logo
Angry France slams US trade pact 'submission' as EU peers breathe sigh of relief

Angry France slams US trade pact 'submission' as EU peers breathe sigh of relief

Reuters28-07-2025
BRUSSELS, July 28 (Reuters) - France denounced the trade agreement between the European Union and the U.S. as a "submission" on Monday though other EU states largely backed a deal they acknowledged was lopsided but which averts an economically damaging trade war with Washington.
The framework deal, announced on Sunday between two economies accounting for almost a third of global trade, will see the U.S. impose a 15% import tariff on most EU goods from next month, but offers some protection for critical industries like cars and pharmaceuticals.
That is half the rate Washington had threatened, though much more than Europeans hoped for.
U.S. President Donald Trump, who has sought to leverage tariff threats to reshape global trade since returning to the White House this year, feted the accord on Sunday during a trip to Scotland, calling it "the biggest deal ever made".
But France, Europe's second largest economy, poured scorn on the agreement.
"It is a dark day when an alliance of free peoples, brought together to affirm their common values and to defend their common interests, resigns itself to submission," Prime Minister Francois Bayrou wrote on X.
French President Emmanuel Macron made no public comment.
While the mood among other European governments was decidedly sombre, most agreed that the failure to strike a deal would have been disastrous.
"This agreement has succeeded in averting a trade conflict that would have hit the export-orientated German economy hard," said German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who heads the 27-nation EU bloc's largest economy.
Speaking to journalists on Monday, the top trade official for the European Commission, which negotiates trade deals for the EU, said allowing the 30% tariffs to be imposed would have been "much, much worse".
"This is clearly the best deal we could get under very difficult circumstances," EU Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic said.
Several EU countries acknowledged that the deal establishes some certainty with Europe's biggest trading partner following months of turmoil, with Sweden, for example, calling it the "least bad alternative" and Spain backing it, albeit "without enthusiasm."
Any final deal is likely to need approval from EU capitals.
Since managing trade falls under the responsibilities of the European Commission, unhappiness with the outcome of the months-long negotiations from countries like France will not scupper the framework agreement.
But there is still work to be done.
Many of the specifics of the agreement were not immediately known, but EU officials said they would be clarified in a joint statement that should be finalised by August 1.
Further negotiations over the coming weeks will be held to reach a full-fledged deal.
Even Germany said more work was necessary, including with regards to the steel sector.
Trump said the deal, including an investment pledge topping the deal signed with Japan last week, would expand ties between the trans-Atlantic powers after years of what he called unfair treatment of U.S. exporters.
Japan's package will consist of equity, loans and guarantees from state-run agencies of up to $550 billion to be invested at Trump's discretion, Tokyo says. EU officials, in contrast, said the EU's $600 billion investment pledge is based on the combined intended private-sector investments expressed by European companies.
The deal will bring clarity for European makers of cars, planes and chemicals. But the EU had initially hoped for a zero-for-zero tariff deal. And the 15% baseline tariff, while an improvement on the threatened rate of 30%, compares to an average U.S. import tariff rate of around 2.5% last year before Trump's return to the White House.
European stocks opened up on Monday, with the STOXX 600 touching a four-month high and all other major bourses also in the green. Tech and healthcare stocks led the way.
"The 15% rate is better than the market was fearing," said Jefferies economist Mohit Kumar.
Still, European companies were left wondering whether to cheer or lament the accord.
"Those who expect a hurricane are grateful for a storm," said Wolfgang Große Entrup, head of the German Chemical Industry Association VCI.
"Further escalation has been avoided. Nevertheless, the price is high for both sides. European exports are losing competitiveness. U.S. customers are paying the tariffs," he said.
Among the many questions that remain to be answered, however, is how the EU's promise to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the U.S. and steeply increase energy purchases can be turned into reality.
It was not immediately clear if specific pledges of increased investments were made or whether the details still must be hammered out.
And while the EU pledged to make $750 billion in strategic purchases over the next three years, including oil, liquefied natural gas (LNG) and nuclear fuel, the U.S. will struggle to produce enough to meet that demand.
While U.S. LNG production capacity is due to almost double over the next four years it will still not be enough to ramp up supplies to Europe, and oil production is expected to be lower than previously forecast this year.
Despite the lingering unknowns, analysts stressed the deal still helped decrease uncertainty. Oil prices edged higher on Monday.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump says he'd like to run again, pushing back at ‘fake polls' in CNBC interview: Live updates
Trump says he'd like to run again, pushing back at ‘fake polls' in CNBC interview: Live updates

