How the EU's ‘lopsided' US trade deal was done
Maros Sefcovic
, sat across from US commerce secretary
Howard Lutnick
in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in mid-February.
Earlier that week Lutnick, the man who would be charged with overseeing
Donald Trump'
s radical trade agenda, had been confirmed in the Senate.
Keen to avoid the economic turmoil of tariffs Trump had spoken often and fondly about on the campaign trail, Sefcovic made Lutnick an offer.
The EU and the US could both agree to drop pre-existing tariffs each charged the other on the trade of cars and other industrial goods. The proposal got no traction.
READ MORE
[
EU-US tariffs deal at 15% preferable to 'ruinous' trade war, says Taoiseach
Opens in new window
]
Five months on and Sefcovic was again sitting across from Lutnick, this time in the ballroom of Trump's Turnberry golf resort in Scotland on Sunday, where commission president Ursula von der Leyen and Trump cut a deal on tariffs.
The agreement spares the world an imminent trade war between the European Union and the United States, but possibly only delays fights on some other fronts.
The EU agreed to accept import taxes of 15 per cent on practically all products sold to the US, as the price of avoiding even higher rates Trump had threatened to levy on transatlantic trade from August 1st.
The commission, the union's executive arm that negotiated the deal on behalf of the 27 EU states, secured commitments that steeper rates on cars would be brought down. Future US tariffs expected on pharmaceutical exports and semiconductors, would be capped at 15 per cent as well.
Several intensive summer weeks of talks at a more technical level involving officials, and between the two political interlocutors Lutnick and Sefcovic, had brought a possible landing zone for a deal into view.
However, a lot hung on what would happen when Trump and von der Leyen sat down together. The head of the commission agreed to fly to Scotland, where Trump was on a five-day visit that started at one of his golf courses.
Officials were hopeful, but it was not clear when the EU delegation walked into the room if they would come out with a deal. 'It was a real negotiating session,' a senior commission official said.
Trump's opening position at the start of the meeting was that the EU should suck up tariffs of 30 per cent, to do business with the US.
The EU team of von der Leyen, her trusted adviser Bjoern Seibert, two commission trade officials, and Sefcovic, had been prepared for Trump to open with a big number.
The US president dropped his tariff demand to 21 per cent, before settling on 15 per cent. That figure had largely been teed-up by EU and US officials in the days before the crunch meeting in Scotland.
'We stayed very firm on agriculture and other issues. There were a lot of moving parts, agriculture was not one of them, [or] food safety rules and our digital legislation,' the senior commission source said of those final talks.
The EU had been adamant since the start that changes to its rules barring US chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-treated beef from the European market were off-limits.
The EU also ruled out Trump's demands that the bloc pare back its strict regulations of the online sphere and scrap its system of charging value added tax (VAT) on goods.
European businesses have faced across-the-board tariffs of 10 per cent since Trump's 'liberation day' announcement on 2nd April. Backlash from the financial market in the days afterwards forced Trump to delay higher rates he wanted to charge on US trading partners.
The EU-US agreement is light on specific detail, but ends speculation about what final tariff rate EU states would end up paying.
Not everybody is happy. French prime minister François Bayrou, a long-time ally of centrist president Emmanuel Macron, labelled it a 'submission' by the EU.
A former EU trade commissioner who was in the Berlaymont during Trump's first term, Cecilia Malmström, said the union should have taken a tougher stance from the outset.
German chancellor Friedrich Merz and Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni, two EU leaders who had actively been pushing for a quick, ugly deal over a perfect one, welcomed the agreement.
Speaking in Brussels on Monday, Sefcovic said the alternative would have been a damaging trade war between the two economic heavyweights.
Trump's threatened duties of 30 per cent would have made much of the trade that currently crosses the Atlantic to the US market unviable. Some five million jobs in Europe would be at 'great risk' in such a scenario, the commissioner said.
There were still some people that seemed to believe things could go back to how they were before Trump rolled out his sweeping tariff agenda, he said. 'It is quite obvious that the world which was there before the 2nd of April is gone, and we simply need to adjust,' Sefcovic said.
One key constituency likely on von der Leyen's mind throughout the negotiations has been the German automobile industry, who rely on big exports of BMW, Volkswagen and other cars to the US.
Cars were a politically contentious point of the talks. Trump has long complained that a lot more EU-made cars are sold in the US, than American vehicles are bought by Europeans.
On that front the EU side can point to something of a win. The agreement delivered by the commission president will cut the total US tariff rate on cars from 27.5 per cent, down to that blanket 15 per cent levy.
