European Union

On 8 April 2025, the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on International Trade will hold a joint public hearing on the implementation of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement in force since 1 May 2021. The Commission will present its annual reports of 2024 and 2025 on the implementation and application of the Agreement and Members will have the possibility to discuss with a panel of four expert speakers the implementation of arrangements and prospects for future developments.
The public hearing will feed into the preparation of the AFET-INTA joint implementation report on the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
Programme
Follow on-line
Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Thursday, 3 April

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Thursday, 3 April

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Bernd LANGE (S&D, DE), Chairman of the European Parliament’s International Trade Committee, reacts to the 20% tariff announced by US President Donald Trump tonight.
Committee on International Trade

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Bernd LANGE (S&D, DE), Chairman of the European Parliament’s International Trade Committee, reacts to the 20% tariff announced by US President Donald Trump tonight.
Committee on International Trade

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

AMENDMENTS 1 - 313 - Draft report 2023 and 2024 Commission reports on North Macedonia
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Thomas Waitz

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

AMENDMENTS 1209 - 1477 - Draft report European Defence Industry Programme and a framework of measures to ensure the timely availability and supply of defence products (‘EDIP’)
Committee on Industry, Research and Energy
Committee on Security and Defence
Raphaël Glucksmann, François-Xavier Bellamy

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

AMENDMENTS 543 - 909 - Draft report European Defence Industry Programme and a framework of measures to ensure the timely availability and supply of defence products (‘EDIP’)
Committee on Industry, Research and Energy
Committee on Security and Defence
François-Xavier Bellamy, Raphaël Glucksmann

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

The Chair of the International Trade Committee and standing rapporteur for the US, Bernd LANGE (S&D, DE), will hold a press conference in Strasbourg on Thursday at 9.00.
Committee on International Trade

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

The Chair of the International Trade Committee and standing rapporteur for the US, Bernd LANGE (S&D, DE), will hold a press conference in Strasbourg on Thursday at 9.00.
Committee on International Trade

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

The Chair of the International Trade Committee and standing rapporteur for the US, Bernd LANGE (S&D, DE), will hold a press conference in Strasbourg on Thursday at 9.00.
Committee on International Trade

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

The Chair of the International Trade Committee and standing rapporteur for the US, Bernd LANGE (S&D, DE), will hold a press conference in Strasbourg on Thursday at 9.00.
Committee on International Trade

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

AMENDMENTS 910 - 1208 - Draft report European Defence Industry Programme and a framework of measures to ensure the timely availability and supply of defence products (‘EDIP’)
Committee on Industry, Research and Energy
Committee on Security and Defence
Raphaël Glucksmann, François-Xavier Bellamy

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

MEPs want the EU to respond determinedly to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, conflict in the Middle East, and the return of so-called “great power” politics.
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Committee on Security and Defence

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

MEPs want the EU to respond determinedly to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, conflict in the Middle East, and the return of so-called “great power” politics.
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Committee on Security and Defence

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

MEPs want the EU to respond determinedly to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, conflict in the Middle East, and the return of so-called “great power” politics.
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Committee on Security and Defence

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

MEPs want the EU to respond determinedly to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, conflict in the Middle East, and the return of so-called “great power” politics.
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Committee on Security and Defence

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

On Wednesday, Parliament adopted its 2024 annual report on human rights and democracy in the world, warning against the deteriorating global human rights situation.
Subcommittee on Human Rights

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

On Wednesday, Parliament adopted its 2024 annual report on human rights and democracy in the world, warning against the deteriorating global human rights situation.
Subcommittee on Human Rights

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

While President Trump brands his tariff-heavy economic policy as “Liberation Day,” it is, in truth, a declaration of a global trade war.

His imposition of sweeping tariffs on most imports to the United States is provoking retaliatory tariffs on American exports – an economically self-harming spiral that will ultimately make everyone poorer, including Americans.

In stark contrast stands the European Union.

