There will be no customs war. The terms of the fresh trade agreement between the European Union and the United States have been agreed.
Marek Zuber
The head of the European Commission has "agreed" with the president of the United States and we have a trade agreement. I utilized the word “agreement” on intent due to the fact that the full situation is rather specific. The golf course in Scotland, virtually a fewer people in the highest positions, who "acquaint" just 1 of the most crucial trade agreements in history. And a joint press conference that shows that there is success — although Trump’s clear kind of speech is that he has surely won more. What's the truth? And that's a good question.
Several hours after the announcement of the agreement, many comments were made — both satisfied and dissatisfied with the terms of the agreement. At first glance, it is surely not symmetrical, due to the fact that what will be sold in the US, of course with exceptions, is subject to duties and American goods sold in the EU are not. Trump and his surroundings, of course, tried to prove that another things had to be taken into account, even though all kinds of taxes — for me the most curiosity example of VAT — but all of this is simply a very controversial issue.
On the another hand, in the last fewer decades, we have had many "wars" concerning individual industries and decisions to apply various types of instruments that were not symmetrical. Nothing new.
And the question of committing to buying energy and weapons in the US? Of course it is simply a limitation of decision-making, but the fact is that we would buy both in the US anyway. Of course, there is simply a question of the scale of these purchases if there was no commitment — but this is besides an open question for today.
This does not change the fact that the argument to surrender to the EU without a fight appears in public space – besides in Poland. And different, more or little oriented experts, prove that you had to be tougher towards Trump, due to the fact that he only threatened, and duly pressed would have given up.
The full problem of negotiations is that we don't know what would have happened if we had. I personally have no thought if Trump would quit on the more hard position of von der Leyen or not. And I don't know if anyone knows. However, we know that we had respective bargaining opportunities, specified as in the case of digital service taxes. In this sector, the Americans are clearly ahead, but at the same time in many areas, the level of dependence of the EU on the US is significant. The situation is not facilitated by the war in Ukraine and, for example, the issue of supplies of military equipment.
I do not know if Trump would decide to impose 30% duties on EU countries, but I do know that the situation of the American economy is better than that of the European economy at the moment, peculiarly the euro area. Just look at the very crucial automotive manufacture for the Old Continent, additionally hit by the fresh Chinese competition. Of course, we have partially prepared this destiny ourselves, speeding up the departure from combustion engines. But it happened — and it is what it is. And the automotive manufacture in the U.S. economy doesn't share that much.
Of course, European leaders are besides divided about the agreement. Another rhetoric is that of the German Chancellor and his surroundings, and another is that of the French government. There's no conformity to the assessment. Comparing the EU’s agreement straight with what the United Kingdom has achieved — the 10 percent tariffs on British goods sold in the United States — are besides not entirely reasonable. It's due to the fact that it's not that scale. Doesn't mean it can't be an component for analysis.
I personally am glad that the spectrum of the trade war has been dismissed so far. Even more so, the situation of the European economy is not fantastic. We have immense challenges, and we don't request another one. And in my opinion, any extra cost to keep this next challenge from happening is worth paying. Is the cost besides high? That's a truly hard question to answer.
Certainly, the financial markets on both sides of the Atlantic have adopted a relief agreement. Of course, this affirmative reaction mostly stems from the fact that, indeed, it is not wonderful (I mean the EU economy first and foremost) but could be worse. Thus: Trump turned the table over, something ended — but in April there was a hazard of disaster, whereas there was only a deterioration. What happened is possibly not perfect, and in the long run it does not gotta aid the American economy either, but for the minute we have sacred peace, so we are happy.
We had a akin reaction to the U.S. agreement with Japan, even in the case of automotive companies. Although the trade conditions will be worse than they were, it could have been worse, so Toyota, Honda or Mazda recorded crucial increases. Yeah, it's a small overgrown, but it just shows that for the markets, the danger of trade war was a large problem.
Again, it's hard for me to find whether Ursula von der Leyen lost to moles or not. Nevertheless, this is not the biggest problem for me. The worst thing for me is that on the another side of the deal we have a man who might change his head again in a fewer months. A man who's unpredictable. And who is capable of decisions that we did not anticipate in the past from the Presidents of the United States.
So who will warrant us that what has been agreed will apply for years? Do we actually have stability, as von der Leyen said? I'm not certain about that.
