US and EU clinch trade deal to avert prohibitive US tariffs, Trump says
The deal, that includes a 15 per cent tariff on EU goods entering the U.S. and significant EU purchases of U.S. energy and military equipment, will bring welcome clarity for EU companies.
Advertisement
However, the baseline tariff of 15 per cent will be seen by many in Europe as a poor outcome compared to the initial European ambition of a zero-for-zero tariff deal, although it is better than the threatened 30 per cent rate.
The announcement came after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen travelled to Scotland for talks with U.S. President Donald Trump to push a hard-fought deal over the line.
Trump, who is seeking to reorder the global economy and reduce decades-old U.S. trade deficits, has so far reeled in agreements with Britain, Japan, Indonesia and Vietnam, although his administration has failed to deliver on a promise of "90 deals in 90 days."
Trump has periodically railed against the European Union saying it was "formed to screw the United States" on trade.
His main bugbear is the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with the EU, which in 2024 reached $235 billion, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.
The EU points to the U.S. surplus in services, which it says partially redresses the balance.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
26 minutes ago
- Reuters
Oil pauses rally as markets weigh Trump's ultimatum to Russia
NEW DELHI, July 30 (Reuters) - Oil prices took a breather in Asian trade on Wednesday after the previous session's spike of more than 3%, as investors awaited developments from U.S. President Donald Trump's tighter deadline for Russia to end the war in Ukraine. Most active Brent crude futures rose 8 cents, or 0.12%, to $71.81 a barrel by 0419 GMT, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude gained 8 cents, or 0.12%, to $69.29 a barrel. The Brent crude September contract expiring on Wednesday was up 18 cents at $72.69 per barrel. Both contracts had settled on Tuesday at their highest since June 20. On Tuesday, Trump said he would start imposing measures on Russia, such as secondary tariffs of 100% on trading partners, if it did not make progress on ending the war within 10 to 12 days, moving up from an earlier 50-day deadline. "The $4 to $5 per barrel of supply risk premium injected in recent days can be expected to be sustained, unless Putin makes a conciliatory move," said Vandana Hari, founder of oil market analysis provider Vanda Insights. The United States had warned China, the largest buyer of Russian oil, it could face huge tariffs if it kept buying, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told a news conference in Stockholm, where the U.S. was holding trade talks with the EU. JP Morgan analysts said in a note that while China was not likely to comply with U.S. sanctions, India has signalled it would do so, putting at risk 2.3 million barrels per day of Russian oil exports. The United States and the European Union averted a trade war with a deal for 15% U.S. tariffs on European imports, easing concerns about the impact of trade tension on economic growth and offering support to oil prices. In Venezuela, foreign partners of state oil company PDVSA are still waiting for U.S. authorisation to operate in the sanctioned country after talks last week, which could return some supply to the market, so easing pressure for prices to rise. "The oil market is keeping an eye on the U.S. trade deals and talks and on the Fed, but those are marginal influences on sentiment," Hari added. Despite President Donald Trump's objections, the U.S. Federal Reserve is expected to hold interest rates steady at its policy meeting later on Wednesday. On Tuesday, the International Monetary Fund raised global growth forecasts slightly for 2025 and 2026, but warned the world economy faced major risks, such as a rebound in tariff rates, geopolitical tension and larger fiscal deficits.
