European leaders react to US-EU trade deal
Following are reactions from European leaders to the deal.
"It is a sombre day when an alliance of free peoples, brought together to affirm their common values and to defend their common interests, resigns itself to submission."
"This is not an agreement ... Donald Trump ate von der Leyen for breakfast, this is what happened and we suspected this would happen as the U.S. president is a heavyweight when it comes to negotiations while Madame President is featherweight."
"This agreement has succeeded in averting a trade conflict that would have hit the export-orientated German economy hard.
This applies in particular to the automotive industry, where the current tariffs of 27.5% will be almost halved to 15%."
"I consider it positive that there is an agreement, but if I don't see the details I am not able to judge it in the best way."
"The agreement brings much-needed predictability to the global economy and Finnish companies. Work must continue to dismantle trade barriers. Only free transatlantic trade benefits both sides the most."
"This agreement does not make anyone richer, but it may be the least bad alternative. What appears to be positive for Sweden, based on an initial assessment, is that the agreement creates some predictability."
"A deal provides a measure of much needed certainty for Irish, European and American businesses who together represent the most integrated trading relationship in the world.
While Ireland regrets that the baseline tariff of 15% is included in the agreement, it is important that we now have more certainty on the foundations for the EU-US trade relationship, which is essential for jobs, growth and investment."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
4 minutes ago
- Reuters
EU's $250 billion-per-year spending on US energy is unrealistic
BRUSSELS/HOUSTON, July 28 (Reuters) - The European Union's pledge to buy $250 billion of U.S. energy supplies per year is unrealistic because it would require the redirection of most U.S. energy exports towards Europe and the EU has little control over the energy its companies import. The U.S. and EU struck a framework trade deal on Sunday, which will impose 15% U.S. tariffs on most EU goods. The deal included a pledge for the EU to spend $250 billion annually on U.S. energy - imports of oil, liquefied natural gas and nuclear technology - for the next three years. Total U.S. energy exports to all buyers worldwide in 2024 amounted to $318 billion, U.S. Energy Information Administration data showed. Of that, the EU imported a combined $76 billion of U.S. petroleum, LNG and solid fuels such as coal in 2024, according to Reuters' calculations based on Eurostat data. More than tripling those imports was unrealistic, analysts said. Arturo Regalado, senior LNG analyst at Kpler, said the scope of the energy trade envisioned in the deal "exceeds market realities." "U.S. oil flows would need to fully redirect towards the EU to reach the target, or the value of LNG imports from the US would need to increase sixfold," Regalado said. There is strong competition for U.S. energy exports as other countries need the supplies - and have themselves pledged to buy more in trade deals. Japan agreed to a "major expansion of U.S. energy exports" in its U.S. trade deal last week, the White House said in a statement. South Korea has also indicated interest in investing and purchasing fuel from an Alaskan LNG project as it seeks a trade deal. Competition for U.S. energy could drive up benchmark U.S. oil and gas prices and encourage U.S. producers to favour exports over domestic supply. That could make fuel and power costs more expensive, which would be a political and economic headache for U.S. and EU leaders. Neither side has detailed what was included in the energy deal - or whether it covered items such as energy services or parts for power grids and plants. The EU estimates its member countries' plans to expand nuclear energy would require hundreds of billions of euros in investments by 2050. Its nuclear reactor-related imports, however, totalled just 53.3 billion euros in 2024, trade data shows. The energy pledge reflected the EU's analysis of how much U.S. energy supply it could accommodate, a senior EU official said, but that would depend on investments in U.S. oil and LNG infrastructure, European import infrastructure, and shipping capacity. "These figures, again, are not taken out of thin air. So yes, they require investments," said the senior official, who declined to be named. "Yes, it will vary according to the energy sources. But these are figures which are reachable." There was no public commitment to the delivery, the official added, because the EU would not buy the energy - its companies would. Private companies import most of Europe's oil, while a mix of private and state-run companies import gas. The European Commission can aggregate demand for LNG to negotiate better terms, but cannot force companies to buy fuel. That is a commercial decision. "It's just unrealistic," ICIS analysts Andreas Schröder and Ajay Parmar said in written comments to Reuters. "Either Europe pays a super high non-market reflective price for U.S. LNG or it takes way too much LNG volumes, more than it can cope with." The United States is already the EU's top supplier of LNG and oil, shipping 44% of EU LNG needs and 15.4% of its oil in 2024, according to EU data. Raising imports to the target would require a U.S. LNG expansion way beyond what is planned through 2030, said Jacob Mandel, research lead at Aurora Energy Research. "You can add on capacity," Mandel said. "But if you're talking about the scale that would be necessary to meet these targets, the $250 billion, then it's not really feasible." Europe could buy $50 billion more of U.S. LNG annually as supply increases, he said. The EU has said it could import more U.S. energy as its plan advances to end Russian oil and gas imports by 2028. The EU imported around 94 million barrels of Russian oil last year - 3% of the bloc's crude purchases - and 52 billion cubic metres (bcm) of Russian LNG and gas, according to EU data. For comparison, the EU imported 45 bcm of U.S. LNG last year. Higher EU fuel purchases would, however, run counter to forecasts for EU demand to decline as it shifts to clean energy, analysts said. "There is no major need for the EU to import more oil from the U.S., in fact, its oil demand peaked a number of years ago," Schröder and Parmar said. ($1 = 0.8571 euro)
