European Union resigned to a 15 percent US tariff
US President Donald Trump emerged from a high-stakes meeting with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at his golf resort in Scotland, describing the deal as the "biggest-ever".
The deal, which the leaders reached after an hour of talks, came as the clock ticked down on an August 1 deadline to avoid a 30 percent across-the-board US levy on European goods.
"We've reached a deal. It's a good deal for everybody. This is probably the biggest deal ever reached in any capacity," said Trump.
Trump said a baseline tariff of 15 percent would apply across the board, including for Europe's crucial automobile sector, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors.
As part of the deal, Trump said the 27-nation EU bloc had agreed to purchase "$750 billion worth of energy" from the United States, as well as make $600 billion in additional investments.
Von der Leyen said the "significant" purchases of US liquefied natural gas, oil, and nuclear fuels would come over three years, as part of the bloc's bid to diversify away from Russian sources.
Negotiating on behalf of the EU's 27 countries, von der Leyen had been pushing hard to salvage a trading relationship worth an annual $1.9 trillion in goods and services.
"It's a good deal," the EU chief told reporters.
"It will bring stability. It will bring predictability. That's very important for our businesses on both sides of the Atlantic," she said.
She added that bilateral tariff exemptions had been agreed on several "strategic products", notably aircraft, certain chemicals, some agricultural products, and critical raw materials.
Von der Leyen said the EU still hopes to secure further so-called "zero-for-zero" agreements, notably for alcohol, which she hopes will be "sorted out" in the coming days.
Trump also said EU countries -- which recently pledged to ramp up their defence spending within NATO -- would be purchasing "hundreds of billions of dollars worth of military equipment."
- 'Best we could get' -
The EU has been hit by multiple waves of tariffs since Trump reclaimed the White House.
It is currently subject to a 25-percent levy on cars, 50 percent on steel and aluminium, and an across-the-board tariff of 10 percent, which Washington threatened to hike to 30 percent in a no-deal scenario.
The bloc had been pushing hard for tariff carve-outs for critical industries from aircraft to spirits, and its auto industry, crucial for France and Germany, is already reeling from the levies imposed so far.
"Fifteen percent is not to be underestimated, but it is the best we could get," acknowledged von der Leyen.
Any deal will need to be approved by EU member states -- whose ambassadors, on a visit to Greenland, were updated by the commission Sunday morning. They were set to meet again after the deal struck in Scotland.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz rapidly hailed the deal, saying it avoided "needless escalation in transatlantic trade relations".
But German exporters were less enthusiastic. The powerful BDI federation of industrial groups said the accord would have "considerable negative repercussions," while the country's VCI chemical trade association said the accord left rates "too high".
Ireland, one of the EU's top exporters to the United States, said Sunday it welcomed the deal for bringing "a measure of much-needed certainty", but that it "regrets" the baseline tariff, in a statement by its Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
France's minister for Europe, Benjamin Haddad, wrote on X on Monday that the agreement would provide "temporary stability... but it is unbalanced".
The EU had pushed for a compromise on steel that could allow a certain quota into the United States before tariffs would apply.
Trump appeared to rule that out, saying steel was "staying the way it is", but the EU chief insisted later that "tariffs will be cut and a quota system will be put in place" for steel.
- 'The big one' -
While 15 percent is much higher than pre-existing US tariffs on European goods, which average around 4.8 percent, it mirrors the status quo, with companies currently facing an additional flat rate of 10 percent.
Had the talks failed, EU states had greenlit counter tariffs on $109 billion (93 billion euros) of US goods, including aircraft and cars, to take effect in stages from August 7.
Trump has embarked on a campaign to reshape US trade with the world, and has vowed to hit dozens of countries with punitive tariffs if they do not reach a pact with Washington by August 1.