Imports of steel and aluminium, another sector Trump had targeted with specific tariffs, will continue to be subject to higher rates of 50 per cent.
However, a quota system that allows the EU to sell a certain amount of steel and aluminium products to the US at lower rates is being worked out.
The commission offered to do away with lower, pre-existing tariffs the EU charges on a range of products, as a further sweetener to Trump. That is expected to remove trade levies of between one and four per cent on US exports of nuts, processed and raw fish, cheese and some dairy, and pet food.
The EU also committed to buy hundreds of billions of euros of liquefied natural gas, oil and nuclear power from the US over the coming years, as Europe weans itself off energy supplied by Russia.
Bernd Lange, a centre-left German MEP who heads the European Parliament's trade committee, said the deal was 'lopsided' in favour of the US, with many concessions that were difficult to accept.
The EU did negotiate some relief from Trump's hefty 15 per cent tariffs. Aircraft and plane parts sold to the US will avoid tariffs, as will some generic pharmaceutical products and medical devices.
Negotiations are continuing to extend those tariff exemptions to the spirits and wine industry.
'We seem to be more advanced on spirits than on wines, but we are continuing the engagement,' a senior EU official involved in ongoing talks said.
Senior commission officials, von der Leyen, and Sefcovic are all adamant that the truce caps any future US tariffs on pharmaceuticals at 15 per cent.
As one of Europe's major exports to the US from Ireland and other countries, the fate of the industry in the talks had been a concern of several governments.
Trump himself had indicated pharma would not be part of the deal, when speaking to reporters minutes before the meeting with von der Leyen started. The president still plans to pressure pharmaceutical companies to shift manufacturing capacity, jobs and corporate tax revenue to the US.
A US trade probe (known as a Section 232 investigation) is due to conclude shortly, which will provide extra cover for Trump to hit the sector with tariffs for the first time.
Sefcovic said he believed the US administration would 'honour' its commitment that those coming import taxes would not be higher than 15 per cent.
A final judgment on the deal the EU has agreed with the US will probably hinge on whether Trump keeps his word on that or not.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Discriminations by AC Grayling: A simple take on the culture wars
Discriminations: Making Peace in the Culture Wars Author : AC Grayling ISBN-13 : 978-0861549962 Publisher : Oneworld Guideline Price : £12.99 In Discriminations, AC Grayling essentially suggests that respect for human rights and commitment to reasoned debate are the antidotes to the poisonous state of politics. A simple solution. The title, Discriminations, plays with two meanings. Firstly, there is discrimination in the sense of sexism, racism and other prejudices which Grayling positions himself as firmly against, taking the side of social justice and defending those pilloried as 'woke'. Secondly, there is discrimination in the sense of making subtle distinctions – between rights and interests, between free-speech and hate-speech, for instance. Grayling offers a historical perspective on cancel culture, stretching the term to include collective cancelling, for example the crusade against Albigensian heretics in 13th century France, or individual cancelling, such as the pillory of Oscar Wilde. He argues that tactics such as 'no-platforming' or 'cancelling' are rarely justified, and that abandoning the principle of free speech to the right is a mistake by the left, feminists or the 'woke'. READ MORE Aside from how far-fetched these historical comparisons appear, the main thrust of the book is that the current poisonous state of the culture wars is created by all participants, left, right or otherwise. Grayling suggests that the left must examine its tactics and respect free speech, and that the right must respect human rights as distinct from interests – the maintenance of advantages. Along the way, he drifts into 'both-sides' style equations of the hard left and hard right. The extremes are the problem; those in the centre hold the answers. Supposedly rising above the 'culture war', Grayling proposes liberal solutions: rights, debate, freedom. These are hard to disagree with but obviously these are widespread, even dominant ideas of the last century. Grayling admonishes everyone to return to these principles, which should deliver a harmonious political debate – full of difference and disagreement but civil. Today, when authoritarian populists and neoliberals are the champions of free speech, this is insufficient. With a schoolmasterly tone – though often implausible, ' ... reflection will suggest, fundamentally, morality is a matter of good manners ...' – Grayling's book is almost endearingly nostalgic. The simple solution of reasonable arguments countering problematic views is alluring, but hardly tenable now. Effectively, the culture wars means that what counts as problematic or reasonable is now essentially contested. Even where his diagnosis is apt, his solutions seem implausible.
