Trump prevails in Europe

"I think this is the biggest deal ever made," Trump told reporters after an hour-long meeting with von der Leyen, who said the 15% tariff applied "across the board".

"We have a trade deal between the two largest economies in the world, and it's a big deal. It's a huge deal. It will bring stability. It will bring predictability," she said.

The deal, which also includes $600 billion of EU investments in the United States and $750 billion of EU purchases of U.S. energy over Trump's second term, will indeed bring clarity for EU companies.

TDS mumps eat your crow!

How can extorting your key trading partners be seen as a good move? Maybe it gives the US a short-term boost, but your master Trump is not going to live forever. Surely, some reasonable agreement could be made, like mutual tariffs and an agreement to trade with each other less over time, instead of creating bad will.

The EU must start phasing out Big Tech so that there is no trade deficit (given that they are somehow classified as services). These companies are like locusts that steal people's personal information to sell it back to the country of origin. At the very least, they should be paying for any of this information in a controlled manner that protects individual identity.

SB

As per norml you are mentally retarded in your beliefs. Europe was benefittig from trade with the USA on a basis that is really unbelievable and that is why a trade del was what was misisng since the 1990's to level the playing field and that is why Trump was insisting on a trade deal with the EU that would benefit both parties and not only the EU countries,

The EU must start phasing out Big Tech so that there is no trade deficit (given that they are somehow classified as services). These companies are like locusts that steal people's personal information to sell it back to the country of origin. At the very least, they should be paying for any of this information in a controlled manner that protects individual identity.

So you want China to take over that fuction and made the EU totally dependent on that issue with the Chinese, A really misconstrued statement. A total BS idea to be quite frank based on a pipedream about individual identity, .

At the same time the US spent billions on keeping 100 000 troops in Europe to defend the EU counties - while for many years the EU countries and especially the NATO members tried to get away with murder, They neglected defense expenditure to minimal amounts of military expenditure ranging from 1.75% to 2,5% of GDP and that force NATO to 5% of GDP while the US rate is now 6% of he GDP. That has an impact on the trade deficit with Europe. ,

Ah, the big bad China side tracking. At the moment, China is not the one forcing a trade deal on Europe.

Reminder, the picture of the trade relationship was grossly distorted by the Trump administration omitting services. So the trade relationship is not being balanced out, it is being made more imbalanced than it was before but this time, in favour of the US.

Things are going to build up from that point in Europe. The EU was unable to fight for their best interests (which is going to be perceived as a sign of weakness by the Trump administration more than liberals usually do. It is a point now known about Trump) And it will appear once again how racism is essential to liberal countries as they use it to ease internal social tension.

Not extorting just leveling the playing field. In my youth I ran the international division of a US company. Even our distributors were limiting the products they would import, despite there being no written laws preventing it.

It does mean that US companies pay 15% extra than global market rates for imports.

It is not as if lots of people from Europe are going to start buying American cars.

$1.35 trillion of investments and purchases should do nicely. ButShark under the clueless governments leading Europe you won’t be buying European cars either, you will be going Chinese. It’s hard to find a more insane act of self destruction than Europe’s actions on the car industry.

Naturally there is a flood of negativity about the deal on the news this morning. And one rather interesting point came up, the energy side of the deal would imply that the US would supply the lion share of Europe’s carbon energy needs. The question was raised as to how one gets a deal done with Russia if much of their market is gone….which I thought was a rather good point. Interesting times ahead.

And what? China's car industry is recent and is not burdened by combustion engine heritage. Which means that their electric cars offer valuable innovation. US American cars do not align with European markets' needs. The suicide act comes from the brainless alignment with the US over decades, dismissing peculiar European countries' best interests. China, contrary to the US, does not trade much ideology. It is the danger of trading, trade goods are culturally loaded. China's goods are not neutral from a cultural point of view but they are way less loaded than the US trade goods. The US trade heavily in ideology.

As a reminder, the US history has been heavily shaped by the question of loyalty since the founders' time. The founders were obsessed with loyalty to the US government, they lived in fear that European populations may prefer their society over the US society. Up to now, the Trump administration has been full force on the loyalty matter. They keep questioning loyalty of this or that segment of the US population; As a consequence, for example, blacks in the US can not be assimilated because their loyalty to the US makes no sense, no matter how hard the signs of loyalty they keep showing. They always will be looked at suspiciously as they have been screwed for generations and incidently, are not expected to be loyal to the US.

This demand for loyalty explains why the US has embraced racism, the white race thing because they used to undermine loyalty to European countries. People were no longer supposed to be German, French, English, they were supposed to be white and the US the land of the free (which in those days meant the land of the white people) The US are not a nation as it is understood in Europe, the US was built on the race concept, there is nothing like being an American. It does not exist.

This is what is killing Europe at the moment. Europe's history is the antithesis of the white race mantra. People in Europe never were white people. The requirement to perceive oneself as white people is what is destroying Europe at the moment. European countries have been importing a software meant to destroy the various european social fabrics. Anytime a Bulgarian considers themselves a white person over being a bulgarian, the bulgarian society is receding. Same for every place in Europe.

The association with the US is what is killing European nations at the moment, not importing cars from China.

It does mean that US companies pay 15% extra than global market rates for imports.

It is not as if lots of people from Europe are going to start buying American cars.

Europe is toast. The US have been running a business of farming the poor and extorting the weak. And as it was announced (and therefore predicted) on this board, all this circus of trade deals is an opportunity to know the current hierarchy in coercion by the US. The trade deals are mostly influenced by the US capacity to coerce their counter side. And the EU is down in the list, there will be other countries below the EU, but not so many and what countries, the rag tag of the world probably.

As to who is going to foot the bill of the tariff farce, trade may be represented as a center and a periphery. Quite often, the central hub of consumption gets a discount on the back of the periphery and the periphery provides discounts to the central hub of consumption at their own expense.

