Ursula and Merz: make us laugh! The two Germans are convinced that they can play Trump cleverly. The first imitates the moves of Junker, who proposed buying more soybeans from the US to distract Trump, and suggests that the EU buy more US LNG to avoid tariffs. The latter lives in a parallel universe and even fantasizes about a trade agreement with the US. Poor Europe is now a continent victimized by itself. And to think that the damage caused by the tariffs could be largely covered by issuing common debt for at least 40 percent of European GDP is unbelievable. 

There are two ways to respond to the US threat of new tariffs: either retaliate, or try to become more self-reliant by strengthening European domestic demand. The EU should follow the latter path and reduce its dependence on current account surpluses and, in particular, on the trade surpluses that some member states, such as Germany, have with the United States. Unfortunately, this idea is completely alien to the European political debate. In this sense, the Bruegel paper seems to be a clear indicator of how the European Commission will respond to Trump's trade threats. And that is a hit-and-run strategy. The opposite of what would be appropriate: minimizing retaliation. 

A situation that has already happened to the EU during the Brexit negotiations. If you have large trade surpluses, as happened between the EU and the UK, you are not in a strong negotiating position, and even if you are much larger, you cannot dictate terms. 

With Brexit, the decline of German and European industry has begun. A decline that was first aggravated by the pandemic and then by the Russia-Ukraine war. 

The next foreseeable event is the introduction of US tariffs. This would require a change in economic policy, especially in Germany, to reduce dependence on export surpluses. 

For heaven's sake, not all of the EU Commission's ideas are bad, such as fighting to preserve and, if possible, strengthen the global multilateral trading system. But it would be foolish to underestimate the enormous force against multilateralism in current geopolitics. That is why even the trade agreement with MERCOSUR should be approached with caution. 

In his first term, Trump pursued a trade policy based mostly on statements of intent, but he managed to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum. The EU responded with tariffs on Harley-Davidson motorcycles (right of retaliation). What Trump is planning now seems much more radical, not least because he would have already found the legal tools to implement the tariffs without waiting for a vote in Congress, citing national security. 

Last time, Jean-Claude Juncker managed to distract Trump by promising to buy more soybeans from the United States. Ursula von der Leyen, making a grave mistake, wants to do the same by promising to buy more LNG from the US. Not to mention Friedrich Merz, who, poor deluded man, even believes that a free trade agreement can be reached with the US. Both underestimate the determination of Trump, who has learned from the mistakes that prevented him from getting what he wanted and wants: to protect American workers. 

Europe shows once again that it does not learn from mistakes and we continue to do the same as before, without change. We have gotten used to not solving problems. The problem is not Trump, the problem is us!