logo
Trump tariffs: Crunch time looms in US-EU trade talks  – DW – 07/04/2025

Trump tariffs: Crunch time looms in US-EU trade talks – DW – 07/04/2025

DW9 hours ago
EU and US negotiators are attempting to finalize a deal on tariffs before an impending deadline on July 9. Experts say a no-deal scenario is possible.
July 9 is almost upon us. That's when 50% tariffs could kick in on EU goods sold to the US if the two sides don't strike a deal beforehand.
US President Donald Trump hit EU goods with a baseline tariff of 10% on April 2, and a rate of 25% on imported cars and 50% on steel and aluminum. He threatened to ramp the 10% rate up to 50% by April 9, but a stock market selloff prompted by his tariffs led to a postponement.
In the meantime, EU and US negotiators have been working to strike an agreement ahead of the looming deadline, amid doubt in European capitals that EU Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic will be able to strike a deal that satisfies the member states.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told a press conference on Thursday (June 3) that striking a comprehensive trade deal in 90 days was "impossible" but was hopeful of "an agreement in principle", specifically referring to the agreement the US and UK had struck as a model to aim for.
Those watching the negotiations closely say there have been sharp divisions among European Union member states over what concessions are acceptable and on what the US side should offer.
For example, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has spoken of the need to strike a deal quickly, criticizing the European Commission's "complicated" approach.
"What is at stake here is the rapid resolution of a customs dispute, particularly for our country's key industries," he said.
Yet, French President Emmanuel Macron has decried the idea of tariffs being levied by powerful countries as "blackmail", without specifically referring to Trump.
Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, from the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington D.C., doesn't think the position of the German chancellor will be "acceptable" for all EU members.
"Merz has said a number of times that we can live with a 10% across the board tariff. As long as we don't get a 25% sectoral tariff on cars, etc.," he told DW.
While the comments of Sefcovic and von der Leyen have been somewhat conciliatory towards Trump and the US, Kirkegaard considers this to be an attempt to maintain unity amongst member states.
"That's basically the Commission trying to protect itself against attacks from member states, because it's obviously they would have to bear the consequences of a trade war," he said.
If the UK deal is a model, then the EU will likely have to live with 10% tariffs remaining in place on many goods, as the UK has done. The US-UK agreement cut the 25% tariff on UK cars to 10%, but the number of cars that can be imported on that duty is limited to 100,000 — roughly the amount of cars the UK sold to the US in 2024.
Any cars exported above that quota will be subject to a 27.5% tax. The EU sold over 700,000 cars to the US last year.
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
However, Kirkegaard believes if the steep car, steel and aluminium tariffs remain at the same level, it will hard for many on the EU side to accept.
"As long as that's the case, there's not going to be a deal, in my opinion," he said. "It is ultimately not acceptable to the EU, which is an economy roughly comparable in size to the US, for US tariffs to go up and the EU's to not go up."
Kirkegaard argues that in a trade confrontation between economies of the same size, tariffs should "go up together and down together."
Bill Reinsch, a senior economics adviser with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), thinks a UK-style agreement is the most likely outcome.
However, what is most important for Trump is the perception that he has "won" rather than what has actually been agreed, Reinsch told DW.
"What matters for him is the Oval Office meeting, that so-and-so was agreed, and now everything's going to be fine. So it wouldn't surprise me if in the end there's a 'quote, unquote agreement' with the EU."
He argues it would be prudent for the EU to focus on policy outcomes rather than perceptions of who has won. "Let him have the win. If you let him have the win, what he wins doesn't matter. So you don't have to give up very much if you handle it right."
One area where there has been a lot of speculation around possible EU concessions, away from tariffs, is on its digital policy, particularly its Digital Services Act and possible digital sales taxes.
Germany has been considering a 10% tax on the sales of US digital giants such as Google and Meta's Facebook in Europe. Trump has spoken out against such plans and this week Canada dropped a digital sales tax proposal to keep trade talks with the US alive.
Reinsch thinks the EU should prevent member states introducing these taxes because "Trump is right" in his position, he argued, and that is "not even rhetoric."
"I think they are clearly discriminatory against some American companies," he said, adding that from a policy standpoint "it's totally the wrong approach."
"If you want to build European competitors, you don't do that by dragging down the competition this way. You do it by building European competitors and creating viable options," said Reinsch.
As the July 9 deadline looms, serious consideration is being given to the implications of a negotiations blow-up.
The EU has described thetrans-Atlantic trade relationship as "the most important commercial relationship in the world," as bilateral trade in goods and services reached €1.6 trillion ($1.88 trillion) in 2023, according to EU Commission data.
Kirkegaard says a no-deal scenario could lead to the requirement for fiscal stimulus in some EU countries due to "short-term volatility."
But the EU can cope with that, he believes.
"We would not be back in [financial crisis of] 2008 or facing a situation similar to even the energy price shock that happened after the Russian invasion in 2022 — absolutely not," he said.
He expects the EU to "lose half a percentage point of growth" this year and next year, which was "not trivial," but at the same time "nothing we couldn't live with."
Reinsch has a different view, saying a failure would be "bad news" for everybody.
"I think in terms of actual trade, it probably would not be as impactful as a blow-up with China because we buy so much more from China. But in terms of disrupting the relationship and particularly disrupting trans-Atlantic investment, I think it would be a huge problem."
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

