Latest news with #EU-based
See - Sada Elbalad
3 days ago
- Business
- See - Sada Elbalad
Netherlands Rules Out Recognizing Palestinian State
Israa Farhan The Dutch government has ruled out recognizing a Palestinian state at this time, despite growing public concern over the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Officials stated that the ongoing war in the region is undermining both Israel's security and its national identity. During an emergency parliamentary session on Gaza, Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp made it clear that the Netherlands has no current plans to recognize Palestinian statehood. Lawmakers were recalled from their summer recess as public pressure mounted over the escalating crisis. The Dutch position contrasts with several other NATO countries. France has pledged to formally recognize a Palestinian state in September, while the United Kingdom has indicated it will follow suit if Israel fails to agree to a ceasefire and take concrete steps to ease the severe humanitarian conditions in Gaza, where hunger is spreading rapidly. Veldkamp also dismissed calls to suspend arms imports from Israel, stating that the Netherlands prioritizes domestic and EU-based suppliers before considering third-party countries. However, he noted that the government has already taken significant measures, including issuing travel bans on two Israeli ministers. The foreign minister emphasized that the conflict has shifted from a defensive war to one that now threatens Israel's long-term security and identity. read more Gold prices rise, 21 Karat at EGP 3685 NATO's Role in Israeli-Palestinian Conflict US Expresses 'Strong Opposition' to New Turkish Military Operation in Syria Shoukry Meets Director-General of FAO Lavrov: confrontation bet. nuclear powers must be avoided News Iran Summons French Ambassador over Foreign Minister Remarks News Aboul Gheit Condemns Israeli Escalation in West Bank News Greek PM: Athens Plays Key Role in Improving Energy Security in Region News One Person Injured in Explosion at Ukrainian Embassy in Madrid News Israeli-Linked Hadassah Clinic in Moscow Treats Wounded Iranian IRGC Fighters Arts & Culture "Jurassic World Rebirth" Gets Streaming Date News China Launches Largest Ever Aircraft Carrier News Ayat Khaddoura's Final Video Captures Bombardment of Beit Lahia Business Egyptian Pound Undervalued by 30%, Says Goldman Sachs Videos & Features Tragedy Overshadows MC Alger Championship Celebration: One Fan Dead, 11 Injured After Stadium Fall Lifestyle Get to Know 2025 Eid Al Adha Prayer Times in Egypt Arts & Culture South Korean Actress Kang Seo-ha Dies at 31 after Cancer Battle Arts & Culture Lebanese Media: Fayrouz Collapses after Death of Ziad Rahbani Sports Get to Know 2025 WWE Evolution Results
The Irish Sun
3 days ago
- Business
- The Irish Sun
Drink deal hopes for Irish firms with Harris confident of ‘space for engagement' between EU & US as 15% tariffs kick in
Despite the new trade order kicking in, there is still huge uncertainty on how much companies in some key Irish sectors will have to pay into the future BEVIES LEVY Drink deal hopes for Irish firms with Harris confident of 'space for engagement' between EU & US as 15% tariffs kick in SIMON Harris is hopeful that a deal can be struck with the US to put tariffs on ice for Irish booze companies as Donald Trump's new trade taxes finally kicked in today. Companies across the globe that are importing goods into the US started paying new tariff rates today with the level of tax ranging hugely. Advertisement 2 Donald Trump's new trade taxes kicked in today Credit: Alamy Irish and other EU-based companies are paying 15 per cent tariffs thanks to a deal struck between Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. The rates change from country to country, with Mexico paying 25 per cent, China 30 per cent, Canada 35 per cent and 50 per cent for India and Brazil. The UK, Australia, Colombia, Chile and Singapore are all paying lower tariffs than the EU after securing 10 per cent deals. Despite the new trade order kicking in today, there is still huge uncertainty on how much companies in some key Irish sectors like pharma or alcohol will have to pay into the future. Advertisement Talks are ongoing between the US and the EU on specific sectoral carve outs where companies will be exempt from tariffs. This has been agreed for the aviation sector and the med-tech sector but Tanaiste Simon Harris has urged the EU to push for the booze industry to be exempt as well. This would see Irish whiskey and gin brands saved from tariffs which could make it very difficult for them to sell their products Stateside. Minister Harris said: 'There will be space for engagement between the US and the European Union in relation to that, and I've highlighted to the European Commission how important that is to Ireland, and indeed to many drink suppliers right across our country, but also not just in Ireland.' Advertisement A joint statement from the US and EU was expected to be released before the tariffs kicked in with the Tanaiste claiming it was 'quite peculiar' that it hasn't been published already. He expects this statement on the EU-US tariff agreement to be published at some point next week. 'Trump's new tariffs are outrageous', slams EU lawmaker after Don slaps 30% on Brussels & it readies to fight back One key area for Ireland that is still uncertain is the pharma sector. Donald Trump wants pharmaceutical companies to start making their drugs in the US and has specifically mentioned Ireland as he threatens heavy taxes on companies that export medicines to the States. Advertisement Tanaiste Simon Harris said that the 15 per cent tariff agreement covers the pharma sector and warned that higher taxes on medicines will disrupt the global supply chains. He said: 'What they have said in the framework agreement is that tariffs on pharma with the EU would be no higher than 15 per cent but again that's not the full story because the pharma sector operates on a global market. 'If he starts putting much larger tariffs on other parts of the world what impact does that have on global supply chains? "So there is a very significant way to go in this is the honest answer.' Advertisement