The Independent

time5 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Trump says he'd like to run again, pushing back at ‘fake polls' in CNBC interview: Live updates

In an interview with CNBC on Tuesday morning, President Donald Trump said that while he would like to run again for another term in the White House, he added he probably wouldn't. Trump boasted about his 2024 election victory, claiming his numbers in Texas set a record that won't be surpassed unless he runs again. Asked if he would run for another term, Trump replied: 'No. Probably not. I'd like to. I have the best poll numbers I ever had.' The president pushed back when host Joe Kernen clarified that he has the best poll numbers among Republicans, while other polls show his numbers in the 30s. Trump countered: 'They're fake polls. You also have me in the 70s.' The phone interview with Squawk Box mainly focused on economic issues, including a threat to raise tariffs on India within 24 hours, other threats to the European Union, a 200% import tax on pharmaceuticals, and who he is considering to replace Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. Trump also continued to criticize 'rigged' government jobs numbers, attacked Democratic lawmakers Rep. Jasmine Crockett and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker in reference to redistricting in Texas, and accused banks of discriminating against conservatives.

‘One in, one out' is a realistic plan to deal with migration – let's give it a chance
‘One in, one out' is a realistic plan to deal with migration – let's give it a chance

The Independent

time5 minutes ago

  • The Independent

‘One in, one out' is a realistic plan to deal with migration – let's give it a chance

The biggest problem with home secretary Yvette Cooper's plan to stop the boats is that it sounds unconvincing. One in, one out… how does that help? Especially when it is more like 17 in, one out? What kind of deterrent is that? But it is the start of a plan to tackle Britain's migration crisis – Home Office figures indicate that last Wednesday, almost 900 people arrived in boats in one day, bringing the total for 2025 to more than 25,000 – and one that could possibly work. It is, genuinely, the only policy that any government, Labour or Conservative, has devised so far that has a chance of doing so. The key to it is that the French government has accepted that Britain can send back some of the people crossing the Channel. The deal that has been published today is only a pilot scheme. It does not even say how many people will be returned, although the target is understood to be 50 a week, which is a small fraction of the average 850 arriving each week. But the point of a pilot scheme is that it allows the mechanics of a return scheme to be tested. It has already passed one test that the naysayers said it would fail: it has been approved by the European Commission. Now comes the hard part: showing that it is possible to detain and process arrivals, defeat the legal challenges and then put them on a plane and deliver them to France. Of those, the legal challenges are likely to be the bottleneck: hence Cooper's announcement of a fast-track asylum appeals procedure to try to ensure that migrants can be turned round within a few weeks. If that works, then the aim is to 'build', as Cooper put it on the Today programme this morning. If Britain can send back 50 a week, then there is no reason why we couldn't return all or nearly all arrivals. The Home Office estimates, and this seems about right, that if it can send back 80 per cent of arrivals, that will have a big deterrent effect, and few crossings will be attempted. Of course, there are reasons for doubting that this can be achieved. Will the French allow us to increase the numbers? Will the French even extend the scheme beyond the initial 11 months to which they have signed up? It is bound to take longer than that to start to get the numbers up. Maybe it will not work, but the point about a pilot scheme is that it allows Cooper the chance to try out, at a small scale, the elements of a scheme that plainly could work. No one else has even proposed a plausible and humane alternative. That said, the voters' frustration at the slow pace at which the government is moving is understandable. Labour has been in power for more than a year; the number of crossings is higher than last year; Cooper is only now announcing the plan; and the plan itself looks underwhelming. No wonder Nigel Farage carries all before him. But let us avoid the trap set by social-media bores of assuming that there are easy or quick solutions that two governments, desperate to escape the fury of the electorate, have wilfully refused to adopt. It took time for Keir Starmer to persuade Emmanuel Macron to accept the key that could unlock the solution: that France will take some migrants back. I didn't think it was possible, because the losses are more obvious than the gains for the French president. Yes, there is the distant prospect of clearing the tent cities in the Pas de Calais, but in the meantime what is France to do with the migrants who are sent back? I don't know what Macron got in return, but that was a negotiating triumph on the part of our prime minister. And it will take more time still to crank the British bureaucracy into action so that it is capable of taking the next, decisive step towards an effective deterrent. Meanwhile, Farage will score points by pretending the problem is simple and the solution is easy. His 'solution' is to destroy our relationship with France by trying to return migrants without French permission; to tear up not just the European Convention on Human Rights but the Refugee Convention and the Convention on the Law of the Sea; and to detain all arrivals indefinitely in huge prison camps at undisclosed locations. And still he wouldn't be able to deport migrants if other countries will not take them. If there is a better way, would it not be worth trying that first, even if it might take some time?

