BRITISH PRIME MINISTER Theresa May ‘Very good progress’ on Brexit at Brussels summit

Prime Minister says deal can be achieved ‘by working closely’, before making case to EU leaders

Theresa May arriving for the European Council summit in Brussels.
Photograph: Stephanie Lecocq/EPA

READ RELATED: May faces EU leaders as Brexit talks stall|CRIMSON TAZVINZWA, AIWA NO!|Theresa May has said she thinks a Brexit deal is achievable with hard work from both sides.

The Prime Minister was in an optimistic mood as she walked into the European Council building, in Brussels, for crunch talks. The Prime Minister hopes to strike a deal with the European Union in the coming days and weeks but admitted it would not be easy.

‘What we’ve seen is that we’ve solved most of the issues in the withdrawal agreement,’ she said. ‘There is still the question of the Northern Irish backstop … by working intensively and closely, we can achieve that deal. ‘Now is the time to make it happen.’ The EU has demanded a ‘backstop’ to ensure there are no customs posts or other controls along the currently invisible border between the UK’s Northern Ireland and EU member Ireland.

READ RELATED: Brexit: Theresa May ‘may not have to depend on DUP votes’

Mrs May is hoping to convince EU member nations her plans for a friendly divorce are workable despite previously being told by them to go back to the drawing board. She met with Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the EU Commission, and European Council President Donald Tusk, earlier today.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she still believed it was possible to conclude a ‘good and sustainable’ agreement but stressed Germany also is preparing for the risk of a no-deal departure.

EU’s Juncker says aims for close ties with Britain after Brexit

European Commission head Jean-Claude Juncker said on Wednesday the EU would not allow Britain to participate in parts of the bloc’s single market after Brexit without honouring its rules.

Image result for EU’s Juncker says aims for close ties with Britain after Brexit
European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker delivers a speech during a debate on The State of the European Union at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France, September 12, 2018. REUTERS/Vincent Kessler/File Photo

bY CRIMSON TAZVINZWA//European Commission head Jean-Claude Juncker on Wednesday renewed a pledge for close trade and security ties with Britain after Brexit, but said the European Union (EU) would not compromise on key withdrawal terms.

“If you leave the Union, you are of course no longer part of our single market, and certainly not only in the parts of it you choose,” Juncker said in his annual state-of-the-union speech to the European Parliament.

Delivering his annual state-of-the-union speech to the European Parliament, Juncker said the EU will not allow Britain to participate only in some parts of the bloc’s single market after Brexit without honoring all of the rules.

“This is why we want to find solutions that prevent a hard border in Northern Ireland,” he said, adding the EU will stand in solidarity with Ireland.

President Donald Trump has announced a $12 billion bailout to farmers who have become collateral damage in the trade war he started.

But, as one Minnesota farmer put it, bailout is just a Band-Aid.
Soybeans from a farm in southern Minnesota. With China having put a tariff on American soybeans, in retaliation for U.S. tariffs aimed at curbing what
JIM MONE • ASSOCIATED PRESSSoybeans from a farm in southern Minnesota.
With China having put a tariff on American soybeans, in retaliation for U.S. tariffs aimed at curbing what President Donald Trump says are unfair trade practices, the Trump administration plans to provide aid to American soybean farmers.

Faced with a self-inflicted wound that is hurting agriculture, manufacturers and, not incidentally, his party’s chances in November, President Donald Trump has announced a $12 billion bailout to farmers who have become collateral damage in the trade war he started. It is truly, as one Minnesota soybean farmer put it, “a Band-Aid on an arterial bleed.”

Trump started this, recall, by saying that trade wars were easy to win. That is proving not to be the case. Much of what has ensued since he started antagonizing U.S. trade partners around the world was predicted by those who know this terrain far better. What started early this year with punitive tariffs on a few dozen products has cascaded to more than 10,000, damaging trade relationships and disrupting markets in the process.

In response, even Wisconsin Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson ripped Trump’s policies, saying, “This is becoming more and more like a Soviet-type of economy.”

Now Trump is clearly looking for ways to limit the impact on American producers and consumers. But the bailout is a bad proposal. It sets an unsustainable precedent, creating expectations that other industries will be able to tap taxpayer resources to offset the cost of Trump’s trade assaults. It also won’t begin to mitigate the harm to farmers. This week, a Star Tribune reporter found a pair of soybean farmers who, between the two of them, have seen their crops lose $350,000 of value as China’s retaliatory tariffs took hold and soybean prices plummeted.