Asked what the next deal would be, Trump replied: "This was the big one. This is the biggest of them all."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Muscat Daily
2 hours ago
- Muscat Daily
North Korea says US should abandon denuclearisation push
North Korea on Tuesday urged the US to abandon any attempts to persuade it to abandon its nuclear weapons programme. US President Donald Trump, who began his second term in January, is interested in resuming talks with North Korea on denuclearisation. During his first term in the years of 2018 and 2019, Trump met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times in Singapore, Vietnam and at the demilitarised zone (DMZ) that separates the two Koreas. Although the Trump administration wanted North Korea to give up its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief, no deal was struck between the two sides and Pyongyang continues to advance its nuclear aspirations. Trump-Kim relationship 'not bad' Kim's powerful sister, Kim Yo Jong, said Trump's personal relationship with the North Korean leader is 'not bad'. However, she said if the US administration were to use the Trump-Kim relationship to push for North Korean denuclearisation, Pyongyang would consider it 'nothing but a mockery'. 'If the US fails to accept the changed reality and persists in the failed past, the DPRK-US meeting will remains as a 'hope' of the US side,' Kim Yo Jong said, using the acronym for North Korea's formal name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Kim Yo Jong's remarks suggest that North Korea is ruling out complete denuclearisation as an option if talks are relaunched with the US. Trump seeking same objectives A White House official told Reuters news agency that Trump is still seeking the same objectives in regards to North Korea as he did in the first term. 'The president retains those objectives and remains open to engaging with Leader Kim to achieve a fully denuclearised North Korea,' the unnamed US official told Reuters. During Trump's first term, the president had sometimes an unusually friendly relationship with Kim after a tense start, with Trump saying the two leaders 'fell in love'. After nuclear negotiations broke down in October 2019, the two leaders began exchanging insults, with North Korea in December of that year threatening to call him a 'dotard'. How the ties evolved? Since Trump's first term from 2017 to 2021, US and North Korea ties have grown more fraught. Trump's successor, Joe Biden, did not continue the flashy diplomatic engagements with Kim that were a feature of Trump's first administration. Instead, the Biden administration chose to deepen ties with South Korea and Japan in a bid to further isolate Pyongyang. North Korea, meanwhile, has been growing closer with Russia since it launched its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. North Korea has sent weapons and troops to assist Russia's assault, with Moscow in turn backing North Korea's nuclear programme. The US firmly opposed the invasion of Ukraine during Biden's term, with Trump in his second term also pushing Russia to commit to a ceasefire and end the conflict. DW
Observer
8 hours ago
- Observer
Thailand and Cambodia agree to ceasefire after five days of fighting
Cambodia and Thailand agreed to an "immediate and unconditional ceasefire" from midnight on Monday, in a bid to halt their deadliest conflict in more than a decade after five days of fierce fighting that has displaced more than 300,000 people. After days of efforts by Malaysia, chair of the ASEAN regional bloc, the United States and China to bring both sides to the table, the two countries' leaders agreed to end hostilities, resume direct communications and create a mechanism to implement the truce. At least 36 people have been killed in the fighting, mostly civilians. Following more than two hours of talks at his official residence in Putrajaya, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, flanked by Thai and Cambodian leaders, said he was ready to deploy a team to observe and ensure implementation. "This is a vital first step towards de-escalation and the restoration of peace and security," he told a press conference. "All parties shared a commitment to peace." The Southeast Asian neighbours have wrangled for decades over border territory and have been on a conflict footing since the killing of a Cambodian soldier in a skirmish late in May, which led to a troop buildup on both sides. A full-blown diplomatic crisis brought Thailand's fragile coalition government to the brink of collapse. They accuse each other of starting the fighting last week, both quickly deploying heavy artillery at multiple points along their 800-km land border. Thailand flew air raids with an F-16 fighter jet. US President Donald Trump called both leaders at the weekend, warning he would not conclude trade deals with them unless they ended the fighting. Both sides are facing a steep import tariff of 36% on their goods in the U.S., their top export market. Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet thanked his acting Thai counterpart Phumtham Wechayachai for what he said was a positive role and said he deeply appreciated Trump's "decisive mediation" and China's constructive participation. "We agreed that the fighting will stop immediately," he said, expressing confidence that both sides could rebuild trust and confidence. "The solutions proposed by Prime Minister Anwar will set the conditions for moving forward with bilateral discussions, returning to normalcy, and forming the foundation for future de-escalation." Responding to the ceasefire, White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said Trump "made this happen". "Give him the Nobel Peace Prize!" Leavitt posted on X. Tensions boiled over last week after Thailand recalled its ambassador to Phnom Penh and expelled Cambodia's envoy, in response to a second Thai soldier losing a limb to a landmine that Bangkok alleged Cambodian troops had recently laid. Cambodia has strongly denied the charge, as well as Thai accusations that it has fired at civilian targets including schools and hospitals. Hun Manet last week accused Thailand of "unprovoked and premeditated military aggression". Thai leader Phumtham, who had expressed doubts about Cambodia's sincerity, said Bangkok had agreed to a ceasefire that would be "carried out successfully in good faith by both sides". "Today's outcome reflects Thailand's desire for a peaceful resolution by continuing to protect our sovereignty and the life of our people," he said, thanking Trump and Malaysia. The fighting has scarred border communities on both sides. In Thailand's Sisaket province, a house lay reduced to splintered wood and twisted beams after being struck by artillery fire from Cambodia. The roof had caved in, windows hung by the frame and power lines drooped over the structure. Amid the din of occasional artillery fire, homes and shops remained shut and a four-lane road was deserted except for a few cars and military vehicles. Dozens of displaced residents lined up quietly for their evening meal at an evacuation centre about 40 km away from the frontlines. A few children played with dogs, others swept the dusty floor. Fifty-four-year-old Nong Ngarmsri just wanted to go back to her village. "I want to go to my children who stayed back," she said. "I want them to cease firing so that I can go home." — Reuters