The projection that the US customers are going to eat the increase is very suspicious. The free press is mostly dedicated to propaganda so there is very little chance they evoke alternate and much likely scenarios like this one. European companies will first report they take the blunt by eating their margin, they will not report on the US customers the full increase due to the tariff debacle. But they will not do that, they will transfer the cost of their policy on European customers by raising prices on European cars to recoup what European companies are forced to yield on the US market.

Indeed, the US car offer does not match the european markets' needs which means European customers will not buy US cars on other grounds than pricing. They will buy European cars in an effort to prop up their car industry that has already sold them out to the US. European customers are going to subsidize the US customers. US customers will not suffer from the tariff because the cost of them will be transferred on European customers who will buy european cars at an increased in order to recoup the money the european car companies will not earn on the US market due to the tariff increase.

In the global liberal world, European citizens are second class citizens.

Liberals must recolonise Africa and make it great again. We are sending Trump to survey the land and property later this year to initiate the process.

We are short of funds, and we need more dollars, pounds and euro's flowing into our bank accounts, so in summary we need to reliberalise Africa

Liberals do as they want. Liberals are on the path of killing hundreds of millions people, their options not doing so are running scarce.

It is a mentality wide spread in criminal societies. When benefiting from a crime, people must pipe down.

Liberals can recolonize Africa, they can drop nuclear bombs on China, in the end, liberals do as they are.

Trump went to Scotland to attend a NATO meeting - the leaders of countries suddenly all had a meeting in Scotland.

I certainly agree with what Trump said about Europe, it is getting decimated by immigration.... just no control at all

The longer these migrant boats and excessive immigration is permitted, the worse it is going to get in the very near future.

I genuinely still believe that many places in Europe are literally sitting on a powder keg and it is going to take another small criminal incident to cause a huge outcry, probably leading to more race riots

It is ridiculous just how many countries are alllowing this uncontrolled immigration to completely take over.

What is also extremely apparent, it's that Black on White crime is not making the mainstream media, and hasn't been for a long time now, but let anything happen where it's a White on Black issue, and it's national news...... it's a disgrace

The deal, which also includes $600 billion of EU investments in the United States and $750 billion of EU purchases of U.S. energy over Trump's second term.

$1.35 trillion of investments and purchases should do nicely

You didn't twig it yet? That $1.35 trillion wasn't part of any deal. Shows again you fundamentally do not understand what the EU is by parroting this line. The EU could never offer or sign a deal stipulating it spends X amount of money buying imports or investing in whatever country because that's not how the EU works. As an institution it doesn't have that money to spend itself and it does not dictate to private European companies where and when they should spend their money.

That figure was simply a best estimate on what EU companies already intended to spend over next few years investing/importing from the US. Now you can debate whether Trump's public messages and threats of tariffs has encouraged European companies to invest more in the US (difficult to say) but these headline figures aren't something Trump won as part of direct negotiations between the US and EU, it's simply the EU either tricking Trump like Canada did earlier in the year or Trump is aware of it but doesn't care as he can still sell as a win back home.

Even at that the spending on energy estimates seems really off. Given the EU's total spending on energy €375.9 billion last year, (€76 billion was US imports) I don't think Europe has presently the need for so much additional energy from the US, their is also a question of does the US have the ability to actually provide so much additionally energy as well. Again energy is purchased by private companies as business demands require, the requirements actually dropped last year due to a milder winter. Even allowing for the complete removal of Russian energy from the EU market which only amounts to €18.3 billion last year that's and additional energy growth demands in Europe, still would seem like a massive glut of surplus energy. I suppose the EU could drop other suppliers, such as Kazakhstan, Australia, Algeria and Columbia (they absolutely will not drop Norway or Cyprus) but that would seem to go against their stated goals of energy diversification. The EU has no problems purchasing energy from the US but after what happened with Russia why would it want to become overly reliant on a single country for its energy supply again?

On the other hand Trump can claim credit for getting the EU to accept a general tariff rate of 15%. In Europe the reaction to this has been at best "this is the making the best of a no win situation" to "its a complete capitulation" with strong criticism of Von Der Leyen.

On the critical side, we have various politicians and commentators saying the EU response at the start was too tepid and a more China like response was required, being much more vocal about counter tariffs and the threat of using its anti coercion legislation (the so called trade Bazooka). The idea that while this would of inflicted pain on the EU for a period, the pain inflicted on the US would of forced Trump to chicken out like he did with China. They also argue the Trump administration are simply not trust worthy, may attempt to alter the deal or not honour it and will simply be encouraged to come back with more demands in the future.

On the side of this is the best of bad deal, it avoids a damaging trade war but a lot of people are speculating that Ukraine is the reason they EU took the deal. They want to keep Trump sweet in order not to jeopardise weapon sales to Europe which in turn can be given to Ukraine and also to say to Trump, hey why would you want to give Putin a favourable deal against European wishes when Europe is worth so much more to the US in terms of trade. It's also an acknowledgement that the EU is and will remain dependent on US arm supplies in the short to medium term. The EU also didn't have access to China's trump card of rare earth/metals.

Also parts of the deal seems to be already in dispute. In the area of pharmaceuticals the US are saying the 15% tariff starts on August 1st. The EU are saying their will be no tariffs on pharmaceuticals until after the US concludes an investigation.

As for the 50% tariff on aluminium and copper, the US states that will remain in place. The EU said that the 50% tariff only takes affect when a quota which is yet to be determined is exceeded.

Despite the US saying the EU agreed to purchases of US military equipment, the EU are saying no commitments were made. Again this makes sense as the EU does not dictate member states spending

on defence.

The US also said they were working with the EU to reduce no tariff barriers on agricultural products going into the EU. The EU said their was no change in their position.

The US also mentioned working with the EU to reduced what it calls unjustified digital barriers. The EU in its read out of the negotiations didn't even mention this.

