EU increasingly resigned to 10% baseline reciprocal tariff in trade talks with US
Agencies
Brussels
European officials are increasingly resigned to a 10 percent rate on 'reciprocal' tariffs being the baseline in any trade deal between the United States and the European Union, five sources familiar with the negotiations said.
President Donald Trump has announced wide-ranging tariffs on trade partners and wants to reduce the US goods trade deficit with the EU. US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has ruled out going below a 10 percent baseline rate for the so-called reciprocal tariffs that cover most goods the EU exports to the US.
EU neg are still pressing for the rate to be lower than 10 percent, said the European sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks.
But one of the sources, an EU official, said negotiating the level down had become harder since the US started drawing revenues from its global tariffs.
'The 10 percent is a sticky issue. We are pressing them but now they are getting revenues,' said the official.
A second European source said there had been no acceptance by the EU of 10 percent as the baseline rate at talks, but acknowledged that it would be difficult to change or abolish that baseline.
A spokesperson for the European Commission, the EU's executive body which negotiates trade deals for the 27-nation bloc, did not respond to a Reuters request for comment. The US government also did not immediately comment.
US officials have long worked on the assumption that America will end up with higher tariffs with its trading partners and do not expect to move away from the 10% tariff rate in talks with the EU.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told the 'Pod Force One' podcast in an interview broadcast Wednesday that Trump's decision to double tariffs had spurred greater willingness on the part of European leaders to negotiate.
The EU has said publicly it will not settle for a double-digit baseline rate - as did Britain, which agreed a limited trade deal in May that retains 10 percent tariffs on British exports while cutting higher rates for steel and cars.
Notable orders included one for up to 150 planes for Vietnamese budget airline VietJet. Trump has hit Europe with a 50 percent tariff on steel and aluminium and a 25 percent levy on cars, and the EU is trying to secure a deal before July 9, when reciprocal tariffs on most other goods could rise from 10 percent to up to 50 percent.
With an annual trade surplus of $236 billion with the US in 2024, the EU has more to lose from tariffs than non-EU member Britain, which runs a trade deficit with the US.
Trump, who has said he wants to use tariff revenues to help finance his sweeping tax-cut and spending bill, said on Tuesday the EU was not offering a fair deal.
Washington has sought to fold non-tariff barriers, such as digital services taxes and corporate sustainability reporting rules, as well as LNG sales and food standards into the talks.
The US posted a $258-billion budget surplus for April, up 23 percent from a year earlier, and the Treasury Department said net customs duties in April more than doubled versus the same period last year.
The sweeping tariffs imposed by Trump since early April and the subsequent pauses on some of them have generated upheaval for companies worldwide, causing some to withdraw or refrain from giving financial guidance.
European automakers have been hit hard. Mercedes pulled its earnings guidance, Stellantis suspended its guidance and Volvo Cars withdrew its earnings forecasts for the next two years.
One European car executive said premium carmakers could stomach a 10 percent tariff but that it would be much tougher for a mass-market producer.
The tariffs targeting steel and aluminium, and cars and car parts, were applied on grounds of national security, with investigations into pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, timber and trucks possibly leading to further increased duties. EU officials say they are not willing to accept these.
Trump said on Tuesday that pharma tariffs were 'coming very soon'.
A pharma industry source said the European Commission was resisting sector-specific tariffs. The Commission has told the pharma industry that while it does not want the 10% baseline reciprocal tariffs, accepting a 10% base tariff may provide leverage in those negotiations, the source said.
A European beverage industry source said the wine and spirits sector would rather have a deal at 10 percent than protracted negotiations.
Not securing a deal would have a 'huge negative impact... on our market,' said Rob van Gils, CEO of Austrian company Hammerer Aluminium Industries. 'It can be 0 it can be 10 percent. If it's both ways that's all manageable. It will not kill business.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Are Israel's attacks against Iran legal?