One also must question where this money comes from. Congress appropriates money to federal agencies, usually with some purpose in mind. How was Trump able to lay hands on an unencumbered $12 billion? And what congressional directives will be left unfulfilled from the funds he is diverting to buy time with this nation’s farmers?

Of course, there is the strong likelihood that the $12 billion itself is more Trumpian smoke and mirrors than reality. As Republicans and farmers alike pushed back against the notion of a handout instead of a solution, Larry Kudlow, head of the president’s National Economic Council, quickly downplayed the figure. Kudlow told one interviewer, “I don’t think it’s going to get near to $12 billion. I think the sums are going to be much lower.”

Trump has asked for patience, and as evidence that he is beginning to turn things around, pointed to a deal struck with the European Union on Wednesday. But that too requires close scrutiny. As with other “agreements” Trump has reached with North Korea and China, there may be less here than meets the eye. Many details have yet to be worked out.

Still, any rapprochement between this administration and Europe is welcome. For now, it does temporarily halt extra tariffs between the two entities as talks continue. Trump has backed off his threat to extend tariffs to automobiles. In return, the E.U. has promised to buy more American soybeans. Of course, there is good reason for that. The punishing level of Chinese tariffs has made devalued U.S. soybeans a bargain on the world market.

Perhaps more important, the E.U. negotiations show that Trump is attempting to de-escalate tensions as he pushes for the elimination of tariffs that he believes hurt the U.S. That is a sensible move that, it must be pointed out, would have been entirely unnecessary if he had pursued a more strategic, diplomatic path. Still, this country will need its allies if it is to refocus its efforts on China, whose long-standing pattern of intellectual property and trade transgressions must be broken.

You may recall that there was another quieter, more diplomatic effort to remove tariffs and cut other barriers to trade that was years in the making. It was the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP. Trump pulled the U.S. out of TTIP shortly after taking office.

As Trump wages trade war with China, other countries move on with free trade agreements of their own – a move that will hurt the US economy in the long term

As the Trump administration stokes a trade war with China and triesDonald-Trump-Angela-Merkel-988449 to smooth over relations with long-term allies like Canada and the European Union, other nations are forging ahead with free trade agreements among themselves, a shift that could isolate the U.S. economy in the long term.

President Donald Trump has argued that past trade deals hurt the U.S. economy and should be renegotiated or scrapped in favor of agreements that benefit American workers. But if the U.S. is not at the negotiating table, economists and former U.S. trade officials warn, it risks missing out on substantial economic benefits and the chance to shape international trade rules that American companies will be forced to follow.

“It seems like country after country and region after region are pursuing trade deals with each other,” said Wendy Cutler, vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute and a former Obama administration official who oversaw negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, known as TPP.

The European Union finalized the largest trade agreement in its history earlier this month. The deal with Japan covers nearly a third of the global economy and creates one of the largest free trade areas in the world.

Negotiators from the 11 countries involved in the TPP, which has been renamed the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership, have also begun talks to allow more countries to enter into the agreement.

Trump withdrew the U.S. from the TPP his first week in office. In April, he floated the idea of rejoining the deal, which would have covered $1.5 trillion worth of trade with the U.S., but tweeted the next day that he would consider reversing course only “if the deal were substantially better than the deal offered to Pres. Obama.”

President Donald Trump and President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker speak about trade relations in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, D.C. Photo by Joshua Roberts/Reuters

Meanwhile, Mexico and South Korea have announced their interest in becoming a part of the Pacific Alliance, a trade bloc of countries bordering the Pacific Ocean. The Pacific Alliance this week began talks of a free trade agreement with the South American bloc Mercosur, made up of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay.

That comes as Mercosur, the world’s fourth largest trading bloc, is pushing to conclude a free trade agreement with the EU by September.

Many of these deals were already in the works long before Trump came into office. But Cutler said countries are now trying to “hedge their bets” with more free trade deals in case the U.S. hits them with tariffs. Trump has imposed tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods and set a 25 percent tariff on all steel imports and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum imported into the U.S. Trump issued a temporary exemption from the tariffs for Canada and Mexico, but later withdrew the exemption.

