An avoidable "disaster": Could Brussels have cut a better deal with Trump?

Barcelona"Those who do not go together are hung separately" ("Those who don't hang together get hung separately"). This is how a European diplomat expressed himself in the Financial Times about thetrade agreement between the European Union and the United StatesThe phrase recalls the need for the Twenty-Seven to unite with Washington to close a satisfactory pact, with the added irony that it is a quote from a founding father of the United States, Benjamin Franklin, who uttered it during the conflict between the thirteen American colonies and the British Crown that led to the United States' declaration of independence in 1776. During her appearance on Sunday in Scotland with US President Donald Trump, the president of the agreement, which leaves tariffs on European exports to the US at 15% and imposes a long, multi-million dollar list of unspecified expenses and investments that the EU will have to carry out in the US. The following day, however, she woke up to an avalanche of criticism of the agreement from member states, employers' associations, and analysts. The continental press, like some governments, spoke of European "submission" to Washington.

What room did von der Leyen have to negotiate? The answer is complex, but everything points to more. In fact, the main criticism is that Brussels was too soft on Trump from the beginning. The agreement "is a disaster not so much in specific aspects of specific industries, but rather for what it represents," says Joan Ribas, an economics professor at Pompeu Fabra University and expert in international economics. "We have very quickly accepted a kind of blackmail," Ribas adds, referring to the role of the Europeans.

Lack of European aggression

This is the main point. On April 2, Trump proclaimed from the White House the Liberation Day, in a surprising press conference In this session, he used a whiteboard to break down the tariff increases he would impose on all countries (in the case of the EU, a total of 30%). With the stock market reaction, complaints from business leaders (including his then-ally, Elon Musk), and the reactions of all the affected governments, it took the US president exactly one week to pause the tariffs and leave a lower general one, 10%.

Brussels had announced a response tariff package, but seeing that Trump was backing down, it withdrew it and began negotiating without any weapons in its hands, accepting from the outset the general 10% and additional tariffs on the automotive, steel, and aluminum sectors, key in Europe. From then on, the EU negotiating team, led by the eternal Commissioner Maros Sefcovic and Von der Leyen herself, followed Trump's statements.

On June 1st, the American magnate raised the tariff to 50%, but put it on hold two days later until July 9th. The day before the deadline expired, he announced that he would send a letter to Brussels explaining the new tariffs and on July 12th he announced that the tax would be increased to 30%, but put it on hold again for two days in order to reach an agreement before August 1st, which is what has happened.

In this context of Trump's statements, Brussels did not present a new response tariff package in case there was no agreement with Trump in the end. until last Thursday. A fact that explains the difficulty in deciding which elements should be included in the agreement, since each European capital was trying to prevent a second wave of tariffs approved in retaliation by Washington from impacting their national industries: Germany wanted to minimize the impact on the automotive and chemical industries; France, Italy and Spain, on various food products (from cognac to olive oil, including ham and foie gras); the Eastern countries, machinery components, etc.

Returning to Franklin's quote, the Twenty-Seven did not go into the negotiations together and, furthermore, they did so with a representative who was not prone to aggression despite having before them a president known for his toughness and a public and notorious resentment against Europeans.

The contrast with Canada and China

This negotiating strategy contrasts with that of countries like Canada and China, which directly approved very aggressive tariffs in response to Washington. Only if Trump backed down and left them hanging would Ottawa and Beijing do the same. Neither of the two European tariff packages (the one in April and last week's) were approved; instead, they never went beyond mere verbal threats to negotiate. Canada is still in talks with Trump, and China closed a deal with 34% tariffs (they had once exceeded 100%).

"There was a way, but it required time and unity," says Ribas. This path involved demanding tougher action from the EU executive and a strategy that involved attacking strategic sectors of the US economy that are highly dependent on European markets, such as technology multinationals, with which the European Commission is already engaged in a war over violations of competition rules.

"The agreement proves Trump right when he said there would be a queue to negotiate" with the US on a new tariff framework, Ribas recalls. "Tariffs are a disaster, but at one point they are a disaster." bully "We have to answer him," adds the UPF economist, who believes that perhaps the EU would not have been able to negotiate alone, but "yes with a coalition." His opinion agrees with that of the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, the Frenchman Olivier Blanchard: "When the law of the jungle prevails, the weak are not stronger, whether alone or in a coalition with others," he said on the social network X.

The outcome of the agreement hasn't satisfied anyone beyond the offices of Von der Leyen and Sefcovic. Aside from still leaving many unanswered questions pending publication of the final text, there's uncertainty about how long it will last. "No one can be sure that in two weeks, Trump won't turn his hat on us" and reignite the trade war, Ribas asserts.