Some travelers to the US will have to pay $15,000 bonds for visa - money they could lose if they overstay
Some travelers to the US will have to pay $15,000 bonds for visa - money they could lose if they overstay

The Independent

time5 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Some travelers to the US will have to pay $15,000 bonds for visa - money they could lose if they overstay

The State Department announced Monday that some travelers to the U.S. will have to pay $15,000 bonds for a visa, money they could lose if they overstay their allotted time. The Trump administration claimed to be addressing what it referred to as 'a clear national security threat.' The State Department was planning on testing a similar program towards the end of the first Trump administration, but didn't act on it as foreign travel came to a stop amid the Covid-19 pandemic, The New York Times noted. Those coming from countries with high visa overstay rates looking to enter the U.S on a tourist or business visa would be expected to pay a bond of at least $5,000, the department added. Those who don't leave on time forfeit the funds, while those complying with their visas will get the money back. The public notice, which is set to go into effect on August 20, was issued by the State Department and didn't state which countries would be affected. It did say that it would be based on visa overstay data collected and shared by the Department of Homeland Security. 'The applicant on any canceled bond will be entitled to a full refund. There will be no accrued interest on visa bonds that are issued and canceled as part of this pilot program,' the notice said. This comes as the Trump administration continues its broad crackdown on illegal immigration after President Donald Trump promised mass deportations during the 2024 campaign. As the new rule was announced, a notice in the Federal Register said it was 'a key pillar of the Trump administration's foreign policy to protect the United States from the clear national security threat posed by visa overstays and deficient screening and vetting.' Pointing to data collected by DHS in 2023, the notice stated that more than half a million people coming into the U.S. via air and sea ports of entry most likely overstayed their visas. Visitors required to pay the bonds would have to arrive and depart from the U.S. via airports selected to be a part of the program. The State Department said it would make the revelation 15 days before the bonds were enacted. The notice also said that the year-long pilot program would also apply to foreigners from countries where 'screening and vetting information is deemed deficient.' It would also apply to those granted citizenship based on pledged investments or those without a residency requirement. The consular officers granting the visas will be able to decide the amount of the bond, the notice said. It added that the program is intended to test the State Department's previous belief that bond payments are 'too cumbersome to be practical.' While consular officers already have the power to put in place bond requirements on those applying for visas, the notice stated that the State Department's official Foreign Affairs Manual said that 'such bonds will rarely, if ever, be used.' It said that the practical considerations were 'untested.'

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