The EU Single Market offers free, frictionless trade among its members – benefiting businesses and consumers alike.

This system, rooted in cooperation rather than confrontation, has created the largest and most successful trading bloc in the world.

The EU’s model is so attractive that most countries in Europe are either members or are actively seeking membership. That includes:

27 full EU member states
10 countries formally applying to join the EU
4 non-member countries in the EU Single Market
3 negotiating to join the Single Market

That’s 44 out of 51 European countries committed in some way to the EU project.

The outliers? Belarus, Russia, and – uniquely – Britain, the only member-state to have left the EU.

And not only most European countries want to be in the EU.

Trump’s tariff regime and erratic international behaviour have alarmed America’s closest allies.

In a revealing March 2025 poll by Abacus Data, 44% of Canadians said they supported their government exploring EU membership if Trump continued down a path of economic nationalism and annexation threats, while only 34% were opposed and 23% were unsure.

While the EU currently restricts full membership to European nations, the idea of expanding its reach is gaining traction as a stabilising global force.

But Britain’s decision to leave the EU has brought economic pain, not prosperity.

The UK economy has underperformed compared to EU economies since 2016, with losses in trade, foreign investment, and labour force dynamism.

UK exports to the EU fell sharply post-Brexit, and supply chain frictions have become the norm.

Meanwhile, EU countries enjoy:

Tariff-free and frictionless access to one another’s markets
Shared standards and regulations that cut red tape
Collective bargaining power on the global stage
Freedom of movement for citizens and workers
Stronger security cooperation on everything from cyber threats to policing

This isn’t just about trade – it’s about belonging to a political and economic union that defends democratic values, environmental standards, and social protections.

In the face of rising authoritarianism and isolationism, the EU offers a platform for peace, prosperity, and shared sovereignty.

In 1948, Winston Churchill famously said:

“We cannot aim for anything less than the union of Europe as a whole.”

Churchill’s vision of a united Europe is nearly fulfilled.

Yet Britain now sits outside the EU – like Russia and Belarus. We oppose their actions, certainly, but do we really want to be grouped with Europe’s outsiders rather than its democratic partners?

While populist parties exist in most EU countries, none of the EU’s 27 members is seeking to leave.

Quite the opposite: membership applications and pro-EU sentiment are rising. In countries such as Ukraine and Moldova, joining the EU is seen not only as a route to prosperity but as a shield against authoritarian threats from Moscow.

Even in Britain, public opinion is shifting. Polls consistently show a clear majority now believe Brexit was a mistake.

The economic evidence is mounting – and so is the political will for change.

Trump’s tariff-driven nationalism may grab headlines, but the EU’s quietly successful model of cooperation is what delivers real, long-term benefits.

For Britain, the choice is clear:

Align with global protectionists and economic saboteurs
Or rejoin the most successful peace and trade project in human history

It’s time to liberate ourselves – not through tariffs, but through renewed European solidarity.

Join the discussion about this article on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Instagram, BlueSky

________________________________________________________________________

TRUMP’S TARIFFS IN HIS FIRST TERM IN OFFICE

Between 2018 and 2020, during President Trump’s first term of office, the United States launched a major trade confrontation by imposing widespread tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of imports.

The goal was to reduce the US trade deficit, revive domestic manufacturing, and pressure trade partners – especially China – to agree to more favourable terms.

Instead, the result was an economically damaging trade war with global consequences.

The tariffs began with steel and aluminium, then expanded to include a wide range of goods from China, the EU, Canada, and Mexico.

In response, these countries hit back with retaliatory tariffs on American exports, particularly agricultural products.

What followed was a surge in farm bankruptcies, particularly across the Midwest, where soybean and dairy producers lost key export markets almost overnight.

Meanwhile, the steel and aluminium industries – supposedly the intended beneficiaries – also suffered job losses. Although prices for domestic steel temporarily rose, the higher input costs hurt manufacturers that rely on imported components, from carmakers to construction firms.

