Europe needs faster economic growth, not an unnecessary trade war
Anyway, there are two reasons for writing about Europe's economy. The first is the euro and the eurozone economy, which continue to defy predictions of impending disaster. The second is to counter some high-profile nonsense about the wider European Union economy.
It is little more than ten years since the euro went through the darkest hours in its short history: the eurozone crisis that almost resulted in 'Grexit', Greece's departure, with widespread predictions that Italy would also soon follow it out of the door. Marine Le Pen, leader of France's populist National Front, now called National Rally, then favoured 'Frexit' from the euro and the EU, although does not now.
• EU has few cards with Donald Trump, and it's bad at playing them
The euro survived, has been strong recently, and a few days ago it was announced that on January 1 next year it will add its 21st member, Bulgaria. Founded at the start of 1999 with 11 members — Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain — its most recent new member was Croatia two years ago. It joined other later members, namely Greece, Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
It is an academic question now, but I was always strongly against the UK joining the euro, even though it was one of the hottest topics in British politics 20 years ago. The late Eddie George, Lord George, the former Bank of England governor, put it well when he said that we would have been the elephant in the rowing boat, risking capsizing both it and us. Our two previous flirtations with European currency arrangements, the 'snake' in the early 1970s and the European exchange rate mechanism (ERM) in the early 1990s, had both ended in disaster.
For countries that joined and stuck with the euro, apart from convenience, membership has brought wider credibility benefits, lowering the cost of government borrowing. Against 10-year UK gilt yields approaching 4.6 per cent, their eurozone equivalents are in a range of 2.69 per cent (Germany) to 3.55 per cent (Italy). New eurozone members have bought into that credibility. Croatian 10-year government bond yields are around 3.15 per cent. Our government would love to be able to borrow that cheaply.
• Strength of sterling offers holidaymakers alternatives to America
The eurozone is always associated with slow growth and has recently been dragged down by very weak growth in Germany, although that may now be changing. Despite this, the eurozone has comfortably outgrown the UK since the EU referendum in 2016 and formal Brexit on January 31, 2020.
It is on this growth point that a corrective is due. A few days ago, Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JP Morgan Chase, one of the most influential men in finance, was blunt, telling a conference in Dublin that the EU's gross domestic product had slumped from 90 per cent of US GDP to just 65 per cent in the past ten to 15 years. 'That's not a good sign. You are losing,' he said.
While Dimon had some good points to make in his speech, highlighting the EU's lack of enough global-scale companies and the need to complete the EU's single market in services, particularly financial services, this was a schoolboy error.
What he was describing was an exchange rate effect. Fifteen or so years ago, during and after the financial crisis, the euro was a lot stronger against the dollar, reaching a peak of nearly $1.60. Converting the EU's GDP, measured in euros, to dollars thus gave a high figure. The euro's subsequent drop against the dollar — it briefly fell below parity last year and is currently around $1.17 — thus explains most of the fall in EU GDP measured in dollar terms.
• EU GDP driven by surge in Irish economy
Fortunately, economists have a way of dealing with this obvious distortion, adjusting exchange rates for what is known as purchasing power parity, which takes into account different price levels. On this basis, according to World Bank data, the EU's GDP was 97 per cent of that of America in 2010 and 96 per cent last year.
A better measure, GDP in purchasing power parity adjusted also for inflation, probably gives a fairer picture. Measured this way, the EU's GDP was slightly bigger than that of America through the 2010s but a crossover occurred in 2020, when the UK left. Last year, the EU's GDP was 95 per cent of that of the US.
Although proper comparisons show the EU in a better light, this leaves no room for complacency. The EU's population is roughly 450 million, compared with 333 million for the US. EU per capita GDP, properly measured, is about 72 per cent of America's, with the UK slightly below the EU average. Within the EU, only Luxembourg and Ireland exceed US per capita GDP, each for special and somewhat distorted reasons, though Denmark and the Netherlands also come close.
When it comes to growth, America has done well in recent years, pulling away during Joe Biden's presidency and the pandemic and Russia invasion, growing more than twice as fast as the eurozone and three times as fast as the UK since late 2019.
Latest figures suggest that growth is just about holding up in the EU but it faces the potential wrecking ball of Donald Trump's 30 per cent tariffs and is threatening to retaliate, which would harm European consumers. There is no justification, of course, for Trump's tariffs. The EU's overall trade surplus with the US last year, taking account of goods and services, was a modest €50 billion (£43 billion), less than 3 per cent of bilateral trade.
Markets think the US president's bark is worse than his bite and that recent experience suggests he will chicken out on tariffs. Political leaders cannot, however, rely on that. Europe needs faster growth, not a growth-sapping trade war.