Ultimately this deal (which is a not a full deal but a framework deal yet to be ratified by EU member states) is not a win for either side. Europe will sell less to the US and long term will be encouraged to diversify away from the US as much as feasibly possible. In the US the consumer will have less choice, face higher prices and increased inflation. The tariffs will not bring in the revenue needed to offset US spending and its debt mountain will continue to climb.

If America buys American, we need to buy European. We dont need McDonald's, Burger King or KFC to turn us into American consumers.

I would agree that Trump has used the Putin/Ukraine conflict as a means to gain a better deal. Had it not been wartime, it would have been more difficult to secure such a deal.

It seems fine that Europe pick up the tab for the remaining support of Ukraine, because the war is closer to home, and also that America has been funding too much of NATO in the last 40 years or so.

Europe has allowed American monopolies to enter its markets and close down competition. If, for example, American social media companies were blocked, new local, homegrown social media networks would emerge. It is more of a user base problem than technology.

I certainly agree with what Trump said about Europe, it is getting decimated by immigration.... just no control at all

I certainly don't. Europe will be decimated without immigration as pretty much every country in Europe has a birth rate too low for population growth. No control...the vast majority is controlled, legal immigration accounts for the overwhelming amount of immigration into Europe with 2024 figures showing the share of legal to irregular migration at 95% to 5%. Now you can argue the numbers of people legally entering Europe is too high, but that doesn't change the fact it is controlled immigration. This narrative also ignores that for the last few years European countries have enacted increasingly stricter rules to immigrant to their countries. Overall immigration into Europe dropped last year.

The longer these migrant boats and excessive immigration is permitted, the worse it is going to get in the very near future.

Migrant boats now account for most of the irregular immigration but the total number of irregular immigrants in the EU is less than 1% of the EU's population and under 5-7% of the total immigrant population of Europe.

If you want to argue that immigration is excessive your perfectly entitled to do so but the reality is lowering immigration will create problems of its own. Europe's population even with immigration is expected to drop by 2100. Our entire economic model is based on population growth. If you lower or stop immigration it will lead to lower productivity, less people to fill important roles like doctors, nurses, less people who are net contributors to a countries finances. As the percentage of the population living longer increases and fewer work people to support them, where do you propose we get the money to support them? Raise taxes on the increasingly fewer people working? A countries resources are not fixed, less people doesn't mean their is more money to go around. A countries resources are directly linked to productivity, a smaller workforce means less resources to go round.

I genuinely still believe that many places in Europe are literally sitting on a powder keg and it is going to take another small criminal incident to cause a huge outcry, probably leading to more race riots

The powder keg is being created by populists and grifters who prey on peoples fear. Again the vast majority of research conducted in both the US and Europe show immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than the local population because they are at risk of the double punishment of imprisonment followed by deportation.

It is ridiculous just how many countries are alllowing this uncontrolled immigration to completely take over.

It's not uncontrolled, it is controlled. You not liking the numbers does not make it uncontrolled. Complete take over?... the EU population is around 450 million, with around 62.6 million being immigrants (17.9 million of which are immigrants from other EU/European countries). So about 9.9% of the EU's population are born outside of Europe. Not exactly screaming a complete take over it me.

What is also extremely apparent, it's that Black on White crime is not making the mainstream media, and hasn't been for a long time now, but let anything happen where it's a White on Black issue, and it's national news...... it's a disgrace

No evidence to support such a claim. Few countries in Europe actual record crimes committed by race, the UK being one of the few and in the UK it was found black people and people of minorities were considerably more likely to be investigated and charged with crimes than white people. The percentage of white people convicted for crimes in the UK is lower than the percentage of white people living in UK, while for black people they are convicted at over 3 times the percentage they make up of the population.

Ultimately this deal (which is a not a full deal but a framework deal yet to be ratified by EU member states) is not a win for either side. Europe will sell less to the US and long term will be encouraged to diversify away from the US as much as feasibly possible.

From the Woke bible….the Guardian:

Technically the European Commission has the mandate to press ahead with the deal, but it has sought consensus backing from member states throughout the past four months and this is not expected to change.

It expects a “relatively light” joint statement to emerge before, or on Friday, followed by executive orders issued by Trump.

This will give legal status to the 15% tariff rates immediately in the US but the EU suite of tariff changes will not come into force until legal instruments have been signed, which may take longer than a week.

The German bank Berenberg said the deal brought to an end the “crippling uncertainty” but said it was a victory for Trump.

“It is great to have a deal. In two major respects, however, the outcome remains much worse than the situation before Trump started his new round of trade wars early this year,” said Holger Schmieding, Berenberg’s chief economist.

“The extra US tariffs will hurt both the US and the EU. For Europe, the damage is mostly front-loaded,” Schmieding said in a note to clients on Monday morning.

“The deal is asymmetric. The US gets away with a substantial increase in its tariffs on imports from the EU and has secured further EU concessions to boot. In his apparent zero-sum mentality, Trump can claim that as a ‘win’ for him,” Schmieding added.

The Italian bank UniCredit also said Trump had got the better of the EU. “Is this a good deal for the EU? Probably not. The outcome is heavily asymmetrical, and it leaves US tariffs on imported EU goods at much higher levels than EU tariffs on imports from the US,” UniCredit said in a note to clients.

You didn't twig it yet? That $1.35 trillion wasn't part of any deal. Shows again you fundamentally do not understand what the EU is by parroting this line. The EU could never offer or sign a deal stipulating it spends X amount of money buying imports or investing in whatever country because that's not how the EU works. As an institution it doesn't have that money to spend itself and it does not dictate to private European companies where and when they should spend their money.

…

Nobody in his right mind thought the European Union was itself going to make these expenditures and investments. But I rather suspect you did given you even raise this silly point. This is a commitment to enable these things through policy and an estimate of what that might be worth.

