A series of obstacles appear to arise on the approval of the much -talked -about trade agreement between it and, which aims to limit the Trust Policy Trump to reasonable frameworks, although it has been largely negative for the EU.
The big obstacle seems to emerge from the opposition of the second largest force to the European Parliament, the Alliance of Democrats and Socialists. This contrast is expected to be particularly difficult to gather the necessary votes in the plenary so that
“We are strongly opposed to the agreement,” Irace Garcia Peres, head of the Socialist and Democratic Parliamentary Group (S&D), told the characteristics.
What does the opposition of socialists mean
This attitude of the Socialists first of all calls into question the EU’s efforts to present the pact as the preservation of transatlantic unity over Moscow. It also deepens the rupture with their center -right allies, the European People’s Party (EPP), which supports the agreement and traditionally cooperates with the Socialists to vote in favor of the important legislative initiatives of the Union.
The confrontation comes a few weeks after Ursula von der Laene was forced to commit to a wide set of social spending to ensure the support of the Socialists, so as to remain in place, surviving the motion of censure then.
According to the calculations, the positive vote of the Socialists is essential for the ratification of the agreement, which makes Mrs Garcia Peres’s statements particularly important. The clear tone he has chosen to use even gives, at least for the time being, the impression that there will be very difficult to shift in the context of a political negotiation with the center -right.
The distancing Costa
At the same time, European Council President Antonio Costa kept distances from the agreement, admitting that the war in Ukraine was a factor in accepting it by the EU.
“We certainly do not celebrate for the return of duties. But the escalation of tension with a key ally due to duties, while our eastern border is threatened, would be a reckless danger, “Costa said in a central speech at the Blad’s Strategic Forum in Slovenia on Monday.
“The stabilization of transatlantic relations and securing the American contribution to Ukraine’s security has been a top priority,” he added.
Dimension with von der Laienne
His statements even contradict the attitude of European Commission President Ursula von der Laien, who has insist that the agreement – which imposes a 15% basic duty on European exports – has nothing to do with maintaining the support of US President Donald.
“There is no connection between the two,” von der Laienne said at a press conference in Finland on Friday, when asked if security concerns affected the EU to agree on the July agreement. He defended the agreement, which has been criticized by some European capitals as a humiliating retreat in US demands, saying it was “a good trade agreement”.
It is recalled that Antonio Costa comes from the Socialists while Ursula von der Laien from the center -right European People’s Party.
The possible violation of the rules of the World Trade Organization
At the same time, another factor that can cause problems in ratifying the agreement is the possible violation of the rules of the World Trade Organization. More specifically, by providing tariff advantages to the US, the EU is in danger of violating the international commercial rules of the WTO and in particular the principle of a rather favored state (MEK).
This rule states that every tariff advantage granted to a WTO member must extend to all its members. However, by applying 0% duties to US industrial products and some agricultural products, the EU actually offers an advantage that is discriminating against its other international partners, who do not benefit from its own market access.
For its part, the Commission responds to these objections by saying that the WTO Statute provides for the exemption from the Authority of MEK to Article 24, which allows for free trading zones or temporary agreements, provided they cover the majority of transactions, arguing that this agreement is also subject to the condition.