E.Guinea Launches ICJ Case Against France Over Paris Mansion
E.Guinea Launches ICJ Case Against France Over Paris Mansion

Int'l Business Times

time3 hours ago

  • Int'l Business Times

E.Guinea Launches ICJ Case Against France Over Paris Mansion

Equatorial Guinea launched a case against France at the top United Nations court on Friday, the latest salvo in a long-running legal battle over a swanky Paris mansion confiscated by French authorities. The west African nation asked the International Court of Justice to issue emergency orders against France over a building seized after the conviction of Vice President Teodorin Obiang for corruption. It asked the court to order France not to sell the mansion, located on the upscale Avenue Foch near the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, which the two countries have been squabbling over for several years. French authorities seized the property, which boasts a cinema, hammam and marble and gold water taps, after convicting Obiang under a law targeting fortunes fraudulently amassed by foreign leaders. In 2021, France's top appeals court gave Obiang -- the eldest son of the long-standing president of Equatorial Guinea, Teodoro Obiang -- a three-year suspended sentence and 30 million euros in fines. France also confiscated assets, including the luxurious Avenue Foch building with an estimated value well above 100 million euros. In its latest complaint to the ICJ, dated July 3 but published by the court on Friday, Equatorial Guinea says French police entered the property last month and changed the locks on several of the doors. Equatorial Guinea called on the court to order France to give it "immediate, complete and unhindered access" to the building. The mansion was also at the centre of an earlier case filed by Equatorial Guinea in 2016 at the ICJ, which rules on disputes between UN member states. Equatorial Guinea argued the building served as the country's embassy in France and that France had broken the Vienna Convention, which safeguards diplomats from interference by host countries. But the UN court sided with France, which said the building was merely Teodorin Obiang's residence and served no diplomatic purpose. The ICJ upheld France's objections that Equatorial Guinea had only tried to designate it as such after the investigation began into Obiang, and that the country already had an embassy in Paris. A request for emergency orders -- provisional measures, in the court's jargon -- takes precedence over all other court business. The ICJ is currently wrestling with a busy caseload, including a high-profile case brought by South Africa against Israel alleging breaches of the UN Genocide Convention in Gaza. It is also expected to deliver a key ruling on countries' climate change obligations within months. While the ICJ is the top United Nations court, whose rulings are binding, it has no way of enforcing its decisions. For example, it has ordered Russia to stop its invasion of Ukraine -- to no avail.

Will Germany's military spending bring economic growth? – DW – 07/04/2025
Will Germany's military spending bring economic growth? – DW – 07/04/2025