The tariffs also failed in their central aim: reducing the trade deficit. By 2020, the US trade deficit remained largely unchanged, as importers shifted supply chains rather than returning production to the US.

For American consumers, tariffs acted as a tax. Prices increased on goods ranging from washing machines and electronics to canned beer and bicycles.

Studies by the Federal Reserve and academic institutions concluded that nearly the entire cost of the tariffs was passed on to US households and businesses.

The broader impact included uncertainty in global markets, reduced business investment, and strained diplomatic relations with key allies.

In short, the US tariff war from 2018 to 2020 caused disruption across multiple sectors, raised costs, and weakened trade relationships – without achieving its economic objectives.

When President Biden took office in 2021, many expected him to roll back the tariffs – but he largely left them in place.

Tariffs on over $300 billion of Chinese imports remained, along with duties on steel, aluminium, and other goods.

While Biden eased tensions with allies like the EU by converting some tariffs into quotas, he kept most of Trump’s trade policies intact.

Rather than reversing the tariff war, Biden focused on domestic industrial investment and supply chain resilience.

As Trump now moves to impose even broader tariffs on all imports to the United States, history offers a clear lesson: protectionism may offer the illusion of strength, but in reality, it brings economic damage, isolation, and long-term decline.

• Join the discussion about this article on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Instagram, BlueSky

Footnote: The 2018–2020 timeframe covers the core period when the US imposed sweeping tariffs and the most direct economic impacts were observed. After 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted global trade, making it harder to isolate the effects of tariffs alone.

Sources of evidence:

• The Economic Effects of the 2018 U.S. Trade Policy: A State-Level Analysis 
• The impact of the 2018 trade war on U.S. prices and welfare 
• The U.S. Trade Deficit: How Much Does It Matter? 

________________________________________________________________________

BLANKET TARIFFS DON’T WORK (THEY NEVER HAVE)

As trade tensions rise again in the US, we must remember one thing: no country in history has ever made itself better off by imposing blanket tariffs on all imports.

It has never worked – and it never will.

Just look at the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of the 1930s. It was supposed to protect American jobs during the Great Depression.

Instead, it sparked a global trade war, collapsed international markets, and deepened the economic misery.

World trade fell by more than 60%.

Or take Argentina, where protectionist policies in the 2000s caused runaway inflation, supply shortages, and long-term economic decline.

India, too, suffered from decades of self-imposed isolation until it opened up in the 1990s and began to grow.

The pattern is always the same. Broad import restrictions lead to rising prices, empty shelves, economic isolation, and weakened competitiveness.

There is not a single modern example of blanket tariffs making a country stronger or richer.

By contrast, open, rules-based trade works.

The EU Single Market, built on free movement of goods, services, capital and people, has delivered prosperity, growth, and geopolitical stability.

EU GDP has grown significantly since the development of the Single Market, with countries like Germany and the Netherlands thriving through trade.

China’s economic rise accelerated after it reduced tariffs and joined the WTO in 2001. Export-led growth fuelled rapid development – not isolationism.

Yes, the EU uses tariffs – but strategically and only when necessary, such as when a trading partner unfairly subsidises its industries. The goal is always fair trade, not retreat from it.

Free and frictionless trade doesn’t happen by accident. It requires shared rules, mutual trust, and political alignment.

That’s what the EU provides: a stable, democratic framework for trading cooperation and collective strength.

Compare that with President Trump’s closed-shop tariff policies, which failed during his first term in office – raising prices, hurting farmers and manufacturers, and doing nothing to reduce the trade deficit.

Now he promises even more tariffs, which risk even greater economic damage. It’s a race to the bottom.

The immediate market response underscores this risk.

Following President Trump’s “Liberation Day” announcement on 2 April 2025 of sweeping new tariffs – including a baseline 10% tariff on all imports and much higher rates on specific countries and products – global stock markets plummeted.

In the two days that followed:

• The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by approximately 3,900 points, a drop of just over 9%.
• The S&P 500 declined by around 600 points, falling by almost 11%.
• The Nasdaq Composite dropped by roughly 1,900 points, marking a fall of more than 11%.