Here’s some discussion of the similar commitment by Japan:

There are similar questions around Japan’s pledge to invest $550 billion in the U.S., a move that Trump heralded as unprecedented. A White House official confirmed that details were still being worked out on the Japan deal.

“It would effectively be an investment vehicle funded by Japan that would be deployed, at the president’s direction, to fund investment in sectors of importance,” said the official, who was given anonymity to discuss details of the deal not yet made public. “This is not a mere commitment for Japan to purchase commodities or Japanese companies to steer investments worth $550 billion into the U.S. It’s Japan fronting the cash to finance most likely private sector projects.”

That’s not exactly how Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba described it in a press conference late last week, where he said the money would include “loans and investments” but did not elaborate further, pending a report from Minister of State for Economic and Fiscal Policy Ryosei Akazawa.

“The $550 billion — we still don’t know how it looks,” Kristi Govella, Japan Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank, said in an interview. “On the Japanese side, it seems to be described as more of a company-led endeavor that the Japanese government supports with loans and other assistance.”

……..

So if you are a Royal Dutch executive, given the statement of intent, do you invest in Venezuela or the US?

From the Woke bible….the Guardian:

And?

Focus on this Anger:

The deal is asymmetric. The US gets away with a substantial increase in its tariffs on imports from the EU and has secured further EU concessions to boot. In his apparent zero-sum mentality, Trump can claim that as a ‘win’ for him,” Schmieding added.

The Italian bank UniCredit also said Trump had got the better of the EU. “Is this a good deal for the EU? Probably not.

Nobody in his right mind thought the European Union was itself going to make these expenditures and investments. But I rather suspect you did given you even raise this silly point. This is a commitment to enable these things through policy and an estimate of what that might be worth.

My arse you didn't. So its a commitment to enable these things through policy...alright then what policies, because no where was anyone talking about policies when this deal was announced. You're just making stuff up.

Quote from Politco.eu

The Commission has not said it will introduce any incentives to ensure the private sector meets that $600 billion target, nor given a precise timeframe for the investment.

the $600 billion figure was "based on detailed discussions with different business associations and companies in order to see what their investment intentions are."

Again the $600 billion figure was an estimate of what European businesses already intended to sell into the US. No where is it mentioned that any sort of policy change was needed for that intended investment. The EU has no actual way of forcing private companies to invest their money anywhere.

Focus on this Anger:

The deal is asymmetric. The US gets away with a substantial increase in its tariffs on imports from the EU and has secured further EU concessions to boot. In his apparent zero-sum mentality, Trump can claim that as a ‘win’ for him,” Schmieding added.

The Italian bank UniCredit also said Trump had got the better of the EU. “Is this a good deal for the EU? Probably no

And this contradicts this statement I already made in the first post how?

On the other hand Trump can claim credit for getting the EU to accept a general tariff rate of 15%.

Also note this from the article you quoted.

“The extra US tariffs will hurt both the US and the EU. For Europe, the damage is mostly front-loaded,” Schmieding said in a note to clients on Monday morning.

You basically just posted an article that agrees/support what I said.

So ‘I agree with what you said’ which means you agree with what I said?

Oh so you agree that ‘Trump got the better of the EU’ and ‘Trump can claim credit for getting the EU to accept a general tariff of 15%’

in other words game Trump….thanks I never thought you’d be honest enough to admit it. Don’t tell your woke friends though, they may cancel you’…..waaahahahaha!

As for the investments that have been counted and the oil purchases that are planned. If you don’t think the EU acknowledging those commitments makes a huge difference you don’t understand big business. But then that’s not surprising you have zero experience in policy making have you… hahaha!

Oh so you agree that ‘Trump got the better of the EU’ and ‘Trump can claim credit for getting the EU to accept a general tariff of 15%’

Yes, was that not clear in my post. He scored a clear victory over the EU in regards tariffs. He got to raise tariffs on them but they did not raise any in return.

in other words game Trump….thanks I never thought you’d be honest enough to admit it. Don’t tell your woke friends though, they may cancel you’…..waaahahahaha!

What is with your obsession with tennis analogies. I have in the past credited him before such as with the Abraham Accords, his role in getting Biden's ceasefire in Gaza over the line. You see unlike you, both I and my woke friends actual live in reality and don't deny it when it suits us. That said it still doesn't change my or my woke friends opinion that Trumps overall tariff economic plan is batshit and harmful to both the US and world economy.

Tell me are you concerned with the US national debt. I mean if you weren't then why would you have an issue with the US having trade deficits with the likes of the EU. Do you actually believe Trumps BBB will generate enough economic growth in the US combined with the savings dodge are claiming, along with the money earned from tariffs that it will start to reverse the national debt or least halt its rise?

Also just asking for my woke friends...what were those policies the EU committed to enable that $1.35 billion investment into the US...cause I don't know if you noticed but you didn't answer.

If you don’t think the EU acknowledging those commitments makes a huge difference you don’t understand big business. But then that’s not surprising you have zero experience in policy making have you… hahaha!

Are you going keep digging that hole or you going name the policies the EU was supposedly going to enact to facilitate this European investment into the US?

Well now that’s amusing. After dumping on the US for even talking about not fulfilling non binding agreements in the Ukraine, you are now suggesting Europe could just walk away from these agreements.

Well I’ll tell you how they will be enforced, exactly the way they were created. If Europe isn’t serious Trump will simply ratchet up the tariffs again to get them to make a serious attempt. It worked the first time as you admit, and it would work again.

But while the timing and scale may be a reach I have enough regard for European integrity to think a serious effort will be made by member countries. These commitments will hang over every relevant foreign capital deal and every energy deal.

‘’Chat summed it up nicely:

‘While the trade deal is real as a policy initiative, the scale of its energy and investment elements remain aspirational. If it leads to even a fraction of that activity, it could still be significant—particularly for U.S. strategic and manufacturing sectors’

Another Trump success..

