Berlin, Germany (Weltexpress). Did Trump pull a fast one on von der Leyen, or did the EU Commission President make false promises to Trump that she cannot keep?
As expected, the ink on the signatures of EU Queen von der Leyen and US Emperor Trump under the tariff agreement agreed in Turnberry, Scotland, was not yet dry when the dispute over the alleged deal of the century began. On the one hand, the White House in Washington and the EU Commission in Brussels interpreted key parts of the deal very differently, and on the other hand, several member states – above all France, Spain and Hungary – voiced fierce criticism of von der Leyen, whom they consider a complete failure.
However, the Commission President was resolutely supported by the German government, despite her inglorious past. There was, for example, the mRNA vaccine deal with Pfizer worth over 30 billion euros and the dubious deal with consulting firms worth hundreds of millions of euros when she was still defence minister in Berlin.
With regard to the Turnberry agreement, the White House speaks of binding commitments by the European Union to double EU energy purchases from the US to $750 billion and to invest $600 billion from the EU in the US. And all this must be done by the end of Trump’s term in office in just over three years. The EU Commission, on the other hand, emphasises that the commitments made in Turnberry are not legally binding, as energy purchases and investments are a matter for member states and private companies.
At the same time, there are important economic sectors for which no permanent solutions have yet been found in the Turnberry deal, such as the 50 per cent tariff on aluminium and steel from the EU. There are also still major differences between Washington and Brussels on EU exports of agricultural products and medicines to the US. Meanwhile, the European Union has set tariffs on imports from the United States at zero. The systemic differences between EU and US customs policy are also problematic: the US insists on customs regulations, while the EU refers to quotas and existing rules. In addition, the removal of digital trade barriers is another complex point of contention.
Even within the German ruling CDU party, von der Leyen’s deal with Trump has been met with fierce opposition. Germany’s economy is no longer competitive, commented Sepp Müller, deputy chairman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag, on the country’s economic situation against the backdrop of the tariff agreement with the US: ‘We are not competitive in terms of energy prices at the petrol station or electricity prices from the socket. We are not competitive when it comes to non-wage labour costs. Bureaucratic costs are stifling our economy.’
He also referred to the government’s plan to cover the budget deficit of 172 billion euros expected by 2029 through austerity measures, including an 8 per cent reduction in civil servants and a 10 per cent reduction in material expenditure, while at the same time providing unlimited funds for arms purchases in the USA. Above all, he criticised Brussels for committing itself to purchasing almost unlimited quantities of American weapons and investing several hundred billion dollars in the US economy.
Sepp Müller received support from Florian Philippot, leader of the French opposition party ‘Les Patriotes’, who said in an initial reaction that Brussels did not represent the interests of the entire European Union. The latest customs agreement with the US was a “disaster”, he said, emphasising that ‘the EU cannot negotiate on our behalf!’ He is in good company with the French head of government. The characterisation of the Turnberry trade agreement as a ‘complete capitulation’ of Europe comes from French Prime Minister Bayrou, who described 28 July as a ‘dark day’ for the EU.
According to Paul Taylor, a senior fellow at the European Policy Centre think tank, the Turnberry EU-US deal marks Trump’s second humiliation of his European partners in two months. The first time, European allies unconditionally complied with his demands at the NATO summit to spend 5 per cent of their economic output on military purposes, including 3.5 per cent on armaments. Both meetings, the NATO summit and now Turnberry, were characterised by ‘undignified flattery of the US president’s oversized ego’ by top European politicians and their unwillingness to even respond to Trump’s most blatant distortions of the facts, ask a question or correct him during agonising joint media appearances, wrote Taylor in the British newspaper The Guardian last Monday.
The unresolved issue of US tariffs on a range of important EU exports, such as EU medicines worth €120 billion a year, will continue to fuel the tariff dispute in the future. But there is a far bigger problem that von der Leyen and the experts in her delegation have created themselves. This is the new dispute between Brussels and Washington, already briefly mentioned at the beginning, regarding the binding nature of the EU’s commitments in the Turnberry Agreement to double EU energy purchases from the US to $750 billion and to invest $600 billion from the EU in the US by the end of Trump’s term in office.
If von der Leyen and the EU Commission now try to talk their way out of this commitment by emphasising that such commitments are not legally binding because energy purchases and investments are a matter for member states and private companies, this could have consequences that could break von der Leyen’s political neck. The Americans will have no problem accusing EU representatives of dishonesty because they did not inform the other side about this restriction before signing the agreement.
The EU Commission is technically correct when it says that it cannot order any EU member state how much energy it should purchase from the US or how much its companies should invest in the US in order to fulfil the promise made by the EU Commission. On the other hand, Trump will undoubtedly feel duped, especially if his critics rub salt into the wound by pointing out that he allowed Ursula to lead him by the nose. With Trump, who is prone to narcissistic tantrums and a penchant for irrational behaviour, this could have unforeseeable consequences, not only for the EU Commission in Brussels, but also for NATO Europeans as a whole.
Yesterday, schadenfreude-filled comments were already circulating on social media that, despite all European criticism of the Turnberry deal, it was not the Europeans but Trump who had been duped because – surprise, surprise – the EU itself could neither buy energy nor invest 600 billion dollars in the US. However, this is too short-sighted. After all, what is to prevent the deceived Trump from simply cancelling the Turnberry deal? The wrath of the Great Zampano in Washington could also be unleashed in many other ways on the EU and the globalist European elites, whom he hates and continues to despise.
To make matters worse for Europeans, even if the EU wanted to and had the money to do so, it would not be materially capable of purchasing $750 billion worth of energy from the US within three years. Experts such as Laura Page of Kpler described this goal as unrealistic in Politico. In 2024, the EU imported energy sources worth 76 billion euros from the US – a threefold increase would be necessary, for which the necessary infrastructure is lacking. At the same time, more advantageous alternatives such as Norwegian pipeline gas would have to be ruled out. In addition, European refineries could only process a maximum of 14 per cent of US oil, compared with just 12 per cent at present. How could von der Leyen and her advisers make such unforgivable mistakes?
The mistake with the potentially worst consequences for the EU and von der Leyen personally is that, with the Turnberry agreement, the EU president has handed Trump a demand that he and his people can and certainly will turn into effective economic and military leverage. Since the Europeans cannot possibly fulfil their side of the agreement, Trump can rightly portray them as dishonest and demand economic concessions in other areas.
And if Donald Trump still has his heart set on withdrawing US troops from Europe, Turnberry would have given him a good justification. Even die-hard Atlanticists in Washington would find it difficult to convince Europeans of Trump’s unwavering commitment to NATO Article 5 in view of the EU’s deception. It is hardly to be expected that the narcissist Trump will simply accept this humiliation at Turnberry, especially since he feels – rightly – that he has been betrayed. And the US president is vindictive. Meanwhile, the European Union and Germany have no bargaining chips to offer Trump because our wise political leaders have successfully burned all bridges with Russia and are in the process of doing the same with China.
