EU Parliament freezes US trade deal ratification

Post by orwin » Wed, Jan 21, 2026, 9:39 AM UTC

renewiltord wrote: post #35

4gotunameagain wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Had the US not had a demented lunatic as a president, none of this would've happened.

Trump or no Trump, the US's ability to be Europe's security shield had to come to an end one day or another. Trump is more a symptom than a cause: the US has weakened and others have strengthened. As many are eager to point out, the game is already up. Pretending like there is a future here is pointless. America had best leave internal European civil wars like Russia-Ukraine to the locals and retreat to whatever bord…

Post by thefz » Wed, Jan 21, 2026, 9:45 AM UTC

pu_pe wrote: post #89

Today at Davos will be a very important inflection point. If Trump decides to maintain or escalate pressure on Europe over Greenland, more economic retaliation will follow. While that could be suicidal for Europe, there are other factors at play, such as the fact that Trump cannot afford a self-inflicted economic collapse during an election year.

Post by joe_mamba » Wed, Jan 21, 2026, 9:59 AM UTC

inglor_cz wrote: post #85

joe_mamba wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So, there is no unnecessary regulation in your view? Why are you making it sound like the issue is binary? >Some are just a byproduct of the office needing to show some activity and keeping their budget. Agree. >She was fined by authorities overseeing agricultural regulations Were those authorities doing the inspection from the EU or the local nation?

"Why are you making it sound like the issue is binary?" Because your declaration about the regulations seeking to protect us from big evil sounded quite absolutist in itself. A bit of a motte-and-bailey. Some of them are undoubtedly good, some less so, and we shouldn't lobotomize ourselves by immediately dragging slavery out when starting discussions about the current regulatory level. "Were those authorities doing t…

Post by joe_mamba » Wed, Jan 21, 2026, 10:10 AM UTC

izacus wrote: post #69

joe_mamba wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>for historic reasons Yes. The need to feed one's self and family is pretty historically important going back since we were primordial organisms to medieval times when if peasants didn't have food they'd riot and behead the king. >European regulations, which are pretty onerous. Onerous regulations that seek to prevent ... checks notes ... the use of slave labor and chemicals that damage human health and the environme…

I don't know what you're arguing about here because the farmers in EU are aggressively fighting against regulation to curtail chemicals, environmental controls and minimum healthy food quality mandates.

Post by rsynnott » Wed, Jan 21, 2026, 10:15 AM UTC

andsoitis wrote: post #90

orwin wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The importer pay the tariff, unless it changed in the last two hundred years?

Tariffs are paid by importers, but the cost is usually shared between: - Foreign producers - Domestic consumers - Domestic companies (via lower profits) Who pays more depends on bargaining power and market structure.