Well now that’s amusing. After dumping on the US for even talking about not fulfilling non binding agreements in the Ukraine, you are now suggesting Europe could just walk away from these agreements.

How could I suggest the EU walk away from an agreement they couldn't possibly have made in the first place.

Well I’ll tell you how they will be enforced, exactly the way they were created. If Europe isn’t serious Trump will simply ratchet up the tariffs again to get them to make a serious attempt. It worked the first time as you admit, and it would work again.

So I've given you three chances to name the policies and of course you can't because there was never any discussion of policies during the negotiations, its something you grasped out of thin air to try to distract from how gullible you are. The EU can't force private companies to spend their money in a certain manner, if those private European companies don' reach those estimates which I have no doubt the EU gave in relatively good faith, its nothing to do with the EU and if Trump threatens to raise tariffs then I hope the EU responds with all means at its disposal. I expect Trump will come back for more regardless.

But while the timing and scale may be a reach I have enough regard for European integrity to think a serious effort will be made by member countries. These commitments will hang over every relevant foreign capital deal and every energy deal.

Integrity...lol a person shilling for Trump talking about integrity...don't make me laugh. It's nothing to do with European integrity, its just what's best for business, I would of thought you'd know that by now. What company did you run, Ignorance and Hubris Incorporated, specialists in the field of deliberately going bankrupt?, Private companies will do what they think is best for themselves. If they think the best value investment is in the US they will invest in the US. If they think the money is better spelt elsewhere they will do that. I will repeat this for you because you seem a bit slow on the uptake, there was no commitments given in regards EU investment into the US and purchases of American imports like LNG.

‘’Chat summed it up nicely:

‘While the trade deal is real as a policy initiative, the scale of its energy and investment elements remain aspirational. If it leads to even a fraction of that activity, it could still be significant—particularly for U.S. strategic and manufacturing sectors’

Another Trump success..

ChatGPT

during the recent US-EU trade negotiations, did the EU announce any specific policies it would enact to enable European companies to spend 1.35 trillion dollars investing in the US or on importing US products?

During the most recent U.S.–EU trade negotiations culminating in late July 2025, there was no European Union announcement of specific domestic policies obligating or enabling EU firms collectively to invest US $1.35 trillion in the U.S. or import U.S. products.

What the Deal Actually Involved

1. The European Commission, represented by President Ursula von der Leyen, pledged that EU companies would increase investment in the U.S. by around US $600 billion over three years, and that the EU would spend about US $750 billion on U.S. energy and military equipment by 2028InvestopediaThe WeekReutersNew York PostMarketWatch.
2. The headline number of US $1.35 trillion referred to the sum of the energy purchases plus projected investment commitments—not a legally binding policy or legislative program to direct European companies to spend that amountThe Financial ExpressNew York PostBarron'sMarketWatch.

EU’s Position on Implementation

1. The EU emphasized these figures were non-binding private?sector intentions, not statutory obligations. Regulatory authority over investment resides with individual member states and private companies, not the Commission, meaning the Commission could not mandate such investment centrallyReutersMarketWatchReuters.
2. Analysts and EU officials raised concerns over the vague and aspirational nature of these commitments, with no enforcement mechanism or legal backingReutersBarron'sMarketWatch.

So: Did the EU Announce Policies to Enable €1.35 trillion Outflows?

No. The EU did not adopt any concrete legislative, fiscal, or regulatory action to compel European firms to make those investments or purchases. What was presented were high-level headline numbers used for political signalling in the negotiations—but without binding legal arrangements or mandatory spending policies enforced across member states.

___________

Now in addition to dodging the question on what EU policies would enforce/enable/encourage EU companies to spend all that money investing in the US or on purchasing American products I noticed you also the didn't answer the question on whether you think Trump's economic plans will bring down the US debt mountain?

All that blather just shows how gullible you are. Do you honestly think the European Union signed this deal without consulting member countries. And do you honestly think smart operators like Bessent never considered implementation and possible outs? Seriously how naive can you get.

This is an agreement with Europe which has established an intent. It doesn’t guarantee anything but it vastly improves the US negotiating position, which was already strong enough to set up 15% European tariffs. All the anti Trumper journalists who have no grasp of business are trying desperately to come up with arguments as to why this isn’t a huge success.

As for how the EU would enable the deal, they don’t have to, they have signed the deal on behalf of member states. Those countries are bound by the deal. And presumably some of the same actions Japan is contemplating might be part of the mix.

If any country fails to act in the spirit of that agreement it would be up to the EU to put pressure on that country directly or via other member states. And if it didn’t Trump would be at liberty to create that pressure. And you know he will.

As for Trump’s policies with regard to debt….nice diversion. Set up a string on that if you are really interested and I’ll try to help.

.

.

If you want to argue that immigration is excessive your perfectly entitled to do so but the reality is lowering immigration will create problems of its own

I agree with a lot of your points, but that still won't sway my opinion on where this migration is ultimately heading and ending up.

Simple things like GP appointment times ....or housing and other issues

For instance, pre - 2015 the average wait for a GP appointment was 1 - 2 days, it is now over two weeks

Reasons, population growth, where just England have added 4 million people since 2014, and of that 4 million, 60% were from migration.

Fewer doctors per capita in the EU also contributed to this problem, but so did the heavy increase in the ER for preventable conditions from immigrants like TB, Mental Health etc etc which is expected.

The waiting list of people to see a medical specialist was 3 million in 2014 vs 7.6 million people now.

In Dublin, you could wait 18 + months now to see a specialist, with 1 in 4 people on a waiting list.

Ireland's population grew by 800 000 people since 2014, the highest in EU per capita

Sure, Manchester is not as bad as London or Birmingham, but there is a very clear problem.

