France and Germany lead downbeat EU response to US trade deal

Leaders of the two largest economies in Europe have led a choir of dark reactions to the commercial deal concluded between European Union President Ursula von der Layen and US President Donald Trump.

German counselor Fredchich Mirz said the agreement “will lead to great damage” in his nation’s money, while French Prime Minister Francois Bayro said it was “submission.”

The reaction was similar through the mass – although many capitals confessed to signing an unequal deal on this in order to avoid a comprehensive trade war.

A 15 % tariff on most European Union exports to the United States – half average threatening by Trump – will see more American energy and reduce taxes on some imports.

After special talks at the TURNberry Golf Stadium in Trump, Scotland, von der Lain described the agreement as a “huge deal”, while Trump said it would make the United States and the European Union “closer together.”

The deal will require the approval of all 27 European Union members, each with interests and levels of relying on the export of goods to the United States.

While any member state indicates that it aims to prevent him from entering into force, there was little celebration among European leaders.

Mirz warned that the US and European economies would be negatively affected, but he also said that the Brussels negotiating team “could not expect more” against an American president who is determined to restore balance with the main commercial partners.

Bayrou was more dumped, as he was writing on X: “It is a dark day when a coalition of free peoples collected, to confirm their common values and defend their common interests, resigned from submission.”

Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Urban, a close ally of Trump, said that the US President “eaten von der Layen for breakfast.”

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said he would support him “without any enthusiasm.”

There was some relief in Europe that a deal had been done.

The Prime Minister in Finland said it will provide “the ability to predict the need,” while Irish Trade Minister Simon Harris said it brought certainty “necessary for jobs, growth and investment.”

To defend its conditions at a press conference on Monday, European Union Trade Commissioner Marus Sivkovic said it was “the best deal that we can face under very difficult circumstances.”

He also pointed to the security effects of maintaining friendly trade relations with the United States in the context of the Ukraine war.

He said that making sure that Europe and the United States “are compatible with geopolitical issues today”, came “at an additional price.”

In the weeks before the European Union’s final talks and the United States, there was an increasing appetite among some European leaders to increase pressure on Trump using the so -called arch measures, which would prevent American companies to reach European markets.

But with a 30 % looming of the tariff, the European Union concluded a deal on behalf of its members – which will continue to cause an economic blow, but it is less severe when Trump originally threatened to import taxes.

Von der Lynne sought to present it as a success on Sunday – but by Monday, he described it even the leader of its European People’s Party, Manfred Weber, as “controlling damage.”

While the outline of the deal has been agreed, its details will be completed after technical conversations.

The initial reaction across the Atlantic Ocean was less than enthusiasm. The National Council for Foreign Trade, based in Washington, DC, said that any deal to avoid a commercial war was “a welcome progress.”

However, it has warned that any “short -term gains” of a 15 % tariff can eventually leave the United States “isolated from a large ally and eroding the long term.”

He said that the previous system of customs tariffs has allowed industries, including space and medicines, to prosper “on both sides.”

He said that the first deal framework “leaves a number of disturbing European Union policies”, including what was called “discriminatory digital agenda” and “unfair pharmaceutical payment policies”.