Vance, Meloni, von der Leyen positive ahead of US-EU meet
US Vice President JD Vance and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen emphasized their shared desire to improve relations just before meeting in Rome on Sunday.
'Hopefully, we'll be the beginning of some long-term trade negotiations and some long-term trade advantages between both Europe and the United States,' Vance said at the start of the meeting, which was organized by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni as leaders gathered in Rome for the inauguration of Pope Leo XIV.
In recent weeks, tensions between the US and Europe have flared, primarily due to US President Donald Trump's announcement of plans to impose tariffs on the European Union. After strong protests and turbulence in stock and financial markets, Trump suspended the tariffs in April for 90 days. The EU has expressed its readiness to take decisive measures, including counter-tariffs, should negotiations fail.
Von der Leyen said 'it is important now we have exchanged papers that our experts are deep diving discussing the details. Everybody knows that the devil is in the detail. But what unites us is that at the end, we want together to have a good deal for both sides.' The European Commission president highlighted that the EU and the US share the world's largest trade partnership, with an annual volume of around $1.5 trillion. Europe and its individual countries are important allies of the United States, Vance said. Meloni expressed hope that the dialogue in Rome could mark a diplomatic 'restart' between Washington and the EU.
Vance explicitly praised Meloni, stating that Meloni had offered to be a 'bridge builder' between the US and the EU. (DPA)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Qatar Tribune
an hour ago
- Qatar Tribune
US tariffs could be launchpad for Europe's single market needs
Agencies Materials group Umicore can spend at least a month on tackling a complex array of national shipment rules only to bring electronic scrap and other waste from across the European Union to its Belgian recycling plant. The problem is not just Umicore's, as businesses across Europe grapple with internal obstacles that can be as damaging as tariffs. Analysts, however, say U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs have provided the necessary push to make the bloc the single market it aspires to be. Umicore's difficulties are particularly significant in that the company recycles 17 of the 34 minerals identified by the EU as critical for its green and digital transition. Chief Executive Bart Sap says a shipment may need to go by rail in one country, then transfer to a boat in another, with a wealth of diverse documentation along the route. 'With that ununified waste market, the internal hurdles are so high that actually 73% of waste is being exported,' he told Reuters in an interview. Diverging waste shipment regulations are one of the many internal barriers that add cost and complexity to doing business within the EU. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has estimated EU internal barriers are the equivalent of tariffs of 44% for goods and 110% for services, well above the U.S. tariffs of 25% on steel and cars and 10% on many other goods. A similar study in 2021 concluded that barriers for goods flow within the U.S. amounted to a 13% tariff. For goods, EU barriers include restrictions on retailers' ability to source products or sell them in other EU countries and a jumble of rules on labelling. AkzoNobel, Europe's largest paint maker, complains it cannot just sell the same tub across the 27-nation bloc, placing the blame not on different languages but varying rules. These include separate recycling logos in France and Spain and some EU countries requiring air quality information. The Dutch company says it cannot fit all the necessary information on smaller tubs, and that frequent rule changes force it to keep investing in packaging updates. QR codes could be a solution, it says, something the EU will start requiring from 2027. For services, the single market is even less developed. Laws on setting up foreign subsidiaries diverge, declarations for posting workers abroad vary and 5,700 professions are regulated across the bloc, meaning doctors, nurses, engineers or accountants in one EU country cannot easily work in another. The barriers do not just add cost and complexity. They stifle Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta, who produced an influential report on the EU single market last year, said EU companies suffered a 'stunning size deficit' relative to rivals and that market divisions prevented them from building scale. A core problem is vested interest in sectors protecting regulated professions from competition and as national supervisors prove resistant to an EU-wide capital market that could rival U.S. investments in newer companies and infrastructure. 'These are low-hanging fruit economically, because basically they're free. It's essentially changing the regulation. But that doesn't mean they're necessarily politically easy,' said Niclas Poitiers, research fellow at think tank Bruegel. The debate on a unified capital market has dragged on for over a decade as EU members have squabbled over issues such as supervision and insolvency rules. However, a deeper single market has gone from a nice-to-have to a must-have as the impact of Trump's tariffs on exports has highlighted the need to remove obstacles to compete with global rivals. The Commission says it is prioritizing removing what it calls the 'terrible ten' most harmful single market barriers, including recognition of professional qualifications and fragmented rules on labelling and waste. Letta, dean of IE University in Spain and president of the Jacques Delors Institute think tank, said he was encouraged by Commission initiatives to tackle the most critical unfulfilled parts of the single market – services and capital. They include the promotion of a savings and investment union and removing barriers to business in legislative proposals are due in 2025 and 2026. Aslak Berg, research fellow at the Centre for European Reform think tank, said the Commission seemed to be serious about reforms that made a difference, but needed to get EU members on said there were two grounds for optimism. Firstly, EU capitals were aware of the need for change.
