Lawmakers want iron-clad assurances that the EU–US tariff Turnberry truce will survive Washington’s latest protectionist twitch. Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, sitting before the Parliament’s trade committee on Tuesday, made it clear: this is not going to get any better.
The commissioner knew he would face a thorough grilling about the EU-US trade deal at the INTA committee hearing on 24 February. He came prepared; figuratively speaking, you could see the shoulder-holster bulge under his jacket. He delivered an impassioned defence of the Commission’s work.
“When it comes to United States of America, I know that many of you didn’t like the deal, but to be honest, I never heard any alternative solutions from your side,“ Mr Šefčovič cocked the imaginary firearm. “What was the choice, to have this deal or to go to the trade war? Would you be praising me in August if I told you, okay, negotiations failed, we are entering the trade war? Would you be happy if you saw that factories are closed, jobs are lost, and we have a dramatic turn for worse in our relationship with the United States?“ the shots rang through the chamber.
What price elegance?
“You are criticising this deal, and I understand that it’s absolutely right. But look also at the numbers,“ the commissioner invited the MEPs. (You half-expected him to say ‘You want the truth? You can‘t handle the truth.‘)
“If you look at the numbers, our US exports have actually increased over the last year. I think that we have to look at it not only from the point of view of elegance of the agreement or the framework, but also what does it do on the ground? Are our people better or worse if we have this joint statement, or not?“ The chamber looked as if had just been made an offer it could not refuse.
You might be interested
Mr Šefčovič fired on, declaring: “I have to say that on Saturday morning, I got the phone call proactively coming from the United States. They’ve been telling me, look, we have this ruling of the US Supreme Court, and I want to reassure you that we are going to stick to our deal, that we will respect the deal if you respect the deal.“
A legal uncertainty
The commissioner used this to defend the Commission’s position to stick to the agreement. It has come under renewed scrutiny after the US Supreme Court last week invalidated most of the tariffs to which the deal had responded.
“Yesterday, I spoke twice with Ambassador Greer. And I am very vocal about what is very difficult for us. For us, 15 per cent all-inclusive is a deal. And I know that 10 plus more than five per cent is outside of the deal,“ Mr Šefčovič said.
We always said, regardless if you like or not like the deal, we are sticking to the deal. — MEP Bernd Lange (S&D/DEU)
“I also have to say that the picture is not black and white. When we had the crisis with the legacy chips last autumn, I was speaking with Scott Bessent three times a day until the problem was solved,“ he concluded his initial salvo.
Security over hope
MEP Bernd Lange (S&D/DEU) fired back first. “We always said, regardless if you like or not like the deal, we are sticking to the deal,” the INTA chairman declared. “They are doing it not. Hope is good. But security is better. What is the time limit to that?” Mr Lange also asked what “mini deals” might come next should the pact implode.
Mr Šefčovič answered with the numbers he possesses. “What we hear from our American counterparts is that, of course, the transitional time is very clearly framed by maximum 150 days, because this is how long these so-called universal tariffs could be applied based on the Section 122,” he said.
They’ve been telling me, look, we have this ruling of the US Supreme Court, and I want to reassure you that we are going to stick to our deal, that we will respect the deal if you respect the deal. — EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič
Officials in Washington, he added, think clarity may come sooner, like “three, four months.” Meanwhile “the communication between us is very, very, very intense and it will continue like that also in the future.” Time, then, is short but not yet fatal, and Brussels will keep talking.
‘Keen on tariffs‘
MEP Barry Cowen (Renew/IRL) offered cautious support if the Commission can pin down the Americans. “Like I said, last July, the Commission secured what was, particularly in comparison with other blocs, a good and balanced deal with the U.S.,” he said.
“So what we need now is absolute clarity that the good deal reached in July remains a good deal here in February, both in substance and in spirit. Our exporters, particularly in the agri-food and advanced manufacturing sectors, require predictability,“ the Irish liberal member stressed. “They cannot invest or trade on the basis of rolling legal improvisation, and a rules-based EU-US partnership must rest on clarity and mutual confidence.”
The Commissioner replied with a lawyer’s firmness. “The deal is a deal,” he said. “To get there, we went through rather complex negotiations.” Brussels had even offered zero-for-zero tariff elimination, but Washington rebuffed the idea. “This administration is very keen on tariffs,“ he said.
