Euro tumbles and stocks slump after US 'humiliation': Trump forces 'lopsided' trade deal on Brussels
The single currency fell more than 1 per cent against the dollar towards $1.16 as investors bet the agreement would hurt the European economy.
Stock markets also slammed into reverse after an initial rally with the Dax closing down 1 per cent in Frankfurt and the Cac falling 0.4 per cent in Paris.
In London, the FTSE 100 fell 0.4 per cent, or 38.87 points, to 9081.44. By contrast, the Nasdaq and S&P 500 hit record highs in New York.
'It's great they've made a deal, but beyond the noise it is still a worsening in trade relations, not an improvement,' said Trevor Greetham at Royal London Asset Management.
Danni Hewson at AJ Bell added: 'Any questions about who gains the most from the US-EU trade deal seem to have been answered by markets with both the S&P 500 and Nasdaq hitting record highs with European markets looking a lot more subdued.'
Under the lopsided agreement struck between US President Donald Trump and European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen, most EU exports to the US will face a 15 per cent tariff.
While this was lower than the 30 per cent threatened by the White House, it is higher than the 10 per cent secured by Brexit Britain and ten times the 1.5 per cent levy that was in place before Trump launched his trade war.
Analysts warned the deal poses a big threat to European exporters, who shipped £450billion of goods to the US last year including cars, wine and medicines.
US exports to the EU – which totalled £275billion in 2024 – will not face extra tariffs.
The EU also agreed to invest an extra £450billion in the US –including on American military equipment – and spend more than £550billion on energy.
Trump hailed 'the biggest deal ever made' while von der Leyen was forced to admit it was 'the best we could get' as she faced a fierce backlash across Europe.
Clemens Fuest, president of the Munich-based IFO economic research institute, said: 'The trade deal is a humiliation for the EU, but it reflects the imbalance of power.
'The Europeans need to wake up, focus more on economic strength and reduce their military and technological dependence on the US.'
French entrepreneur Arnaud Bertrand, who sold his House Trip business to TripAdvisor, described it as 'a massive one-way transfer of wealth with no reciprocal benefits'.
He said: 'The EU gets nothing. This is Europe's century of humiliation.'
By contrast, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said there was 'absolutely no doubt' Britain was able to secure lower tariffs of 10 per cent due to Brexit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
11 minutes ago
- BBC News
UK independent space agency scrapped to cut costs
The UK Space Agency will cease to exist as an independent entity to cut the cost of bureaucracy, the government said on will be absorbed by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) in April government says this will save money, cut duplication and ensure ministerial one leading space scientist said the move would lead to disruption in the short term and the UK losing ground to its international competitors over the long run. Dr Simeon Barber of the Open University feared that scrapping UKSA would lead to Britain's space sector "losing focus"."Around the world countries have been recognising the importance of space by setting up national space agencies, and for the government to be scrapping ours seems like a backward step," he said. UKSA was created 2010 in response to the growing importance of the sector to the economy. The development of small spacecraft, satellites and space instrumentation is a field that the UK excels at, thanks in part due to the agency. Its role is to develop the country's space strategy, coordinate research and commercial activities and liaise with international partners. During its tenure UKSA saw a UK astronaut, Tim Peake launched into space to work on the International Space Station and the development of Britain's own capability to launch small satellites and other small payloads into space from space sector generates an estimated £18.6bn a year and employs 55,000 people across the agency, its budget and activities will now be absorbed into DSIT. It follows a commitment from Prime Minister Keir Starmer to reduce costs and cut the number of arms length government bodies, known as quangos (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations), starting with the abolition of NHS England announced in minister Sir Chris Bryant said: "Bringing things in house means we can bring much greater integration and focus to everything we are doing while maintaining the scientific expertise and the immense ambition of the sector."The merger will see the agency become a unit within DSIT, staffed by experts from both organisations and retaining the UKSA supporters of the space agency, such as Dr Barber fear that this will mean a loss of the agency's dynamic, proactive approach which has proved to be so successful for the UK's space science and its space industry. He said there was a danger of moving to more bureaucratic, less incentivised ways of working, which he said were more typical of government departments, and were the reason the agency was created in the first place."It feels like we're going to get stuck in the mud again," he told BBC News.