United States President Donald Trump is considering joining Israel in what it claims are its efforts to destroy Iran's nuclear programme, based on its stated belief that Iran is 'very close' to developing a nuclear weapon. Israel argues that it has carried out attacks on Iran's military and nuclear sites over the past week in anticipation of an Iranian nuclear attack. But is this a valid justification? The United Nations Charter, which is the founding document for states' rights since World War II, outlaws aggressive war, allowing military action only as self-defence. Only the UN Security Council is empowered to decide if military action is justified, once countries have tried and failed to resolve their differences peacefully. If a country is attacked while the UNSC deliberates, that country still has the 'inherent right of individual or collective self-defence', however. The question of the legality of Israel's strikes on Iran, therefore, revolves around whether Israel – and any allies coming to its aid – can justify its attacks on Iran as 'anticipatory' self-defence. Many experts say they are not. 'This is not a situation in which Israel is allegedly responding to an Iranian attack occurring now, whether directly or through proxies such as the Houthis,' wrote Marko Milanovic, a professor of public international law at Reading University who has served on the International Criminal Court (ICC), in the European Journal of International Law, which he edits. Israel cannot make the case that an attack is imminent, argued Milanovic. 'There is little evidence that Iran has irrevocably committed itself to attacking Israel with a nuclear weapon, once it develops this capability,' wrote Milanovic. 'And even if such an intention was assumed – again, it would be for Israel to provide any further evidence of such intention – I don't see how it could plausibly be argued that using force today was the only option available.' 'Even if the broadest possible [legally plausible] understanding of anticipatory self-defence was taken as correct, Israel's use of force against Iran would be illegal,' he concluded. The United Kingdom's chief legal counsel, Richard Hermer, advised Prime Minister Keir Starmer against getting involved in any attack on Iran, 'unless our personnel are targeted', according to Sky News. 'The possibility of acting in self-defence in view of an attack that might be coming is illegal in international law and we're all very, very clear about that,' agreed Maria Gavouneli, a professor of international law at Athens University. She said nuclear weapons have been discussed in international legal circles as a special case. 'There might be a chance for anticipatory self-defence, in other words, an exception to the rule, when we have clear evidence that there is a nuclear weapon being built,' Gavouneli told Al Jazeera. Israel might try to make the case that its 'continued existence was at stake and they had to act', she said. To make this case, Israel would need 'warranties, some kind of evidence offered by the International Atomic Energy Agency', the UN's nuclear IAEA has said that it cannot verify what Iran is doing. But it has not clearly suggested that Iran may be building a bomb. Iran stopped cooperating with the IAEA in February 2021 after Trump annulled a key agreement during his first term that obliged it to do so. That agreement – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – had been negotiated by Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama, in 2015. On June 9, IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi said Iran's failures to comply with reporting obligations had 'led to a significant reduction in the agency's ability to verify whether Iran's nuclear programme is entirely peaceful'. He said Iran had 'repeatedly either not answered, or not provided technically credible answers to, the agency's questions' regarding the presence of man-made uranium particles at three locations – Varamin, Marivan and Turquzabad – and had 'sought to sanitise the locations'. Grossi also described Iran's 'rapid accumulation of highly-enriched uranium' as a 'serious concern'. He was referring to 60 percent pure uranium enrichment facilities at Fordow and Natanz, and the IAEA's discovery of 83.7 percent pure uranium particles at Fordow in 2023. Weapons-grade uranium is at least 90 percent pure. Under the JCPOA, Iran was to have uranium at no higher than 5 percent purity. On June 12, just before Israel launched its assault on Iran's military and nuclear sites, the IAEA approved a resolution declaring that Tehran was not complying with its commitment to international nuclear safeguards. However, this week, Grossi emphasised that the IAEA had found no evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons production. 'We did not have any proof of a systematic effort to move into a nuclear weapon,' he said. Iran has responded that it is a signatory of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), under which it has agreed not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons, and the discovery of highly enriched particles at its sites may be the result of sabotage or malicious acts. On Monday, Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that lawmakers were preparing a bill to withdraw Tehran from the NPT, in light of the Israeli attacks. In 1981, Israel attacked and destroyed Iraq's unfinished Osirak nuclear reactor, which was being built by French commercial interests, invoking anticipatory self-defence. But the UNSC Resolution 487 (PDF) strongly condemned the attack as a violation of the UN Charter and the 'inalienable and sovereign right of Iraq and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes'. It also noted that Israel is not a signatory to the NPT. Israel is currently believed to possess 90 nuclear bombs. Then-President George W Bush also invoked the argument of preemptive self-defence when justifying the 2003 US war against Iraq. He suggested Iraq might one day 'cooperate with terrorists' to deliver a weapon of mass destruction on US soil, even though UN weapons inspectors said there was no hard evidence Iraq was developing such a weapon. The UNSC refused to endorse Bush's war, but he went ahead anyway with a 'coalition of the willing'. Once in control of Iraq, foreign troops discovered no weapons of mass destruction. In 2018, Israel revealed it had bombed a Syrian reactor 11 years before, apparently only just before it became operational, believing it to be part of a plan of the then-government of Bashar al-Assad to acquire nuclear weapons. Under Operation Outside the Box, it destroyed the North Korean-built plutonium reactor in Deir Az Zor in September 2007. Israel's justification was, again, that it was anticipating a Syrian nuclear attack. Israel killed several top Iranian physicists working on Iran's nuclear programme on June 13. It is suspected of having been involved in several more assassinations of Iranian physicists and engineers since 2010. Milanovic said scientists who were enlisted in the armed forces of Iran could be considered fighters and targeted. However, he said, 'scientists who are civilians – and most probably are – cannot lawfully be made the object of an attack. Simply working on a weapons programme as a researcher does not entail direct participation in hostilities that could remove civilian immunity from an attack'. Both countries have been criticised for carrying out attacks on each other's hospitals. About 70 people were injured when Iranian missiles hit the Soroka Medical Center in Beersheba in southern Israel on Thursday. Israel accused Iran of a 'war crime', but Iran said the hospital was close to a military site, which was the real target. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi claimed the missile attack hit an Israeli military and intelligence centre located near Soroka hospital, causing only 'superficial damage to a small section' of the health facility. Meanwhile, Israel itself has damaged or destroyed the vast majority of hospitals and medical centres in the Gaza Strip since its war on the Palestinian territory began on October 7, 2023. In many cases, it has argued that Hamas was using those sites as cover for its operations. But it is not permitted to strike hospitals and medical facilities under international law. The International Committee of the Red Cross, referring to international humanitarian law, states: 'Under IHL, hospitals and other medical facilities – whether civilian or military – enjoy specific protection that goes beyond the general protection afforded to other civilian objects. This elevated protection ensures that they remain functional when they are needed most. These protections were put in place by the Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims in 1949.' Israel also struck the Iranian state broadcaster IRIB, interrupting a live broadcast on Monday. TV anchor Sahar Emami denounced the 'aggression against the homeland' and the 'truth' as a blast went off and smoke and debris filled the screen. The footage then showed her fleeing the studio as a voice is heard calling, 'God is greatest'. Israel has also targeted and killed more than 200 journalists and media workers in Gaza since October 2023. In 2021, a building housing the offices of Al Jazeera and The Associated Press news agency in Gaza was destroyed in an Israeli strike. Media professionals do not have special protections under the Geneva Conventions, but they are protected under the same clauses that protect all civilians in armed conflict, according to the British Institute of Comparative and International Law.
