“Laws that exist only on paper achieve nothing.” This is not a slogan. It reflects the reality described by small-scale fishers and points to a wide gap between European Union commitments and delivery on the water. More than a decade after the last reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the EU is once again debating whether to rewrite this policy, even though the CFP’s framework is fit for purpose and delivers sustainable fisheries — when properly applied. What continues to fail is its implementation. The clearest example is the legal commitment to end overfishing by 2020, a deadline still unmet. > If Europe delays action until after another lengthy reform, it risks losing > the next generation of fishers and hollowing out coastal economies. Nowhere is this gap more visible than in the Mediterranean, and particularly in Cyprus and Greece, where stocks are further weakened by the accelerating effects of the climate crisis and the spread of invasive species. The Mediterranean remains the most overfished sea in the world, and small-scale fishers feel these consequences directly. Yet, Cypriot fishers are not asking for weaker rules or a new policy. They are asking for effective enforcement of existing legislation, and support from national authorities. Without these, the future of fisheries as a profession is at stake. If Europe delays action until after another lengthy reform, it risks losing the next generation of fishers and hollowing out coastal economies. Photo by A.S.S. The experience of Cypriot and Greek fishers mirrors a broader European issue. Before reopening the CFP, Europe should take stock of the real gap, which lies not in the law itself, but in its uneven implementation and enforcement. Calls for reform are driven by familiar pressures: environmental safeguards are increasingly framed as obstacles to economic viability and fleet renewal. Reform is presented as a way to modernize vessels and cut red tape. But this framing overlooks lessons from the past. Europe has been here before. Excess capacity and weak controls pushed fish stocks to the brink of collapse, forcing painful corrections that cost public money and livelihoods. For small-scale fishers in the Mediterranean, these impacts are not theoretical. They are experienced daily, through declining catches, rising costs and increasing uncertainty. The Common Fisheries Policy delivers when implemented Evidence shows that where the CFP has been implemented, it delivers. According to European Commission assessments, the share of stocks subject to overfishing in the North-East Atlantic fell from around 40 percent in 2013 to just over 22 percent by 2025. In the Mediterranean, the figure dropped from 70 percent to 51 percent over the same period. These improvements are closely linked to the application of science-based catch limits, effort restrictions and capacity controls under the CFP. > Europe has been here before. Excess capacity and weak controls pushed fish > stocks to the brink of collapse, forcing painful corrections that cost public > money and livelihoods. Economic and social data tell the same story. EU fishing fleets have become more efficient and more profitable over the past decade. Vessels now generate higher average incomes, with wages per full-time fisher rising by more than a quarter since 2013. In its 2023 policy communication, the Commission concluded that the CFP remains an adequate legal framework, with the real gap lying in its application and enforcement. Those involved in the 2013 reform understand why this matters. The revised policy marked a clear shift away from overcapacity and short-term decision-making toward a science-based approach. The European Commission’s own assessments show that this approach delivered results where it was applied. Parts of the EU fleet became more profitable, labor productivity improved and several fish stocks recovered. The CFP remains the EU’s strongest tool for reversing decline at sea. Implementation results in progress; reform leads to instability and uncertainty Strengthening the CPF’s implementation would deliver tangible benefits, including greater stability for fishers and coastal communities, avoiding years of legislative uncertainty, and allowing faster progress toward sustainability objectives. Firm and consistent implementation can enhance economic resilience while restoring ocean health, without the delays and risks that come with reopening the legislation. Given the time and resources required, another round of institutional reform is neither efficient nor necessary. Priority should instead be given to effectively delivering the agreed CFP commitments. Photo by A.S.S. Cypriot Presidency of the Council: a moment for delivery This debate unfolds as Cyprus assumes the EU Council Presidency, at a moment when choices made in Brussels carry immediate consequences at sea. Holding the Presidency brings responsibility as well as opportunity. It offers a chance to help frame the discussion toward making existing rules work in practice, while addressing current implementation challenges. This is where the credibility of the CFP will be tested. > Sustainability and livelihoods move together, or not at all. Reopening the CFP now may send the wrong signal. It may suggest that missed deadlines carry no consequence and that agreed-upon rules are optional. For fishers, it would prolong uncertainty at a time when stability is already fragile. For Europe, it would undermine trust in its ability to deliver. The EU was not conceived to generate endless processes or delay action through repeated legislative cycles. Its purpose is to deliver common solutions to shared problems, and to support people and communities where national action falls short. The last reform of the CFP was built on a simple principle: healthy fish stocks are the foundation of viable fisheries. Sustainability and livelihoods move together, or not at all. This principle is already reflected in Europe’s agreed framework. The task now is to act on it. Fisheries are a clear test of that promise. The law is already in place. The tools already exist. What Europe needs now is the political resolve to deliver on the commitments it has already made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is OCEANA * The ultimate controlling entity is OCEANA More information here.