DW

time4 hours ago

  • DW

Will Germany's military spending bring economic growth? – DW – 07/04/2025

The German arms industry is thriving thanks to a major state-run investment program. But will the country's wider economy benefit? March 18, 2025, will go down in Germanhistory as the day when a two-thirds parliamentary majority cleared the way for the country to take on unprecedented debt. German lawmakers approved an infrastructure investment package worth billions, while also lifting the cap on national defense spending. The aim is to provide the necessary funds to make Germany and its armed forces, the Bundeswehr, "ready for war," as Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has repeatedly demanded since Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Shortly after he took office as chancellor earlier this year, Friedrich Merz said he wanted to make the BundeswehrEurope's strongest conventional army. This spending spree is great news for companies that build roads and bridges, lay rail tracks and manufacture high-speed fiber-optic internet cables. The German defense industry stands to benefit even more. For decades, the sector had been losing economic importance. Who in Germany, after all, was interested in buying tanks? In 2020, shares in Rheinmetall, Germany's largest arms manufacturer, sold for €59 — by June 2025, they were trading between €1,700 and €1,800 ($2,116) each. Swiss bank UBS has forecast further share price growth, currently estimating a rise to €2,200. These are golden times for German arms manufacturers, with industry top brass insisting that defense spending not only benefits their sector but the economy as a whole. "Defense spending is a gigantic economic stimulus program," Oliver Dörre, CEO of defense contractor Hensoldt, told DW at an event in Frankfurt in March. Lawmakers hope the spending spree will help modernize German industry and boost economic growth. Economists, however, were less euphoric even before parliament agreed the investment package. "The increase in government military spending will give the German economy a boost, but the economic stimulus will be rather moderate," wrote Tom Krebs, an economics professor at the University of Mannheim, in a statement for the Bundestag's budget committee. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Krebs and his colleague Patrick Kaczmarczyk conducted a study examining the extent to which additional government spending will increase Germany's gross domestic product, or total value of economic output. The researchers found that military spending would have a maximum impact of 0.5 — meaning that, in the best-case scenario, €1 of government spending will generate just 50 cents of additional economic activity. Investments in infrastructure, education, child care facilities, day care centers and schools would, however, double or even triple the return on investment. "From an economic perspective, the planned militarization of the German economy is a risky gamble with a low overall economic return," said Krebs. The explanation for this is simple. After a tank is built, it is either parked somewhere or, in the worst case, destroyed in battle. A tank, in other words, does not create any additional economic value. Defense spending is, however, like taking out insurance. You make the payments so that you have protection in case of an emergency. If you don't need the insurance, the money is simply gone. If, on the other hand, the state invests in transport infrastructure, goods can be transported to businesses via these roads, bridges and railways. There, they can be used to manufacture products that are then sold. If kindergartens are built, parents are freed up to work and earn money. Investments in schools mean young people get the education they need for their future. Defense production currently only contributes very little to overall economic growth, although German arms companies have seen orders surge. Rheinmetall, for example, had an order backlog worth some €63 billion ($74 billion) in the first quarter of 2025. Before the start of the Ukraine war, it stood at just over €24 billion ($28 billion). Other German defense companies are also busy, with production at full capacity. But if supply is limited and demand increases, this usually causes prices to are already warning this could happen. Krebs and Kaczmarczyk write that "greater defense spending does more to grow arms companies' profit margins and dividends than improve [Germany's] defense capabilities." Companies currently operating outside the defense sector are also looking to get in on the business, especially those suffering amid Germany's economic malaise. Cologne-based Deutz AG, for example, produces engines for lifting platforms, agricultural vehicles, excavators and other large machines. Due to the weak economy, company sales slumped by some 12% in 2024. Deutz, which also manufactures engines for military vehicles, is now set to significantly expand this previously small line of business. "Defense is a very important and interesting market for us with great growth potential," CEO Sebastian Schulte told DW in March. German carmaker Volkswagen is another example. The company is in crisis and has already cut thousands of jobs, with its Osnabrück plant facing closure. Now, Rheinmetall is looking into whether tanks could be built there instead. These are two examples that show how greater defense spending could benefit the wider economy by offsetting losses, rather than generating additional growth. That said, even companies that are doing well are switching to arms production, with demand surging in the metalworking industry.

Do EU structures enable far-right misuse of public money? – DW – 07/04/2025
Do EU structures enable far-right misuse of public money? – DW – 07/04/2025

