hope in Brussels, senior sources said, was that the shock announcement by president Trump was simply a ploy to gain leverage in the talks between the two sides.
Mr Trump's latest tariff threat, targeting all exports from the EU, would deliver a hammer blow to key manufacturing sectors, including autos, aerospace, chemicals and other goods, business groups have warned.
The US is the EU's largest single trade partner, accounting for just over 20 per cent of goods exports worth more than €530 billion in 2024, according to figures from the European Commission.
READ MORE
Ireland, along with Germany, Italy and France, is the leading exporter within the bloc.
Maria Demertzis, the head of the economy strategy centre at the Conference Board think-tank in Brussels, said the impact of a 50 per cent tariff would be 'unsustainable', particularly for exposed sectors where the US was a key market.
Economic modelling conducted when Trump imposed a 20 per cent tariff last April estimated that the tariffs would hit the bloc's GDP by 0.2 per cent. This would grow to 0.5 per cent if 50 per cent tariffs were imposed, Ms Demertzis added.
'It's still a relatively small overall macroeconomic effect, although it will be large in some countries, like Ireland, [which] are more reliant on exports to the EU,' said Ms Demertzis. In terms of sectors, 'the effects will be very big indeed', she added.
Medicines were the most exported goods from the EU to the US in 2024, with almost €80 billion drugs sold into the US market, according to Eurostat.
Nathalie Moll, director general of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, said the group was 'deeply concerned' about increased trade tensions between Europe and the US.
She warned tariffs would create shortages of medicines and urged the US and the EU to avoid them at 'all costs'. 'Tariffs on medicines would be nothing short of a disaster for patients and [the] industry on both sides of the Atlantic,' she said.
US pharmaceutical companies have built large manufacturing bases in the EU, particularly in Ireland, where they have taken advantage of a lower tax rate.
Mr Trump has complained that Ireland has 'got the entire US pharmaceutical industry in its grasp'. 'We don't make our own drugs, our own pharmaceuticals any more,' he said. 'The drug companies are in Ireland and they are in lots of other places – China.'
Speaking after Mr Trump's announcement, Ian Talbot, secretary general of International Chambers of Commerce Ireland, said: 'The proposed increase in tariffs on EU imports introduces uncertainty into a stable and integrated trade relationship. The immediate effect for businesses will be to delay investment decisions, disrupt supply chains, and undermine market confidence.
'The EU/US relationship is not only of immense economic importance; it is the cornerstone of the rules-based global trading system. Increasing tariffs between these two major economies could disrupt global business at a time when stability is crucial.'
He said that de-escalation, rather than retaliation should be prioritised:
'In line with our colleagues at the International Chamber of Commerce, we call on the US and the EU to redouble ongoing efforts to renew their trade relationship. A swift and co-ordinated de-escalation is essential to preserve the trust and stability that underpin international commerce, business investment and job creation.'
SpiritsEurope, which represents whiskey and other spirit producers across the EU, said it regretted any actions that could escalate tensions in transatlantic relations.
'A 50 per cent tariff would impact not only EU producers but also the US hospitality sector and the wider economy,' it said in a statement. 'It would take us further from our sector's shared goal on both sides of the Atlantic: a return to a fair and reciprocal zero-tariff transatlantic regime for spirits.'
The EU and the US are each other's largest spirits export markets, it noted, urging negotiators on both sides 'to intensify their efforts to reach an agreement securing a return to tariff-free transatlantic trade in spirits as a matter of urgency – and no later than early July'.
Commenting of the latest US move, US treasury secretary Scott Bessent said, the EU needed to move faster in finding an accommodation.
'I've said there are 18 important trade deals we have to do. I'm working most with Asia and that group has come forward with some very interesting proposals.
'They are negotiating in good faith. I would hope this would light a fire under the EU because I have said before, the EU has a collective action problem here. It is 27 countries but they are represented by this one group in Brussels.