LONDON — Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Trade Secretary Peter Kyle will travel to China next week as Britain eyes closer economic ties with the Asian superpower. The chair of the Financial Conduct Authority is also expected to travel to the country as Prime Minister Keir Starmer leads a delegation of roughly 50 C-suite leaders and chairs from business and cultural institutions. Executives from HSBC, Standard Chartered, and the London Stock Exchange Group have been invited. The guest list is heavily weighted towards financial services. The trip comes as the government faces growing international pressure to take a tougher line on Chinese industrial overcapacity — and a backlash back home over its recent decision to approve a super-embassy near the Tower of London despite a raft of security concerns.   “It’s substantially important for businesses,” said a senior business representative, granted anonymity to speak about the preparations. “In terms of conversation and talk, there’s a step change under the new government,” they said, arguing Labour had made swift progress since coming to office. Some firms “weren’t able to engage with the Chinese government at all 12 months ago,” they noted. Industry executives familiar with the talks said the U.K. has been pushing for a Memorandum of Understanding covering services trade, as well as recognition of professional qualifications for accountants, designers, and architects — and visa-free access to China for Brits making short-term business trips. The U.K. is also hopeful of positive movement on whisky tariffs, according to two of the industry figures. In February 2025, China doubled its import tariffs on brandy and whisky, removing its provisional 5 percent tariff and applying the 10 percent most-favored-nation rate. MARKET PUSH British and Chinese financial regulators are due to meet in Beijing to advance work to link up the London stock market with markets in Shanghai and Shenzhen, as well as tackling cross-border data sharing issues. The Stock Connect initiative opened up both markets to investors in 2019 which, according to FCA Chair Ashley Alder, led to listings worth almost $6 billion on the London Stock Exchange.   “Technical obstacles have so far prevented us from realizing Stock Connect’s full potential,” Alder said in a speech in May last year.    He pointed to the Memorandum of Understanding being developed between the FCA and China’s National Financial Regulatory Administration as “critical to provide the mechanisms needed to share information swiftly, supervise firms effectively across borders, and promote market openness,” with “fast and efficient exchange of data [being] vital to manage the risks.”  “The goods wins are easier,” said the senior business representative. “Some of the service ones are more difficult. The issues that financial services firms have in China [are] around access to sensitive data and the transfer of money.” The U.K. also hopes to be the latest country to join China’s visa-free list, which would enable British citizens to travel for short-term business trips, exchanges, or holidays without applying for a visa.   There are 48 countries currently on the list, including France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Sweden. The Treasury, Department for Business and Trade and FCA did not respond to a request for comment.

BRUSSELS — The trade war is back. Donald Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on European countries over Greenland has blown up last year’s transatlantic trade truce and forced the EU into a familiar dilemma: hit back hard, or try to buy time.  On paper, Brussels has options. It could target politically sensitive U.S. exports like Republican-state soybeans. Or it could unleash its trade “bazooka,” the Anti-Coercion Instrument. Here are the actions that EU leaders can consider when they gather for an emergency summit on Thursday: HITTING BACK AGAINST U.S. PRODUCTS Retaliatory tariffs on €93 billion worth of U.S. goods are still sitting in the EU’s pantry. These date back to Trump’s first round of tariffs last year and were frozen for six months in August. This package will automatically kick into force on Feb. 7 unless the Commission proposes to extend the freeze and the 27 EU countries agree with that. Such a suspension can happen very quickly, however, as the Commission typically sounds out support from capitals several times a week. Part of the package targets distinctively American products like Levi’s jeans, Harley Davidson motorcycles and Kentucky bourbon. Other goods would be targeted because they originate in states that lean towards the Republican side of the spectrum. A tariff on soy beans, for instance, would target the red state of Louisiana from which House Speaker Mike Johnson hails. DEPLOYING THE TRADE “BAZOOKA” The biggest weapon in the EU’s arsenal is its Anti-Coercion Instrument. This all-purpose tool is meant to deter other countries from using trade tactics to extort concessions in other areas. With it, Brussels can impose or increase customs duties, restrict exports or imports through quotas or licenses, and impose restrictions on trade in services. It also can curb access to public procurement, foreign direct investment, intellectual property rights and access to the bloc’s financial markets.  