Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Law Firm Directory
Apply to Paul, Weiss
Forums
Law Firm Events
Law Firm Deadlines
TCLA TV
Members
Leaderboards
Premium Database
Premium Chat
Commercial Awareness
Future Trainee Advice
Are you a future trainee?
We're hiring at
TCLA
. Apply by midnight on
31 March 2025
.
Apply Now
Forums
Aspiring Lawyers - Interviews & Vacation Schemes
Commercial Awareness Discussion
Useful links and resources
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="J Malone" data-source="post: 7530" data-attributes="member: 158"><p><strong>Tensions rise as US turns up heat on Brussels</strong></p><p><strong>By <a href="http://click.newsletters.ft.com/f/a/QQiZMqf8l6d-BNR9MCkZOA~~/AAAAAQA~/RgReHz0oP0RAaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZnQuY29tL2FsYW4tYmVhdHRpZT9lbWFpbElkPTVjM2NiMzI2YzUwY2E1MDAwNDM4YmFkMlcIZmludGltZXNCCgASULg8XPG5WZFSF2gua2FuZ0Boc3MxNi5xbXVsLmFjLnVrWAQAAAAA" target="_blank">Alan Beattie </a>(Financial Times)</strong></p><p>January 14, 2019 </p><p></p><p>Taking on Xi Jinping is one thing, but how does the US feel about going head-to-head with Jean-Claude Juncker?</p><p></p><p>Last week the <a href="http://click.newsletters.ft.com/f/content-42e29b80-13c5-11e9-a581-4ff78404524e/SAZ0_vt9w8NfLInCTbtxNg~~/AAAAAQA~/RgReHz0oP0RgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZnQuY29tL2NvbnRlbnQvNDJlMjliODAtMTNjNS0xMWU5LWE1ODEtNGZmNzg0MDQ1MjRlP2VtYWlsSWQ9NWMzY2IzMjZjNTBjYTUwMDA0MzhiYWQyVwhmaW50aW1lc0IKABJQuDxc8blZkVIXaC5rYW5nQGhzczE2LnFtdWwuYWMudWtYBAAAAAA~" target="_blank">US-China trade talks</a> in Beijing (summary: a bit more optimistic than many expected, but still a long way to go) got all the headlines. Rather more quietly, in Washington, the latest iteration of EU-US peace talks took place between Cecilia Malmstrom, the EU trade commissioner, and US trade representative Robert Lighthizer.</p><p></p><p>A truce between the two trading giants, initially brokered <a href="http://click.newsletters.ft.com/f/content-300307e6-904b-11e8-bb8f-a6a2f7bca546/QA0mfMzN5SPipeHtbVailA~~/AAAAAQA~/RgReHz0oP0RgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZnQuY29tL2NvbnRlbnQvMzAwMzA3ZTYtOTA0Yi0xMWU4LWJiOGYtYTZhMmY3YmNhNTQ2P2VtYWlsSWQ9NWMzY2IzMjZjNTBjYTUwMDA0MzhiYWQyVwhmaW50aW1lc0IKABJQuDxc8blZkVIXaC5rYW5nQGhzczE2LnFtdWwuYWMudWtYBAAAAAA~" target="_blank">in July last year</a> between Mr Juncker, president of the European Commission, and US president Donald Trump to head off the threat of US tariffs on European car exports, has lasted remarkably long for a deal which so far has delivered essentially nothing of substance. Apart from Brussels’ promise to purchase more American soyabeans (meaningless given the EU’s unfortunate lack of centralised soft commodity procurement) and some warm words on buying liquefied natural gas, there were no immediate deliverables.</p><p></p><p>The proposed content comes in two parts, one of which is do-able but minimal and the other more substantive but politically harder. The minimal part is to extract and complete some of the conformity assessment and regulatory co-operation elements from the stalled Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) talks — such as on <a href="http://click.newsletters.ft.com/f/a/3QR11vT7ytWZP8FMFCQGSQ~~/AAAAAQA~/RgReHz0oP0RBaHR0cDovL3RyYWRlLmVjLmV1cm9wYS5ldS9kb2NsaWIvZG9jcy8yMDE2L2p1bHkvdHJhZG9jXzE1NDc5Ny5wZGZXCGZpbnRpbWVzQgoAElC4PFzxuVmRUhdoLmthbmdAaHNzMTYucW11bC5hYy51a1gEAAAAAA~~" target="_blank">medical devices</a>, pharmaceuticals and machinery, which will ease recognition of testing and even of rules themselves.