DW

time5 hours ago

  • DW

Do EU structures enable far-right misuse of public money? – DW – 07/04/2025

A leaked audit accuses far-right parties of improperly spending millions in EU funds. Critics say it's not just a scandal but a symptom of the EU system's deeper problems. From donations to dog shelters to questionable contracts with politically affiliated companies, far-right members of the European Parliament have been accused of funnelling public funds towards personal or ideological allies. An internal parliamentary audit obtained by a group of investigative journalists from German broadcaster ARD's magazine show Kontraste, German newspaper , French newspaper and Austrian media outlet, Falter, reveals that the now-defunct far-right Identity and Democracy group, commonly referred to as ID, may have spent at least €4.3 million ($5.1 million) in EU operating funds on what the European Parliament's own administration calls "unjustified and potentially unlawful" transactions. Every year the European Parliament allocates funds for the administrative and operational expenses of each political grouping in it, usually between €6 million to €7 million annually. Those funds are meant to support legislative work — such as funding policy research, running public events related to EU politics, or producing communications materials that explain their activities to citizens. Around 5% of this budget can be transferred to external organizations but donations to local charities, national campaign efforts, or groups with no clear link to EU-level work are explicitly prohibited. However the internal audit alleges that around 80 of the ID group's expenses do not meet that requirement. The improper spending allegedly includes fictitious service contracts, improper tender procedures and donations to associations unrelated to parliamentary activities and connected to far-right figures, the investigating publications reported. The scale of the findings suggest that this was more than administrative sloppiness and raises deeper questions about how the EU's own structures may be enabling such abuses. As an example, the report says the ID group — which disbanded in the summer of 2024 but previously included Marine Le Pen's Rassemblement National, or RN, Germany's Alternative for Germany, or AfD, Italy's Lega and Austria's Freedom Party, or FPÖ — donated €1,000 ($1200) to the president of a French-Russian cultural association, Teremok. She is the spouse of Gregoire Eury, an RN councillor for the Grand Est region. This was just one of many connections between the associations that benefited from ID donations and far-right officials from ID-affiliated parties. Other donations simply reflected the broader political affinities of ID elected officials. In Germany, SOS Leben (or "SOS Life," in English), which is linked to the AfD, received €3,500 to support anti-abortion campaigns. In France, €1,000 went to the Catholic identitarian association SOS Calvaires to restore a parish. Around €600,000 reportedly landed with , a far-right Austrian newspaper close to the FPÖ, with ID paying for advertising far above market rates. Money also went to animal shelters and charities — not necessarily a bad thing, but also not acceptable under EU rules. French companies close to Marine Le Pen were among the biggest beneficiaries: Two firms tied to her longtime political allies reportedly received more than €3 million in total. One of them has previously been implicated in another EU funding scandal. The former secretary general of now defunct ID group, Philip Claeys, denied any wrongdoing and told the investigating journalists that all the payments were "duly invoiced and justified." Claeys said that an external auditor and then the European Parliament had approved the ID group's yearly financial statements. Donations by the group were apparently based on a rule called "Article 68." Only thing is, the investigative journalists found, there's no such thing as "Article 68." Yet it appeared in multiple years of published accounts without triggering alarms. When contacted, the Belgian auditors responsible declined to comment. "This is not an isolated incident," Nick Aiossa, director at Transparency International EU, told DW. "This seems to be a scheme that that ran over many years, involved many entities cross-border." Without the proper checks in place, he adds, this could easily happen again today. It is true that this is far from the first time that European MEPs have been caught misusing EU money. In March, Marine Le Pen was sentenced in France to four years probation and banned from holding political office after being found guilty of embezzling European parliamentary funds through a fake jobs scam. She has appealed the ruling. And it's not only the far right. Past scandals have implicated politicians across the spectrum. The so-called Qatargate scandal in 2023 exposed bribery and cash-for-influence schemes involving current and former MEPs. And in 2018, investigative journalists went to court seeking further information on what's known as "general expenditure allowance," or GEA, an amount paid monthly to MEPs for expenses like running an office and travel. MEPs get over €4,000 a month in GEA — this adds up to over €40 million a year — but don't have to provide information on how they've spent it. At the time, investigative journalists found over 200 of what they called "ghost offices." A court denied the journalists the information and the lack of transparency and accountability around the GEAs has remained a sore point. Despite repeated scandals, the European Parliament has failed to implement meaningful reforms, Aiossa says. He argues that the institution has done itself lasting damage — first by refusing to respond decisively when issues arose, and then by continuing to tolerate weak accountability and integrity systems. The result, he warns, is a steady erosion of public trust. At the core of the problem lies the structure of parliamentary finances, according to Aiossa. Instead of managing budgets directly, the European Parliament delegates this responsibility to the political groups themselves. Groups are required to conduct annual audits but those are done according to random sampling, which means misuse of funds may not be detected. This means that the responsibility of how party group money is spent lies primarily with its party leadership, particularly its financial officers and secretary general. This, according to Aiossa, has to change. "The parliament needs to take a much more proactive approach in managing this money itself and not delegating that responsibility just to the political groups." German MEP Niclas Herbst, a member of the conservative Christian Democrats, who chairs the Parliament's committee on budgetary control, agrees. "This is taxpayers money and we want it back," he told journalists. He plans to push for criminal charges on this latest case at the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO), to show that there must be accountability. Aiossa warns that unless the European Parliament seizes this moment to enact serious reforms, including transparency on allowances, competitive bidding for contracts and direct control over group budgets, public trust in the body will only continue to erode.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store