The National
36 minutes ago
- The National
Why left needs more than just a good offer
It wasn't just about voting Yes or No. It was about asking new questions: about power, about institutions, about care and community, about who decides and who benefits. This was politicisation in action, a moment where people started to see their own lives not only as private struggles but as part of a wider system that could be challenged, shaped, changed. And it was inspiring, truly gorgeous to see. Moments like that don't happen often, but they matter. Because without politicisation, even the best ideas struggle to land. No-one builds a new world on an old common sense. READ MORE: Funding golf tournament was not attempt to butter up Donald Trump, says John Swinney Too often, we focus on the visible tips of the iceberg: candidates, slogans, manifestos. But without attending to the deeper cultural and ideological groundwork that allows those things to resonate. The question, although it is central obviously, isn't just what is on offer. It's whether people have the tools, the context, the disposition to receive it, and to act on it. A strong political project can't just drop from the sky and expect to gain traction. It has to meet people where they are … and recognise where they are not. A growing part of the electorate is disengaged, distrustful, unsure. They don't identify with political structures. They don't feel addressed. For many, the spaces that used to support political meaning-making – unions, political parties mainly – have been hollowed out. What's been lost isn't just organisational capacity, but ideological anchoring. It's important to say: this is not an argument against political parties. Parties remain essential vehicles for change, especially in representative democracies. But parties can't do it all. We're expecting too much from them if we think they can. They depend on a political culture that is already in motion. If they treat politicisation as a given, they will just be screaming into the void. We're often told that a good offer – the right policies, the right leader, the right tone – should be enough. But that only works if people are already prepared to hear it. If they're not, no amount of rhetorical polish will compensate. Because people may be angry, but that doesn't mean they're politicised. And the two are not the same. Politicisation is not a mood. It's a shift in worldview. It's the slow, uneven process by which people come to see injustice as structural, not accidental, and to believe that collective action might actually make a difference. That process doesn't happen by magic. It happens through experience, connection, and struggle. This is not a new insight, but it's one we often skip over. In his article entitled What Politicising Means, French political scientist Éric Darras lays out a framework for understanding politicisation as a process, not a status. According to Darras, to politicise means four things: Generalising a personal or local grievance into a shared problem — seeing it not as your private misfortune but as a structural issue that concerns others; Defatalising what was once thought natural or inevitable – recognising that things could be otherwise; Identifying a source of power or oppression – not necessarily to cast blame, but to map the forces shaping your life; And finally, gaining a sense of political capacity – the feeling that collective action might actually shift something. This is cultural work. It doesn't begin on the debate stage or end at the ballot box. And it can begin anywhere. For some, it might happen in a picket line. For others, in a housing campaign, a community kitchen, a tenants' meeting, a sports club, even at home. Darras describes three broad modes of politicisation. First, the classic route: engagement with formal democratic institutions (voting, party membership, following political news). Second, the insider-adjacent path: experts, lobbyists, professionals who interact with power without necessarily being elected. And third, the most diffuse and often the most creative: grassroots politicisation through protest, mutual aid, community work, digital activism, often outside or alongside institutional channels. That last one is where counter-hegemony lives. It's where new ways of seeing and naming the world begin to take root. But it requires care. Without time and space to reflect, relate and organise, political imagination withers, even in the face of crisis. The idea that a party or a candidate will do the heavy lifting of politicising the public is, at best, wishful thinking. At worst, it misunderstands what politics requires. Parties are crucial. Institutions matter. But they're not magical. They are only as strong as the political infrastructure around them: the networks of people and practices that keep political imagination alive between elections. That kind of collective engagement doesn't guarantee victory, but without it, victory becomes almost impossible. The energy of 2014 didn't come from a party apparatus alone. It came from the activation of thousands of people who, for the first time, felt that politics included them. This doesn't mean everyone has to do everything. But it does mean that we should stop treating politicisation as someone else's job, or as a given. If we want a serious, durable, democratic left, we need to treat politicisation as strategic work. That means: Supporting political education — not as formal instruction or jargon-heavy analysis, but through clear, concrete efforts to help people understand what's broken and why it doesn't have to be this way. Building or sustaining spaces where people can connect their stories to bigger structures: community organising, mutual aid groups, local campaigns, alternative media. (Image: Colin Mearns) Valuing relationships. Most people don't go to their first protest or meeting because they read a pamphlet. They go because someone