Back in 2023, 40% of the Asylum seekers in England were housed in London

In Dublin, where you wait 18 - 24 months for a specialist, 60% of the Asylum seekers live there, but in Cork, you only wait 6 - 12 months due to less Asylum seekers being there, but it is still an issue.

According to stats, there is a 30% longer waiting time for hospital admissions in high migrant areas.

In London, 50% of the drug arrests in 2024 were Albanians

Between 2020 - 2023 the 25% increase in assaults was linked to migrant gangs

In a 2023 Birmingham report, 28% of all knife crime was from migrants

In Ireland's North inner cities, 40% of the arrests involved non-Irish people in 2023

The problem I have with this whole system is that specifically Africa itself, creates it own continuous problem, that the rest of the world must always sort out.... and I ask why?

There are obviously other countries that contribute to this problem, but with this point I am referring to the African contintent

For instance, the projection for African population growth by 2050 is another 2.5 billion people, and what will this do..... all it will do is drive migration up around the world from now until then... both legally and illegally.

It's the same reason why I get upset when South African officials like Ramaphosa fly to the US seeking financial support and assistance, when Ramaphosa himself has done absolutely nothing to curb, stem or halt any of his own people from plundering billions of rands from the South African people, but go begging for more money from other countries.

I get the overall benefits of migration, but I also believe that the overall negatives will soon become irreversable for a lot of countries..... especially those losing so much of their values and customs.

It's not uncontrolled, it is controlled. You not liking the numbers does not make it uncontrolled. Complete take over?.

You liking or accepting the numbers does not mean it is controlled.

No evidence to support such a claim. Few countries in Europe actual record crimes committed by race, the UK being one of the few and in the UK it was found black people and people of minorities were considerably more likely to be investigated and charged with crimes than white people. The percentage of white people convicted for crimes in the UK is lower than the percentage of white people living in UK, while for black people they are convicted at over 3 times the percentage they make up of the population.

I was actually referring to worldwide here , so I could have been a bit more clear on that point, and unfortunately, there is nothing at all that anyone can tell me or show me that will change my mind on this specific issue..... almost all over the world, the White man is shown as the problem....the White is made to feel guilty or embarrased for just being White.....and these latest attacks in the US were prime examples of that..... when not one single leading news outlet ran the story of the two White people who got horribly attacked by a Black mob, with the woman getting knocked out..... and it is something I see daily, so nobody will convince me otherwise..... but when it is White on Black...... it goes to another level.

There are just far too many examples of the completely different approaches to crimes that are committed around the world between the different races, because people and news media outlets are far too scared to be called racist for printing or running with the story, which is ridiculous.

Now this specific story seems to be getting a bit of traction, but only because certain people have been asking why it was never covered to begin with, espcially because it went so viral...

All that blather just shows how gullible you are. Do you honestly think the European Union signed this deal without consulting member countries. And do you honestly think smart operators like Bessent never considered implementation and possible outs? Seriously how naive can you get.

I wasn't the one who mindlessly parroted their was a deal signed that include $1.35 worth of EU investments and purchases of American products.

Member states were kept informed during negotiations though that doesn't mean they knew every single detail of what was negotiated. Georgia Meloni when asked for an immediate reaction to the deal, said she cautiously welcomed it but needed to see the details before fully judging it. However I'm sure member states had absolutely no issue with the EU telling Trump about intended private EU companies investment and purchase intentions in the US over the next few years, because it was absolutely no skin off their nose and in no way committed them to do anything.

ROFL Scott Bessent such a smart operator he's on record about negotiating with the EU "When I call Europe, who do I call?"...emmm how about the EU Trade Commissioner.

This is an agreement with Europe which has established an intent.

The intent was already there on part of the private EU companies before this framework deal

As for how the EU would enable the deal, they don’t have to, they have signed the deal on behalf of member states. Those countries are bound by the deal. And presumably some of the same actions Japan is contemplating might be part of the mix.

Technically no deal has been signed yet, but when its signed the EU countries will be bound by the tariffs part which is part of the EU's competency. There is nothing in the deal requiring EU countries to make private businesses in their countries spend money on US products and investments.

If any country fails to act in the spirit of that agreement it would be up to the EU to put pressure on that country directly or via other member states. And if it didn’t Trump would be at liberty to create that pressure. And you know he will.

The EU countries will abide by what they legally obligated to abide by, not some fantasy in you or Trumps head.

As for Trump’s policies with regard to debt….nice diversion. Set up a string on that if you are really interested and I’ll try to help.

Oh surpise you won't answer...just like danced around the question of what policies the EU was supposed to have considered to enable all that expenditure into the US.

For instance, pre - 2015 the average wait for a GP appointment was 1 - 2 days, it is now over two weeks

That's correct.

Reasons, population growth, where just England have added 4 million people since 2014, and of that 4 million, 60% were from migration.

No that's not the reason, though your population growth numbers for England are right as is the 60% of that growth being driven by immigration.

What happened since 2016 is there has been a decline in the number of GP's with 1,094 less GP's working in full time employment now than back in 2015, but when you look at GP partners, there is actually 6,200 less than 2015.

The number of patients in England has not increased by 4 million since 2015, its actually gone up by 6.9 million. So even if were to say that immigrants use GP's at the same rate as native people that would only account for just under 35% of patient growth.

But here's the kicker, immigrants don't use medical services at the same rate as native people do, they use them less. With a survey by the Health Foundation putting their usage rates at around 40% lower than native people. This is consistent with other surveys across Europe. Immigrants use medical services less, for various reasons such as lack of access rights, lack of insurance, communication difficulties and cultural stigma's.

But your argument here falls even further apart when you look at the last census numbers from 2021. 16.8% of England's population are immigrants but as of the same census in 2021 40.6% of GP's in England were immigrants.

I think it wouldn't be an exaggeration to state that without immigrants the UK's entire medical system would collapse. Immigration is literally propping the whole thing up. That also applies here to Ireland as well

Fewer doctors per capita in the EU also contributed to this problem, but so did the heavy increase in the ER for preventable conditions from immigrants like TB, Mental Health etc etc which is expected.