The Independent
40 minutes ago
- The Independent
Singer Tamar Braxton says she 'almost died' in weekend accident
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
The Guardian
41 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Voices arguing that climate action is a waste of time are getting louder. Here's why they are wrong
There is something of a reality check under way on the response to the climate crisis. It's no secret that countries and corporations are far from living up to the goals set by international leaders at the landmark 2015 Paris agreement. Unless there is a significant course correction, the ramifications will be far-reaching and often destructive. The second coming of Donald Trump and growing global instability has made a top-down injection of urgency at the pace needed harder to imagine. Optimism is harder to come by. But that doesn't mean nothing is happening. It's worth pointing this out because a narrative has started to take hold that renewable energy and other clean solutions have made little to no headway in displacing fossil fuels, and therefore are pointless. Fuelled by Tony Blair and the former US government adviser Daniel Yergin, and embraced by the fossil fuel industry and its lapdogs in the commentariat, it is used to attack zero emissions targets as a fool's dream. In Australia, it is part of the backdrop as the Albanese government is lobbied over whether to set an ambitious emissions reduction target for 2035. The reality, though, is more complicated. Here are some things worth considering if you hear climate action is pointless. One line that has gained some traction this year is that the proportion of global energy supply from fossil fuels has barely moved over the past 35 years. The claim – bubbling away in the The Australian, on Sky News and on social media – goes that dirty fuels provided 85% of energy in 1990, and still provide 80% today. So much for progress, right? But the Bloomberg New Energy Finance founder and self-declared conservative Michael Liebreich points out that this ignores an important factor. The percentages referred to by fossil fuel advocates refer to primary energy – that is, raw coal, crude oil, gas, wood, sun or wind. They do not refer to secondary energy – energy that has been converted into a usable form, such as electricity or refined petroleum. Given secondary energy is what humans use, it is the more relevant measure. And the process of processing raw fossil fuels into usable energy is, in many cases, not particular efficient. More energy is lost in generating at a remote coal-fired power plant and transmitting it to a home than if solar, wind or hydro was used. Petrol cars require much more energy to travel a kilometre than an electric vehicle does. If we acknowledge this and consider secondary energy alone, the amount of energy provided by fossil fuels is not 80%, but 68%. This is obviously still too high. But it won't stay at this level. Despite all the talk of new coal plants still being built, they are playing in the margins. The International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts that solar and wind will meet more than 90% of the global increase in electricity demand this year. Global generation from solar and wind energy is expected to increase by about 25%, from 4,000 terawatt-hours to more than 5,000. Next year it is expected to jump another 20%, past 6,000TWh. The IEA projects that global renewable energy output – including solar, wind and hydro – will surpass coal output in either 2025 or 2026. For the first time in a century, the share of electricity coming from coal will have fallen to less than 33%. Solar and wind will together be nearly 20% – up from 4% a decade ago. A key question is if this growth in renewable energy will eventually reduce global fossil fuel use – as is necessary – or mostly just meet growing energy demand. Liebreich argues compellingly that fossil fuel use is set to fall. Using a simple model, he suggests it is likely to start falling in the 2040s and could be squeezed out of the system by about 2065. That is not near fast enough to deliver the trajectory scientists say is needed to limit global heating since pre-industrialisation to 1.5C. But it is a well argued rejection of claims that a global transition isn't possible. Sign up to Clear Air Australia Adam Morton brings you incisive analysis about the politics and impact of the climate crisis after newsletter promotion With a population of 1.4 billion and having taken on a huge proportion of the world's manufacturing, China is easily the world's biggest direct national climate polluter, pumping out three times as much CO2 as the second-placed US. Its story is mixed, as always. But the data show it is changing. An analysis for Carbon Brief by China experts Qi Qin and Lauri Myllyvirta found that coal's share of the country's power generation fell from 73% in 2016 to 51% in June this year. This happened as it continued to build new coal plants for a simple reason – it doesn't run them at anything like capacity. A significant moment came earlier this year when China's national emissions fell for the first time, dropping 1% in the first quarter compared with a year earlier. Beijing needs to do much more if it is to meet its commitment under the Paris deal. Its next five-year plan for economic development, due this year, will be crucial. According to Our World in Data, global sales of internal combustion engine cars – which run solely on petrol or diesel – peaked in 2016 at 80.47m. Electric and plug-in hybrid car sales in that year were just 780,000. Last year, sales of dirty cars were 62.05m, a 23% fall. Electric and plug-in hybrid car sales had increased to 17.5m. Put another way, nearly a decade ago only one in every 100 cars sold across the globe was electric. Now it is more than one in five. Elon Musk's extraordinary self-own in damaging Tesla's reputation may dent the pace of growth but it won't stop it. China has little time or need for Teslas and is home to more than 60% of global EV sales. None of this is to understate the scale of the problem. This column has reported before on the big step-up in global heating since June 2023. Averaged across the globe, every day in 2024 was at least 1.25C hotter than preindustrial levels, and three-quarters were 1.5C hotter. Extreme weather events are becoming more damaging. Feedback loops (melting permaforst and huge wildfires) are releasing large additional amounts of CO2, accelerating the problem. Governments have barely started to acknowledge the expected increase in economic, societal and environmental costs that will hit productivity – the current focus of the Australian political class – and so much else. It's hard to overstate how much there is to be done. But don't believe self-interested arguments that action is impossible, or will be for nothing.