David Smith is Economics Editor of The Sunday Times
david.smith@sunday-times.co.uk
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
a minute ago
- Reuters
European shares slip as auto stocks weigh, investors eye US-EU trade talks
July 25 (Reuters) - European shares retreated on Friday, giving back gains from the previous session, as automobile stocks weighed and investors awaited updates on EU-U.S. trade talks ahead of U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff deadline next week. The pan-European STOXX 600 index (.STOXX), opens new tab was down 0.6% at 548.16 points, as of 0712 GMT, after hitting a six-week high on Thursday. Still, the index remained on course for modest weekly gains. UK's FTSE 100 (.FTSE), opens new tab dropped 0.4%, pulling back from its all-time peak reached on Thursday. Most regional bourses were also in the red. In the market, European automobile stocks (.SXAP), opens new tab led the sectoral decline with a 1.4% drop, pressured by Valeo ( opens new tab after the French car parts supplier cut its full-year sales outlook. Its shares slumped 12.4%. Volkswagen ( opens new tab fell 2.4% after Europe's biggest carmaker lowered its outlook on tariff woes. Traton ( opens new tab, a truck unit of Volkswagen, came under pressure with an 8.1% slump after it slashed its full-year outlook. Among other stocks, Puma's ( opens new tab shares slumped 18.7%, falling the most in the STOXX 600, after the German sportswear brand cut its full-year outlook and reported weaker-than-expected quarterly results. In a week filled with trade discussions, investors cheered agreements with Japan, Indonesia and the Philippines, while hopes for a U.S.-EU deal remain as negotiations with the bloc continued.
Reuters
a minute ago
- Reuters
Australia should compromise to reach EU trade deal, minister says
CANBERRA, July 25 (Reuters) - Australia should accept compromises to reach a trade deal with the European Union and demonstrate that such agreements can still be reached in a more protectionist world, Trade Minister Don Farrell said on Friday. Farrell said in a speech at the Lowy Institute in Sydney that free trade was under threat and that Australia should work with other countries to defend it. In a question and answer session after the speech, Farrell said Australia-EU trade negotiations that restarted this year would be successful and it was in both sides' national interest to make it so. "It will require some compromises in our negotiations, but I think the imperative here is to show the rest of the world we're fair dinkum about free and open trade and we can do agreements with other countries," he said, using an Australian phrase meaning honest, genuine or sincere. Asked if he meant that Australian industry would have to step up in the national interest, he said: "I'm saying exactly that." A previous attempt to reach a trade deal failed in 2023, with Canberra wanting more ability to sell farm goods in Europe. The EU is seeking greater access to Australian critical minerals and lower tariffs on manufactured goods. Farrell also said a trade agreement with India should be reached "in the very near future." The two countries are aiming to conclude the second phase of a trade pact by the end of the year. Australia is also seeking to negotiate with the United States to reverse tariffs enacted by President Donald Trump and prevent new ones from being imposed. Canberra on Thursday loosened biosecurity rules to allow greater access to U.S. beef, though it said this was the result of a long-running scientific assessment rather than a part of trade talks.
Times
a minute ago
- Times
How China may save us all — Xi's power play to end emissions
In the year to March 2024, China emitted a staggering amount of carbon. Twelve billion tonnes. It was more than the rest of Asia combined. Twice that of the United States. Just slightly less than Britain belched out through the entire reign of Queen Victoria. In the year that followed, China also released a staggering amount of carbon. The total was easily equivalent to a coal power plant running continuously since the Norman conquest. But that year's staggering amount was in one very crucial aspect unexpected: it was, just, smaller than 2023's staggering amount. This might in turn end up being the most staggering statistic of the year. Because for the first time, analysis suggests China's energy use has increased but its carbon emissions have not. 'We are seeing the beginning of a decoupling,' said Ma Jun, from the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs, a non-profit Chinese research organisation. 'The deployment of solar is massive.' Ever since much of the world pledged to aim for net-zero carbon emissions, ever since the economies of Europe set out to do something unprecedented in the history of humanity — move from a dense and easy source of energy to a diffuse, difficult and variable source — there has been a niggling argument facing environmentalists. What is the point of doing this, sceptics would ask, when China is adding more emissions in a year than entire countries? What can Britain do, when China's carbon footprint is about 30 times as big and getting bigger? Now, though, it is not getting bigger. It is, as one environmentalist put it, the end of the 'But China' argument. But is it? 'There are lots of environmentalists saying, 'I told you so,'' said Sir Dieter Helm, a professor of economics at Oxford University. ''It's all working,' they say. 