But in a case like this, it would take a few months to first clear diplomatic hurdles between the Commission and the Trump administration. Because it has never been triggered before, the EU is in uncharted waters. That is especially true for the dynamics between the Commission and national capitals. Brussels needs to propose launching the mechanism, and would only do so if it knows enough capitals will agree. France is keen, but Germany and other countries? Not so much. Thomas Lohnes/Getty Images “It’s one of the cards,” but “it’s really not the first in the line that you use,” Lithuanian Finance Minister Kristupas Vaitiekūnas told POLITICO in an interview. PLAYING THE CHINA CARD Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney did something unprecedented last Friday. Turning the page on the acrimonious relationship between Canada and China born out of the arrest of a high-profile Huawei executive, the Canadian leader struck a preliminary trade deal with Beijing to liberalize imports of Chinese electric vehicles in exchange for a steep reduction in tariffs on Canadian agricultural goods. Carney didn’t mention Trump by name, but the message was clear: Canada has other partners, and it won’t sit quietly while Washington tries to strong-arm it.   A blueprint for Brussels? It’s not that simple. While the EU has tried to thread the needle on its trade relations with Beijing — the Asian country remains its second-largest trading partner  — policymakers are keenly aware of the competitive threat posed by China, Inc. Germany’s automotive industry is reeling from high energy prices and fierce competition from China (now the world’s top automotive exporter). In general, overcapacity — the term for China’s dizzying output of products that, unable to be absorbed by its domestic market, are sold abroad — keeps EU business leaders up at night. Compared with Canada, for the EU China is a “whole different can of worms,” said trade expert David Kleimann. “The Chinese are outcompeting us on all of our main exports and domestic production,” he said. “We will need more barriers, more managed trade with China.”  AN ASSET FIRESALE America’s enormous debt pile is one Achilles heel. The U.S. loves to spend, and Europeans, in turn, snap up that debt. George Saravelos, head of foreign exchange research at Deutsche Bank, said that European public and private sector entities hold a combined total of $8 trillion of U.S. stocks and debt — “twice as much as the rest of the world combined.”  “In an environment where the geoeconomic stability of the western alliance is being disrupted existentially, it is not clear why Europeans would be as willing to play this part,” the analyst wrote in a note to clients. If European governments order their banks and pension funds to dump their holdings, that would almost certainly spark a financial crisis, sending America’s borrowing costs soaring. The ensuing financial Armageddon would engulf Europe as well, though. The firesale of financial assets would crush prices, and European lenders would book huge losses — the financial equivalent of nuclear mutually assured destruction.  Increasing decoupling from the U.S. financial system looks likely, but a violent wholesale break is extremely unlikely.  PLAYING FOR TIME Restraint is the EU’s weapon of choice for now. “The priority here is to engage, not escalate, and avoid the imposition of tariffs,” Olof Gill, deputy chief spokesperson for the European Commission, said on Monday. Under their trade deal struck last year, the United States has already lowered tariffs on most EU products to 15 percent, while the EU has yet to make good on its pledge to cut its tariffs on U.S. industrial goods to zero. That’s because Trump’s threats have derailed a vote in the European Parliament on lowering tariffs for U.S. products. While this stalemate lasts, EU companies actually benefit from lower costs while the reverse is not true for their American counterparts. “Trade continues to flow, investment continues to flow,” Gill added. “So we need to be very sensible in how we approach the difference between a threat and operational reality.” With Trump trying to drive a wedge between European leaders by threatening tariffs against some countries, including France and Germany, while sparing others, like Italy, maintaining cohesion will be a huge challenge. Any serious retaliation, such as wielding the bloc’s trade “bazooka,” the Anti-Coercion Instrument, would require very broad support. WHAT COMES NEXT The U.S. Supreme Court might rule on some of Trump’s tariffs as soon as Tuesday. If the administration loses the case, Trump would have to deal with the fallout while he’s attending this week’s World Economic Forum in Davos.  “On a purely economic warfare basis, that would play in our favor,” said Kleimann. “But we haven’t considered Trump’s ambitions to actually put boots on the ground.” At Davos, Trump might meet with Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, although no bilateral is yet confirmed. Von der Leyen will speak at Davos on Tuesday; Trump is due to arrive the day after.  Then on Thursday, EU government leaders hold an emergency summit in Brussels to discuss transatlantic relations and the latest tariff threats. The meeting is not expected to create a glitzy attack plan but rather to sound out whether the EU should indeed target the U.S. goods or maybe shoulder its trade bazooka. By Feb. 1, the U.S. tariffs on the European allies would kick in, if Trump follows through on his threats. A week later, the EU’s retaliation package automatically kicks in if no solution is found. If that happens, we really will be in a trade war.