Welcome Qatar
2 hours ago
- Welcome Qatar
Iranian attacks reveal crippling ground realities for Netanyahu; Trump last hope
Iranian attacks reveal crippling ground realities for Netanyahu; Trump last hope | Janta Ka Reporter
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Is it time for Europe to choose China over the US?
As Donald Trump barrels through his second term in the White House, Europe faces a question it has long avoided: Should it continue clinging to its alliance with the United States, or is it time to chart a new course – perhaps one that leads eastwards? In April, Chinese President Xi Jinping urged Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez to encourage the European Union to 'resist together' against Washington's 'unilateral coercion'. This coercion is not limited to trade; it extends to politics, culture and global strategy. For Europe, the question is not simply whether the US remains a powerful ally but whether it is still the right one. A closer relationship with China now offers distinct advantages – an idea likely to be discussed at the EU-China summit in July. While European attitudes towards China remain cautious, as demonstrated by recent tariffs targeting low-cost imports from platforms like Temu and Shein, Europe's strategic reflex still defaults to the US, especially in finance and defence. That reflex, born of history, is increasingly out of step with Europe's long-term interests. The US has long pursued a consistent global aim: to preserve its position as the world's sole superpower. But under President Trump, US global leadership has taken a darker turn. Basic democratic principles are being eroded. Human rights, academic freedom and social justice have come under sustained assault. From unconditional support for Israel's devastating assault on Gaza – widely condemned as a genocide – to greenlighting a newly launched war on Iran, mass deportations and the dismantling of university funding, Trump's United States is actively undermining the values it once claimed to champion. China, of course, has its own challenges. It lacks press freedom, censors dissent and tightly controls public discourse. But is the democratic West still so different? In an information landscape dominated by a handful of tech billionaires, platforms like X and Facebook amplify misinformation and conspiracy theories while marginalising serious public debate. The treatment of whistleblowers such as Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden further suggests that truth itself has become a threat to what now passes as American democracy rather than a foundation of it. Europe must also confront the economic and political model it shares with the US. Democracy, once a source of pride, increasingly functions as ideological cover for oligarchy – rule by and for the few. Trump embodies this shift, treating democratic norms as obstacles to unending accumulation. But he is not alone in this. Across the West, wealth is increasingly concentrated and politics increasingly unresponsive to the needs of most of its people. The contrast between Washington and Beijing in foreign affairs also warrants attention. China maintains one overseas military base, in Djibouti, and a handful of small support outposts. The US, by contrast, operates more than 750 military installations worldwide. That vast footprint may soon serve Trump's revived imperial imagination: He recently shared a video envisioning Gaza as the 'Riviera of the Middle East' after saying its Palestinian residents would be resettled elsewhere. China, meanwhile, opposed such forced displacement and reaffirmed the Palestinian right to resist foreign occupation. China is also becoming an increasingly attractive destination for education. With more than 3,000 universities serving over 40 million students, its system is both expansive and accessible. Tuition ranges from $1,500 to $3,000 a year, in stark contrast to the $40,000 charged by many US institutions. Universities like Tsinghua are gaining global recognition for high-impact research. And while these institutions operate under strict censorship, they remain a serious alternative – especially as US campuses now face student repression, visa crackdowns and mounting political interference. Why, then, does the EU remain tethered to an alliance that increasingly undermines its values and interests? The truth is that Europe is not yet politically sovereign. It lacks a unified economy, military, tax system and labour market. From north to south, east to west, the continent is fragmented – linguistically, culturally and politically. In a 2017 speech at the Sorbonne, French President Emmanuel Macron spoke of 'European sovereignty'. But that is precisely what Europe still lacks: the ability to evaluate its interests independently and form alliances accordingly. Until that sovereignty becomes reality, any talk of shifting alliances – however urgent – remains largely theoretical. China is prepared for a new era of cooperation. Europe, paralysed by internal division and outdated loyalties, is not. Yet Trump's United States is doing everything it can to make the eventual choice for Europe clearer by the day. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