Daily Mail
4 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Trump warns against second independence vote for 75 years
Donald Trump has signalled that there should not be another Scottish independence referendum until at least 2064 because countries 'can't go through that too much'. The US President said he thought there had been an agreement not to hold a rerun of the 2014 separation vote for at least another 50 years. His comments came during the third full day of his visit to Scotland as he met Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer at his Turnberry golf course, and just hours after John Swinney claimed that an SNP majority in next year's Holyrood election would be a mandate for another independence referendum. During a lengthy press conference with the Prime Minister, Mr Trump also said he wants Scotland to thrive as he vowed to consider removing punishing tariffs on Scotch whisky and made the case for more North Sea drilling. He also directly pressed Sir Keir Starmer to take advantage of the North Sea's oil reserves. When asked about the SNP's plan to demand another independence referendum if it wins a majority at next year's Holyrood elections, Mr Trump said he had predicted the No vote the day before the 2014 referendum when he was visiting his first golf course at the Menie Estate in Aberdeenshire. He added: 'I do say that when they made that deal (to hold a referendum) somebody said that it was - and I remember this very distinctly, I said 'could they do this all the time?'. 'There was a little bit of a restriction, like 50 or 75 years before you could take another vote because, you know, a country can't go through that too much.' SNP figures including Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon had said at the time the vote was a 'once in a generation opportunity'. Mr Trump made the comments ahead of Mr Swinney attending a dinner with him in Aberdeenshire last night and the opening of his second course at Menie today (TUE). Sir Keir said: 'I believe in a stronger Scotland in a better United Kingdom and I think that at a time like this when it is quite clear there is uncertainty and volatility around the world, the strength of the United Kingdom together is very important for all four nations, very important for Scotland. 'That should be our priority, that should be our focus - not on the politics which feels like the politics of yesteryear now at a time like this. 'I think that the First Minister should probably focus more on his delivery in Scotland than on his constitutional issues, and we might have a better health service in Scotland. 'At a time like this, I think the United Kingdom is always stronger as four nations, I think that is better for all four nations.' It comes as Mr Swinney was condemned for an 'absurd' assertion that a generation has passed since Scots rejected independence. In a desperate attempt to relaunch the SNP's failing bid to break up the UK, he has claimed a majority for the party in next year's Holyrood elections would be a mandate for another referendum. He was accused of trying to silence SNP critics and was mocked for the claim that a generation has passed less than 11 years since Scots voted decisively to stay in the UK. Then First Minister Alex Salmond and his successor Nicola Sturgeon previously described the 2014 referendum as a 'once in a generation opportunity'. After unveiling the latest bid to secure independence, Mr Swinney yesterday said: 'There is fundamentally a democratic issue here that people in Scotland in a voluntary union must be able to choose their own democratic future, and that was accepted after the SNP won a majority in the Scottish Parliament, on our own, in 2011. 'I am making the point that, having established that precedent, we must be in a position to be able to give the people of Scotland the choice about their constitutional future. 'There is now, by the time we get to 2030, going to be a million people who were not eligible to vote in the last referendum in 2014. 'A generation has now passed and I want to make sure that people in Scotland who want our country to have a choice about independence are able to do so in a democratic and legitimate fashion that can enable the establishment of an independent country as a consequence of a Yes vote. 'And the way to do that is the way we did it in 2011, which is to elect a majority of SNP MSPs to the Scottish Parliament.' In the 2014 vote, 55 per cent of Scots voted No and 45 per cent Yes. Scottish Conservative deputy leader Rachael Hamilton said: 'It's patently absurd - and John Swinney knows it - to claim that 11 years constitutes 'a generation'. 'John Swinney is like a broken record. In a bid to silence internal critics of his weak leadership, he has thrown diehard nationalists some more red meat on the one issue they all agree on: independence. 'Ordinary Scots are sick and tired of the SNP's obsession with breaking up the UK. The public want John Swinney to focus on fixing the damage his government has done in decimating essential services such as schools and the NHS at the same time as making Scotland the highest taxed part of the UK.' Scottish Labour deputy leader Jackie Baillie said: 'This SNP government has lost its way and ran out of ideas - while one in six Scots suffer on an NHS waiting list.