LONDON — The British government is working to give its trade chief new powers to move faster in imposing higher tariffs on imports, as it faces pressure from Brussels and Washington to combat Chinese industrial overcapacity. Under new rules drawn up by British officials, Trade Secretary Peter Kyle will have the power to direct the Trade Remedies Authority (TRA) to launch investigations and give ministers options to set higher duty levels to protect domestic businesses. The trade watchdog will be required to set out the results of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations within a year, better monitor trade distortions and streamline processes for businesses to prompt trade probes. The U.K. is in negotiations with the U.S. and the EU to forge a steel alliance to counter Chinese overcapacity as the bloc works to introduce its own updated safeguards regime. The EU is the U.K.’s largest market and Brussels is creating a new steel protection regime that is set to slash Britain’s tariff-free export quotas and place 50 percent duties on any in excess. The government said its directive to the TRA will align the U.K. with similar powers in the EU and Australia, and follow World Trade Organization rules. It is set out in a Strategic Steer to the watchdog and will be introduced as part of the finance bill due to be wrapped up in the spring. “We are strengthening the U.K.’s system for tackling unfair trade to give our producers and manufacturers — especially SMEs who have less capacity and capability — the backing they need to grow and compete,” Business and Trade Secretary Peter Kyle said in a statement. “By streamlining processes and aligning our framework with international peers, we are ensuring U.K. industry has the tools to protect jobs, attract investment and thrive in a changing global economy,” Kyle added. These moves come after the government said on Wednesday that its Steel Strategy, which plots the future of the industry in Britain and new trade protections for the sector, will be delayed until next year. The Trump administration has been concerned about the U.K.’s steps to counter China’s steel overcapacity and refused to lower further a 25 percent tariff carve-out for Britain’s steel and aluminum exports from the White House’s 50 percent global duties on the metals. Trade Secretary Kyle discussed lowering the Trump administration’s tariffs on U.K. steel with senior U.S. Cabinet members in Washington on Wednesday.  “We are very much on the case of trying to sort out precisely where we land with the EU safeguard,” Trade Minister Chris Bryant told parliament Thursday, after meeting with EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič on Wednesday for negotiations. “We will do everything we can to make sure that we have a strong and prosperous steel sector across the whole of the U.K.,” Bryant said. The TRA has also launched a new public-facing Import Trends Monitor tool to help firms detect surges in imports that could harm their business and provide evidence that could prompt an investigation by the watchdog. “We welcome the government’s strategic steer, which marks a significant milestone in our shared goal to make the U.K.’s trade remedies regime more agile, accessible and assertive, as well as providing greater accountability,” said the TRA’s Co-Chief Executives Jessica Blakely and Carmen Suarez. Sophie Inge and Jon Stone contributed reporting.

An emerging U.S.-China detente gives European leaders breathing room to find a strategy on trade, raw materials and the war in Ukraine — but the thaw between the two great powers risks pushing European interests to the side.   President Donald Trump and his counterpart Xi Jinping agreed to a significant de-escalation in their trade spat during a head-to-head Thursday in South Korea, pausing export controls on rare earth magnets and other critical raw materials for 12 months.   While the move is good news for European companies that have been caught in the crossfire, other sticking points in the Europe-China relationship will be harder to resolve, even with the gift of time.  Brussels, under pressure from Trump and in pursuit of its own strategic interests, is trying — without notable success — to sway Beijing from supporting Russia in its war on Ukraine.   At the same time the EU is doing its best to keep the temperature down in its longstanding trade standoff with China, whose intensity has ratcheted up recently with the imposition of limits on exports of critical raw materials and microchips. Both measures have had an immediate negative impact on European industry, particularly automakers which were already struggling prior to the restrictions.  Fears of lasting, irreversible damage to Europe’s industries have led the EU to take a more conciliatory stance in its trade standoff, emphasizing engagement and dialogue rather than punitive measures.  Yet Chinese officials have balked at the slow and uncoordinated pace of discussions with the EU, leading Beijing to drop Europe down its list of priorities, according to Jeremy Chan, a senior analyst at Eurasia Group.  “The EU is a secondary at best, maybe a tertiary or a non-consideration for both Washington and Beijing in these negotiations,” Chan told POLITICO.  ‘LET THEM FIGHT’ The top political priority for the EU is ending the war in Ukraine — something that Trump while on the campaign trail promised to do within his first 24 hours in office. Almost a year into his term, the fighting continues, aided by China propping up Russia’s economy through investments and oil purchases.  At the urging of the White House, the EU included Chinese banks and refineries in its two latest rounds of sanctions targeting Russia, arguing the entities were helping Moscow evade sanctions. This prompted an angry response from top Chinese officials including Prime Minister Li Qiang, who branded the sanctions “unacceptable” during a meeting with European Council President Antonio Costa in Asia this week, per an EU official.  