EU-US Trade Deal Under Fire: 0% vs 15% Tariffs Fuel Parliament Opposition

The recent trade agreement between the European Union and the United States is encountering substantial resistance within the European Parliament. Numerous Members of European Parliament (MEPs) have voiced strong opposition, characterizing the deal as imbalanced and asymmetric. Despite the European Commission’s efforts to foster stability in transatlantic trade relations, the proposed terms have sparked a significant debate regarding the EU’s negotiating leverage and its strategic autonomy amid ongoing economic pressures.

• The agreement proposes eliminating EU tariffs on most US industrial and less sensitive agricultural goods to 0%.
• Conversely, EU exports to the United States will continue to face a 15% tariff.
• Widespread opposition exists across various political groups, with MEPs arguing the EU has conceded too much.
• Concerns are rising over the EU’s strategic autonomy and perceived lack of negotiating leverage.
• The deal is seen by many as primarily serving the reindustrialization of the United States.

The Core of the Controversy: Unequal Tariff Reductions

At the heart of the dispute lies a significant disparity in tariff reductions. Under the proposed agreement, the European Commission plans to eliminate tariffs on the majority of US industrial goods and less sensitive agricultural products, reducing them to 0%. In stark contrast, exports from the EU to the United States would continue to incur a 15% tariff. This imbalance has emerged as a central point of contention as the Commission’s legislative proposal proceeds through the European Parliament and the EU Council for approval.

Widespread Parliamentary Opposition

Opposition to the deal spans across a diverse range of political groups, underscoring a broad consensus that the EU has made excessive concessions. Brando Benifei, an Italian MEP representing the Socialists & Democrats group, articulated this dissatisfaction, stating that while the EU seeks diplomacy and stability, this objective should not necessitate accepting an unfair trade relationship. This sentiment is echoed by the Greens, with German MEP Anna Cavazzini asserting that the agreement presents major disadvantages for the EU, thereby challenging the Commission’s argument that it ensures stable trade relations.

Concerns Over Strategic Concessions and Dependence

Several MEPs have characterized the agreement as a significant capitulation on the part of the EU. French MEP Celine Imart of the center-right EPP group critically noted that the EU is committing substantial investments and pledges for chips and military equipment, while simultaneously granting the US 0% tariffs. She argued that this arrangement primarily serves the reindustrialization of the United States. Similarly, Belgian MEP Benoit Cassart from the liberal Renew group expressed outrage, suggesting the agreement exposes the EU’s profound dependence, compelling it to accept disadvantageous terms. He rejected the notion that the EU “won” simply because the outcome wasn’t worse, warning of future negotiations commencing from even more unfavorable positions. Marie-Pierre Vedrenne, also from Renew, added that there is a perception that the EU failed to bring any real leverage to the negotiating table.

Ongoing Pressures and Doubts on Stability

Adding to the complexity, US President Donald Trump has continued to issue threats of tariffs against countries, including EU member states, that implement digital legislation, accusing them of targeting major technology companies. This persistent pressure undermines the Commission’s assertion that the trade deal will bring stability. While some, such as Swedish MEP Jörgen Warborn (EPP), acknowledge the potential value of a framework agreement for stability, they concurrently admit the deal does not achieve the balance they had hoped for. The proposal to reduce EU tariffs on US imports is therefore anticipated to face considerable resistance within the European Parliament, reflecting deep-seated concerns about the EU’s economic interests and strategic positioning.