Al Etihad
6 days ago
- Business
- Al Etihad
Early wins for US, but dynamics of EU alliance is changing
4 Aug 2025 23:55 SULTAN KHALIFA AL RUBAEI*Tariffs have once again taken centre stage in US and international trade, following the August deadline set by United States President Donald Trump for countries to present trade agreement proposals or face steep tariffs. The US administration secured deals with several of its trading partners, most notably the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom. However, the global trade landscape now appears to be bracing for profound changes in trade rules that go beyond the post-World War II US agreement with the EU included a 15% tariff on European goods (significantly lower than the 30% previously threatened by the US president), an exemption for pharmaceutical products, and limited exceptions for aircraft and medical equipment. In return, the EU committed to purchasing $750 billion worth of US energy products and investing approximately $600 billion in the US. This agreement secured substantial additional revenue for the American 'America First' policy pursued by the United States in its dealings with both partners and non-partners pushes it toward manoeuvring economic policies. But beyond the deals and manoeuvres lies US-European relations, particularly with the EU, the foundation of which is no longer only partnership, but also competition, or rather, the partnership is taking a backseat in the face of competition. This shift may be attributed to internal divisions among the EU's 27 member states, the multiple challenges facing the ageing continent, and the heavy reliance on the United States when it comes to defence forces. At this time, none of the EU countries can afford the economic strain of a trade the American side, the current administration has shown little regard for the mutual trust in the transatlantic free trade relations, nor for the existing rules of international trade. As a result, there is a possibility that other global actors may adopt similar protectionist policies, posing a threat to the stability of international markets, particularly in light of the tensions that the current environment may create at the level of international trade the changes and uncertainty, the EU chose to stay aligned with America, albeit at a high cost. The newly imposed tariffs place a heavy financial burden on EU-based companies, forcing them to bear additional billions in expenses. While EU member states acknowledge the agreement's potential harm to their economies, they have viewed it as the best possible option under the current circumstances. It may mark the beginning of a longer negotiation process rather than the end, given the limited options available. Without formal trade agreements with Washington, the EU risks being subjected to US terms, leading to imbalanced deals or potential trade United States emerged as the winner in the agreement with the EU. However, the outcome also places a burden on American consumers, who are likely to face higher prices for imported goods as companies pass on the additional costs. This is particularly significant given that Germany is one of the largest exporters to the US, with exports exceeding €161 billion in 2024. Ireland's exports to the US reached €72 billion and Italy's €64 billion in the same year, according to Eurostat, the EU's statistical office. In total, 20% of the EU's goods exports are directed to the United States. This makes the agreement the least damaging option for Europe to avoid a trade confrontation between two allies who together account for nearly one-third of global trade. The effects of this deal may become visible in the US market in the coming this agreement, the US aims to achieve economic balance and address its trade deficit with the EU, which reached $235.6 billion in 2024. Although the deal helps avoid a trade war, it shows that the dynamics of old alliances are shifting, international trade is being reshaped amid global economic uncertainty, and competition for each country to achieve huge gains has become a defining feature of today's international economic and trade relations. *The columnist is a researcher with the think-tank firm, TRENDS Research & Advisory
Daily Express
31-07-2025
- Business
- Daily Express
Sanctions making arbitration difficult
Published on: Thursday, July 31, 2025 Published on: Thu, Jul 31, 2025 By: Sherell Jeffrey Text Size: L/R: Steve, Dutsadee, Kevin, Ning and Fei. Kota Kinabalu: International arbitration is faced with challenges due to sanctions and corruption concerns, adding risks, costs and complexity to global trade dispute resolution. 'Arbitration is now a clash of international law, policy and economic law. It is more than just arbitration procedures that we need to know,' said Beihai Asia International Centre (Singapore) Founding President cum Executive Director Prof Steve Ngo. Steve, a recognised International Arbitrator, said this at the recent Borneo International Centre for Arbitration and Mediation (Bicam) Global alternative dispute resolutions (ADR) Horizons conference where he moderated Session 7's Navigating Impact of Sanctions and Corruption Allegation in Arbitration. What Is International Arbitration and why should we care? Before diving into the problems, it is important to understand what international arbitration is. Think of it as hiring a neutral referee when two companies from different countries have a business disagreement. Instead of going to court which can be slow, expensive and potentially biased toward the local company, businesses agree to let a neutral expert (called an arbitrator) hear both sides and make a binding decision. It is private, usually faster than court and the decision can be enforced in most countries around the world through international treaties. For decades, this system has been the backbone of international trade, giving companies confidence to do business across borders knowing they have a fair way to resolve disputes. But now, as the experts at the Bicam conference notes, that confidence is being shattered. Pisut & Partners' Dutsadee Dutsadeepanich, a major legal firm in Thailand, spoke about how international sanctions are crippling the arbitration system. 