French ministers say EU-US trade deal has merits but is also unbalanced
'The trade agreement negotiated by the European Commission with the United States will bring temporary stability to economic actors threatened by the escalation of American tariffs, but it is unbalanced,' wrote French European Affairs Minister Benjamin Haddad on X.
That view was echoed by France's industry minister Marc Ferracci, who said more talks – which could last weeks or months – would be needed before the deal could be formally concluded.
Ferracci told RTL radio that more needed to be done in terms of rebalancing the EU's trade relations with the U.S.
'This is not the end of the story,' Ferracci told RTL.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
5 minutes ago
- First Post
Trump new tariff rates ‘pretty much set,' says US trade representative
Speaking on Sunday, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the rates, set to take effect on August 7, are 'pretty much set,' defending the president's strategy as both economic and geopolitical. read more US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer gives a live TV interview about tariffs at the White House in Washington, DC, US. Reuters New US tariff rates are 'pretty much set' with no immediate possibility for discussion, Donald Trump's trade advisor said in remarks broadcast Sunday, justifying the president's politically motivated charges against Brazil. Trump, who has used tariffs as an instrument of American economic supremacy, has set tariff rates for dozens of economies, including the European Union, at 10 to 41 percent starting from August 7, his new hard deadline for the tariffs. In a pre-recorded interview broadcast Sunday on CBS's 'Face the Nation,' US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said that tariff rates are unlikely to see changes in 'the coming days'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'A lot of these are set rates pursuant to deals. Some of these deals are announced, some are not, others depend on the level of the trade deficit or surplus we may have with the country,' Greer said. 'These tariff rates are pretty much set.' Undoubtedly some trade ministers 'want to talk more and see how they can work in a different way with the United States,' he added. But 'we're seeing truly the contours of the president's tariff plan right now with these rates.' Last Thursday, the former real estate developer announced hiked tariff rates on dozens of US trade partners. They will kick in on August 7 instead of August 1, which had previously been touted as a hard deadline. Among the countries facing steep new levies is Brazil. South America's largest economy is being hit with 50 percent tariffs on exports to the United States – albeit with significant exemptions for key products such as aircraft and orange juice. Trump has openly admitted he is punishing Brazil for prosecuting his political ally Jair Bolsonaro, the ex-president accused of plotting a coup in a bid to cling to power. The US president has described the case as a 'witch hunt.' Greer said it was not unusual for Trump to use tariff tools for geopolitical purposes. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'The president has seen in Brazil, like he's seen in other countries, a misuse of law, a misuse of democracy,' Greer told CBS. 'It is normal to use these tools for geopolitical issues.' Trump was 'elected to assess the foreign affairs situation… and take appropriate action,' he added. Meanwhile White House economic advisor Kevin Hassett said that while talks are expected to continue over the next week with some US trade partners, he concurred with Greer's tariffs assessment in that the bulk of the rates 'are more or less locked in.' Asked by the host of NBC's Sunday talk show 'Meet the Press with Kristen Welker' if Trump could change tariff rates should financial markets react negatively, Hassett said: 'I would rule it out, because these are the final deals.' Legal challenges have been filed against some of Trump's tariffs arguing he overstepped his authority. An appeals court panel on Thursday appeared skeptical of the government's arguments, though the case may be ultimately decided at the Supreme Court. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Hindustan Times
5 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Misunderstanding India's advocacy for multipolarity
A growing number of liberal American geopolitical analysts and Donald Trump, whom they despise, have a few things in common — they are opposed to India's relationship with Russia, its association with Brics, and advocacy for multipolarity. Trump's criticism of India is sharp and direct, of course. The Trump presidency will end in another three-and-a-half years, but this rare consensus in Washington DC, on India's search for multipolarity will remain. This is something, therefore, Indian strategic thinkers must reflect on. Put differently, with or without Trump around, India's advocacy for multipolarity will continue to haunt New Delhi, particularly given the structural transformations underway in the international system today. India's foreign policy is not about indecision. It is a constant search for autonomy, balance and agency. (AFP) Let's begin by unpacking some important aspects of multipolarity, given its many layers of complexity and ambiguity. First, notwithstanding the general perception about the virtues of multipolarity, it is becoming somewhat clear that a multipolar world is not as pretty as we had imagined it to be. Even the imperfect multipolarity that we have today — with poles of various sizes and influence competing for power — seems messy, incoherent, confusing and hard to navigate. If this is what a system that is not even really multipolar looks like, what will a true multipolar system look like? Second, notwithstanding the messy nature of the quasi-multipolar order today, New Delhi remains committed to a multipolar world. The desire for multipolarity is deeply entrenched in India's tradition of non-alignment, which is one of the first principles of Indian foreign policy. When faced with a difficult choice, the first strategic instinct of political New Delhi is to be non-aligned, neutral, and multi-aligned. Mostly in that order. I would not view that as strategic escapism. It is very much part of the DNA of Indian