Just a little patience
“We had to look for other solutions if we wanted to avoid trade tension and eventually the conflict,” Mr Šefčovič recalled, noting that carve-outs for wines, spirits and derivatives are “permanently on the agenda and we will continue to push for that.” Yet he urged patience: poking the White House now could hand isolationists a fresh pretext to scrap concessions.
MEP João Cotrim de Figueiredo (Renew/PRT) tried a different tack. “What do you think President Trump will do next?” he asked. “Because one thing is sure, he will not remain with the solution that he has now.”
A rules-based EU-US partnership must rest on clarity and mutual confidence. — MEP Barry Cowen (Renew/IRL)
In response, Mr Šefčovič ducked the crystal-ball test yet hinted that pragmatists in Washington know fresh across-the-board duties would hurt American allies more than China. Europe, he implied, must keep channels open, cajole rather than curse, and hope cooler heads prevail before the 150-day clock runs out.
Rethinking the toolkit
Mr Lange’s query about “mini deals” drew the day’s most revealing riff. Mr Šefčovič launched into a ten-minute defence of new, slimmer pacts designed to sidestep the decade-long slog of classic free-trade agreements. “To negotiate a free trade agreement is enormous effort and it takes sometimes a very long time,” he said. “In this new dynamic world, we’ve been looking for what could be new products on the DG Trade or the Commission shelves to address some of the elements which would like to target more specifically and avoid the heavy procedure.”
Sustainability and Investment Facilitation Agreements with Angola and Ecuador show the concept works, the commissioner insisted. “They are much thinner documents.” Why bother? “We do this because it’s simpler, it’s faster, and it’s very much welcomed by our partners,” he said. Brussels now scouts similar compacts with Egypt, Vietnam and South Africa. Parliamentary scrutiny, he conceded, still needs streamlining—yet nimbleness matters more than ever.
MEPs listened, some unconvinced. The Commissioner laid bare the executive’s dilemma: the world moves quicker than the EU’s hallowed translation and legal-scrubbing rituals. Mr Šefčovič vowed to share agendas and draft texts sooner. The committee murmured approval but kept its collective arms folded.
Secondary skirmishes
Once the tariff tempest subsided, lesser storms blew in. MEP Nina Carberry (EPP/IRL) sought relief for Irish firms that import pre-coated steel from South Korea. MEP Miriam Lexmann (EPP/SVK) rattled through worries about Chinese electric cars, export controls on critical minerals and a Slovak battery plant’s environmental impact. (Mr Šefčovič, who hails from Slovakia, noted that Chinese exports keep rising “despite our countervailing duties” and hinted at fresh probes into plug-in hybrids.)
MEP Iuliu Winkler (EPP/ROU) chased ASEAN updates. Indonesia’s treaty, the Commissioner said, is inching through legal scrubbing; signatures “should not be many months from now.” MEP Udo Bullmann (S&D/DEU) widened the lens. Do modern trade deals hinge less on tariffs than on joint law-making? “I think here we would be very happy to discuss this with you,” Mr Šefčovič replied.
I know that many of you didn’t like the deal, but to be honest, I never heard any alternative solutions from your side. — Maroš Šefčovič
None of these issues matters as much as the looming Turnberry vote. Parliament delayed the ballot after America’s Supreme Court struck down tariffs imposed under IEEPA, sparking fears of a broader trade war. The Commission still wants plenary approval in March.
Stalled but still necessary
The choice now facing MEPs is not entirely appealing: Endorse a bargain that feels fragile yet better than any plausible alternative, or reopen talks with a White House that believes tariffs work. Europe’s own industry, from Irish cheesemakers to German machine-tool firms, pleads for certainty. As Mr Cowen put it, “A rules-based EU-US partnership must rest on clarity and mutual confidence.” Clarity may arrive inside 150 days, or evaporate in the next presidential tweet.
For Brussels the Turnberry accord remains the only game in town. Other trade files stagger on—Indonesia, ASEAN, critical-raw-materials pacts—but none can match the weight of a €1.2 trn transatlantic relationship. Mr Šefčovič’s marathon defence revealed both resolve and vulnerability. He can cite deadlines, repeat assurances and spin new mini deals. Yet he cannot compel Washington, nor can he speed Europe’s own legislative grind.
Next month Parliament must decide whether hope, buttressed by a flurry of late-night phone calls and a 150-day American stopwatch, counts as policy. If MEPs vote yes, Mr Šefčovič buys time to craft sturdier links. If they vote no, Brussels may tumble back into tit-for-tat tariffs with the world’s largest economy. It may also discover that there were indeed no better options on the shelf. The Commission certainly thinks so.