</p><p></p><p>The serious one is the proposal for a zero-tariff deal covering all industrial products minus cars, which the commission in particular is desperate for people not to call a “mini-TTIP”. The problems with such a mini-TTIP were evident from the outset. By excluding all farm products and cars, it stretched to snapping point the World Trade Organization rule about such deals covering “substantially all the trade”. (In order not to provoke apoplexy in France, the commission has insisted agriculture is not on the table.) A mini-TTIP would also violate the EU’s principle about agreeing deals only with signatories to the Paris agreement on climate change, of which the US is not one.</p><p></p><p>The US seems disinclined to respect any EU sensitivities, as shown by the <a href="http://click.newsletters.ft.com/f/a/gQFwIux2unlYld-egeEb5w~~/AAAAAQA~/RgReHz0oP0RdaHR0cHM6Ly91c3RyLmdvdi9zaXRlcy9kZWZhdWx0L2ZpbGVzLzAxLjExLjIwMTlfU3VtbWFyeV9vZl9VLlMuLUVVX05lZ290aWF0aW5nX09iamVjdGl2ZXMucGRmVwhmaW50aW1lc0IKABJQuDxc8blZkVIXaC5rYW5nQGhzczE2LnFtdWwuYWMudWtYBAAAAAA~" target="_blank">negotiating objectives</a> for the deal that the US trade representative’s office released on Friday. Provocative demands included an agricultural section that called not just for eliminating tariffs but also dismantling non-tariff barriers to US farm exports. (This takes us back to the <a href="http://click.newsletters.ft.com/f/content-ea0fac54-1c8c-11dd-8bfc-000077b07658/pq6o2c1wAqXKV_jkR4iUHA~~/AAAAAQA~/RgReHz0oP0RgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZnQuY29tL2NvbnRlbnQvZWEwZmFjNTQtMWM4Yy0xMWRkLThiZmMtMDAwMDc3YjA3NjU4P2VtYWlsSWQ9NWMzY2IzMjZjNTBjYTUwMDA0MzhiYWQyVwhmaW50aW1lc0IKABJQuDxc8blZkVIXaC5rYW5nQGhzczE2LnFtdWwuYWMudWtYBAAAAAA~" target="_blank">interminable disputes</a> over chlorine-washed chicken that previously blew up transatlantic talks.) The proposals did at least say the US was prepared to take the talks with the EU in stages. But the US trade representative will have been aware of the explosive nature of these demands. If the US insists they are essential to a deal, the negotiations will be over before they start.</p><p></p><p>Distrust of the potential deal in some parts of Brussels has been growing since last summer, and the US negotiating objectives will probably exacerbate that. The scepticism of Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s international trade committee, has recently increased, including in an <a href="http://click.newsletters.ft.com/f/content-b6bbd6a6-fd6e-11e8-b03f-bc62050f3c4e/sR2kD7QsSMRMCJRxml_ZYA~~/AAAAAQA~/RgReHz0oP0RgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZnQuY29tL2NvbnRlbnQvYjZiYmQ2YTYtZmQ2ZS0xMWU4LWIwM2YtYmM2MjA1MGYzYzRlP2VtYWlsSWQ9NWMzY2IzMjZjNTBjYTUwMDA0MzhiYWQyVwhmaW50aW1lc0IKABJQuDxc8blZkVIXaC5rYW5nQGhzczE2LnFtdWwuYWMudWtYBAAAAAA~" target="_blank">FT op-ed</a>. Though he does not have the power to prevent negotiations starting, Mr Lange’s wishlist of preconditions includes a preliminary “scoping exercise” to delineate the areas to be discussed, and the US lifting steel and aluminium tariffs on EU exports. The commission last week announced it would seek a negotiating mandate from member states; it does not, however, seem to think a scoping exercise is necessary.</p><p></p><p>The commission’s attitude — exemplified by Ms Malmstrom in <a href="http://click.newsletters.ft.com/f/a/T49PEIr5c_i53NxsLoxESA~~/AAAAAQA~/RgReHz0oP0RAaHR0cHM6Ly93ZWJjYXN0LmVjLmV1cm9wYS5ldS9ldS10cmFkZS1wb2xpY3ktZGF5LWdhc3AtMjctMTEtMjAxOFcIZmludGltZXNCCgASULg8XPG5WZFSF2gua2FuZ0Boc3MxNi5xbXVsLmFjLnVrWAQAAAAA" target="_blank">this video</a> of an interview with the author in late November, relevant section from 09.41 onwards — tends towards the cautious, and emphasises the importance of process. The EU’s strategy is surely that the regulatory mini-deal by itself will keep the US happy enough for it to hold off the emergency car duties while taking the wider industrial tariffs talks slowly.