Observer
11 hours ago
- Observer
Scramble for critical minerals
The world's superpowers have developed a seemingly insatiable appetite for the critical minerals that are essential to the ongoing energy and digital transitions, including rare-earth metals (for permanent magnets), cobalt (for batteries), and uranium (for nuclear reactors). The International Energy Agency forecasts that demand for these minerals will more than quadruple by 2040 for use in clean-energy technologies alone. But, in their race to control these vital resources, China, Europe, and the United States risk causing serious harm to the countries that possess them. As it stands, China is leading the pack, having gained ownership or control over an estimated 60-80 per cent of the critical minerals that are needed for industry (such as for magnets) and the green transition. This control extends across the supply chain: China is heavily invested in mining across Africa, Central Asia, and Latin America, and has been building up its processing capabilities. For Western powers, China's quasi-monopoly over critical minerals looks like an economic and national-security threat. This fear is not unfounded. In December 2024, China restricted exports of critical minerals to the US in retaliation for US restrictions on exports of advanced microchips to China. Since then, US President Donald Trump has forced Ukraine to relinquish a significant share of its critical minerals to the US in what he presents as repayment for American support in its fight against Russia. Trump also wants US sovereignty over mineral-rich Greenland, to the dismay of Denmark. And he has suggested that Canada, with all its natural resources, become America's 51st state. The European Union, for its part, has sought its own mining contracts, such as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). From the Scramble for Africa in the nineteenth century to Western attempts to claim Middle Eastern oil in the twentieth century, such resource grabs are hardly new. They reflect a fundamental asymmetry: less industrialised developing economies tend to consume fewer resources than they produce, whereas the opposite is true for developed economies – and, nowadays, China. In principle, this asymmetry creates ideal conditions for mutually beneficial agreements: industrialised economies get the resources they desire, and non-industrialised economies get a windfall, which they can use to bolster their own development. But, in reality, vast natural-resource endowments have proven to be more of a curse than a blessing, with resource-rich countries often developing more slowly than their resource-poor counterparts. A key reason for this is that developed economies have more economic clout, advanced technology, and military might – all of which they bring to bear to acquire the resources they seek. For example, European imperial powers used steam-engine technology to help them explore and exploit Africa for resources like copper, tin, rubber, timber, diamonds, and gold in the nineteenth century. This, together with more advanced weaponry and other technologies, meant that, far from offering local communities fair compensation for their valuable resources, European powers could subjugate those communities and use their labour to extract and transport what they wanted. But even countries that are exporting their resources for a profit have often struggled to make progress on development, not only because of imbalanced deals with more powerful resource importers, but also because their governments have often mismanaged the associated bonanzas. It does not help that resource-rich countries and regions often grapple with internal and external conflicts. Consider the mineral-rich provinces of the DRC, such as Katanga and North Kivu, which have long suffered from violence and lawlessness, fuelled by neighbours such as Rwanda and Uganda. Today, the advance of the Rwanda-backed M23 rebels is fuelling bloodshed in eastern Congo – and creating an opportunity for outside powers to gain access to critical minerals. The DRC-Rwanda peace agreement brokered by the Trump administration promises precisely such access to the US, in exchange for security guarantees. But the resource curse is not inescapable, especially for countries with strong outward-facing institutions to manage the economy's external relations, including its resource sector's ability to attract investment and generate revenues for the state, and inward-facing institutions to govern how those revenues are used. If a country is to translate its resource endowments into economic development and improvements in human well-being, both have a critical role to play. Outward-facing institutions must negotiate fair and transparent mining contracts with multinational corporations and strengthen local governments' ability to do the same. Such contracts should include local-content requirements, which keep more high-value-added processing activities at home, increase local employment and strengthen the capacity of local suppliers and contractors. Since acquiring a 15 per cent stake in De Beers, Botswana has sought to ensure that diamond cutting – not just mining – occurs domestically, which requires inward-facing institutions to deliver adequate investment in these capabilities. Inward-facing institutions must also manage risks raised by resource extraction, from health and environmental damage (deforestation, biodiversity loss, pollution) to labour-rights violations (including child labour). Unfortunately, as it stands, many mineral-rich countries are falling far short, leading some to advocate boycotts of critical minerals coming from conflict zones or countries using forced labour. While such boycotts are unlikely to sway these governments, they could convince multinationals and foreign governments to demand better enforcement of environmental and social standards from countries with which they do business. Ultimately, however, it is up to mineral-rich countries to defend their interests and make the most of their endowments. This starts with efforts to strengthen institutions. @Project Syndicate, 2025