These were the most significant two-day losses for these indices in history, wiping out an estimated $6.6 trillion in global market value.

Major tech stocks were hit especially hard – Apple lost over $600 billion in market value in the two days following ‘Liberation Day’, while Nvidia’s market capitalisation fell by nearly $400 billion.

Other chipmakers also suffered steep losses amid fears of tariff-driven supply chain shocks and rising consumer prices.

International markets were hit just as hard.

• The FTSE 100 fell by over 6%, its worst two-day performance in five years.
• Japan’s Nikkei 225 dropped nearly 9% over the same period.

The global sell-off reflected deep investor alarm over the potential economic fallout of Trump’s blanket tariffs and growing fears of a full-scale global trade war.

Britain now faces a clear choice.

• Stay lost-at-sea, stuck between a failing US trade policy and a thriving EU.
• Or rejoin the bloc that shares our values and boosts our economy.

The EU offers Britain a future. Trump’s America offers only decline.

Let’s stop drifting. It’s time to come home.

• Join the discussion about this article on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Instagram, BlueSky

Sources of evidence:

• Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and Its Impact on the Great Depression
• Argentina’s Protectionist Policies Leading to Economic Challenges
• India’s Pre-1990s Protectionism and Subsequent Economic Liberalization
• EU Single Market’s Contribution to Economic Growth
• China’s WTO Accession and Export-Led Growth

TRUMP’S MISLEADING ‘TARIFF’ CHART

During his ‘Liberation Day’ announcement President Trump held up a chart claiming to list the tariffs that other countries charge for USA imports. But it was nothing of the sort. 

The figures in that graphic aren’t actual tariff rates. They refer to trade deficits, not the tariffs charged by each country on U.S. imports.

That’s been confirmed by independent fact-checkers, including Euronews, PolitiFact and BBC.

It’s a common confusion (and perhaps a deliberate one), but it’s important to distinguish between a trade imbalance and an actual import tax.

For example, in his chart Trump claimed that the EU charged the USA a tariff of “39%” on imports from the USA. But that isn’t an actual tariff. It refers to the trade deficit between the US and the EU – not the tariffs the EU charges on US goods. They’re not the same thing.

In reality, the EU’s average tariff on U.S. goods is around 1%, according to the European Commission – and many goods, especially under sector-specific agreements, already move tariff-free.

As for “reciprocal” tariffs, the US also imposes tariffs and non-tariff barriers, and uses subsidies in key industries like agriculture and steel.

A trade deficit simply means one country imports more than it exports. But that’s not the fault of the exporter – it reflects things like consumer demand, industrial focus, and competitiveness in the importing country.

As many economists have pointed out: if a country isn’t exporting enough, it should focus on improving its products, boosting competitiveness, or investing in innovation – not blaming its trading partners.

Also, it’s often overlooked that the U.S. runs a significant trade surplus with the EU in services, including finance, tech, and consultancy. But this isn’t reflected in the rhetoric or the “tariff charts” doing the rounds.

If we want a fair view of the EU–U.S. trade relationship, we have to consider goods and services. The EU isn’t “taxing” the U.S. unfairly – especially when actual EU tariffs average around 1%, and many sectors are tariff-free under WTO rules and bilateral agreements.

Reciprocity only makes sense when the whole picture is considered.

Putting up blanket tariffs may sound tough, but in reality, they often just raise prices for consumers, hurt exporters, and trigger retaliation. Long-term, it’s smarter to grow trade, not restrict it.

• Join the discussion about this full post on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Instagram, BlueSky 

________________________________________________________________________

• Related poster: Almost every European country is now in the EU or wants to be.

• Related video: The peace Brexit forgot

• Related video: What the UK has lost – the EU Single Market

The post Let’s liberate ourselves from Trump’s so-called ‘Liberation Day’ appeared first on Ideas on Europe.