</p><p></p><p>At the current rate of progress, Ms Malmstrom may not even be in charge of the EU side by the time any substantive talks on tariffs are finalised; there will be a new commission this autumn. But whether any kind of deal is even remotely possible may well become evident before then.</p><p></p><p>Holding China accountable</p><p></p><p>The US-China talks last week in Beijing were notable more for their emollient tone than for the substance of a breakthrough. But one issue that did clearly emerge was the need to hold China accountable for any promises it made on issues such as forced technology transfer. This is complicated by the fact that the US trade representative is averse to any dispute settlement mechanism that might give other governments a new avenue to bring legal actions against the US.</p><p></p><p>This is not a new problem, and has formed some of the most intractable conversations between China and the US since the former’s accession to the WTO. In the early years, when CDs and DVDs were a much bigger part of the entertainment market, the US would complain vociferously that while Chinese laws on intellectual property rights were often perfectly satisfactory, their implementation by local courts was not.</p><p></p><p>At some points, the US even contemplated setting numerical targets for China to convict counterfeiters. In the event, the issue became less important thanks to technological change. But the question of enforcing rules against hard-to-quantify violations of agreements has not gone away.</p><p></p><p>Figure of the week — $270,000</p><p></p><p>The calculated increase in <a href="http://click.newsletters.ft.com/f/a/q6kzuEJS5xteqrQLwa8jQg~~/AAAAAQA~/RgReHz0oP0RyaHR0cHM6Ly9waWllLmNvbS9ibG9ncy90cmFkZS1pbnZlc3RtZW50LXBvbGljeS13YXRjaC9zdGVlbC1wcm9maXRzLWdhaW4tc3RlZWwtdXNlcnMtcGF5LXVuZGVyLXRydW1wcy1wcm90ZWN0aW9uaXNtVwhmaW50aW1lc0IKABJQuDxc8blZkVIXaC5rYW5nQGhzczE2LnFtdWwuYWMudWtYBAAAAAA~" target="_blank">profits earned by US steel companies</a> for each new job created by the Trump steel tariffs.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="J Malone, post: 7530, member: 158"] [B]Tensions rise as US turns up heat on Brussels By [URL='http://click.newsletters.ft.com/f/a/QQiZMqf8l6d-BNR9MCkZOA~~/AAAAAQA~/RgReHz0oP0RAaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZnQuY29tL2FsYW4tYmVhdHRpZT9lbWFpbElkPTVjM2NiMzI2YzUwY2E1MDAwNDM4YmFkMlcIZmludGltZXNCCgASULg8XPG5WZFSF2gua2FuZ0Boc3MxNi5xbXVsLmFjLnVrWAQAAAAA']Alan Beattie [/URL](Financial Times)[/B] January 14, 2019 Taking on Xi Jinping is one thing, but how does the US feel about going head-to-head with Jean-Claude Juncker? Last week the [URL='http://click.newsletters.ft.com/f/content-42e29b80-13c5-11e9-a581-4ff78404524e/SAZ0_vt9w8NfLInCTbtxNg~~/AAAAAQA~/RgReHz0oP0RgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZnQuY29tL2NvbnRlbnQvNDJlMjliODAtMTNjNS0xMWU5LWE1ODEtNGZmNzg0MDQ1MjRlP2VtYWlsSWQ9NWMzY2IzMjZjNTBjYTUwMDA0MzhiYWQyVwhmaW50aW1lc0IKABJQuDxc8blZkVIXaC5rYW5nQGhzczE2LnFtdWwuYWMudWtYBAAAAAA~']US-China trade talks[/URL] in Beijing (summary: a bit more optimistic than many expected, but still a long way to go) got all the headlines. Rather more quietly, in Washington, the latest iteration of EU-US peace talks took place between Cecilia Malmstrom, the EU trade commissioner, and US trade representative Robert Lighthizer. A truce between the two trading giants, initially brokered [URL='http://click.newsletters.ft.com/f/content-300307e6-904b-11e8-bb8f-a6a2f7bca546/QA0mfMzN5SPipeHtbVailA~~/AAAAAQA~/RgReHz0oP0RgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZnQuY29tL2NvbnRlbnQvMzAwMzA3ZTYtOTA0Yi0xMWU4LWJiOGYtYTZhMmY3YmNhNTQ2P2VtYWlsSWQ9NWMzY2IzMjZjNTBjYTUwMDA0MzhiYWQyVwhmaW50aW1lc0IKABJQuDxc8blZkVIXaC5rYW5nQGhzczE2LnFtdWwuYWMudWtYBAAAAAA~']in July last year[/URL] between Mr Juncker, president of the European Commission, and US president Donald Trump to head off the threat of US tariffs on European car exports, has lasted remarkably long for a deal which so far has delivered essentially nothing of substance. Apart from Brussels’ promise to purchase more American soyabeans (meaningless given the EU’s unfortunate lack of centralised soft commodity procurement) and some warm words on buying liquefied natural gas, there were no immediate deliverables. The proposed content comes in two parts, one of which is do-able but minimal and the other more substantive but politically harder. The minimal part is to extract and complete some of the conformity assessment and regulatory co-operation elements from the stalled Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) talks — such as on [URL='http://click.newsletters.ft.com/f/a/3QR11vT7ytWZP8FMFCQGSQ~~/AAAAAQA~/RgReHz0oP0RBaHR0cDovL3RyYWRlLmVjLmV1cm9wYS5ldS9kb2NsaWIvZG9jcy8yMDE2L2p1bHkvdHJhZG9jXzE1NDc5Ny5wZGZXCGZpbnRpbWVzQgoAElC4PFzxuVmRUhdoLmthbmdAaHNzMTYucW11bC5hYy51a1gEAAAAAA~~']medical devices[/URL], pharmaceuticals and machinery, which will ease recognition of testing and even of rules themselves. The serious one is the proposal for a zero-tariff deal covering all industrial products minus cars, which the commission in particular is desperate for people not to call a “mini-TTIP”. The problems with such a mini-TTIP were evident from the outset. By excluding all farm products and cars, it stretched to snapping point the World Trade Organization rule about such deals covering “substantially all the trade”. (In order not to provoke apoplexy in France, the commission has insisted agriculture is not on the table.) A mini-TTIP would also violate the EU’s principle about agreeing deals only with signatories to the Paris agreement on climate change, of which the US is not one. The US seems disinclined to respect any EU sensitivities, as shown by the [URL='http://click.newsletters.ft.com/f/a/gQFwIux2unlYld-egeEb5w~~/AAAAAQA~/RgReHz0oP0RdaHR0cHM6Ly91c3RyLmdvdi9zaXRlcy9kZWZhdWx0L2ZpbGVzLzAxLjExLjIwMTlfU3VtbWFyeV9vZl9VLlMuLUVVX05lZ290aWF0aW5nX09iamVjdGl2ZXMucGRmVwhmaW50aW1lc0IKABJQuDxc8blZkVIXaC5rYW5nQGhzczE2LnFtdWwuYWMudWtYBAAAAAA~']negotiating objectives[/URL] for the deal that the US trade representative’s office released on Friday. Provocative demands included an agricultural section that called not just for eliminating tariffs but also dismantling non-tariff barriers to US farm exports. (This takes us back to the [URL='http://click.newsletters.ft.com/f/content-ea0fac54-1c8c-11dd-8bfc-000077b07658/pq6o2c1wAqXKV_jkR4iUHA~~/AAAAAQA~/RgReHz0oP0RgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZnQuY29tL2NvbnRlbnQvZWEwZmFjNTQtMWM4Yy0xMWRkLThiZmMtMDAwMDc3YjA3NjU4P2VtYWlsSWQ9NWMzY2IzMjZjNTBjYTUwMDA0MzhiYWQyVwhmaW50aW1lc0IKABJQuDxc8blZkVIXaC5rYW5nQGhzczE2LnFtdWwuYWMudWtYBAAAAAA~']interminable disputes[/URL] over chlorine-washed chicken that previously blew up transatlantic talks.) The proposals did at least say the US was prepared to take the talks with the EU in stages. But the US trade representative will have been aware of the explosive nature of these demands. If the US insists they are essential to a deal, the negotiations will be over before they start. Distrust of the potential deal in some parts of Brussels has been growing since last summer, and the US negotiating objectives will probably exacerbate that. The scepticism of Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s