This week’s debate followed similar themes to the first session, with a clear division between those favouring retaliation versus those recommending diplomatic solutions and continued debate over soft-power measures and ideological considerations. However, new ideas also emerged in the form of and EU-wide “Made in Europe” strategy proposed by Spain and Bulgaria. The highlight of the session were the two working papers which were introduced and refined by the motivated participants. Each paper took a different approach to the EU’s response, with some similarities which could allow for a rapprochement of the two.
The first approach, supported by Spain, Bulgaria, Ireland, and Denmark, underscored the importance of a rules-based international trading system and the role of the World Trade Organization in resolving disputes. This perspective called for diplomatic negotiations with the U.S. while maintaining the EU’s unified trade policy as outlined in Article 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The proposal also recommended strengthening the EU’s ability to respond to trade violations through the Enforcement Regulation and the creation of a rapid-response task force within the Directorate-General for Trade. Trade diversification was highlighted as a key strategy, with an emphasis on forging agreements with partners in Latin America, Africa, and Asia to reduce dependency on any single economic actor.
The second approach took a more confrontational stance, arguing that the bureaucratic nature of the EU hinders economic agility compared to the U.S. and that decisive countermeasures were necessary to demonstrate strength. This plan proposed direct trade negotiations with the U.S., including potential offers such as increased LNG purchases, reduced tariffs on U.S. automobiles, and increased procurement of American military equipment in exchange for lifting U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum. Additionally, this perspective urged all EU member states to increase their military spending to at least 2% of GDP, with half of new defense investments allocated to U.S. equipment, supported by funding mechanisms for smaller economies. To enhance economic competitiveness, the proposal called for reducing European bureaucracy to foster innovation and streamline decision-making.
Reflections on the Second Session
The debate revealed a division between those favoring a diplomatic, rules-based response and those advocating for assertive economic and military realignment. While both sides recognized the need to protect European industries, the means of achieving this goal remained contested. We are once again proud of the effort and enthusiasm each delegate showed during the debate and we look forward to seeing their skills and ideas put to the test in the coming weeks.
Comments