smartcybers786@gmail.com 
US President Donald Trump (R) shakes hands with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen (L) during a meeting, in Turnberry south west Scotland, on July 27, 2025. — AFP
#Trumps #EUUS #trade #deal #cost #Europe #years
According to Bloomberg, the best about the European Union’s trade deal can be said-from at least one European point of view-it can be very bad.
However, now almost all European imports that will receive 15 % tariff is a 30 % tariff, which Donald Trump has threatened to impose on August 1. This is not more than a baseline tariff that the US president is imposing on many other business partners, so the European Union will face very little competitive loss. Certainly, new taxes are a shock, but at least under its uncertainty, a line draws on the translantic trade so far this year. “We are further predicting our business,” said European Commission President Ursola Van Dare Leene. “Our companies need to plan and invest.”
Still, there is no hiding that this is a good thing for the European Union. When the UK agreed on a 10 percent tariff, Brussels insisted that it would never accept such humiliating terms. Now the European Union has also failed to discuss it. Goldman Sax says the deal will result in 0.4 percent of GDP points to the end of the euro zone economy by the end of 2026. But even more importantly, the deal identifies a water shedding in the US EU relations, which will result in the results, which will result in the long -term results after the tariff implementation.
The deal has stopped 80 years of progress by reducing translatable barriers to trade and deepening economic relations. These efforts began in the context of World War II, as Europe and the United States tried to eliminate the loss of America’s devastating experience in the 1920s and 1930s, which, thanks to the 1930 Smoth Holy Tariff Act, increased American average US revenue to 24 %. The answer was a general agreement on the tariff and trade (GATT) in 1947, which was the US and European -led move to establish a new rules -based global system. Over the next decades, joined new countries, prices timeds and the gate was turned into a World Trade Organization (WTO). Meanwhile, European residents established the European economic community, later in order to become the European Union, according to Trump’s claim, not to “screw” the United States, but as part of the US -led embrace of free trade.
Surrender
The European Union’s trade relations came to the establishment of a translantic trade and investment contribution (TTIP) with the beginning of the talks in 2013, with a high point of negotiations in 2013. The world may have signed the most expensive free trade contract, which is designed to remove non -tariff barriers to trade in areas such as food standards, financial services, pharmaceuticals and government purchases. In the context of the Brexit, TTIP, Trump’s arrival in the White House, and hesitated from both sides, felt that regular independence on sensitive sectors such as finance and agriculture should be abandoned. But translatric efforts continued to achieve more limited trade liberalization. Under the Biden administration, for example, the European Union and the United States set up a trade and technology council to work together on trade -related issues and deepen translantic change.
After that, many people could imagine surrendering to the European Union on Sunday. According to Goldman Sax, the average US prices on European Union imports have to rise by 1.5 percent on the day that Trump was elected to 16 percent. At the same time, this agreement would be visible to eliminate any hopes of reducing non -traffic barriers that have been so long -standing source of friction. The success of a European Union negotiations was that it was to remain against Trump’s demands to re -write European laws on agriculture and digital services – irrespective of the fact that many US businesses wanted from trade agreements. Instead, they have to face the worst in both worlds: there is more taxes on imports and no good access to the market.
History shows that if Pandolm returns to free trade, it may be years. Trump is already proud of the growing income from tariffs, four times more in May, which the administration hopes to travel a long way to close the 4 3.4 trillion deficit identified by the Congress budget office. Just as the Biden administration has never changed Trump’s first term prices, it is difficult for Trump or any other administration to imagine changing new people.
On the other hand, the key difference between the now and the 1930s is that European residents have chosen not to retaliate against Trump’s prices, and thus refrain from repeating the devastating trade wars of this early period. But a large number of EU members on a large scale reflects whether the European Union can win a trade war, rather than any affiliate with the Economic Orthodox.
Damage to trust
Orthodox’s response to high US revenue will try to reduce barriers to the European Union with the rest of the world and somewhere in its market. In fact, Van Dare Leene emphasized in her statement after the trade agreement was sealed, especially citing recent European Union agreements, with recent agreements with the Mercosor Block, Mexico and Indonesia’s South American members, as well as the former EU’s report by the former Italy’s report.
But the danger is that the European Union’s capital for Trump has damaged the trust in Brussels in ways that can damage free trade and deep European integration within the block. Already popular Europe’s right -wing parties are pointing to the agreement that the European Union is unable to defend national interests. Marine Le Pen, the right leader of the French era, termed the deal as a “political, economic and moral fisco”, shown that national sovereignty was being crushed to “the weight of the Brussels bureaucracy”. Germany’s right -wing AFD party co -leader Alice Widel has termed the deal “acknowledging the failure of the European Union”, while Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said that Trump had “eaten Van Dare Leene for breakfast.”
At the same time, there are increasing calls to protect the industrial sectors within the European Union, which expect Trump’s prices to be killed as soon as he turns to trade. The European Union has already introduced revenue on Chinese car imports. Now European steel makers are demanding protection from the potential wave of cheap imports as a result of the US 50 % tariff on steel imports. Although consumers will benefit from low prices in the short term, it is also realized that the obstacle to global trade is damaging European business to demand resistance to protection.
Meanwhile, the idea that the European Union is a push over is also weakening its hand in future talks. This month, the European Union China Summit failed to make any steps to resolve trade disputes, a part of it because Beijing was not ready to provide concessions in a European Union, which lacked advantage of it. Just a few weeks ago, President of the European Central Bank Christine Lagarde was talking about the capacity of a “global euro” moment. But the impression that the European Union is unable to effectively defends its interests is overwhelmed by its offer as a geographical political actor, which is the key to a major global role for European currency.
Van Der Leene claims that the price agreement ended a period of near -term uncertainty. But in addition, the European Union, with the power of weak bargaining globally, is at high risk of harmful protectionism and internal critics. After the shock of prices, the humiliation of Europe may continue for a long time.