European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and the bloc’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, have both called out Beijing’s support for Moscow in explicit terms, with the former saying in July that it has a “direct and dangerous impact on European security.”  The EU’s latest sanctions prompted an angry response from top Chinese officials including Prime Minister Li Qiang, who branded them “unacceptable” at a meeting with European Council President Antonio Costa, per an EU official. | Pool photo by Vincent Thian via AFP/Getty Images Ukraine had hoped Trump would pressure Beijing to stop buying Russian oil, but the American president told media on Air Force One that the issue was not on the table — although he did say the war in Ukraine “came up very strongly,” with both sides hoping to find an end to the fighting.   “He’s going to help us and we’re going to work together on Ukraine,” Trump said, referring to the Chinese president. INDUSTRIES HELD HOSTAGE While China’s export controls were not directed at the EU, the bloc’s companies faced long delays and sharp price hikes in contending with the subsequent shortage of raw materials and magnets. China accounts for 98 percent of the EU’s rare earth permanent magnets.  The geopolitical firestorm sent the European Commission into overdrive to secure its own supplies of the magnets and launch a plan to diversify Europe’s supply chain by the end of the year.   But the EU has been here before. Just two years ago it passed the Critical Raw Materials Act to solve this exact problem, and yet all the deals that have been signed have failed to deliver actual products. Its latest scheme is big on ideas and short on specifics.   The one-year pause on export controls agreed between Trump and Xi affords the EU some time to put that plan into action and leverage its other alliances — including efforts unfolding at the G7 this week with Canada, along with the U.K., Italy, France and Germany seeking to diversify away from China’s grip.  But for companies looking for clarity, the catch is that none of the agreements made between Trump and Xi are binding.  “As long as we don’t see any details hammered out and put on paper it leaves a lot of room for both sides backtracking and applying various other conditions, so I don’t think that this is really settled,” said Alexander Gabuev, director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center.  SECURITY CONCERNS  In the U.K., pressure is expected to build for policymakers to use the temporary U.S. truce to minimize the risks from China.  British PM Keir Starmer has thus far failed to resolve longstanding tensions between “securocrats” in parliament and Whitehall, who want to see a tougher stance toward Beijing, and those who argue for a closer embrace in order to boost inward investment. Prominent members of the government have traveled to Beijing in pursuit of strengthened ties since Starmer took office, despite his overriding foreign policy aim of cleaving close to Trump.  China has become a particular sore point for Starmer in recent weeks due to the collapse of the prosecution of two men accused of spying for Beijing, while ministers have yet to decide the fate of a planned Chinese “super-embassy” in London.  Back in the EU, divisions among member countries over how to counter China’s power — and any subsequent retribution — make a unified stance toward Beijing on trade or dumping measures unlikely.   Brussels got a glimpse of its internal factions when it slapped duties on made-in-China electric vehicles following an anti-subsidy investigation. Automakers and their political benefactors fear Chinese brands will dump their overcapacity in the European market, bringing a severe price war to Europe’s shores.   Yet for all the handwringing over how to protect domestic automakers, the votes of EU capitals on the duties revealed how economically exposed each is to China, with Germany launching a last-minute appeal to stop the duties.  The Netherlands is the latest EU member on the outs with China after Dutch authorities seized control of chipmaker Nexperia, prompting Beijing to hit back with export controls on Nexperia’s Chinese-produced chips. The shortage could halt production lines across Europe in less than a week, showcasing just how economically dependent Europe has become on China.  LET’S BE FRIENDS From the jump, Trump framed his sojourn to Asia as a “G2” summit, stoking fears that any deal would sideline other countries or that “British and European trade priorities could be overlooked or traded away without consultation,” said David Taylor, director of policy and programs at Asia House.  Sensing its declining influence in the Trump-Xi bromance, the EU is looking to bolster its trade ties elsewhere.  Trade chief Maroš Šefčovič is traveling to Australia in late November to chair an inaugural dialogue between the EU and the 12 members of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership bloc, two diplomats told POLITICO. The dialogue is meant to deepen economic and political ties between the EU and countries keen to maintain established global trade rules.  Brussels, under pressure from Donald Trump and in pursuit of its own strategic interests, is trying to sway Beijing from supporting Russia in its war on Ukraine. | Jim Watson/Getty Images Brussels will have a chance to do just that when it hosts a delegation of high-level Chinese officials on Friday. They’re expected to meet with the Commission’s trade deputy-director general, Denis Redonnet, and other senior officials.  Experts caution that Europe will need to maintain pressure on Beijing to get any movement on its priorities.   “Europe cannot just simply be waiting to see what happens on talks between [the] United States and China,” said Ignacio Garcia Bercero, a former director at the Commission’s trade department. “It needs to develop its own channel of dialogue with China.” 