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
There's one scenario in which tariffs won't be a disaster for Ireland
I have enough grey hairs to remember trade deals being done in the past, notably the massive Uruguay round of talks which concluded in 1994 and was – though we didn't know it at the time – the high point of a long postwar drive to free world trade and reduce tariffs. The media spent many hours outside meeting rooms as negotiators from more than 120 countries went through complex line-by-line negotiations to cut tariffs and trade barriers. For Ireland, it was always a case of trading off the potential gains for industry with the threat to farmers. But over time, the State was a huge winner. The world had already started to move away from the relentless globalisation drive which had lasted well into this century. And now we have Trump's new world order and trade 'deals' which are a mix of reality, spin and fudge. We still do not know the full details of the deal between the United States and the European Union – before we even start to worry about how Trump might try to rewrite it. Ibec chief economist Gerard Brady calculates that exporters accounting for about 10 per cent of our export value to the US now know their tariff and another 10-15 per cent await news on exemptions from tariffs being negotiated between the US and the EU. The remaining 75 per cent or so of pharma and semiconductor exporters will have to wait for separate investigations now under way in the Trump administration. READ MORE There is a potential outcome from all this which, while damaging, would not be disastrous for Ireland in the short term. There will be problems, but the economy could adjust and adapt. While the Department of Finance estimates that the tariffs could lead to employment being 70,000 lower in five years' time and the economy 1.5 per cent smaller are, at best, a rough guesstimate, they do look to be in the right direction. On current trends, this would mean growth continuing, just not as quickly as it would have. We can assess the potential damage for Ireland only when we know the full details. The spirits and whiskey sectors look exposed, for example, as the US says it is a target for the 15 per cent tariffs. As this is a big issue in France, there will be an EU push in the week ahead, before final details of the deal with the US are published, to try to lower the burden here. As well as the impact on Ireland, this is one to watch at political level in the EU, as France puts pressure on Ursula von der Leyen 's European Commission , which negotiates on behalf of the EU. As butter, another vital Irish export, was already subject to a tariff of about 16-17 per cent (which will remain), things will at least not get any worse here. If we want to identify problem areas, smaller companies reliant on the US in a range of sectors is one. Small may no longer be beautiful in a complex and politically-driven world market. And it is also worth focusing on the risks to parts of rural Ireland – as highlighted by Chambers Ireland chief executive Ian Talbot – particularly those reliant on sectors such as food and also pharma and medical products. Towns such as Westport and Kinsale will anxiously await details on the pharma tariffs. [ EU-US trade deal analysis: Tariffs have a price for both sides. Trump was willing to pay it Opens in new window ] And here things remain a bit woolly, largely because the US president is undertaking study of this sector under a so-called section 232 process – referring to a section of a 1960s US act. This is separate from the big so-called reciprocal tariffs announced on Friday. The EU view is that its deal caps tariffs on pharma at 15 per cent – including any outcome from this separate process. If this holds, the sector at least knows its maximum charge. A big report – due shortly – has been drawn up for Trump under section 232, which looks at national security issues from trade and how more of the supply chain of key products can be brought back to the US from countries such as Ireland. Let's hope Trump does not revisit the 15 per cent maximum tariff figure as part of this. Tariffs are only one of Trump's policies options. On Thursday, he issued a letter to 17 of the big pharma companies demanding they cut prices in the US to the lowest level applying elsewhere. As a big buyer of pharma, the US state machinery has a lot of power here. Imposing high tariffs appears to run counter to the drive for lower prices. So the interaction between Trump and big pharma is another key thing to watch in the weeks ahead. What we do know is that the US president is determined to return pharma investment to the US and get better prices for American consumers. For Ireland, the initial impact may be slow enough to emerge. But this is likely to mean somewhat lower investment by pharma here in the years ahead and a sector which may be more focused on EU and other markets rather than exporting back to the US. Changes in the pricing and accounting practices of the multinationals – now designed to report massive profits in low-tax Ireland – are also likely to cut corporate tax revenue here. Like the rest of the economy, the Irish pharma sector will adjust. But there will be a cost, the scale of which depends on the extent of US policy action. The longer-term strategic questions will take time to clarify themselves. A major issue is whether Trump's policy direction will stick. If you are, say, a big pharma company, do you base your investments on an expectation that this is now the new world, or that Trump's policies will, in time, be rolled back either by him or by his successor? US court challenges to his powers to impose wide-scale tariffs are only now playing out. US consumer prices are surely set to rise – the only question is how much and whether there will be a cost in jobs. And the financial market calm could be upset at any time, given the crazy and risky course on which Trump has embarked. On Friday, they were already looking jumpy. So the uncertainty will roll on. Ireland should get through the first wave of this, albeit with some collateral damage. But the big question is our place in a world which seems to be breaking up into new trading blocs and alliances. And whether the valuable certainty which a final, agreed trade deal might bring can last - Ireland and Europe now needs Trump to direct his attention elsewhere.