The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
Finally, Democrats are fighting back: How Trump-Epstein and redistricting have ignited a revolt
On Wednesday, Speaker Mike Johnson let the House of Representatives break for August recess one day early. Johnson had no other option because Democrats ground the chamber to a halt in an attempt to get their Republican colleagues to vote on files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) — joined by Trump-rebelling Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) — had been gathering co-sponsors for their discharge petition that would allow them to circumvent leadership to release files related to the convicted sex offender and trafficker. But discharge petitions need seven legislative business days to 'ripen,' so cutting short the calendar delays the ripening. It marked a turning point for a party that's been flailing since Donald Trump won last November. For the past few months, while Democrats have opposed Trump's initiatives, they have not landed a single clean punch politically. Rather, they've mostly stayed out of the way and hoped for his unforced errors, of which there have been several. But that changed significantly this week. Democrats of all stripes in the House signed onto the discharge petition. Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA) represents a district that voted for Trump. But she signed onto Khanna and Massie's discharge petition and did not mince words. 'We deserve transparency and I'm pretty appalled to see parliamentary procedure used to hide pedophiles,' she told The Independent. Democrats did get some substantial wins out of it, too. Not only did the House Oversight Committee vote to subpoena Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's former girlfriend and associate who is serving a 20-year sentence; three Republicans crossed over in one of the subcommittees to subpoena files related to the Epstein investigation. And Democrats are not just gumming up the works on the House side. Earlier this week, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), told The Independent that he hoped that the Senate would not take up the Epstein files. Unfortunately for his caucus, Democrats in the Senate decided to hijack the committee process there, too. On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee convened for legislation Cornyn wanted to pass through the committee on opioids. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) attempted to include an amendment related to Epstein. In the same token, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) tried to force a vote to disclose files related to Epstein, but Republicans blocked his efforts on the floor. It should be stated that Booker and Gallego both likely want to run for president. During the August recess, Gallego will head to Iowa, which traditionally hosts the first presidential caucus. And ever since Booker's record-breaking sort-of filibuster, he has raised prodigious amounts of money and he likely sees this as a way to boost his profile even more. But Democrats are not just drawing blood on Epstein. Earlier this month, the Texas state legislature announced it would reconvene in the middle of the decade to redraw its congressional maps in an attempt to flip more seats and grow the GOP majority. That seems to have set off something in Democrats. Gov. Gavin Newsom has said that Democrats should respond in kind by having California redraw their map. And it's not just liberal Newsom who supports this idea. Rep. Adam Gray, a freshman Democrat who narrowly flipped a seat Trump won, expressed openness to Newsom's proposal. 'I think what's important is that people all play by the same rules,' he told The Independent. 'And you know, I think it doesn't necessarily help either party to be toying around or trying to manipulate the rules, or change the rules, that seems to be what Texas is doing, which I think is a poor decision.' California has a unique situation because it has an independent commission that draws congressional districts. Any effort to shore up Democrats in the Golden State would need to pass legal scrutiny or change that situation. Unsurprisingly, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) put it more bluntly. 'The only way that you can deal with a bully is by socking them back, so it's time for us to sock them back,' Crockett told The Independent. 'Right now they decided to start a fight so that they could shit on the American people. The least that we could help is fight back so that we could help the American people.' But perhaps the most audacious idea came from Gallego, who suggested that Democrats dilute districts that the Voting Rights Act protected to ensure equal representation of Black voters, as a way to make more districts where Democrats could win. 'I would tell you what I would know would happen the Republicans at any point should they ever take control of the registry commission in Arizona, what absolutely do anything, do to do to screw us,' he told The Independent. Therefore, he said that Democrats should not be afraid to use the same weapons against Republicans. That might not go over well with some African-American voters, who are the most consistent voters in Democratic primaries. At the same time, in a time when Democratic voters have demanded that theys see elected officials fight, they might be more unwilling to let go of old decorum rules.