LONDON — Britain is pushing to form a Western alliance with the European Union to curb China’s dominance in the global steel market, multiple figures familiar with the talks told POLITICO.  The hope in London is that a coordinated approach could help the U.K. dodge the new tariffs Brussels plans to impose — a 50 percent duty aimed at shielding EU producers from China’s industrial overproduction. Britain, which finds itself at the mercy of EU trade action post-Brexit, is currently seeking carve-outs from those measures. The idea under consideration is for the U.K. and EU to form a Western steel alliance — potentially including Washington — that would align tariff policies and grant members preferential tariffs on steel trade. A senior EU official said earlier this month that the bloc had “no other choice” but to defend its industry, warning Europe was “in deep trouble because of this problem of overcapacities.” Still, the official left the door open to talks with London, urging both sides to sit down to negotiate. One other EU official, granted anonymity to speak freely about ongoing talks, said the concept of a steel “club” has been circulating for “quite some time” but is now looking “more appealing.” They added that the EU and U.K. already cooperate in multilateral forums such as the Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity. The two sides have already agreed to align their upcoming carbon taxes on imports of steel and other products produced through highly polluting manufacturing processes. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer called for stronger coordination against Chinese steel earlier this month, warning that the “current international trade rules are inadequate” and questioning “the political will of foreign members to take action.” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer called for stronger coordination against Chinese steel earlier this month. | Andrew Harnik/Getty Images Britain currently sends half of its steel exports to the EU, making the bloc’s upcoming tariffs a serious threat to U.K. producers. UK Steel Director Gareth Stace said the government’s “focus must be on securing essential U.K. carve outs in the EU’s quotas, and tightening its own trade defenses.” But the lobby group boss added that a broader alliance could help to resolve global overcapacity issues and keep heavily subsidized imports out of Britain. A U.K. government spokesperson said: “We are continuing our engagement with the EU following their recent announcement. We are also working with international partners on solutions which can address wider overcapacity.”

European lawmakers accused Commission President Ursula von der Leyen of striking a bad, one-sided trade deal with U.S. President Donald Trump after she defended the accord in her annual State of the Union address Wednesday.  “Where was Europe when you signed an unfair deal with Trump?” asked Socialists & Democrats leader Iratxe García Pérez. Responding to von der Leyen’s speech, she called the EU’s decision to accept a 15 percent tariff on most EU exports while scrapping its own tariffs on U.S. industrial goods “unacceptable.”  The EU’s strategic autonomy, said García Pérez, has been buried “under a golf course.”  She was referring to the trade deal that von der Leyen struck with Trump at his Turnberry resort in Scotland in July. Von der Leyen and her aides have defended the deal as the best that could be done in difficult circumstances. Many critics fear, however, that it will condemn the bloc to an era of economic subjugation. Ahead of Wednesday’s speech, the European Socialists had already come out against the deal — and others leaped at the chance to criticize the agreement or voice specific concerns.  Both on the left and radical-right side of the Parliament, the truce with Trump was criticized widely. Martin Schirdewan, the German leader for The Left, said that “fighting overcapacity with more trade is like throwing lighters on the fire of the European economic crisis.” LEFT-RIGHT PILE ON Bas Eickhout of the Greens and Jordan Bardella of the right-wing Patriots for Europe both slammed von der Leyen’s promise that the EU would buy €750 billion in U.S. energy — mostly fossil-based — albeit for very different reasons.  Eickhout argued that, amid climate change, this money should be invested into European renewable energy. Bardella claimed, falsely, that EU countries would be coughing up that amount. In reality, this number is based on projections of investments and market developments, not hard agreements. While less harsh in her assessment, Valérie Hayer, chief of the liberal Renew Europe group, urged von der Leyen to “continue standing firm” on the bloc’s regulatory power and autonomy in trade talks. Trump has repeatedly attacked the EU’s digital rulebook, arguing that it puts U.S. companies at a disadvantage. European People’s Party leader Manfred Weber — von der Leyen’s political ally and fellow German conservative — seemed relatively isolated in his defense of the trade deal, asking: “What is the alternative to Scotland?” In her speech, von der Leyen called on lawmakers to support the agreement. Their votes will be needed to pass legislation to scrap the EU tariffs on U.S. industrial goods, which in turn would unlock a reduction in the levies on European cars being exported to the U.S. “I have heard many things about the deal we agreed on over the summer,” she said in her hour-long address. “I understand the initial reactions … But when you account for the exceptions that we secured and the additional rates which others have on top — we have the best agreement. Without any doubt.” “The deal provides crucial stability in our relations with the U.S. at a time of grave global insecurity,” she told MEPs. “Think of the repercussions of a full-fledged trade war with the U.S.” Trump, however, is ready to demand more and on Tuesday told the EU it should put 100 percent tariffs on both China and India to pressure them into abandoning support for Russian leader Vladimir Putin and his war against Ukraine, the Financial Times and other news outlets reported. Von der Leyen, in her speech, did not respond to the U.S. demands, but did stress the need to keep up the pressure on Russia. “We need more sanctions,” she said, referring to a 19th round of measures that will prioritize phasing out imports of fossil fuels more quickly. This proposal is expected to land this week, with negotiations between EU governments to follow. 