they trust said, 'Come with me.' Acknowledging that politicisation takes time. It's not a single moment of awakening. It's a process, a practice. And here's something political parties and elected politicians can do, right now. If you care about change, name what's going wrong. Explain it. Say it plainly. Take every opportunity to answer the questions people keep asking, the ones that echo again and again in frustration, in fear, in anger. Where is our money going? Why does everything feel like an inexorable slide downward? Why do we work harder, pay more, and still fall behind? That is political education, too. If you're trusted with a platform, use it not just to persuade, but to illuminate. Because when people begin to see the system clearly, they begin to move. There's a danger that this line of argument sounds soft, like something for people with lots of time on their hands. But politicisation is not a luxury: it's the basic condition for democratic politics to function. We're living through a period of intense pressure – economically, socially, ecologically. People are navigating burnout, precarity, loneliness. In that context, the ability to think politically, to make meaning, to connect, to act, is fragile. If we want to do serious politics, we have to take that seriously. We need parties. We need unions. We need radical proposals. But none of it works if we don't rebuild the muscle of politicisation, in all its messy, ordinary, everyday forms.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Euro set for first monthly decline this year, focus switches to Fed
SINGAPORE, July 30 (Reuters) - The euro steadied near its lowest in a month on Wednesday, nursing steep losses this week as investors counted the cost of the U.S.-EU trade pact, while the dollar wobbled ahead of the Federal Reserve's policy meeting. The Japanese yen firmed against the dollar after a powerful earthquake struck off Russia's Far Eastern Kamchatka Peninsula and generated a tsunami, prompting evacuation warnings in the area and across most of Japan's east coast. Currency markets were mostly steady as investors were hesitant to place bets before crucial economic reports and central bank meetings in Canada, Japan and the United States. U.S. and Chinese officials agreed to seek an extension of their 90-day tariff truce, following two days of what both sides described as constructive talks in Stockholm. No major breakthroughs were announced and U.S. officials said it was up to President Donald Trump to decide whether to extend a truce that expires on August 12. The Sino-U.S. talks come after a framework deal between the U.S. and EU was announced on Sunday. The accord has evoked a mix of relief and concern from Europe, as the agreement was lopsided and skewed towards the United States. Investors have been keeping an eye on the trade pacts as countries scramble to get deals over the line before the August 1 deadline set by U.S. President Donald Trump. "Markets seem to be increasingly interpreting trade agreements as symbolic and tactical rather than structural resolution," said Charu Chanana, chief investment strategist at Saxo in Singapore. "With terms often vague and enforcement mechanisms weak, investors are assigning lower market beta to these negotiations unless backed by concrete detail." The euro was 0.19% higher at $1.1566 after dropping for the first two days of the week and hitting a one-month low of $1.15185 on Tuesday. The euro is up 11.7% since the start of the year but on course for its first monthly drop this year. The single currency has benefited this year from the dollar losing its lustre due to Trump's erratic trade policies, prompting investors to look for alternatives. Sterling was at $1.3358 and the Australian dollar last bought $0.6517. The offshore yuan was little changed at 7.178 per U.S. dollar. That left the dollar index , which measures the U.S. currency against six others, at 98.815, hovering near a one-month high. The index is set to record its first month of gains this year. Investor focus will now switch to central bank meetings, with the Fed widely expected to stand pat on rates later on Wednesday, making comments from Chair Jerome Powell crucial to gauge the policy path. The meeting comes in the wake of Trump's constant demands for rate cuts, which have coincided with an unrelenting campaign of attacks on Powell by the president and administration officials. There is speculation that Governor Christopher Waller and Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman could issue dissents if the Fed on Wednesday holds the policy rate steady for the fifth time since December. Both were appointed by Trump as was Powell. "While dissenting isn't uncommon, the dissents at this week's meeting may get more focus because Trump has made it crystal clear that he thinks the FOMC should be lowering interest rates," said Kristina Clifton, a senior economist at the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in Sydney. "Dissents at this meeting may be judged as political and put a dent in perceptions of the FOMC's independence." The BOJ is also expected to stand pat and the spotlight will be on comments from Governor Kazuo Ueda as investors hope the recent trade deal between Japan and the U.S. paves the way for the central bank to raise interest rates again this year. The yen firmed 0.3% to 147.94 per dollar and was last at 148.06 after news broke about the Pacific earthquake and tsunami, with investors on alert for any damage to key infrastructure in Japan. Christopher Wong, currency strategist at OCBC, said the yen strength was in reaction to earthquake-related headlines and likely exacerbated by thin market liquidity. "The Nightmare of 2011 Tohoku earthquake lingers," he said, referring to the devastating earthquake and tsunami that rocked Japan in March 2011. In cryptocurrencies, bitcoin was 0.4% higher at $117,944.64, while ether rose 1% to $3,807.34.