“We’ve helped accelerate a trend that is working against us,” Cutler said.

Trump has said the tariffs are not isolating the United States. Instead, he argues they are doing the opposite — forcing foreign nations to the bargaining table.

“Countries that have treated us unfairly on trade for years are all coming to Washington to negotiate,” Trump tweeted Tuesday, the day before European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s visit to the White House.

After their meeting Wednesday, the two leaders announced they would halt any new tariffs while they work toward eliminating all tariffs on non-automotive goods, including steel and aluminum.

Cathryn Clüver Ashbrook, the executive director of the Project on Europe and the Transatlantic Relationship at Harvard University, said the agreement was a symbolic win for both sides but should not have been necessary in the first place.

“A lot of these trade questions with NAFTA, the European Union and China are self-created conflicts intended to create momentum with the base of the Trump electorate,” Ashbrook said.

In addition to imposing new tariffs, the Trump administration has halted negotiations between the U.S. and EU on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, which had been in the works since 2013. Ashbrook said now the U.S. is looking at negotiating a “TTIP-lite.”

“I think it will take us a significant amount of time to get back to where we already were,” she said.

The long-term consequences of U.S. trade policy

International trade deals typically take years to negotiate so the consequences of the U.S. isolating itself might not be fully known for some time.

But “the longer it goes on, the more we have an international set of rules that are not to our interests,” said Peter Allgeier, who served as the U.S. deputy trade representative under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

In the agriculture sector, for example, farmers could be denied access to developing markets. Pharmaceutical companies could face new barriers to establishing drug patents in foreign countries, and the telecommunications industry could be forced to play by different rules when transferring data across borders.

The Trump administration has said it is open to bilateral deals — trade pacts between two countries — that would achieve similar results as multilateral deals between several nations. The trouble, Allgeier said, is that if the U.S. makes bilateral deals with multiple countries, instead of agreeing to a regional deal, each individual agreement would establish a different set of rules.

“That’s tough for our businesses because they could have to comply in six different ways for six different countries,” he said. “If you do it as a multilateral deal, a rule is a rule is a rule.”

Even if countries were open to bilateral deals, the Trump administration’s unconventional approach appears to be making many nations more wary of doing business with the U.S.

“The United States’ trading partners are turning to other nations, where the requests are more predictable and in line with traditional trade practices,” Cutler said.

But being left out might not be such a bad thing, according to opponents of more recent trade deals like the TPP.

“We like to think of ourselves as being open, free-market, globalist, and the protector of the free world. In that mode, you don’t have to do every deal that’s been given to you,” said Clyde Prestowitz, the president of the Economic Strategy Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that focuses on trade.

Prestowitz echoed Trump’s view that the global system has been unfavorable toward the U.S. for many years. Until the U.S. can get a better shake in the global market, he said, it “largely doesn’t matter” whether the country signs on to new trade deals.

The success or failure of the Trump administration’s approach to foreign trade could be determined less by who gets the last jab than by the state of the U.S. economy.

If retaliatory tariffs slow economic growth, more businesses could follow Harley Davidson and move overseas.

On the other hand, if the U.S. economy continues to grow, the long-term consequences could be negligible.

The public spectacle

Trade experts may disagree on policy, but most acknowledge the atmosphere around international trade negotiations has changed. Under Trump, there is a heightened sense of showmanship to all of the trade talks, said Tim Keeler, a former chief of staff to the U.S. trade representative in the George W. Bush administration.

“There’s a lot of public jousting, and that’s unusual,” said Keeler, who works as an attorney representing clients on trade issues at the law firm Mayer Brown LLP.

Negotiations on trade issues can get heated, but that back and forth typically takes place at lower levels of government and would not catch the public eye, Keeler said.

But with Trump regularly issuing threats on Twitter, foreign leaders have also started their own public campaigns.

When the U.S. offered to make free trade deals with its allies at a recent G20 meeting, European leaders made clear such offers were nonstarters as long as the U.S. was imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum.

French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire told reporters the EU would not negotiate “with a gun to our head,” according to Reuters.

During the ceremony solidifying the trade deal between the EU and Japan, European Council president Donald Tusk said the deal indicated Japan and the EU would be “predictable,” and would “continue defending a world order based on rules, on freedom, on transparency and common sense.” Economic analysts viewed that as a not-so-veiled message to the U.S.

 

%d bloggers like this: