(CN) — The optics were terrible: Ursula von der Leyen, the European Union chief, flew to Scotland on Sunday and put on a brave face as she shook hands with President Donald Trump and agreed to a trade deal that, on the face of it, saw Europe fold.
The backdrop was humiliating: She met Trump at a luxury golf course the billionaire and anti-EU American president owns in Scotland. It was bad enough that she was at his private resort and it really stung that she was in Great Britain, the country that abandoned the EU with Brexit.
To top it off, the deal's contents were very hard to stomach for Europeans: They agreed to let the U.S. slap a 15% tariff on most goods from the EU without retaliating in kind and they pledged to spend oodles of money ($1.35 trillion) on American natural gas, crude oil and advanced weapons in coming years.
As for optics, the score was clearly Trump 1, EU 0.
But opinions are divided about what Sunday's deal will actually mean in the long term when it comes to geopolitics and economics and which side may, at the end, say it came out ahead. Nonetheless, there's general consensus on one outcome: All sides are bound to lose because Trump's tariffs policy makes for bad economics.
“It's a bad deal, but it's the best deal the EU can get in bad circumstances,” said Scott Lucas, a professor of international politics at University College Dublin, in a telephone interview.
Faced with Trump's unpredictable bullying tactics and the EU's reliance on the U.S. export market, many experts said the EU chose to avoid a deeply damaging trade war and appease Trump. Trump was threatening to impose 30% tariffs on August 1 unless the EU struck a deal. Currently, EU goods face on average a 4.8% tariff in the U.S.
“Trump operates an extortion racket,” Lucas said. “Sometimes when you deal with an extortion racket, you got to give some ground …. The EU's played for time, it's accepted that it has to take some damage economically.”
But he said Europe's decision to bite the bullet shouldn't be viewed as a capitulation.
“Sometimes you have to pay a bit of protection money in the short term while you find your security elsewhere,” he said.
He said Trump's disruptive tariffs policy is forcing the rest of the world to look beyond the U.S. for new markets and alliances.
“What these tariffs have done, what Trump has done, is that you're getting a realignment of economic relationships,” he said.
He pointed to last week's landmark trade deal between the U.K. and India to lower tariffs. The EU is eyeing new trade deals too, including with India, Canada and Australia.
“Companies are realigning because they know they might have to deal with the U.S. being a damaging force economically,” he said. “You have to find partnerships elsewhere. That's what the EU is also going to be doing.”
Others, though, saw the EU as surrendering too much.
On Monday, a chorus of European leaders, politicians, business leaders, experts and commentators decried the deal as a major defeat for the EU that exposed its weaknesses as an overly divided and cautious 27-member bloc dependent on U.S. military might and crippled by feeble economic growth.
“It is a dark day when an alliance of free peoples, united to affirm their values and defend their interests, resolves to submission,” French Prime Minister François Bayrou said on social media, reflecting deep misgivings in France over the deal. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez echoed that sentiment, saying he accepted the deal “without any enthusiasm.”