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen took aim on Tuesday at China’s industrial overproduction, export restrictions and its support for Russia’s war against Ukraine. In a statement to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, Von der Leyen stressed that “our relations with China must be rooted in a clear-eyed assessment of the new reality.” The remarks set the stage for a contentious summit later this month at which EU leaders will raise Beijing’s “no-limits partnership” with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. “We can say that China is de facto enabling Russia’s war economy, and we cannot accept this,” she told European lawmakers. On the economic front, the relationship between Europe and China will need rebalancing, de-risking and a diplomatic boost when it comes to climate change and environmental issues, Von der Leyen argued.  She started by complimenting China as great global civilization that over the past 50 years has become a great global power. But her praise quickly gave way to criticism, as she accused Beijing of operating outside of international rules and flooding global markets “with subsidized overcapacity — not just to boost its own industries, but to choke international competition.” China runs “the largest trade surplus in the history of mankind,” she went on to say, while European companies were finding it harder to do business on the Chinese market where they faced systematic discrimination. The increasing barriers faced by European companies in China include requiring foreign companies to keep localized staff; host research and development functions; and keep all IT data in the country, according to an EU Chamber of Commerce in China survey. “I’ve always said it: Europe is fully committed to result-oriented engagement with China,” von der Leyen said, calling on Beijing to engage in a meaningful dialogue that leads to actual change. “If our partnership is to go forward, we need a genuine rebalancing.”  For all von der Leyen’s finger wagging, the EU is looking to copy some of China’s more successful industrial policies, including its own technology transfers and procurement laws.  Under its newly revised rules on state aid, EU governments are being encouraged to include European preference criteria in their bidding processes, as well as other forms of aid, particularly as the bloc looks to create a domestic battery sector. In the Automotive Action Plan — the EU’s strategy for making its carmakers competitive — the executive has said it would look into direct support for European manufacturers. The EU is making public funds available for battery makers, including for non-EU companies so long as they are in a joint venture with a domestic partner and sharing know-how, technical expertise and technology. The EU-China summit, called to mark 50 years of diplomatic relations, will be held in Beijing on July 24. A second summit day has been canceled. President Xi Jinping is not expected to attend, and the Chinese delegation will be led by premier Li Qiang.

PARIS — President Donald Trump’s decision to double steel import tariffs to 50 percent is a misguided blow to America’s allies, the European Union’s chief trade negotiator said Wednesday, warning the real threat lies in global overcapacity rather than in the bloc’s steel exports. Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, speaking after talks with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer in Paris, said that Europe was not the source of the problem — which is global overcapacity — that the Trump administration was seeking to address with the tariff.  “We are not bringing problems,” Šefčovič told reporters, pointing to the fact that the EU exports only about 4 million tons of highly specialized steel.  “Let’s not target each other, but let’s work together [on] how to address this global overcapacity issue.” His comments came after Trump signed an order overnight to hike U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum to the prohibitive level of 50 percent. The United Kingdom is the only country exempted, facing only a 25 percent tariff on the metals.  China, India, Japan, the United States and Russia are the world’s top steel producers, according to data from the World Steel Association.  MOMENTUM PLAY Talks between the EU and U.S. are otherwise “advancing in the right direction,” Šefčovič said: “Our goal, of course, is to maintain the momentum.” The trade commissioner noted how much has been achieved in talks with Washington in recent months, adding that they were now focusing on “very concrete” issues, such as economic security, tariff lines and market access. Greer struck an equally positive tone, saying that “negotiations are advancing quickly.” “Today’s meeting in Paris … was very constructive and indicates a willingness by the EU to work with us to find a concrete way forward to achieve reciprocal trade,” Greer said in a press release. While the U.S. has listed the trade barriers it faces in its dealings with the EU, Šefčovič reiterated that there is also room for positive engagement with Washington on semiconductors, AI chips, liquefied natural gas purchases and developing a common approach on raw materials as well as tackling the global steel glut.  Pressure is however ramping up on Brussels to find an agreement with the White House, with a temporary truce on tariffs lapsing in early July.  “We should do our utmost to find an amicable solution and to get the deal before July 9. It’s clearly the ambition from our side, and I think that is also the ambition from the U.S. side,” Šefčovič told reporters.  Brussels and Washington agreed to step up the pace of talks in late May, after Trump threatened to impose a 50 percent tariff on all European goods. The European Commission, however, warned this week it would hit back with up to €120 billion in retaliatory tariffs, should there be no mutually beneficial agreement. Wednesday’s meeting, on the sidelines of an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development trade ministerial, is the first to be held between EU and U.S. negotiators on European soil since Trump took office in January.  Šefčovič has paid three publicly disclosed visits to Washington in a bid to negotiate away the U.S. tariffs. This story has been updated.