'Some of the feedback I have being getting is that some of the individual countries don't even know what the EU is negotiating on their behalf.' - Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
3 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Unreliability of Donald Trump's US means a cascade of nuclear armament is on the way
At first glance, the recent joint US/Israeli attack on Iran looks like yet another flare up of regional rivalries in a Middle East tortured by endless conflict, intense geopolitical competition, and mass murder. Unlike previous iterations of conflict involving Israel, this bout has not triggered a wider conflagration, as was the case in 1967 and 1973. But the war launched by Israel on Iran may prove extraordinarily important, not just for regional relations, but for international relations writ large. The attack highlighted the increasing lawlessness of both Donald Trump's administration and Benjamin Netanyahu's government in Tel Aviv. Since coming back to office, Trump has taken a wrecking ball to the rules-based international order which his predecessors put in place after 1945. The surprise attack on Iran, occurring amidst ongoing negotiations, was entirely lacking the required congressional approval. We know from extant studies of authoritarianism that regimes which attack and seek to suborn the criminal justice system in their own jurisdictions are more likely to behave aggressively in the international arena and exhibit scorn towards well-established principles of international law. The common denominator is that, in both cases, law is restricting — the courts constitute a confining block; the regime often cannot carry out its will and thus is prepared to flagrantly trespass on established norms to get its way. After the Second World War, the US managed to establish a global system characterised by increasing levels of inter-state co-operation and incremental investment in international institutions. That these were designed in the American image, and largely reflected US interests, was unimportant — over time the number of countries engaging in democratisation increased precipitously. This was parallelled in the economic sphere, where protectionism was jettisoned in favour of globalisation, which brought more and more countries into a rules-based international trading system. After 1945, such organisations as the United Nations, the World Health Organization (WHO), and the World Trade Organization (WTO) became household names, as internationalisation took root. The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Rome in 1998 signalled a determination to internationalise justice and, in particular, prosecute heinous war crimes and crimes against humanity. The cross-national integration pioneered in Europe via the European Economic Community (EEC) and later, the European Union (EU) developed into the most successful experiment with institutionalising cross national relations the world has ever seen. This pattern of ever denser internationalisation began to fracture in the early part of this century. The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 constituted a singular moment of inflection: The world turned on its axis. Washington DC told outrageous lies, in order to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and lost an enormous amount of credibility in the process. The George W Bush administration demonstrated contempt for the very international standards and institutions which US governments had built and championed since the 1940s, showing great distain for the UN and the EU. It is now vastly worse: The Trump administration has destroyed crucial vestiges of international engagement, from ending USAID funding (already producing devastating consequences), and withdrawing from the WHO, the Paris Climate Change Agreement, the UN Human Rights Council, and UNRWA, to threatening sanctions on any country which complied with the ICC order for the arrest of Netanyahu and his former defence minister Yoav Gallant. The precipitous damage being done to the rules-based international order has been underlined recently when a number of countries, including Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Poland, and Ukraine all signalled an intent to withdraw from the Ottawa Convention on the prohibition, use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel mines. This is undisputably evidence of an accelerating breakdown in trust in international institutions. The biggest victim of this regression in internationalism, however, may be the ability of the world to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Iran's underground nuclear enrichment site at Fordo. Picture: Planet Labs PBC via AP The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has long been heralded as a cornerstone of the rules-based international order, with 191 states party to the treaty; its success in preventing widespread nuclear 'cascading' has been remarkable. Indeed, with the notable exceptions of Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea, no other nation has openly developed a nuclear arsenal. However, recent events, threaten to unravel decades of diligent non-proliferation work, pushing the world towards a more dangerous, nuclear-armed future. The assault by Israel, a nuclear-armed state, and not a signatory to the NPT, on a NPT member state (Iran) whose nuclear programme was under the stringent surveillance of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in the midst of on-going Iran-US nuclear talks, underscores a profound double standard. The inability or unwillingness of Western powers to undertake significant military action against Russia, a nuclear superpower, despite its aggression in Ukraine, is a powerful demonstration of the 'nuclear shield' in action. Similarly, direct military intervention against North Korea, another nuclear-armed state, is fraught with unimaginable risks. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, front right, meets with Russian security council secretary Sergei Shoigu, left, in Pyongyang, North Korea. Picture: Korean Central News Agency/Korea News Service via AP This perceived immunity for nuclear powers stands in stark contrast to the vulnerability of non-nuclear states, including Iran, which up until now had been adhering to international agreements, especially the NPT. This disparity fuels a growing, and increasingly vocal, sentiment within Iran: That possessing nuclear weapons is the ultimate and sole guarantor of national security. The argument gaining traction is that had Iran developed a nuclear deterrent, no nation would dare to attack or threaten its interests in the way that Israel and the US have. Consequently, the voices advocating for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon have intensified, culminating in the Iranian parliament's recent vote to suspend cooperation with the IAEA ,and preparation of legislation to withdraw from the NPT. Such a withdrawal from the NPT by Iran would be catastrophic for the global non-proliferation regime, inevitably triggering a cascade of similar actions. Regional rivals, notably Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, which possess the technological capabilities and geopolitical motivations, would likely follow suit, initiating a potentially dangerous escalatory nuclear arms race in one of the world's most volatile regions. Similarly, non-nuclear states like Japan and South Korea, facing a nuclear-armed North Korea, now exhibit a profound sense of vulnerability. They are almost certainly convinced that relying solely on security guarantees from an increasingly chaotic US, or the abstract protections of a rules-based international order is insufficient. The logical, albeit dangerous, conclusion for these nations is that the only reliable defence against a nuclear threat is the possession of their own nuclear deterrent. The policies of the Trump administration, particularly its unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, exacerbated this dangerous trend. Far from preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, these actions arguably strengthened the resolve of Iranian hardliners and inadvertently demonstrated to other nations that adherence to international agreements offers no guaranteed protection from external threats. This shortsighted approach, coupled with the actions of other actors, has inflicted potentially fatal damage on the NPT — arguably one of the most successful diplomatic achievements of the post-1945 rules based international order. John O'Brennan is a professor in the Department of Sociology at Maynooth University and director of the Maynooth Centre for European and Eurasian Studies Shamsoddin Shariati is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Sociology at Maynooth University
Irish Examiner
4 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Most US firms in Ireland to grow or keep jobs despite global pressure, survey finds
The overwhelming majority of US businesses in Ireland plan to increase or maintain their employment levels in Ireland despite the global uncertainty, and deliberate efforts by US president Donald Trump to bring more manufacturing back to the States. Marking the July 4 Independence Day celebrations, the American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham) released the results of a survey conducted of its members, where 92.5% said they planned to increase or maintain their current level of employment in Ireland. Of those, 60% said they planned to increase employee numbers, while a third said they would maintain their current number. Nine in 10 survey respondents also said their corporate headquarters had a positive view of Ireland as an investment location, and 68% said their corporate headquarters already had plans to invest in Ireland over the next five years. US multinationals have formed a key part of the modern Irish economy, employing large numbers of workers in key sectors such as pharmaceuticals and technology. However, the Trump administration is engaged in an ongoing tariff war with much of the world, as he demands US companies operating abroad bring more of their operations back home. American Chamber chief executive Paul Sweetman said: "Almost 7.5% of Ireland's entire population is employed — directly or indirectly — by US multinationals. Ireland is a strategic hub for innovation and global decision-makers in major American corporations. "On the flip side, Ireland is the sixth largest source of FDI into the US, and Irish companies are employing almost as many people in the US as US companies are employing in Ireland. It truly is a genuine two-way economic relationship. "Against