Yes TB rate are substantially higher among immigrants than the native population with 4 out of every 5 cases of it England affecting someone who was born outside of the UK. However with mental health issues immigrant only report issues at half the rate UK born residents though. Overall though it doesn't change that the best available information we have is that the immigrants use medical services overall at lower rates than than native citizens.

In Dublin, where you wait 18 - 24 months for a specialist, 60% of the Asylum seekers live there, but in Cork, you only wait 6 - 12 months due to less Asylum seekers being there, but it is still an issue.

Firstly the 60% figure doesn't seem to be supported by any any data but it makes sense that Dublin would have the highest rate of Asylum seekers. Its also hard to get numbers on how many asylum seekers there is in total in Ireland, but looking at the last 3 years the total requesting asylum in Ireland was 45,000 thousand. So lets say that 60% is accurate so that would be 27,000 asylum seekers in Dublin over the last 3 years. Dublin population is 1.3 million. Again from what I'm aware of Asylum seekers use medical services at lower rates than the native people in Ireland. The numbers simply don't add up to attribute the delays in seeking medical specialists to Asylum seekers.

According to stats, there is a 30% longer waiting time for hospital admissions in high migrant areas.

No evidence to support this in either the UK or Ireland.

Between 2020 - 2023 the 25% increase in assaults was linked to migrant gangs

Again no evidence to support this in either the UK or Ireland.

In London, 50% of the drug arrests in 2024 were Albanians

Again no evidence to support this. though Albanians are convicted of crimes at higher rates than the native population.

In a 2023 Birmingham report, 28% of all knife crime was from migrants

Again no figures support such a claim.

In Ireland's North inner cities, 40% of the arrests involved non-Irish people in 2023

Ireland north inner cities? What?...do you mean North inner Dublin?. Again no evidence to support that claim.

The problem I have with this whole system is that specifically Africa itself, creates it own continuous problem, that the rest of the world must always sort out.... and I ask why?

There are obviously other countries that contribute to this problem, but with this point I am referring to the African contintent

For instance, the projection for African population growth by 2050 is another 2.5 billion people, and what will this do..... all it will do is drive migration up around the world from now until then... both legally and illegally.

Just looking at the UK immigrants from Africa make around 10-12% of the total immigrants in the UK, in Ireland its between 8-10%. Europe in general its about 10-12% of total immigrants which is only just higher than the America's. , Its Asia that provide the vast bulk of immigrants into Europe at 40-45%. Immigration or Europeans between European states is also far higher than immigration from Africa.

I get the overall benefits of migration, but I also believe that the overall negatives will soon become irreversable for a lot of countries..... especially those losing so much of their values and customs.

I'm not saying there isn't issues with immigration but a lot of anti immigration agenda being driven by populists and grifters be they politicians or the media who are exaggerating or simply outright lying about the threats posed by immigrants.

You liking or accepting the numbers does not mean it is controlled.

It's not about liking or accepting, its about facts. The vast majority of immigration is legally recorded and controlled immigration.

there is nothing at all that anyone can tell me or show me that will change my mind on this specific issue.

Your basically saying evidence doesn't matter.

Stav

You get eveything wrong a gain. The leftist media and The Guardian remains to be your bible. In the meantime over the past six monhss attacked eveyrthing Trump did and the outcomes that you mention would happen have all turned out to be the exact opposite what you forecaset it would be.

Primarily Trump has not caused inflation - the inflation rate is down and the stock market are booming, I the EU countries' Governments did their best to destroy vehicle manufacturing and for three years now Germany is in recession.and the other countries all struggle with inflation and food problems for the poor. The act is the route Europe took in their economies are all going to hell and there is nothing the countries can or wabt to do about it,

Trump is despeaately tryng to save what remains of the fucked up EU countries and save hem from themselves, While in Germany V olkswagen fired 20 000 workers, in the USA 175 000 jobs have been created in the manufacturing industry and those are real jobs and not fraudulent statistics.put out by the Biden Regime. Biden most important achievement in job creation was by appointing 1 300 000 new public servants and they never went to office to do a days work - but were paid every month.their salaries, When that crooking came out the useless lot were fired and the Democrats went into hysteria copied by you and SB. Another 1 100 000 DIE appointments were added by Biden to the USDF. That weakened the USDF since they had to pay fruitless expenditure and coupled to corruption on management level the USDF was undermined by the Biden Regime.

Socialism and Communism does not work out in democracies and that is why in the last 25 years the EU contries are destroying their own economies, Leftist hoaxes is economically destructive as well.

, . . , . .

I wasn't the one who mindlessly parroted their was a deal signed that include $1.35 worth of EU investments and purchases of American products.

You’re right it was reported by Reuters……….The EU pledged to make $750 billion in strategic purchases, covering oil, liquefied natural gas (LNG) and nuclear technology during U.S. President Donald Trump's term in office.

This will come as a mix of spot purchases for oil, long-term contracts for LNG and government procurement for nuclear technology. The amount has been estimated on the basis of Europe's planned phase out of energy purchases from Russia.

The EU will also purchase 40 billion euros ($46 billion) of U.S. AI chips would be on top of the $750 billion.

* European companies are to invest $600 billion in the U.S. over the course of Trump's second term. Japan's package will consist of equity, loans and guarantees from state-run agencies of up to $550 billion to be invested at Trump's discretion, Tokyo says. EU officials, in contrast, said Europe's $600 billion investment pledge is based on the combined investment intentions expressed by European companies.

…….. ………..

The intent was already there on part of the private EU companies before this framework deal

Some maybe and it was not all committed. Quite easy in the light of tariffs to change those plans, to seek other partners as Europeans were bragging before the deal. Now they have been documented and committed in the deal.

