V4 Industry Leaders to Gather in Bratislava to Discuss Transatlantic Trade and EU Market Strategies
Top industry representatives from various sectors, as well as public officials and representatives of foreign diplomatic missions, have already confirmed their participation in this key regional business event. The conference, organized in the premises of the Bratislava Castle, will be opened with a speech by the Speaker of the Parliament Richard Raši. Maroš Šefčovič, European Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security, will deliver his remarks and speak in an exclusive format during the first part of the day, as well as attend a roundtable discussion with industry leaders from the V4 region. Slovak Foreign Minister Juraj Blanár and Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó have also confirmed their participation in the closing part of the conference.
Visegrad 4 Business Conference is jointly organised since 2022 by four business organisations from the V4 region: Council of Slovak Exporters, Czech Association of Exporters, Hungarian business association MAPI Klub and Polish Economic Forum. The conference is organised with the support of the International Visegrad Fund, individual V4 governments and private sponsors.
For more information visit www.visegrad4business.eu.
About the Council of Slovak Exporters
The Council of Slovak Exporters was established in 2020 as a response to COVID-19's impact on local businesses. With over 130 supporting companies, this business platform connects exporters and facilitates dialogue with state institutions, international organizations, and financial institutions. The Council publicly communicates in support of Slovak exporters, provides export-related assistance, organizes networking events, and connects relevant entities in international trade. The organization holds BRONZE "European Cluster Excellence Initiative" certification, operating at the European level.
Social Links
X: https://x.com/Visegrad4B
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/visegrad4business/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/visegrad-4-business/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/visegrad4business#
Media Contact
Council of Slovak Exporters
Visegrad 4 Business Conference
+421 914 201 101
info@visegrad4business.eu
https://www.visegrad4business.eu/
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Whitmer told Trump in private that Michigan auto jobs depend on a tariff change of course
WASHINGTON (AP) — Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer met privately in the Oval Office with President Donald Trump to make a case he did not want to hear: the automotive industry he said he wants to save were being hurt by his tariffs. The Democrat came with a slide deck to make her points in a visual presentation. Just getting the meeting Tuesday with the Republican president was an achievement for someone viewed as a contender for her party's White House nomination in 2028. Whitmer's strategy for dealing with Trump highlights the conundrum for her and other Democratic leaders as they try to protect the interests of their states while voicing their opposition to his agenda. It's a dynamic that Whitmer has navigated much differently from many other Democratic governors. The fact that Whitmer had 'an opening to make direct appeals' in private to Trump was unique in this political moment, said Matt Grossman, a Michigan State University politics professor. It was her third meeting with Trump at the White House since he took office in January. This one, however, was far less public than the time in April when Whitmer was unwittingly part of an impromptu news conference that embarrassed her so much she covered her face with a folder. On Tuesday, she told the president that the economic damage from the tariffs could be severe in Michigan, a state that helped deliver him the White House in 2024. Whitmer also brought up federal support for recovery efforts after an ice storm and sought to delay changes to Medicaid. Trump offered no specific commitments, according to people familiar with the private conversation who were not authorized to discuss it publicly and spoke only on condition of anonymity to describe it. Whitmer is hardly the only one sounding the warning of the potentially damaging consequences, including factory job losses, lower profits and coming price increases, of the import taxes that Trump has said will be the economic salvation for American manufacturing. White House spokesman Kush Desai said no other president 'has taken a greater interest in restoring American auto industry dominance than President Trump." Trade frameworks negotiated by the administration would open up the Japanese, Korean and European markets for vehicles made on assembly lines in Michigan, Desai said. But the outreach Trump has preferred tends to be splashy presentations by tech CEOs. In the Oval Office on Wednesday, Apple CEO Tim Cook gave the president a customized glass plaque with a gold base as Cook promised $600 billion in investments. Trump claims to have brought in $17 trillion in investment commitments, although none of those numbers has surfaced yet in economic data. Under his series of executive orders and trade frameworks, U.S. automakers face import taxes of 50% on steel and aluminum, 30% on parts from China and a top rate of 25% on goods from Canada and Mexico not covered under an existing 2020 trade