Qatar Tribune
an hour ago
- Qatar Tribune
Crypto firms pick less strict EU states for swift approval
Agencies The first EU-wide cryptocurrency regulation was meant to impose some harmony, but disparities in implementation by member countries has allowed companies to exploit a flaw in the system. Launched in December, Markets in Crypto-Asset (MiCA) insists on service providers obtaining a licence to operate legally in the European Union. It is issued once specific criteria on anti-money laundering, prevention of terror group financing, IT security and financial soundness have been implemented. Such a framework aims to protect investors and provide credibility to a sector deemed to be poorly regulated. Once obtained, a licence grants access to the entire EU market, which encourages some companies to seek authorisation in the most 'accommodating' member state. Crypto experts, speaking to AFP, do not question the integrity of regulatory authorities in, for example, Germany and the Netherlands - two EU members which account for the majority of the roughly 30 MiCA licences issued so far. Other bloc nations, including Malta, are in the crosshairs, however, according to these same experts, who preferred to remain anonymous. They point to, for example, the Mediterranean island hastily issuing licences before the formal implementation of collective standards. 'From time to time we see arriving on our market, via the (MiCA) passport, products approved by some of our colleagues with, let's say, a rather quick signing off,' lamented the president of the financial markets authority in France, Marie-Anne Barbat-Layani, as she addressed the country's Senate in March. Barbat-Layani noted that EU markets regulator ESMA had launched a 'peer review' of an unnamed regulator that is potentially too lax. When contacted by AFP, the watchdog declined to comment. The Maltese regulator, MFSA, neither confirmed nor denied that it was involved. An official working under her, Stephane Pontoizeau, added: 'There is always the risk of someone trying to find the least demanding entry point into Europe.' Crypto platform OKX, which had planned to hire about 100 staff in France making the country its 'anchor' in Europe, ultimately opted for Malta. Peer Gemini followed the same strategy, having targeted Ireland before changing its mind, citing the 'proactive engagement' of the Maltese authorities. 'Malta began welcoming applications several months earlier than other regulators, which meant that we could start the application process earlier, build the teams and infrastructure required to operate under MiCA,' noted Gemini's head of Europe, Mark Other countries have been slow to grant approvals, with France having only just issued its first MiCA licence - to French fintech firm Deblock - amid accusations that its process is long and complex. France, however, sees it as granting companies greater time to prepare their application, with the country implementing a transition period through to June 2026. Pontoizeau insisted the French financial regulator is 'determined not to add national requirements to European rules'. According to lawyer Anne Marechal, former legal director at the regulator, there have been 'cut-price approvals'. She told AFP that 'believing one can save a few weeks and a little money' puts companies' credibility at risk with investors. Obtaining the necessary certification can also require considerable outlay, whether for a MiCA or national licence. Tangi Le Calvez, founder of the crypto investment firm GOin, has invested about one million euros on obtaining a French licence, which inspired MiCA. He believes that many players will not be able to complete all the necessary steps. Already in 2017, EU member Estonia introduced its own mandatory licences for the crypto sector, which resulted in 75 percent of industry participants ceasing operations there, according to the Cointelegraph publication. While it remains to be seen if a similar outcome will occur in the wake of MiCA, Claire Balva, strategy director at Deblock, highlighted the risk of European crypto firms being replaced by rivals from places with more flexible rules, such as the US and Dubai. Given their financial resources.
Al Jazeera
7 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Why Ukraine peace talks are failing
This month's peace talks between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul have once again failed to bring the war any closer to a ceasefire. The only outcome – a limited agreement on prisoner exchanges – underscores a troubling truth: the current negotiation framework is not working. Meanwhile, military escalation on both sides shows no signs of slowing. In such an atmosphere, diplomacy becomes increasingly difficult. A ceasefire feels out of reach, and uneasy comparisons with the Korean Peninsula's frozen armistice are beginning to surface – a scenario that would only entrench division, fuel resentment, and leave key territorial issues unresolved. That is why we must fundamentally rethink how these talks are structured and led. Yes, a full, unconditional 30-day ceasefire – as Ukraine proposed in Istanbul – is the bare minimum needed to create space for diplomacy. Talks must be convened without preconditions, offering all parties a seat at the table on neutral ground. There is no shortage of thoughtful policy proposals in Western circles outlining feasible paths to peace. We support calls for stronger international engagement, particularly from the United Nations, the United States and the European Union. What is needed now is urgent, coordinated global action – before tit-for-tat escalations spiral even further out of control. But there is a deeper flaw in the way current negotiations are being facilitated – often by foreign ministers approaching the conflict as a technical problem to be solved: add a concession here, subtract a demand there. Each side calculates whether the outcome adds up in its favour. That arithmetic approach cannot work – not in a conflict defined by trauma, identity, loss and justice. What continues to be absent from these discussions is any real conversation about justice, accountability and healing. There can be no sustainable peace without a process of transitional justice. As scholars and practitioners have long noted, a frozen conflict without accountability only prolongs suffering and sets the stage for future violence. Likewise, there is too little attention paid to societal trauma – the emotional and psychological toll of war on civilians, soldiers and entire communities. Too much blood has been shed to exclude these dimensions from the peace process. A negotiation cannot succeed if one side is focused on saving face at the expense of the truth. A durable outcome is only possible when facts are acknowledged – the aggression, the occupation and the suffering of millions. What is required now is a new kind of diplomacy – one that accounts for the deep trauma of this war. The mood in Ukraine is heavy, haunted by daily reminders of loss: the sirens, the shattered homes, the soldier's coffin quietly passing by on an otherwise ordinary street. Peace must begin with recognition – not only of legal borders and security guarantees, but of pain. This is the essential – and too often overlooked – precondition for any meaningful dialogue, in Turkiye or elsewhere. Recognising the human cost is not weakness; it is strength. Without it, any ceasefire will remain fragile, any agreement incomplete. Peace in Ukraine requires more than a political settlement. It demands social reconciliation – a process as vital as the diplomatic one. History, language, identity: these are not peripheral issues in this war; they are its heart. That means rethinking everything – who hosts the talks, where they happen, and how they are facilitated. We need less of a closed-door negotiation in Istanbul and more of a public-facing truth and reconciliation process, with real international backing. It all hinges on who convenes this process, and how. The United States is uniquely positioned to lead, perhaps more effectively than a divided European Union. But recent statements from the Trump camp – seen by many in Ukraine as indifferent or incendiary – have only inflamed tensions. They do more harm than good. What is needed now is serious, strategic engagement – led by the US, in concert with the EU and UN – that meets this moment with the gravity it demands. This is not a maths problem. It is a matter of justice, healing and human survival. It is time we approached it that way. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