BRUSSELS — For decades, European governments accepted that the decline of their polluting, loss-making steel industries was inevitable and irreversible. No more. After years of neglect, developed economies are discovering they don’t want to depend on even dirtier sources of steel made in China, Southeast Asia and North Africa. The bloated global steel sector — “overcapacity” in the jargon — is nothing new. What’s new is U.S. President Donald Trump’s 25 percent tariffs on the metal. That means even more subsidized steel will head to the region from China, Indonesia, Turkey and Egypt that has been shut out of the American market. The bailout is starting. The U.K. has just renationalized its only steel plant that makes the metal from scratch. Last month, the EU launched a Steel Action Plan to revive the sector and stave off total collapse. And Australia is shelling out billions to turn a steel plant into a green pioneer. In the EU, €9 billion of state aid has been approved over the last few years. The Steel Action Plan will push defense research to expand the customer base in Europe. Another €100 billion is on the way to support scaling up carbon-free production. Policy incentives should help as well, such as making sure there’s a market for more expensive, but less polluting, steel. “We need to go even further,” French Industry and Energy Minister Marc Ferracci told reporters on a recent visit to the eastern steelmaking region of Alsace. Steel major ArcelorMittal has just announced it would cut around 600 jobs in France, with more to go in Belgium, too. The context, Ferracci said, is simple. “Chinese steel that is massively subsidized” has been pummeling the EU for years, chipping away at the market share of domestic steel. Added to that, are the “tariffs decided by the American administration,” he said. SUNSET INDUSTRY It’s not an easy sell. As it stands, the sector is not ready for the future, said steel transformation expert Boris Jankowiak at the Climate Action Network, a federation of NGOs. “At the moment we have a fossil-based steel industry that is facing several struggles,” he told POLITICO. “It’s not going to get better by sticking with fossil fuels.” Buying up a primary steel plant, as the U.K. government did, will not solve energy prices, slumping demand or reliance on coal and gas. From the Commission’s action plan, the contours are clear: energy prices need to come down, certain sectors need to start buying cleaner European steel over “dirty” foreign steel — and we need to recycle more. “All the pieces of the puzzle are there,” Jankowiak said. “So now it’s just about showing leadership and commitment to that transformation — also from the companies’ side.” Developed economies are discovering they don’t want to depend on even dirtier sources of steel made in China, Southeast Asia and North Africa. | Alex Plavevski/EPA Steel plants across the EU, like Italy’s Taranto works, have faced criticism for polluting the air, water and soil. Not many people are, understandably, happy to have a coking plant in their backyard. But, luckily, steel goes into so many products that it can be molded into whatever the Zeitgeist requires. Back in 2020, it was the green transition. Then, steel was heralded as the core of renewable energy, enabling local production of wind turbines (instead of importing them from China). “Green” battle tanks are the most recent argument. When he presented the Steel Action Plan at a plant in Germany’s post-industrial Ruhr region last month, European Industry Commissioner Stéphane Séjourné stressed that it was a crucial cog “in the economic and material sovereignty of the entire European continent.” The action plan itself points out that a main battle tank contains 60 tons of steel. Séjourné’s plan was received positively by the sector and the EU countries who produce the most steel: Germany produces about a quarter, with Italy coming in second at around 10 percent. France, Romania and Poland each account for more than 7 percent of the European total, based on figures from lobby group Eurofer. The sector is spread widely across the bloc, with just five countries producing no steel. Post-Covid and in the middle of attempts to get rid of Europe’s decade-long dependency on Russian gas, a fresh dependency on basic Chinese industrial inputs is Brussels’ worst nightmare. Aside from security, there’s also employment. Ferracci said the French government is “supporting Arcelor’s decarbonization projects, which should help maintain jobs. Now, it’s time for these projects to materialize.” Some 300,000 people work in the steel industry in the EU, with another 37,000 in the U.K. While that is not much on the total labor market, once you lose steel, it could well spell the end for other much larger industries like carmaking or — indeed — defense and green energy. “It’s a similar shift [like the pandemic or Ukraine in 2022], but this time it is accelerating to an unprecedented pace,” a Commission official told POLITICO last month, pointing to the trinity of action plans on defense, industry and financing. Jankowiak, from the Climate Action Network, cautioned against “catchy” applications for steel. “Can production of tanks really create enough demand for steel on an industry level? And in the long term, this would rely on the tanks and artillery shells to be used — in case a war is actually waged. And this is not what we are calling for.” Nicolas Camut contributed to this report.