agreement. That puts America's automakers and parts suppliers at a disadvantage against German, Japanese and South Korean vehicles that only face a 15% import tax negotiated by Trump last month. On top of that, Trump this past week threatened a 100% tariff on computer chips, which are an integral part of cars and trucks, though he would exclude companies that produce chips domestically from the tax. Whitmer's two earlier meetings with Trump resulted in gains for Michigan. But the tariffs represent a significantly broader request of a president who has imposed them even more aggressively in the face of criticism. Materials in the presentation brought by Whitmer to the meeting and obtained by The Associated Press noted how trade with Canada and Mexico has driven $23.2 billion in investment to Michigan since 2020. General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis operate 50 factories across the state, while more than 4,000 facilities support the auto parts supply chain. Altogether, the sector supports nearly 600,000 manufacturing jobs, forming the backbone of Michigan's economy. Whitmer outlined the main points of the materials to Trump and left copies with his team. To Grossman, the Michigan State professor, a key question is whether voters who expected to be helped by tariffs would react if Trump's import taxes failed to deliver the promised economic growth. 'Everyone's aware that Michigan is a critical swing state and the auto industry has outsized influence, not just directly, but symbolically,' Grossman said. AP VoteCast found that Trump won Michigan in 2024 largely because two-thirds of its voters described the economic conditions as being poor or 'not so good.' Roughly 70% of the voters in the state who felt negatively about the economy backed the Republican. The state was essentially split over whether tariffs were a positive, with Trump getting 76% of those voters who viewed them favorably. The heads of General Motors, Ford and Stellantis have repeatedly warned the administration that the tariffs would cut company profits and undermine their global competitiveness. Their efforts have resulted in little more than a temporary, monthlong pause intended to give companies time to adjust. The reprieve did little to blunt the financial fallout. In the second quarter alone, Ford reported $800 million in tariff-related costs, while GM said the import taxes cost it $1.1 billion. Those expenses could make it harder to reinvest in new domestic factories, a goal Trump has championed. 'We expect tariffs to be a net headwind of about $2 billion this year, and we'll continue to monitor the developments closely and engage with policymakers to ensure U.S. autoworkers and customers are not disadvantaged by policy change,' Ford CEO Jim Farley said on his company's earning call. Since Trump returned to the White House, Michigan has lost 7,500 manufacturing jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Smaller suppliers have felt the strain, too. Detroit Axle, a family-run auto parts distributor, has been one of the more vocal companies in Michigan about the impact of the tariffs. The company initially announced it might have to shut down a warehouse and lay off more than 100 workers, but later said it would be able to keep the facility open, at least for now. 'Right now it's a market of who is able to survive, it's not a matter of who can thrive,' said Mike Musheinesh, owner of Detroit Axle. Joey Cappelletti And Josh Boak, The Associated Press Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
New Shipbuilding Rules Could Derail U.S. LNG Export Boom
The U.S. LNG export boom, strongly supported by the Trump Administration, could be undermined by separate trade rules proposed by the very same administration, which looks to revive America's shipbuilding to counter China's dominance. Under new mandates proposed by the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), beginning in 2028, a total of 1% of America's LNG exports must be carried via U.S.-flagged vessels. From 2029 onwards, 1% of U.S. LNG exports should be shipped on U.S.-flagged and U.S.-built vessels. This number will gradually rise over the decades, and by 2047, a total of 15% of all U.S. LNG exports should be carried on U.S.-built U.S.-flagged LNG tankers. Just 1% of exports may look like a negligible figure if one doesn't consider that the United States is the world's largest LNG exporter, the current operational global LNG fleet has just U.S.-flagged vessel (but built in France), and that building an LNG tanker in the United States will take years and probably cost two to four times the price of building a vessel in South Korea or China. It is countering China's dominance and reviving America's shipbuilding that's the key goal of the proposed USTR rules. However, energy industry groups and analysts say the mandate would harm U.S. LNG exports more than it would crimp China's oil and LNG lobby groups are calling on the USTR to scrap the provision for LNG tankers, as compliance with the mandate is impossible. The Center for Liquefied Natural Gas (CLNG), the U.S. trade association promoting LNG exports and including LNG exporters and project developers, says that compliance with the USTR mandate is impossible as 'There are currently no U.S.-made or enough U.S.