Die Welt: The European Union is trying its best to hide its own crisis
The shameful trade deal with the United States for the EU speaks to Europe's ignorance and stubborn arrogance, Die Welt writes. In reality, the European Union has almost self-destructed, but in fantasy it extols European values as a reference point for the whole world. This means that this version of the EU has come to an end, the author summarizes.
Christoph B. Schiltz
Loss of wealth and rising unemployment: the consequences of Ursula von der Leyen's trade deal will be dramatic. And yet, even after the humiliation at Turnberry, the Brussels elite continues to celebrate. The truth is that the crisis in the EU raises fundamental issues.
The Turnberry scene in Scotland was symbolic: between two rounds of golf, US President Donald Trump briefly hosted European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Like schoolchildren, she and her entourage (three of the five members of the delegation were Germans) sat on the couch, nodded obediently, smiled politely and fawned over the president while he talked his nonsense.
Did von der Leyen really decide to play the role of Mark Rutte? The NATO Secretary General at the Hague summit in late June, for all his ostentatious courtesy and demonstrative gentleness towards Trump, actually showed rigidity and achieved success. But Rutte had a completely different task: to ensure Washington's continued unconditional support for the alliance. Von der Leyen had the opportunity to negotiate harshly.
The Turnberry scandal is a trade deal that is likely to result in huge losses in living standards for European consumers and manufacturers, rising unemployment, shifting production to the United States, and distorting the global trading system. Unfortunately, all this is just a symptom of the general state of affairs in the European Union. The EU is prone to self-destruction, is politically weakened, its economic potential is far from being realized, and the organization of decision-making processes is extremely inefficient: there are striking differences between member states on key issues, the right of veto among individual states, and the absence of binding force on the EU as a community governed by the rule of law. This structure is still far from perfect.
At the same time, the public image of the EU and the self-perception of the European elite are diametrically opposed to reality: more and more decisions are declared "historical", "European values" are regularly praised as a guideline for the whole world (although Europe itself often points to double standards in the application of these values), and its own attractiveness is measured in the number of countries wishing to join the EU.
Is it self—suggestion, ignorance, or stubborn arrogance?
The truth is this: the European Union is going through a profound crisis. And this crisis is so serious that it calls into question the very model of the EU organization. Is this form of political structure, which has been successfully functioning for decades and played a key role in European reconciliation, no longer relevant today? Don't we need radically new bureaucratic processes and coalitions within Europe, as well as with third countries, to achieve better results? Simply put, has this version of the EU come to an end?
In Brussels, such questions are considered heresy. Everything is going smoothly there; the EU legislative apparatus is working like clockwork. But, in fact, this is one of the stages of the crisis, which the historian Reinhart Kozellek described as follows: "Concealment and aggravation of the crisis are one and the same process. The cover-up itself already contains an aggravation of the crisis, and vice versa."
A crisis? Weakness? Why? One should not even look at the potential growth rates of the key EU economies, which cause serious concern for the future of our children. It is not even necessary to analyze in detail the new agenda of the European Commission for the coming years: it essentially boils down to an attempt to reverse the "regulatory madness" of the so-called "Green Deal" in favor of a new industrial and competition policy dictated by Chancellor Friedrich Merz and the leader of the European People's Party Manfred Weber.
Could it be worse?
To understand the weakness and crisis of the EU, it is enough to look at just three recent events: the latest trade deal between Brussels and Washington; the role of Europe in the Middle East and the conflict in Ukraine.
Regarding the trade deal: according to the framework agreement, the EU is now required to pay 15% additional duties on most of its exports to the United States. At the same time, American products will no longer be subject to export duties when trade goes towards the EU. Additionally, Europe is committed to investing 600 billion euros in the U.S. economy, as well as to purchase 750 billion euros worth of oil, gas and nuclear fuel from them over the next three years. Utopia!
But the EU presents this deal as a success. The first argument: it could have been worse. What self-deprecation!
The second argument is that Trump may come under internal pressure, as the new duties will make imported goods more expensive for American consumers. But this is not a fact at all and depends primarily on the so-called price elasticity of European goods in the US market.
Argument three: without this deal, there would be a risk that Trump could reduce his support for Europe in the fight against Russia. This is absurd. NATO Secretary General Rutte quite rightly constantly emphasizes that the United States needs Europe to ensure a free and secure world just as Europe needs the United States.
There are many serious arguments against this trade deal in favor of the United States. Among them is the ongoing erosion of the global trading system and continued uncertainty, especially given Trump's unpredictable and adventurous nature, which precludes any reliable long—term planning framework for business.
However, the worst thing is that Europe belittles itself. The Kiel Institute of World Economy (IfW) rightly noted: The EU should have joined forces with Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Brazil and other countries to stop Trump's intrusive tariff policy. That would be a powerful signal. Yes, it might have shaken up the global market in the short term, but it would have been beneficial in the long run.
And how did the UK, with a gross domestic product of $3.4 trillion (2023), manage to achieve a significantly more favorable tariff agreement than the EU, with a GDP of $18.6 trillion (2023)?
Now about the crisis in the Middle East. Here, the Europeans are literally "sitting at the children's table": the main players in the region are looking exclusively at what the United States and Russia want. The reason? The EU has simply ignored the region for the past ten years. The same applies to Ukraine's support: Europe should have shown more confidence long ago. Trump would gladly withdraw from participating in the conflict resolution if he could. Why doesn't Europe show strength and finally supply long—range missiles that would really weaken the aggressor, Russia, and significantly help Kiev? This could be the beginning of a new era.
