What lies behind President Donald Trump’s announcement of a 50% tariff on European Union (EU) imports? It seems the answer isn’t straightforward, leaving many speculating.
- Advertisement -
This unexpected policy shift emerged just as Washington was transitioning into a long Memorial Day weekend, catching traders off-guard. As the implications rolled out, financial markets on both sides of the Atlantic responded rapidly—though not with the panic we’ve seen in past tariff-induced downturns.
The recent tariffs on China escalated rapidly, leading to retaliatory measures that rendered trade nearly impossible, halting exports from China to the US and causing significant concern among American retail giants like Walmart and Target. CEOs were soon reaching out to the White House, warning of potential empty shelves. Similarly, the port of Los Angeles, the nation’s busiest, expressed concerns over the diminishing number of ships arriving with goods and components.
Interestingly, the swift rise of the China tariffs was met with a reduction to 30% after just 90 days of negotiations—showing that drastic changes can happen quickly when necessary. However, the EU operates differently from China, which may be at the crux of the current tensions.
On one hand, the EU’s diplomatic approach is typically measured and devoid of dramatic escalations; they tend to navigate complex negotiations without public theatrics. Examples include Michel Barnier during the Brexit negotiations and Maroš Šefčovič’s understated diplomacy post-Brexit.
On the other hand, failing to respond to provocations sometimes only invites more of them. Consequently, Trump has raised the general EU tariff rate from 20% to an unprecedented 50%.
Following Trump’s tariff announcement, eurozone government bond yields plummeted. Initially a suggestion, the tariff became a firm policy later that day; implementation is set for June 1. When questioned about the possibility of reaching a deal in just nine days, Trump stated:
“I’m not looking for a deal. I mean, we’ve set the deal. It’s at 50%… If somebody comes in and wants to build a plant here, I can talk to them about a little bit of a delay.”
Earlier that day, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent explained on Fox News that the suggestion of a 50% tariff was meant to accelerate negotiations with the EU, compelling them to present a “high quality offer.” He noted:
“The 90-day pause on the April 2 tariffs was based on countries negotiating in good faith. I believe the President thinks the EU proposals haven’t matched the quality from other key trading partners.”
This assertion raises eyebrows, suggesting that the EU hasn’t engaged in good faith, and implies a disconnect between the European Commission and its member states. Historical context reveals that EU member states closely monitor trade negotiations to advocate for their own interests.
The U.S. strategy may be aimed at creating confusion about roles and responsibilities in trade matters, or perhaps they are genuinely uncertain. However, the fork in the road comes from the fundamentally different structures of governance: the EU, confederal in nature, gives significant power to member states, while the U.S. federal government centralizes authority.
Negotiating with the EU can indeed be complex; a trade deal may be derailed by opposition from a single member state, as evidenced by Ireland’s struggles with the EU-Canada trade agreement. The Trump administration appears to be facing an uphill struggle trying to finalize negotiations with such a multifaceted and diverse political entity within a mere 90-day window.
When asked if the EU could take steps to avoid the impending tariff, Trump asserted:
“They haven’t treated us properly… They banded together to take advantage of us. I’m sure the European Union wants to make a deal very badly, but they just don’t do it right.”
Such comments overlook the fact that the EU does engage in trade with the U.S., which is not solely one-sided. It’s also important to clarify that EU legal actions, such as against Apple, are not simply fundraising mechanisms, but stem from regulatory frameworks that each member state upholds.
Amidst all this, the irony of imposing tariffs on products like Apple iPhones while criticizing the EU for its legal framework may illustrate a lack of understanding on the part of the administration. Trump’s shifting policies saw that a tariff on imported phones would apply broadly, not just to Apple.
In the face of these complexities, what steps should the EU take? Perhaps they can assist the U.S. in finding common ground, enabling both sides to claim victory before an all-out trade war ensues. Notably, there’s no use negotiating terms on VAT or any tax matters, as these remain under the jurisdiction of individual member states.
Non-tariff barriers also present challenges and often take years to resolve. The EU has historically engaged countries like Japan in reducing such barriers, reflecting their ability to negotiate effectively, albeit slowly.
While there are opportunities for negotiation, the expectation of comprehensive progress in just a few days is bordering on unrealistic, particularly given the involvement and interests of multiple member states. Furthermore, even though the European Commission primarily handles trade negotiations, cooperation with member states is required for comprehensive international agreements.
The trade surplus between the U.S. and the EU also complicates matters. The EU claims a $150 billion surplus when accounting for services, while the U.S. argues the figure approaches $250 billion, not including services in the equation. Additionally, the EU aims to purchase more U.S. energy, like Liquified Natural Gas (LNG), to address this surplus.
Despite the need for the EU to innovate within its financial services sector, ceding regulatory control to the U.S. poses significant concerns. In the backdrop of the ongoing tariff debates, some see this as an opportunity for necessary changes in the EU, perhaps spurred by the pressure from impending tariffs.
Jean Monnet once quipped, “Europe will be forged in crisis, and will be the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises.” As the EU navigates its complex landscape, the ongoing trade discussions with the U.S. may well serve as a catalyst for much-needed reforms.
Edited By Ali Musa
Axadle Times International–Monitoring.