- flagged vessels capable of exporting the quantity of LNG necessary to support current or increased U.S. LNG exports.' The U.S. does not have the shipyard capacity, technical capability, or supply chains to significantly ramp up shipbuilding of U.S. LNG carriers to meet the USTR requirements. In addition, the U.S. currently lacks the highly specialized and skilled crews for the operation and maintenance of LNG ships, CLNG said. The U.S. exported a total of 1,396 LNG cargoes last year. At the same time, the global LNG vessel fleet has 792 operating tankers, per data cited by the CLNG trade association. Of these, only one is a U.S.-flagged ship, but it is half the capacity of a modern LNG carrier and primarily serves to deliver LNG to Puerto Rico. CLNG and the American Petroleum Institute (API) last month jointly filed comments on the proposed USTR mandates, saying that the restrictions on LNG shipping do not directly address China's unfair practices and 'instead penalize U.S. LNG exporters.' The requirement 'is unrealistic and will continue to disproportionately impact the U.S. LNG industry and not Chinese entities,' API and CLNG said. Last year, about 1,400 cargoes of U.S. LNG were delivered to buyers around the world, and that number is slated to nearly double by the end of the decade as terminals that are currently under construction enter service, the associations said. Under USTR's requirements for 1% of U.S. LNG exports starting in 2029 to be transported on U.S.-built vessels, as many as six U.S.-built LNG vessels would be required by the end of the decade, which is not feasible. The U.S. built its last LNG carrier in 1980. Moreover, the groups note that there is a limited ability to access key shipbuilding components and build LNG vessels in the U.S., while the United States lacks the skilled labor necessary to build LNG carriers and probably a more daunting challenge of crewing and manning these vessels, API and CLNG said. Analysts say the industry needs clarity on what would constitute a U.S.-built vessel. 'Could the majority of the vessel be manufactured overseas and completed in the U.S.? Is it a U.S.-made engine?' Jason Feer, global head of business intelligence for Poten & Partners, told CNBC. Other experts say that the mandate, if it stays, will require flexibility in interpretation of what constitutes a U.S.-built ship and waivers for the industry if the Trump Administration wants its American LNG export dominance to succeed. 'Without some common-sense flexibility or a phased-in approach, the math just doesn't add up,' Louis Sola, a former commissioner at the Federal Maritime Commission appointed by President Trump, and now a partner at lobbying firm Thorn Run Partners, told CNBC. 'We risk bottling up our own LNG exports and opening the market to the competition right when our allies need American energy the most.' By Tsvetana Paraskova for More Top Reads From this article on Errore nel recupero dei dati Effettua l'accesso per consultare il tuo portafoglio Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Market liberalism is dead — we need a new NATO for trade
For eight decades the West, especially European nations, treated markets as neutral arenas governed by rules—not power. That era is over. The global economy is now shaped by rivalry, coercion, and control. Trade is no longer just trade in a rules-based order, it has become part of geopolitical strategy. And this isn't a temporary disruption. As IMF chief Kristalina Georgieva has warned, the world is fragmenting into competing blocs. The old vision of globalisation has collapsed. What seemed to be a natural setup to many in Europe was, in fact, a historical anomaly: a system built upon an American-led world order power, enforced through institutions like NATO and the Bretton Woods system. That scaffolding is now shaking. The rules-based global market we took for granted is giving way to a world of weaponised interdependence. To navigate it, the West needs a new kind of alliance: a NATO for trade. The end of the 80-year economic illusion After World War II, the US and its allies built an economic system designed to prevent a return to the destabilising chaos of the 1930s. Institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and GATT were established to underpin global capitalism under American leadership. Security was provided by US military power, codified in NATO. Trade flourished. So did Europe, whose post-war recovery and integration were underwritten by American guarantees. When the Cold War ended, the illusion that global capitalism could operate independently of geopolitics deepened. By the 1990s, many believed the market was self-regulating and inherently peace-promoting. Today, with the return of great power competition, that illusion has shattered. Economic liberalism no longer aligns with geopolitical reality. We are entering a war economy mindset—one where national security trumps price efficiency. This shift has been accelerated by two shocks: Russia's invasion of Ukraine and China's economic rise. For example, Europe's dependence on cheap Russian gas left it exposed when Russia weaponised its flows in 2022. Germany, in particular, had bet on market logic rather than geopolitical risk. A 2021 assessment even declared Nord Stream 2 safe just months prior. The result: an energy crisis and a mad scramble for LNG. Far away, while the West clung to free-market orthodoxy, China has spent decades building a war-ready economy. Under the 'Made in China 2025' and 'Military-Civil Fusion' initiatives, it identified key sectors and moved to dominate