EU Parliament freezes US trade deal ratification

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Role of career diplomats and institutional expertise

  • One line of discussion questions the value of professional diplomats and large bureaucracies if political leaders can undo years of relationship‑building in a moment.
  • Others respond that many affairs of state cannot be run by short‑term appointees: states need people with decades of institutional memory, language skills, and long‑standing personal relationships (e.g., with Tehran, intelligence agencies, public health).
  • Argument: top leaders cannot personally hold deep expertise in all domains; dismantling the professional apparatus would make policy both shallower and more fragile.

Trade realignments and Mercosur/EU deals

  • Commenters note that recent geopolitical shocks are accelerating already‑long negotiations (e.g., EU–Mercosur, started in 1999) and pushing countries to seek “like‑minded” alliances.
  • Mercosur is cited as an example of a painfully slow process that only gained urgency once US politics became more erratic.
  • However, optimism about ratification is tempered: the EU Parliament is sharply split, and later news in the thread shows the deal being frozen and sent to the EU Court of Justice.
  • Canada’s new deals (including with China) are cited as part of a broader diversification away from US dependence.

EU agriculture, regulation, and food sovereignty

  • Strong disagreement over whether EU farmers are “special interests” or essential strategic assets.
  • One side: EU devotes ~25% of its budget to agriculture; farmers are too politically powerful; regulations are excessively bureaucratic and hurt domestic producers.
  • Other side: strict regulations protect against slave labor and harmful chemicals; offshoring food production repeats past mistakes in energy and manufacturing and creates dangerous dependencies.
  • Tension highlighted between high EU standards, competitive pressure from imports with lower standards, and anger at both EU-level rules and local enforcement.

Tariffs and incidence of costs

  • Clarification that, formally, importers pay tariffs, but in practice the cost is shared among foreign producers, domestic consumers, and firms.
  • Debate over who really bears the burden: some argue exporters often eat part of the cost to stay competitive; others contend broad tariffs mostly flow through to higher consumer prices.

Trump, Greenland, and billionaire influence

  • Many see the EU–US trade clash as a product of one leader’s erratic behavior, with frustration that an “angry geriatric man” can cause long‑term damage he won’t live through.
  • Counterpoint: even if that leader disappeared, others (e.g., his chosen successors) or the wider movement would continue similar policies; he is a symptom, not the core cause.
  • Several comments argue that oligarchs and major donors, including tech billionaires, shape these moves from behind the scenes; Trump is described as “ideal” for their purposes, not an aberration.
  • One subthread cites reporting that the Greenland idea was seeded by a specific billionaire, prompting suggestions that concentrated wealth and dynastic fortunes should be constrained (e.g., via strong estate taxes).

Structural flaws in US politics

  • Contributors repeatedly stress structural issues: money in politics, lobbying, first‑past‑the‑post elections, gerrymandering, weak constraints on presidential abuse of the Justice Department, and a “tribalized” media ecosystem.
  • Some argue that gridlock in Congress is an intentional feature meant to prevent tyranny; others say this has been weaponized into a “destructionist” strategy that blocks any reform and pushes power into agencies and courts.
  • Extended debate over electoral systems:
    • Critics of first‑past‑the‑post say it forces everything into two parties, so extremists capture one of them (e.g., Trump capturing the Republicans), leaving no outlet for “venting” via small parties.
    • Proportional representation is presented as offering “pressure valves,” allowing fringe or protest parties to gain some representation rather than blowing up the main parties.
    • Examples from Europe (both successful coalition politics and chronic fragmentation) are used to show trade‑offs; consensus is that the US system is unusually bad at channeling discontent constructively.
  • Several insist that, ultimately, only the public can force systemic reform, but others reply that entrenched structures and decades of manipulation make this extremely difficult in practice.

EU–US rift, alliances, and escalation

  • The trade freeze is widely seen as deepening a long‑term rift; some say the situation is becoming “irreversible.”
  • There is anger at US rhetoric dismissing smaller allies as “irrelevant,” with reminders that small states (e.g., in Europe) can hold huge reserves and influence; this is used to justify the EU’s design as a bloc that restrains great‑power arrogance.
  • Some Europeans advocate a hard line: “escalate to de‑escalate” and support politicians with an uncompromising stance toward US pressure, even at significant economic cost.
  • Others worry economic retaliation is risky for Europe but note that US leaders also cannot afford a major downturn in an election year, which may limit escalation.
  • A few light‑hearted comments speculate about Canada joining the EU or an “Arctic Union,” illustrating a broader yearning to rebalance away from US dominance.
  • Individual responses include personal boycotts (“time to buy European”) as symbolic resistance.