Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, recently secured a major trade breakthrough between the European Union and the United States. Critics have been savaging it, condemning it as a critical capitulation and humiliation for Europe. The agreement is predicted to result in a whopping $600 billion in EU investment into the US. It’s been let down by its own wretched preparedness, with von der Leyen’s inner circle going into the final negotiation showdown prepared to cave instead of go to the mat for European interests.
The long negotiations that led to the deal have generated great interest. Looks like it’s not just us who are mega-skeptical about von der Leyen’s leadership of the European Commission. She governs with a very strong presidential hand. This strategy has successfully removed all internal checks and balances, placing her team squarely in the driver’s seat during the negotiation process. This aggrandizement of power is alarming not just for the accountability implications but for the democratic legitimacy of these moves by the EU as well.
The European Parliament’s approval of the deal is far from guaranteed. Many are worried that von der Leyen will strike a “dirty bargain” with member states in order to dodge the need for parliamentary approval. Such actions would be a dangerous precedent and risk substantially undermining the institution’s authority. Critics say that von der Leyen’s deal in Scotland is an unsteady stopgap agreement. They argue that it is inadequate to serve as a strong trade deal.
Economically, the implications of this deal seem to be bad news for EU exporters. European companies are in a hard position. They are increasingly losing greater access to their markets in the US as they face intensified competition from the American products that the US has favored. The key sectors including consumer goods, food and drink, and agriculture will be hit hardest. This change will predominantly bring the trade balance to positive side of the US.
Moreover, central European industrial sectors like pharmaceuticals, steel and aluminum are strikingly excluded from this agreement. This gap — unaddressed in her remarks — calls into question von der Leyen’s pledge to protect essential European industries. Critics say that her plight is all too similar to the frantic last stages of Brexit negotiations. In those negotiations, she caved to Boris Johnson’s insistent breach of diplomatic decorum.
The consequences of this deal go further than economics. They undermine Europe’s standing on the global stage. The world is looking to the EU to lead on reciprocity and positive, rules-based trade. Yet if von der Leyen follows through, it would deal a major blow to its international credentials. Here at home, lawmakers from opposition parties and right-wing challengers in Germany and France are sounding the alarm. They view this deal as a political albatross for the heads of these boonies.
While some major EU powers, including Germany and Italy, appear to support von der Leyen’s approach, there remains a palpable tension within the bloc. It is crucial to ensure that all 27 EU governments are on board. Any final agreement requires translation into international law, which muddles the waters further for von der Leyen’s administration.
As negotiations start, Washington and Brussels are already dangerously at odds over the interpretation of core elements of the deal. There are many details still left to finalize, allowing plenty of opportunity for more contention. The back and forth shows just how fraught these negotiations have been. They reveal the issues where there seem to be the most daunting obstacles to all sides finding a happy middle.