them, including rare earths, batteries, solar and AI. Today, China produces over 75% of lithium-ion batteries and nearly all the world's gallium. It controls the supply chains for the energy transition—and increasingly, the components of military power. Crucially, China is not afraid to use this market dominance for political ends. In 2010, it cut exports to Japan over a dispute. And its green tech dominance creates dependence in Europe and beyond. Recently, China imposed controls on gallium and germanium, crucial for semiconductor development worldwide. In response to this shift, U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan has openly argued for a more strategic form of capitalism, rejecting 'oversimplified' free-market models. Trade is no longer neutral. What matters is not just cost, but control. 80-year illusion over, a new paradigm emerges In summary, we are entering a new, first truly geopolitical-economic paradigm in eight decades. The comfortable post-Cold War interlude — when markets seemed paramount and history had supposedly ended — has given way to a more raw and Hobbesian environment. But unlike the 1930s, the West is not destitute or defenceless; we are wealthy and belatedly awakening to the challenge. We must now leverage our strengths in a clear-eyed way. The task is to update the institutions and mindsets of the 20th-century liberal order to meet the 21st-century's more fraught reality. If we succeed, geoeconomics need not lead to catastrophe, but it will require us to subordinate commerce to strategy — intentionally and intelligently — just as our forebears did in the 1940s when they built the system that delivered peace and prosperity for so long. The EU-US trade agreement highlights this shift The inequity of the recent EU-US trade deal, which saw the bloc swallow 15% tariffs, is a perfect example of this shift. It also demonstrates that Europe's decades-long dependence on the US has become a strategic vulnerability. This episode reinforces the need for Europe and others to structurally diversify our trade relationships and value chains in a world of escalating economic coercion. It must drive us to deepen partnerships beyond the transatlantic axis, without relying too heavily on China. This is not the 1930s. Europe remains a wealthy, democratic, and stable region. But post-war generations have no memory of systemic disruption. We assumed liberalism was permanent. We believed 'it's the economy, stupid.' Now we're learning that strategic power, not market price, determines outcomes. Defence is another case in point. Until recently, most NATO members underspent on their militaries. By 2021, only six met the 2% GDP target. That changed quickly after 2022. But defence industries were caught flat-footed. A plan to send 1 million shells to Ukraine revealed that the EU's manufacturing capacity fell far short. For decades, Europe optimised for efficiency, not endurance. The same applies to trade. Germany's model of Wandel durch Handel—change through trade—is being rethought. Berlin is now screening Chinese investments and reducing dependence on authoritarian suppliers. Across Europe, strategic autonomy is the new watchword. But the mindset shift is only beginning. A NATO for trade: the strategic task ahead Market liberalism assumed that trade would bring peace. But today, trade is a tool of leverage. The new mantra must be resilience—including building domestic capacity, even if it's more expensive. This is not a temporary adjustment. It is the new normal. And this new era demands new institutions. Just as NATO was built to defend shared security, the West now needs a strategic alliance to defend shared economic sovereignty—a NATO for trade—including nations like Japan, South Korea and Australia. Economic security must become a shared goal, not just a national one. The US has already taken steps, with domestic investments in chips and clean tech, and bans on key tech exports to China. Now, the EU is following suit, with the Chips Act and Critical Raw Materials Act. These are necessary but insufficient measures. We must build an economic coalition of the willing, now. That means shared investments, aligned trade rules, and collective protection of critical supply chains. It means accepting higher costs to safeguard long-term freedom. Cheap goods are not cheap if they make us dependent on hostile powers and geopolitical power games. The task is not to retreat from global trade, but to rebuild it on strategic terms. The free market cannot defend itself. Like peace, it must be protected through alliances. Economic liberalism's end, strategy's return Market liberalism is dead. It died when we stopped believing trade was just about price. It died when supply chains became battlegrounds. And it died when autocracies weaponised interdependence while democracies hesitated. If we want to preserve prosperity, we must be willing to defend it—not just with tanks, but with treaties, tariffs, and trusted partners. A NATO for trade is not a metaphor. It is the next necessary institution in a world where commerce is no longer safe from politics. If the West can build it, the collapse of market liberalism need not mean decline; it can be the start of a more resilient and secure economic order. The opinions expressed in commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune. This story was originally featured on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
