The big political families at the European Parliament gave support in a debate in plenary in Strasbourg on Wednesday 14 March to the European Commission’s "firm and proportionate" approach to the possible introduction in ten days or so of customs duties for steel and aluminium imports to the United States. The duties were announced by US President Donald Trump on 8 March.
The European Union should not engage in a trade war, but should be ready to defend its citizens, said the leaders of the big political groups, unanimous in their condemnation of Trump’s unilateral move motivated by national security.
On behalf of the EPP, Manfred Weber (Germany) said the signal needed by the EU was for the European Parliament to firmly back the Commission, whose proposed measures are suitable as Europe should have a decided, but not aggressive, response. He added that if Trump wants to build new walls, the EU must build new bridges (referring to the free-trade deals).
Denouncing measures solely motivated by domestic politics, German Social Democrat Bernd Lange called for concerted efforts with other economies affected by the US measures – Canada, Mexico, Japan and Brazil – to ensure international trade rules were respected, adding that he backed the European Commission’s measures.
On behalf of the ECR, British MEP Emma McClarkin welcomed the Commission's reaction, saying that the hike in US customs duties was not the way to settle the question of overcapacity and one should avoid exacerbating the situation.
We do not need trade wars but want to back counter-measures where necessary, said Marietje Schaake (ALDE, the Netherlands), openly criticising the British inclination to negotiate a bilateral trade deal with Washington.
On behalf of the Greens/EFA, Yannick Jadot (France) denounced Trump’s new attempt to wriggle out of international trade rules following the USA's withdrawal from the international Paris Climate Agreement and rejection of the Iran nuclear deal, which requires a firm reaction, in line with WTO rules. Jadot said, however, that Trump’s unacceptable decision returned the EU to its shortcomings – the lack of common trade diplomacy, and the lack of a common industrial policy, which would make possible a carbon tax at the border.
Speaking for the GUE/NGL, Germany’s Helmut Scholz called for common solutions that take into account social and environmental problems on all five continents.
Arguing that Trump’s measures aimed to protect communities and industrial towns devastated by generally unfair competition, British MEP William Dartmouth said on behalf of the EFDD that the customs union could also be a real wall, with at times astronomical customs duty of up to 67% on agri-food products.
Speaking for the ENF, Nicolas Bay (France) said that the measures introduced by Trump were legitimate and Europe was constantly de-industrialising. All the big world powers protect their economics, he said, criticising the EU's mania for free trade.
Later in the debate, many interventions called for a peaceful solution with the United States, based on the common fight against the underlying causes for overcapacity in the world in the steel industry and some countries’ unfair trading practices
The MEPs nevertheless suggested that all options should be kept on the table, expressing support for countermeasures prepared by the European Commission –including appealing to the WTO, safeguard measures and €2.8 billion of retaliatory measures (see EUROPE 11976) – if dialogue with Washington were to break down, as long as the countermeasures complied with WTO rules.
Édouard Martin (S&D, France) denounced blind free-tradism and called for an assessment of international rules to verify they were really suited to current global trade issues. (Original version in French by Emmanuel Hagry)