the geopolitical backdrop of trade, tariffs and uncertainty — which are unquestionably causing challenges for our members — we see a real and emerging optimism that the business community is ready to get moving through accelerating innovative projects and strategic investments." The survey also found a third of US businesses here said housing was the most important challenge for Ireland to overcome for their company to invest and expand here. Other challenges include cost competitiveness, a skills shortage, the complexity of the planning process, supply chain disruption and the need to enhance R&D tax incentives. When asked about the biggest risk is to continued FDI in Ireland over the next five years, housing was cited as the biggest risk (31%), ahead of public infrastructure, trade tariffs, labour costs and availability of skilled talent. On investment in AI and new technologies, 92.5% of respondents said they had increased or maintained AI investment this year, while 65% said they planned to increase investment in AI, automation or data analytics initiatives. When asked how they expect the AI transformation to affect their organisation over the next five years, 82.5% said they expected it to result in either increased or maintained investment. "In the long term, Ireland has a significant opportunity — built on a pedigree of delivery and a can-do attitude — to win new investments and grow. Read More A strong euro against the dollar is creating a new headache for Irish exporters
Irish Times
4 hours ago
- Irish Times
State on course for high end of multibillion EU fines as emissions reductions slow
The decline in Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions has slowed, according to fresh data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data, putting the State's likely compliance costs at the higher end of estimates, Provisional figures released on Friday by the EPA increase the likelihood that legally binding 2030 climate targets will be missed by a large margin after momentum achieved in 2023 was lost. Ireland could have to pay out between €8 billion and €26 billion to its EU partners if it does not step up climate action swiftly, the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council said in February. Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions decreased by just 2 per cent in 2024, down from a 6.8 per cent figure the previous year. READ MORE The EPA warned meeting national and EU commitments will be 'extremely challenging'. Ireland's national target is to reduce emissions by 51 per cent in 2030 compared with 2018. In 2024, greenhouse gas emissions were 12 per cent below 2018 levels. Separate EPA projections in May indicated a 23 per cent reduction by decade end. Minister for Energy and Climate Darragh O'Brien told the Oireachtas Committee on Climate, Environment and Energy on Thursday that the latest forecasts showed the country would at best cut emissions by only half the amount required by 2030. But he accepted there was a legal requirement to meet science-based targets and to adhere to carbon budgets, adding he was not 'raising the white flag' yet. 'We have to redouble our efforts to get as close as possible to our 2030 targets,' he added. EPA director general Laura Burke said that although 2024 data is moving in the right direction, 'it is not at the necessary scale and pace'. She added: 'If Ireland is to meet our first carbon budget, a further 10 per cent reduction in emissions is needed in 2025, which will be extremely challenging.' The EPA figures show a reduction of 1.1 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2eq) compared with 2023, with reductions in most sectors – except for heating of homes and buildings. Energy including electricity continues to be the exception, with sustained reductions in line with targets. Transport and agriculture, however, reversed positive 2023 trends with modest declines compared with targets in the Government's climate plan and strict carbon budgets. In total, 54Mt CO2eq were emitted last year – excluding substantial emissions from land use and forestry. Energy industry emissions decreased by 8.9 per cent in 2024 to an all-time low of 7.2 Mt CO2eq. This was due to power generation using renewables (39.6 per cent) and increased imported electricity via interconnectors. It was also the first year that peat was not used in generation. Agriculture emissions decreased by 1.7 per cent (0.3 Mt CO2eq), primarily due to a 2.9 per cent reduction in cattle numbers. In contrast, there was a 10.6 per cent increase in nitrogen fertiliser use. Last year saw the first post-Covid decrease in transport emissions but that was only by 1.2 per cent decline, having increased by 6 per cent in both 2021 and 2022 and by 0.3 per cent in 2023. Industrial emissions decreased by 4.6 per cent due to declines in coal and oil usage. Emissions from buildings (residential, commercial and public) increased by 5.6 per cent due to a colder winter and increased use of fossil fuels. EPA senior manager Dr Tomas Murray said: 'Both agriculture and transport each require significant reductions of 5.6 and 15.5 per cent, respectively, in 2025 to meet reduction targets.' The 51 per cent reduction by 2030 target 'will be unattainable unless every sector meets their reduction target and sectoral ceiling', he added.