Irish Times
3 hours ago
- Irish Times
Ireland has too many quangos and too many lawyers feeding off its clientelist politics
If government is the group of people who run a state and the formal rules and institutions by which they do so, governance is how they go about that through networks, processes, interests, ideologies and political actors at different levels. The Republic of Ireland has a well-defined and clearly identifiable government structure, formally accountable through elections and the Oireachtas and amply covered by media . In contrast its governance is much more opaque, less visible to its citizens and its media coverage is patchy and uneven. This matters because the Republic currently suffers from a series of problems – in housing, energy, water, climate, health and care infrastructure and in its economic model – that arise from suboptimal governance just as much as from short-sighted or incompetent governments. These problems are often made more visible by comparisons with similar states in Europe and elsewhere. This State is one of the most centralised in Europe , whether defined by the functional and geographical concentration of executive and political power in Dublin or the comparatively puny powers of both parliamentary and local government. Such centralisation puts an onus on political leaders and executive managers to get things right through coherent, integrated policymaking. READ MORE The abiding localism of Irish life is channelled to the capital by networks of TDs, private lobbying and clientelism that dominate the distribution of resources. That perfectly matches the retail, consumerist and reactive side of everyday Irish politics – and provides much of the media agenda. Less often discussed are the resulting poor outcomes across a range of public services because more local and regional structures of governance are unavailable to policymakers. [ Fintan O'Toole: The three pillars of Ireland's political system are crumbling Opens in new window ] Instead policymaking is often outsourced to quangos (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations). An OECD report identified 800 of them and said they clog up Irish governance and inhibit local government . Notorious examples of poor practice and opaque structures in health and educational bodies provide daily headline news. If we are over-quangoed we are also over-lawyered in planning and insurance per head of comparable European populations. These issues show up plainly in how Irish governments responded to the growing population over the past decade during the economic recovery and expansion after the financial crisis. Immigration of skilled labour through work permits has increased the population by 16 per cent, or more if refugees are also factored in. Imperatives of economic growth drove the expansion; but it was not accompanied by plans to increase housing and infrastructure to provide for a growing and more complex society demanding greater public services. Instead market forces prevailed, but they failed to meet that demand. [ Chronic inability to build anything big in the State is baked into the system Opens in new window ] These widening gaps were identified by some analysts and commentators, and they then became part of the political and election agenda. But they have dominated public debate only since being put there squarely by big economic players and international organisations over the past year. Infrastructure deficits inhibit new investments, they say – and that coincides with wider concerns about how vulnerable the Irish economic model has become to international shocks, particularly from Donald Trump. Hence the level of interest in the National Development Plan and its methodology. Rather than base it on an analysis of changing demographics, economic trends and social needs which generate development priorities, its method is more ad hoc in response to the uncertain international backdrop. Detailed project plans await definition, as the scale of the Trump tariff shock is assessed. In the meantime, different Government departments are allocated capital expenditure envelopes based on their bargaining power. How will the updated National Development Plan shape Ireland in years to come? Listen | 35:59 It's a far cry from the strategic foresight approach to governing increasingly advocated by analysts, companies, the EU and international organisations. That involves gathering information about relevant trends and potentially disruptive risks, developing scenarios about plausible futures and integrating such insights into anticipatory planning. The OECD has advocated such an approach for Ireland and there are several initiatives in government and academia to apply them. Had they been deployed over the past decade we could have been better prepared to tackle these development gaps – not to mention linking them to the equally plausible prospect of a united Ireland. Notwithstanding the highly centralised nature of Irish government, it has lacked the capacity to aggregate governance coherently and to resist particular interests. The consequences of changing demographics and economic growth should have been more effectively foreseen, but were not. For that politicians and executive managers should share the blame. [ Tariff 'uncertainties' could 'weigh heavily' on Irish economic growth Opens in new window ] The problems are exacerbated by the narrow base of Irish taxation, in which 10 US corporations provide 40 per cent of corporate tax revenue, along with the glaring six-fold contrast between the multinational sector's high productivity and that of indigenous industry. Tackling these problems requires structural change in the Republic's governance to decentralise and redemocratise power, by prioritising and co-ordinating development gaps more effectively with better analysis. That would help repair the seriously widening distributional and political gaps between older and younger generations.
