On Monday 14 July, the MEPs of the European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade (INTA) expressed their dissatisfaction with the European Commission’s negotiating strategy with the United States, at a time when US President Donald Trump again threatened on 12 July to impose 30% tariffs on European exports (see EUROPE 13680/5).
In an exchange with the European Commission’s Director General for Trade, Leopoldo Rubinacci, they also said that they were running out of patience and called for a credible response from the Commission, insisting on the activation of the two lists of European countermeasures as well as the use of the anti-coercion instrument if the current dialogue led nowhere.
The Chair of INTA, Bernd Lange (S&D), first wanted to know how much the EU had been paying in tariffs these past “four months” with tariffs on steel (50%) and then cars (25%). He also said that he did not “see any solutions at this stage” to bring them down.
While the US President is openly asking the EU to amend its legislation on non-tariff measures, he also wanted to ensure that the Commission stands firm on its refusal to grant access.
“Threatening to introduce a basic tariff of 30%, knowing the considerable damage it would cause to businesses and citizens on both sides of the Atlantic, is not a serious negotiating tactic”, deplored his EPP colleague Jörgen Warborn (Sweden).
Asserting his support for the Commission’s “determination to continue negotiations until 1 August, while at the same time preparing a package of intelligent, effective and significant retaliatory measures”, he stressed that “inaction cannot become our policy. No measure should be ruled out”.
For several MEPs, it is time “to speak the same language as Trump”, argued Karin Karlsbro (Renew Europe, Swedish), while the United States has only used threats and coercion against Europe. “Is the Commission ready to activate the anti-coercion tools?” she asked.
“The more we cooperate, the more he retaliates”, also scoffed Anna Cavazzini (Green/EFA, German).
The PfE and ECR groups pointed more directly to the ineffectiveness of the ‘von der Leyen’ method. For Anna Bryłka (PfE, Polish), Donald Trump’s decision to impose 30% customs duties is “further proof that the Commission is not capable of conducting negotiations” that will lead to a solution.
“We were recently told that we were negotiating an agreement on the basis of 10%, and two weeks later it was 30%. What exactly is the Commission’s strategy?”, also asked Latvia’s Rihards Kols (ECR).
The current duties cover 70% of EU exports to the United States, i.e. $380 billion, replied the Commission representative. On an annual basis, the recent tariffs will cost Europeans $13.7 billion for steel and $18 billion for cars, but the seven other investigations initiated under Section 232 of the US Trade Expansion Act (commercial aircraft, jet engines and parts, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, critical minerals and trucks and parts) would account for 97% of exports to the US if the President were also to impose measures. And one of the aims of the current discussions is to avoid imposing additional customs duties on these other sectors.
The President of the Commission insisted “on the fact that the priority remains negotiation. We therefore remain ready to reach an agreement with the United States. The priority is to remain calm, united and defend the interests of the EU”, the official assured. And paradoxically, “there is still a lot of time until 1 August and we have been working diligently to reach an agreement, while respecting the red lines”.
While pointing out that the EU is working on countermeasures in parallel, the Director General also stressed that any such measures must not be “an end in themselves” but “a means”. “Imposing customs duties will always be costly”, he added. And “we mustn’t shoot ourselves in the foot”, with the rebalancing measures.
For the anti-coercion tool, Leopoldo Rubinacci gave the same answer, pointing out that “everything is on the table”, as Ms von der Leyen said. But the anti-coercion tool must also remain “a means to an end”, not “an end to itself”.
As for the content of the negotiations, the official swore that the Commission was still refusing to open up the content of European legislation. But it is possible to discuss “measures to facilitate trade for US companies”, for example on the terms of mutual recognition, he said.
“Our solution is to continue the dialogue; it cannot be in our interest to destroy” the EU’s top trading relationship, the official insisted. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)