This Tuesday 16 June, Members of the European Parliament will be called upon to vote on the trilogue agreement concerning the two regulations linked to the political agreement concluded in summer 2025 between the European Union and the United States, commonly known as the “Turnberry agreement”. In brief, this agreement provides that, for a very large majority of European products, the United States will apply a customs duty capped at 15%; in return, the EU commits to removing the remaining tariffs on American industrial products, as well as granting preferential access to the European market for certain agricultural and fishery products. Parliament is therefore voting on the two legislative acts implementing these concessions. It should be recalled that the European Parliament, however, has no power to set or guarantee the tariffs applied by the United States. The announced 600 billion dollars in additional investments in the United States and 750 billion dollars in purchases of American energy products by 2028 remain, for their part, political commitments made by the European Commission itself, which are not subject to the approval of the European Parliament.
Although the liberals have from the outset denounced an unbalanced agreement to Europe's disadvantage, MR MEPs will nonetheless support the agreement, for two main reasons: the presence of guarantees imposed by Parliament and the will to provide, as far as possible, predictability for our economic actors.
Sophie Wilmès, Vice-Chair of the Delegation for relations with the United States, comments on the text itself:
“Let's be very clear: the Turnberry agreement remains unbalanced. But the text put to a vote today is better than the Commission's initial proposal. We secured a better deal for Europeans. Indeed, Parliament entered the trilogue with a strong position and four solid guarantees to protect Europe from the turbulence of President Trump's second term. I note that most of these assurances withstood the negotiations with the Council. The reinforced suspension clause and the safeguard mechanism constitute two genuine 'emergency brakes'. They can be activated in the event of disruption to the European market or new tariff threats from Washington. That said, regarding the suspension clause, we regret the disappearance of the reference to the EU's territorial integrity. After the Greenland episode earlier this year, we would be wrong not to learn the lessons from that sequence. Finally, the postponement of the 'sunset clause' means that the new deadline will better coincide with our respective electoral calendars and the full taking of office of a new European Commission. We are also pleased with the inclusion of a specific clause for steel derivative products, which are still currently subject to 50% tariffs. The clear deadline set for 31 December 2026 constitutes a strong signal towards the Trump administration.”
For the MR, this positive vote also responds to a need for stability and predictability.
Sophie Wilmès explains:
“Supporting this text today also means listening to businesses calling for an end to tariff uncertainty. It is impossible for a company to define a strategy, anticipate costs or plan investments when announcements follow one another and sometimes contradict each other. This agreement makes it possible, for a time, we must acknowledge, to stave off the risk of a trade war. That does not mean we are letting our guard down, quite the contrary. President Trump has accustomed us to expect the worst, which is precisely why we wanted additional protective clauses. Should a new American offensive occur, Parliament has shown that a broad consensus exists within it to stand firm against the United States. We also expect less naivety from the other institutions of the European Union. We must remain alert, vigilant and ready to react if necessary. At the same time, we must continue working both on the EU's internal reforms, as called for in the Draghi report, and on strengthening our strategic autonomy. If we do this, Europe will finally be able to show that it is a full, equal partner in the transatlantic relationship.”
Benoit Cassart, full member of the Committee on International Trade (INTA):
“The unbalanced agreement with the United States shows the European Union's dependence in the fields of defence, energy and digital technologies. That is why European strategic autonomy is at the heart of our political fight. Trade is essential, opening up the European market and promoting European exports is essential, but we must ensure that this trade remains logical and does not endanger our strategic sectors. In this agreement, the agricultural component is thankfully limited to a quota on pork. But beware: farming practices differ greatly between the European Union and the United States. For example, the European Union bans the use of certain growth substances such as ractopamine in pig farming. We will remain very vigilant to ensure that this meat does not enter the single market and that reciprocity of standards is respected.”