“The big winner of this agreement is Donald Trump, we are in a quasi-resignation relationship in the United States”, judge Louis-Samuel Pilcer, senior official

At the end of a meeting in Scotland between the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and Donald Trump, President of the United States, Sunday, July 27, Brussels and Washington concluded a customs duties agreement, increased to 15% in Europe, against 10% so far. A figure far from the 30% that the US head of state threatened to European products imported across the Atlantic. To talk about it, the senior official Louis-Samuel Pilcer, lecturer at Sciences Po and the author of the book Economic sovereignty: analysis and strategiesAnswers Leïla Salhi’s questions, on the set of “La Matinale” on Monday, July 28.

This text corresponds to the transcription of part of the interview above. Click on the video to watch the maintenance in full.

Leïla Salhi: Donald Trump and Ursula von der Leyen both showed themselves very satisfied. Of course, it is diplomacy, but who is the big winner of this story?

Louis-Samuel Pilcer: The undeniable big winner is Donald Trump. This agreement is extremely unbalanced. There are 15 % customs duties on the one hand, also extremely strong commitments of the European Commission on European investments in the United States, also on the purchase of shale, LNG gas, which will be imported by the European Union in extremely large quantities: we are talking about 750 billion euros in natural gas purchases in the United States, and in return. Just a few sectoral exemptions, but which were also requested by the United States. I am thinking in particular of the aeronautics on which Boeing was extremely worried about taxes which could be applied to its purchases of components manufactured in Europe, therefore some concessions which allow the Germans in particular to avoid having very important taxes on their car exports to the United States. But, ultimately, no victory for the Commission. It is a capitulation in the rules. We only have concessions made by the Commission to Donald Trump. We go from 20 % to the threats that Donald Trump had made at the start of the year, at 15 %. Is it a victory? Objectively, I don’t think about the committee.

Donald Trump had still raised the auctions, with these customs duties, threatening by 30 %, by 80 %. Finally, in the end, it is the victory of the Trump method, namely ‘Business First’? Did he win this showdown? Does it work?

Undoubtedly. And besides, what we can also see is that the method that is applied by Trump works with Europe, because we are in a quasi-submission relationship today in the United States. On the other hand, it does not work at all with China. When we get back in arms with Donald Trump, Trump respects the strength. Trump, on the other hand, when he sees a Ursula von der Leyen ready to accept anything to avoid having 30 %, 40 % customs duties, and to obtain some minimal sectoral exemptions, there, he does not hesitate to walk on it.

Why ultimately this difference?

I think that the main weakness of the European Union is its division. That is to say, we have member states which have extremely opposite interests. Moreover, as we have seen, the two countries most invested in negotiations and rejoice in the agreement, it is Germany and Italy. Germany, which exports enormously to the United States: we are talking about more than 80 billion euros per year. And Italy, which exports about 40 billion euros per year. We also have Ireland, which is a large exporter. But behind, France, for example, performs a trade deficit with Washington. So we have on the one hand member states that lose in transatlantic trade and on the other, member states whose even economic model is based on exports to the United States. And therefore Italy and Germany are extremely invested to obtain an agreement, even if it means accepting extremely indecent commitments of the European Union. On the other hand, France and other European countries, I think, are not satisfied with this agreement. We think in particular at the French level, at the National Council of Industry, which adopted an opinion calling for a firm position. This opinion, obviously, was not heard, and I think that France has failed to weigh on the positions that were held by Brussels.

Aude Soufi-Burridge: This is why Emmanuel Macron, he campaigned for firmness until the last moment. Moreover, again this morning, the Minister responsible for Europe, Benjamin Haddad, says that it is an unbalanced agreement, like you. But ultimately, it’s a bit easy, precisely, when you are France and you have little to lose, to advocate firmness, inflexibility, and much less when you are Germany and you know that the risk is more important?

Louis-Samuel Pilcer: But France still has a lot to lose in this agreement, in particular according to the estimates which are carried out by the Institute, the European Think Tank, Bruegel. France is one of the countries that loses the most in this unbalanced agreement. Then, it is true that Germany has enormously involved in this negotiation, but the position consisting in sacrificing French industry to offer a respite to Germany on its exports to the United States, I think that it is not a tenable position and it is not a perennial position for the European Union. Finally, moreover, this agreement, beyond the interests of the Member States, is also quite unacceptable in terms of what it understands as incompatible commitments with our climate commitments, in particular on the purchase of LNG. I did the calculation before arriving this morning: 750 billion euros in purchases of imported meats from the United States, it is about 40 times what France matters in American meats in one year. It is totally incompatible with our climate commitments. We are unable to hold our decarbonation trajectory while buying all this natural gas in the United States.

Click on the video to watch the maintenance in full.