'Since the Russia-Ukraine conflict began in 2022, sanctions imposed by the United States, European Union and United Kingdom have created a maze of obstacles that make conducting fair arbitrations nearly impossible when certain parties are involved,' said Dutsadee who is also a member of Thailand's parliament. 'Arbitration is no longer straightforward for sanctioned parties,' she said, pointing out how even basic steps like paying arbitration fees become impossible when banks refuse to process transactions involving sanctioned companies. 'The problem is far more than just payment issues. This is a chilling effect where experienced arbitrators, the neutral referees' businesses rely on, simply refuse to take cases involving sanctioned parties. 'Why? They are worried about getting paid, damaging their reputations or even breaking laws in their home countries. 'For example, EU-based arbitrators may be prohibited from working on a case involving a Russian entity without special government permission,' she said, adding that this destroys one of arbitration's key advantages, which is the ability for parties to choose arbitrators they trust. The same problems face legal representation. 'Law firms from countries imposing sanctions often need government authorisation to represent sanctioned parties, while frozen bank accounts can make it impossible for sanctioned companies to pay their lawyers. The result? A fundamentally unfair playing field,' she said. Dutsadee cited examples of RCA (a Russian company) and Linde (a German company) fighting over a natural gas project. 'What should have been a single, clean arbitration turned into a messy battle across multiple countries and courts, exactly what the arbitration system was designed to prevent,' she said. Even worse, she noted, when arbitrations do proceed and decisions are made, there is no guarantee they can be enforced if sanctioned parties are involved. Courts may simply refuse to enforce decisions on public policy grounds. On corruption, Dutsadee said Thailand's challenge is that corruption issues often do not surface during the arbitration itself, but later when trying to enforce decisions. 'In Thailand, we have a lot of corruption related to arbitration, but at the stage of enforcement, especially when it involves contracts between private companies and government entities,' she said. Her prediction for the future? A shift toward arbitration centres in neutral countries like Singapore and Hong Kong as companies seek to avoid sanctions-related complications. Legal Solutions LLC (Singapore) Director Kevin Tan who works as both a lawyer and arbitrator, offered insights from Singapore, one of the world's top arbitration destinations. 'Singapore has built its reputation on being business-friendly while maintaining strict standards. We have zero-tolerance policy for corruption. As many of you would know, this includes tickets for concerts and the like,' Kevin said, pointing out how seriously the city-state takes these issues. He said corruption in arbitration comes in two flavours, namely corruption related to the original business deal (like bribing someone to get a contract) and corruption of the arbitration process itself (like bribing the arbitrator). 'Both can destroy an arbitration's validity,' he said. He cited a case study involving a Dutch investor and the government of Laos over gambling and casino investments. 'When corruption allegations surfaced, the arbitrators did not just ignore them, they conducted a thorough investigation using banking records, accounting reports, emails and witness testimony. 'The tribunal found that allegations of corruption were made out on balance of probabilities. 'When the losing party tried to challenge this decision in Singapore's courts, the judges refused and made a strong statement that arbitrators have a public duty to investigate corruption, regardless of what the parties might prefer. 'This sends a message that even in Singapore's pro-business environment, courts would not hesitate to intervene when corruption is involved,' he said. On sanctions, Kevin pointed out how Singapore follows United Nations sanctions while trying to be practical. He cited a recent case where Singapore courts granted a conditional delay when a company claimed US sanctions prevented it from paying an arbitration award. 'This shows that Singapore courts do not automatically enforce sanctions, but will consider them practically if compliance would make payment impossible for a party,' he said. He pointed out three worrying trends, namely companies are choosing different locations for their arbitrations when sanctions might be involved, arbitration centres are doing much more background checking and lawyers are having to become sanctions experts just to draft contracts. 'Law firms now need dedicated sanctions teams to protect their clients and their own reputations, a cost that ultimately gets passed on to businesses and consumers,' he said. Hui Zhong Law Firm Managing Partner Ning Fei from a China law firm, shared his perspective on how seriously corruption can be taken in arbitration. 'China operates what may be the world's strictest anti-corruption system for arbitration. The rules are so tough they make other countries look permissive by comparison,' he said. 