international trade committee, has recently increased, including in an [URL='http://click.newsletters.ft.com/f/content-b6bbd6a6-fd6e-11e8-b03f-bc62050f3c4e/sR2kD7QsSMRMCJRxml_ZYA~~/AAAAAQA~/RgReHz0oP0RgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZnQuY29tL2NvbnRlbnQvYjZiYmQ2YTYtZmQ2ZS0xMWU4LWIwM2YtYmM2MjA1MGYzYzRlP2VtYWlsSWQ9NWMzY2IzMjZjNTBjYTUwMDA0MzhiYWQyVwhmaW50aW1lc0IKABJQuDxc8blZkVIXaC5rYW5nQGhzczE2LnFtdWwuYWMudWtYBAAAAAA~']FT op-ed[/URL]. Though he does not have the power to prevent negotiations starting, Mr Lange’s wishlist of preconditions includes a preliminary “scoping exercise” to delineate the areas to be discussed, and the US lifting steel and aluminium tariffs on EU exports. The commission last week announced it would seek a negotiating mandate from member states; it does not, however, seem to think a scoping exercise is necessary. The commission’s attitude — exemplified by Ms Malmstrom in [URL='http://click.newsletters.ft.com/f/a/T49PEIr5c_i53NxsLoxESA~~/AAAAAQA~/RgReHz0oP0RAaHR0cHM6Ly93ZWJjYXN0LmVjLmV1cm9wYS5ldS9ldS10cmFkZS1wb2xpY3ktZGF5LWdhc3AtMjctMTEtMjAxOFcIZmludGltZXNCCgASULg8XPG5WZFSF2gua2FuZ0Boc3MxNi5xbXVsLmFjLnVrWAQAAAAA']this video[/URL] of an interview with the author in late November, relevant section from 09.41 onwards — tends towards the cautious, and emphasises the importance of process. The EU’s strategy is surely that the regulatory mini-deal by itself will keep the US happy enough for it to hold off the emergency car duties while taking the wider industrial tariffs talks slowly. At the current rate of progress, Ms Malmstrom may not even be in charge of the EU side by the time any substantive talks on tariffs are finalised; there will be a new commission this autumn. But whether any kind of deal is even remotely possible may well become evident before then. Holding China accountable The US-China talks last week in Beijing were notable more for their emollient tone than for the substance of a breakthrough. But one issue that did clearly emerge was the need to hold China accountable for any promises it made on issues such as forced technology transfer. This is complicated by the fact that the US trade representative is averse to any dispute settlement mechanism that might give other governments a new avenue to bring legal actions against the US. This is not a new problem, and has formed some of the most intractable conversations between China and the US since the former’s accession to the WTO. In the early years, when CDs and DVDs were a much bigger part of the entertainment market, the US would complain vociferously that while Chinese laws on intellectual property rights were often perfectly satisfactory, their implementation by local courts was not. At some points, the US even contemplated setting numerical targets for China to convict counterfeiters. In the event, the issue became less important thanks to technological change. But the question of enforcing rules against hard-to-quantify violations of agreements has not gone away. Figure of the week — $270,000 The calculated increase in [URL='http://click.newsletters.ft.com/f/a/q6kzuEJS5xteqrQLwa8jQg~~/AAAAAQA~/RgReHz0oP0RyaHR0cHM6Ly9waWllLmNvbS9ibG9ncy90cmFkZS1pbnZlc3RtZW50LXBvbGljeS13YXRjaC9zdGVlbC1wcm9maXRzLWdhaW4tc3RlZWwtdXNlcnMtcGF5LXVuZGVyLXRydW1wcy1wcm90ZWN0aW9uaXNtVwhmaW50aW1lc0IKABJQuDxc8blZkVIXaC5rYW5nQGhzczE2LnFtdWwuYWMudWtYBAAAAAA~']profits earned by US steel companies[/URL] for each new job created by the Trump steel tariffs. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?
Post reply
Forums
Aspiring Lawyers - Interviews & Vacation Schemes
Commercial Awareness Discussion
Useful links and resources
Top
Bottom
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…