foreign policy. It would also be wrong to mistake non-alignment (or a variation thereof) as not valuing friendships, loyalty or solidarity: In fact, India's foreign policy history is rich with examples of friendships, loyalty and solidarity. In that sense, India's foreign policy is not about indecision; it's a constant search for autonomy, balance and agency. This is where the country's fascination with a multipolar world becomes crucial, for there is no genuine autonomy, balance and agency in world affairs without true multipolarity. Third, India's complaints about American unipolarity are on a steady decline, even as the rhetoric remains. It would be a mistake, however, to view New Delhi's rhetoric against unipolarity as merely, or primarily, directed against the US because today, New Delhi is less anxious about America's global unipolarity than a potential Chinese unipolarity in Asia. While America's declining global unipolarity is mostly a theoretical concern for New Delhi, the prospect of a China-led unipolar Asia is the true source of anxiety. In that sense, New Delhi's desire for multipolarity is also an attempt at ensuring the absence of a unipolar (China-dominated) Asia. Therefore, even if New Delhi is more focused on countering Chinese unipolarity in Asia rather than US unipolarity globally, opposing regional unipolarity without opposing global unipolarity will ring hollow. There are two reasons why New Delhi would be concerned about China's unipolarity in Asia. One, this could mean that China might set the rules of geopolitical engagement in Asia. Once much of Asia falls under China's influence, it will be harder for New Delhi to push back Chinese hegemony. Two, a rise of Chinese unipolarity in Asia might prompt the US to think of accommodating China in a G2 format, especially if the American nativist and isolationist tendencies persist. In an ideal world, New Delhi's articulations must make a clear distinction between American unipolarity and Chinese attempts at unipolarity in Asia, but doing so is not easy for a variety of reasons, including that New Delhi continues to resist aspects of American unipolarity and is not yet willing to acknowledge the possibility of Chinese unipolarity in Asia. But New Delhi's rhetoric against American unipolarity and hegemony, without openly resisting the growing Chinese regional hegemony or a potentially unipolar Asia, could have unintended consequences. Some US administrations, especially the current one, might interpret India's rhetoric against American unipolarity as personal rather than an academic exercise, for the most part. This could prompt an unhappy Washington to undercut India's geopolitical standing in the region, thereby indirectly aiding China's attempts at regional hegemony. This creates a paradox: India aims to counter Chinese unipolarity in Asia by promoting global multipolarity, which annoys the US, prompting it to marginalise India in the region, thereby ultimately aiding Beijing's efforts to establish hegemony in Asia. New Delhi's rhetoric against American unipolarity and hegemony could also prompt the US, which is losing influence in various parts of the world, to seek ways of strengthening its influence in spaces where it can — this could lead to accepting Chinese unipolarity in Asia. More so, if the US reacts negatively towards India, as it is doing now, it could create a fertile ground for China and Russia to fan the Indian rhetoric against the US, encourage India to proactively participate in forums and arrangements aimed at undermining US unipolarity, and generate confusion within India's strategic community about the true motives behind India's multipolarity rhetoric. All of this will further drive the geopolitical wedge between New Delhi and Washington DC. There is no easy way out. New Delhi will need to have a lot more conversations and build trust with the US. That is not easy when a president like Trump occupies the White House. Happymon Jacob is the founder and director of the Council for Strategic and Defense Research and the editor of INDIA'S WORLD magazine. The views expressed are personal.
Mint
5 minutes ago
- Mint
Donald Trump and Mark Carney headed for talks soon as US' 35% tariff shocks Canada
Canada's federal minister overseeing US-Canada trade relations, Dominic LeBlanc, said Sunday that he sees a pathway to reducing newly imposed American tariffs. LeBlanc expressed optimism that a deal could be reached to reverse or lower the 35% US tariff on Canadian goods not covered under the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement (USMCA), speaking on CBS News. 'I believe there is an option of striking a deal that will bring down tariffs,' LeBlanc stated, just days after President Donald Trump signed an executive order sharply increasing tariffs, citing fentanyl trafficking and national security concerns. The Canadian government, led by Prime Minister Mark Carney, has voiced disappointment over the move but remains engaged in dialogue, with LeBlanc suggesting high-level talks between Carney and Trump could occur 'over the next number of days.' The trade tension marks the latest development in a growing economic dispute between the two countries, with potential ripple effects on key sectors including lumber, autos, and manufacturing. Despite the tensions, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick hinted at the possibility of flexibility, saying Trump might reconsider the hike if Carney eases Canada's retaliatory stance. Canada previously responded to US trade moves with two rounds of counter-tariffs earlier this year. The first, under outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, targeted about C$30 billion in US exports, including food, apparel, and motorcycles. The second round matched US tariffs on steel, aluminum, and foreign automobiles. However, in mid-April, the Carney government introduced exemptions for certain business inputs critical to health care, public safety, and industrial production. Automakers like General Motors and Honda, which operate Canadian manufacturing plants, were also granted relief from import duties. The new US tariffs are expected to hit key Canadian exports, including lumber, steel, aluminum, and vehicles. While retaliatory duties have been put in place, Canada continues to allow the majority of US goods to enter tariff-free.