'Chinese arbitration laws explicitly ban arbitrators from having private meetings with parties, receiving gifts or accepting any form of entertainment. 'In China, such practices are normally not allowed. It is quite strict,' Ning Fei said, referring to informal communications that are routine in other countries. But here is the kicker, China imposes criminal penalties on corrupt arbitrators. 'China is probably one of the few countries that impose criminal liability for arbitrators. If you take bribes from parties or have personal interest in a case, you may be sentenced from three to seven years in jail,' Ning Fei said. He cited examples of arbitrators being caught and banned from practice, including one who was followed by a suspicious party and photographed having dinner with the opposing side and another who was discovered making private phone calls to one party. 'Unlike other countries where arbitration centres take a hands-off approach, Chinese institutions actively monitor arbitrator behaviour through secretariat departments that can observe proceedings and participate in internal discussions. 'The secretary department knows well about arbitrators, who are good people, who may be biased. 'They have internal discussions and reviews. You can see regularly every couple of years, some people join the list, some people are released,' he said. He also pointed out that China has also had to deal with sham arbitrations, namely fake proceedings where parties collude to create enforceable court orders without genuine disputes. He cited examples of cases where companies essentially sued themselves or created artificial disputes just to get official-looking decisions they could enforce elsewhere. On sanctions, Ning Fei acknowledged the political complexity while noting that enforcement depends heavily on specific circumstances and which courts are involved. 'Interestingly, China's own retaliatory sanctions have not had much practical impact on business or arbitration enforcement,' he said. * Follow us on our official WhatsApp channel and Telegram for breaking news alerts and key updates! * Do you have access to the Daily Express e-paper and online exclusive news? Check out subscription plans available. Stay up-to-date by following Daily Express's Telegram channel. Daily Express Malaysia
CNBC
29-07-2025
- Business
- CNBC
The EU-U.S. trade deal could have one unexpected winner: The UK
As world leaders and economists across Europe digest the news of the EU-U.S. trade agreement, some experts told CNBC that while it may be bad news for the bloc, the deal could serve as an unexpected boost to the U.K. The European Union is facing a higher 15% tariff rate on its goods imported to the U.S. compared to the 10% levy the U.K. has agreed to. "In theory, the UK benefits," Philip Shaw, chief economist at Investec, told CNBC. "The new EU tariff of 15% means that UK exports to the US have become relatively cheaper, which could boost British trade with the US as American firms buy goods from Britain rather than the EU," he explained. U.K. goods would also be cheaper for U.S. consumers due to the lower tariff rate, meaning they may favor British products over those manufactured in the EU, Alex Altmann, partner and head of Lubbock Fine LLP's German desk, suggested in a note published shortly after the EU-U.S. deal was announced. "The UK's lower US tariffs do offer a major incentive for EU companies to shift some of their manufacturing bases to the UK or to expand their existing UK facilities," he added. EU-based manufacturers with low profit margins in particular could find the idea of moving to the U.K. attractive to avoid a further squeeze on those margins, Altmann explained, noting that the U.K. has spare manufacturing capacity due to Brexit. "The UK could be a big indirect winner of this agreement," Altmann added. But the benefits to the U.K. are not only linked to the country's lower tariff rate. Indeed, the EU managing to secure a 15% levy, which is far lower compared to the 30% the bloc was threatened with by U.S. President Donald Trump, could also be a positive for the U.K. according to Investec's Shaw. "The EU has escaped from a possible major downturn from a more onerous (i.e. 30%) tariff regime and possibly a series of retaliatory measures between the two trading blocs. Here the UK benefits from its major trading partner averting a recession which could have resulted in a decline in UK exports to the EU," he said in written comments. The EU-U.S. reaching an agreement has also hampered the potential impact, Beth McCall, an international trade lawyer at Dentons told CNBC. "If the US had proceeded with 30% tariffs against most EU goods, UK goods with a 10% tariff, which is paid by the US importer in most circumstances, could have appeared significantly more attractive," she said. McCall noted that the expected difference in the baseline tariff rate, which amounts to just 5%, may still make some U.K. goods more attractive. However, she noted, "this will take time to be seen as existing contracts come to an end and US importers search for imports from countries carrying a lower tariff." Questions have been raised about the timeframe for the impact of tariffs being felt around the world has been a frequently debated question. Companies have already flagged that tariffs are expected to weigh on their earnings, and there have been widespread warnings of how the duties could impact economic growth. But as many details of the trade agreements have yet to be ironed out, their precise exact impact is still unclear. Some of the effects may also take time to be felt, for example rising costs for consumers may only materialize after some time. Ultimately, both the U.K. and EU are now facing a more difficult environment, McCall said. "Whether the new rate is 10% or 15%, UK and EU businesses will still face far higher tariffs when exporting to the US than they did three months ago," she said.