The strategic investment part of the deal is a necessary insurance that the tariffs function properly…..more expensive to sell your goods in America and a commitment to invest in America to help limit those increased costs. Perfectly logical.

……..

Technically no deal has been signed yet, but when its signed the EU countries will be bound by the tariffs part which is part of the EU's competency. There is nothing in the deal requiring EU countries to make private businesses in their countries spend money on US products and investments.

Back to the same fatuous argument that identified projects aren’t more committed because they have been documented and agreed in the most consequential tariff agreement in EU history.

These companies are trying to do business in the US, we’re at various stages of making significant investments in the US. Their plans are now part of an international agreement. And you think they feel free to just walk away?

If they did that every US government contract and many private contracts would simply go to others.

The EU countries will abide by what they legally obligated to abide by, not some fantasy in you or Trumps head.

If true that would be the best case for busting up the whole EU enterprise. Their Union signs an agreement in good faith committing to certain actions and they just walk away.

….

Oh surpise you won't answer...just like danced around the question of what policies the EU was supposed to have considered to enable all that expenditure into the US.

No I said open up a string on the debt issue, this is a string on the trade deal….whatsaboutism when cornered ehhhh? As for the actions the EU will take if member countries flout their deal, I guess the pocket book would be the best avenue.

This Cambridge Study Extract outlines the general principle:

This Article argues that the cooperation obligations of the Member States under EU law are best understood as forming part of an overall duty of EU loyalty and elaborates on the consequences of framing it in this way. EU loyalty legally requires Member States to make the common EU interest their own. The Article further demonstrates that EU loyalty is more relevant and more stringently applied in EU external relations than within the EU legal order. Loyalty obligations of the Member States reach into the future, extend to hypothetical situations, and are at a comparatively high level of abstraction aimed to protect the Union's ability to act effectively on the international plane.

‘Make the common EU interests their own…..more stringently applied in external relations’. It seems like a clear case of this principle.

Sorry old chap, the idea that the EU can agree to these targets and then just throw up its arms and say ‘ sorry that’s not our problem’ is highly naive. Just another pathetic attempt to avoid admitting, despite the bold European talk a few weeks ago, Trump has totally achieved his objectives with Europe.

...but, but Epstein!

.

Your basically saying evidence doesn't matter.

Not at all, in fact far from it.....you're basically saying then that evidence is only what you yourself read about, which is most definitely isn't....unless you also agree that evidence can be so much more than that, which obviously could be different from what each person experiences.

I mean... for instance, how truthful or accurate has the evidence / media been in the last 5 - 10 years in particular, about sensitive topics or issues, of which this is definitely one ......it has been nothing short of abysmal in so many different ways, often reporting one dimensionally in so many different cases.

What about the evidence that happens around you on a daily basis..... what about what you physically interact with and see and read and personally experience and get involved with on a daily basis...... that to me.... is the actual real and untainted unbiased evidence..... and not the evidence that only certain news outlets want you to see...or read in a certain way.....often in ther own biased reporting.....and even then it's only when they feel like it suits their particular narrative and it's only on stories that they want to put out there, often times with only certain races involved, or only when certain races are the perpetrators ... that is fact.

So no, I never evade the truth or the evidence, nor do I believe that it just doesn't matter..... I just look a lot more closely at just how relevant and accurate that "evidence" is and from where it comes from.

You’re right it was reported by Reuters……….

Okay your in the company of news media that also just mindlessly/lazily reported the Trump administration version of events before checking the details more thoroughly.

Some maybe and it was not all committed. Quite easy in the light of tariffs to change those plans, to seek other partners as Europeans were bragging before the deal. Now they have been documented and committed in the deal.

All of it was already pre-intended, the EU simply asked EU private business what they were intending to spend on US imports and what they intended to invest in the US over the next few years they then gave that number to Trump who took it as something he won. I will repeat again as you still seem to struggle to grasp the fact there was no commitment made, there couldn't possible have been a commitment made because the EU does not dictate were private EU businesses invest or spend their money. And sod off with the disingenuous claim that Europe was bragging about seeking other partners, European countries simply stated as a consequences of US trade policy they would be forced to seek other partners where it was possible.

Back to the same fatuous argument that identified projects aren’t more committed because they have been documented and agreed in a the most consequential tariff agreement in EU history.

These companies are trying to do business in the US, we’re at various stages of making significant investments in the US. There plans are now part of an international agreement. And you think they feel free to just walk away?

None of those identified projects are legally binding. I reckon most of the investments will go ahead as intended as long as they make commercial sense for the companies involved. If they are not commercially viable based on market conditions at the time they will not go head, there under no obligation to do so by this agreement and the EU can't force them to make them go ahead.

However I do find the part about US energy purchases really suspect as I simply don't see the EU having the need to import so much energy, thus I expect the end numbers to be considerably lower.

If true that would be the best case for busting up the whole EU enterprise. Their Union signs an agreement in good faith committing to certain actions and they just walk away.

There not walking away from anything you sodding moron. The EU can state what the intent of private companies in the EU is and they an give those numbers so in good faith but they did not sign up to any commitment compelling EU business to spend their money in a particular way because its not in their remit to do so.

And you have the absolute gall to talk about walking away from commitments when the US breaks them left right and centre like the Iran deal, Paris agreement, withholding approved aid to Ukraine and I now I see your reviewing AUKUS.

No I said open up a string on the debt issue, this is a string on the trade deal….whatsaboutism when cornered ehhhh? As for the actions the EU will take if member countries flout their deal, I guess the pocket book would be the best avenue.

So what the EU is going to fine or withhold funds to member states if private companies in those countries don't reach that stated intention...how clueless of a clown are you to think that's going happen. The EU is there to protect member states not attack them on behalf of a third country. And how you would even go about saying if a country has flouted the deal, did they break down the spending intention by businesses per country?. So what's if one countries business spends more than intended and another less?