'Isn't it wonderful the Chinese have turned the tide, and are building all these renewables and are going to peak their emissions?'' Indeed it is, he said, compared with the alternative — but we should also look closely at what is going to happen to the many dozens of coal plants they are still building. 'If China's emissions plateau at the current level, that's a climate disaster. That's not a great success. That is horrendous.' In terms of emissions per capita, China is still less than the US — but comfortably exceeds the EU and UK. There are two narratives about China and net zero. For the first, go to the Northern Shaanxi Mine. There, in China's biggest coalmine, a mountain's worth of carbon has been pulled out of a scarred, dusty, black hellscape. It is still being pulled out. Last year, China started construction of 94 gigawatts of coal-fuelled power plants. To put that in scale, it is enough to power Britain's grid twice over. In this first narrative, while the West frets about wind turbines and veganism, here trucks the size of houses shift dirty fuel for a superpower still going all in on coal. For the second narrative, go to the Kubuqi desert of Inner Mongolia, China. There, across an area the size of New York, all you can see is solar panels. They sit, silent, turning sunshine on worthless ground into valuable clean energy to be sent south. Last year, China had 500GW of wind and solar projects under construction. While the West argues about the cost of renewables, in this narrative China is building more than the rest of the world combined. It is monopolising silicon and lithium. It is electrifying everything it can electrify. Cars. Industry. Trains. It is winning the next great industrial revolution: to become the world's first electrostate. Which narrative is true? Both. It is indeed building a coal station a week — give or take. But its biggest bet by far is on renewables. The proximal reason its emissions are falling, despite coal capacity going up, is in part because of something else entirely. Construction is falling too. A real estate crash means less carbon-intensive cement is being poured into the foundations of apartment blocks. But, there is hope this is more than a blip. Ma said it would be wrong to view the coal plants as a traditional part of the grid. 'China is going through a very difficult, but crucial, transition,' he said. 'How we adapt to a high penetration of renewable energy is a new challenge.' As Britain knows, when it is cloudy and the wind does not blow, you need a backup. Batteries and other storage are not ready at scale yet. This is why, in the UK, we still have so many gas plants — which a lot of the time sit unused. 'So, yes, there are more coal plants, but we can see quite rapid reduction of coal generation hours,' Ma said. 'We are paying a high price for energy security — building all this redundancy.' Can we believe the statistics, about those generation levels — and emissions in general? They are compiled from official sources, by Lauri Myllyvirta, from Finland's Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air. Rich Collett-White, from Carbon Tracker Initiative, a think tank that analyses the energy transition, said that while there were always questions about how much we can trust Chinese statistics, he and other analysts thought the trajectory made sense. He said: 'A lot of the data that's out there is based on customs, and tracking commodity flows. That's fairly straightforward to verify, and I think would be quite difficult to fake.' It also fits with their policies. That Chinese emissions would peak around now should not be a surprise. It is exactly what President Xi promised. The country pledged to start reducing emissions before 2030, and reach net zero by 2060. Some observers expect the Chinese leader to announce a new target for 2035 at the UN general assembly in September. Richard Folland, also from Carbon Tracker, said that we often ignored this in the UK debates. He added: 'The approach the Chinese government take on targets is that they tend to underpromise and overdeliver.' For him, being five years ahead of schedule makes sense. 'It is important. It is a pivotal moment when China starts bending that curve downwards.' Is this job done, then? Globally, said Helm, the situation is dire. The concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere — ultimately the only statistic that matters, and the only one you can absolutely trust — keeps on going up regardless. But, he conceded, 'this is better than if China was going the other way'. And for Ma there is a message too to the rest of the world. He said: 'Now is a very important moment. We hope there will be recognition that actions are being made in China.' If, sometimes, the rest of the world has used supposed Chinese inaction as an argument for their own inaction, he said, the reverse would not be true. He added: 'We will keep on doing this by ourselves. But if there's a chance to work together, with those who care about this issue, hopefully we can.' Change will not be fast. Over the next year, China will once again emit a staggering amount of carbon. Of every three carbon dioxide molecules put into the atmosphere, one will be Chinese. There is, critics point out, enough coal power being built that that could easily remain unchanged. Yet there is another China too. In the deserts of Inner Mongolia, endless solar farms catch the light. Stand on the shoreline of the Yellow Sea, and the sunrise that once scattered red in the air pollution glows red on the spinning blades of turbines. It is the biggest bet by far that a different kind of power is possible, and with it a riposte in steel and silicon to the argument, 'But China …'.
