EU member states agree first wave of retaliatory tariffs

Bayart · 2025-04-09T13:49:42 1744206582

Note that those tariffs are related to earlier US tariffs from March, not the recent universal tariffs.

The European MO in that respect is very consistent : take time to deliberate, reach consensus and apply pressure in kind. It's at odds with the news cycle but I prefer that over instant gratification.

layer8 · 2025-04-09T13:59:44 1744207184

Notably, the EU proposed a zero-tariffs free-trade agreement to the US in February, and again a few days ago after the reciprocal-tariffs announcement. Trump rejected the proposal, presumably because it wouldn’t remove the US trade deficit.

lokar · 2025-04-09T13:58:15 1744207095

They should be going after digital and financial services

codingbot3000 · 2025-04-09T13:44:05 1744206245

As a European I have a rough understanding about the legal grounds of how tariff rules are being set in the EU.

But on the US side - can a US citizen maybe explain the legal basis of the current tectonic shift in trade policy enacted through the tariffs? So far I assumed that the federal executive branch could only use tariffs to address security concerns or unfair practices. The actual policy change (especially the 10% base rate) is definitely more than that.

amalcon · 2025-04-09T14:00:27 1744207227

As with so many things here, the remedy for the executive just pulling some nonsense must be sought through the courts. That remedy is being sought, notably by affected businesses. Trump will simply argue that there is a security concern here, or something like that.

The courts, as usual, will first decide which outcome they prefer. They will then try to find some reasoning that will give them that outcome without looking too foolish. The latter step is easy in this case, but it's at least plausible that the courts don't want to crash the global economy. So it could go either way.

Regardless, this is likely to take a while. Courts are slow, especially on contentious issues.

It's also possible that the executive just tries to ignore an unfavorable ruling, as they have already done in other instances; nobody really knows what will happen in that eventuality...

outside1234 · 2025-04-09T13:53:42 1744206822

He only has the ability to enact tariffs in an emergency, which he claims is the case, because "fentanyl", but probably will not live up to legal scrutiny.

The challenge of course, is that it takes a lot of time to legally challenge it, and in the meantime, we have this chaos.

This is why choosing a moral, steady, wise leader is important. The system can't keep up with the alternative.

miketery · 2025-04-09T13:59:05 1744207145

The conclusion shouldn’t be about choosing a wise or moral leader, that’s an unknown and not a guarantee whether someone will remain wise.

The conclusion ought to be that the executive shouldn’t have such powers.

DOGE is also an example of this. No clue whether for the better or worse. But the mechanism being used was put in place by Obama during affordable care act overhauls, as part of USDS (US digital services).

rsynnott · 2025-04-09T13:48:29 1744206509

What Trump's doing may be illegal, either on the basis that the law under which it is being done is itself unconstitutional (in that it delegates the power to set taxes from Congress, which isn't supposed to happen) or in that he is misusing that law (in that it is supposed to be for emergencies). Lawsuits are being taken against the state on both bases.

piva00 · 2025-04-09T13:46:04 1744206364

Disclaimer: not American, not living in the USA.

All the analysis I've read about it say that the one-sided implementation of broad tariffs is not legal according to current US laws.

It doesn't matter though until it's litigated, goes through courts, appeals, Supreme Court, while all that process is ongoing the tariffs are there. And who the fuck knows how the Supreme Court will decide on this in the end?

mwkaufma · 2025-04-09T13:47:01 1744206421

Trump invoked a "state of emergency"

JKCalhoun · 2025-04-09T13:37:24 1744205844

> France, Ireland and Italy secured the removal of Bourbon whiskey from the list of targeted products, after Trump threatened that its inclusion would trigger counter-imposition of a 200% tariff on European alcohol.

Wild times.

lenerdenator · 2025-04-09T13:40:21 1744206021

Ireland is probably the place that got that passed. The US has a soft spot for Ireland.

DHolzer · 2025-04-09T13:46:57 1744206417

a tax evading soft spot that is.

FirmwareBurner · 2025-04-09T13:53:51 1744206831

The EU could change that if it wanted to. I imagine more money is lost due to tax avoidance than from US tariffs.

suraci · 2025-04-09T13:35:37 1744205737

[flagged]

JSR_FDED · 2025-04-09T13:47:03 1744206423

> The timetable has also been extended to give negotiations with the US a chance: EU tariffs will come into force between 15 April and 1 December.

rsynnott · 2025-04-09T13:46:42 1744206402

This is related to _last_ month's tariffs on aluminium and steel. The EU tends to be measured on this sort of thing.

The EU did offer Trump zero-for-zero as a result of the _current_ tariffs; he wasn't interested (which isn't particularly surprising, given that he seems to want trade deficits to magically go away).

JKCalhoun · 2025-04-09T13:39:10 1744205950

What do you define as caved in?

suraci · 2025-04-09T13:48:14 1744206494

it's written in here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/04/cea-...

* First, other countries can accept tariffs on their exports to the United States without retaliation, providing revenue to the U.S. Treasury to finance public goods provision. Critically, retaliation will exacerbate rather than improve the distribution of burdens and make it even more difficult for us to finance global public goods.

Second, they can stop unfair and harmful trading practices by opening their markets and buying more from America;

Third, they can boost defense spending and procurement from the U.S., buying more U.S.-made goods, and taking strain off our servicemembers and creating jobs here;

Fourth, they can invest in and install factories in America. They won’t face tariffs if they make their stuff in this country;

Fifth, they could simply write checks to Treasury that help us finance global public goods. *

greenavocado · 2025-04-09T13:50:36 1744206636

> distribution of burdens and make it even more difficult for us to finance global public goods

I'm gonna need a translation

rsynnott · 2025-04-09T13:51:46 1744206706

This is all extremely vague, and Japan and Korea have absolutely not "caved in" on this basis. Japan and Korea talking to the US; the EU did too, and Trump refused their zero-for-zero offer. But if those talks come to nothing, which seems likely, then Japan and Korea will absolutely introduce retaliatory tariffs, too; the game theory of the thing makes it more or less inevitable.

suraci · 2025-04-09T13:58:10 1744207090

> Japan and Korea will absolutely introduce retaliatory tariffs

I really doubt about this, but I will wait to see

bayindirh · 2025-04-09T13:48:45 1744206525

Pulling the white flag up and sending a request for Country-2-Country special agreement.

coldtea · 2025-04-09T13:46:47 1744206407

Oh, they will. This is for show.

FranzFerdiNaN · 2025-04-09T13:46:46 1744206406

The EU has absolutely no reason to cave in. Its just not striking back like China is, rather being content and surprised watching the US commit economic suicide.

coldtea · 2025-04-09T13:46:30 1744206390

"EU member states agree to cutting off their nose to spite their face"

dsign · 2025-04-09T13:45:08 1744206308

"Retaliatory tariffs" is one of those things I don't understand but I'm afraid to ask.

rsynnott · 2025-04-09T13:53:20 1744206800

When someone tariffs you, you tariff them right back (but typically _only_ them). This is how trade wars work, typically.

（评论） (comments)

（评论）
(comments)