EU versus US.....fight!

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-03-01 08:04am

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1056422.htm

EU sanctions target US tax breaks

The European Union has imposed sanctions on the United States for the first time as a dispute over tax breaks for US firms turns into a trade war that could cost American exporters $US300 million this year.

The lower tax rates for exports for firms, including Boeing and Microsoft, were judged an illegal subsidy by the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

The WTO ruled the EU could impose $US4 billion in sanctions a year on US goods.

But European trade commissioner Pascal Lamy has decided to apply gradual pressure by phasing in measures that will hit a wide range of goods, including textiles, jewellery and toys.

The sanctions are intended to prod the US Congress quickly to replace the tax breaks with measures in line with WTO rules.

The sanctions start at $US16 million as an extra 5 per cent duty on selected US products in March and rise by 1 per cent a month to $US315 million in 2004 and $US666 million if they run throughout 2005.

"The EU's objective remains the withdrawal of the US illegal subsidy," the Commission said in a statement.

"The EU has opted for a response which is measured, gradual and geared towards focussing the mind of the US legislature to comply."

Officials have tried to play down the impact of the trade row, which is the first time since the WTO was created in 1995 that the EU has retaliated on US goods.

Tax breaks for Microsoft? What kind of messed up government would break WTO rules for a struggling startup like Microsoft? Why?

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-03-01 08:21am

I really don't think you want to get into a Tit -for-Tat on Goverment handouts for Industry and corporations.... Across the pond does it so much more and better...

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-03-01 08:45am

This isn't across the pond. The tax breaks apply only for companies which have off shore subsidiaries.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-03-01 09:23am

How many BILLIONS of Euros does France funnel into Airbus, Renault and Peugot every year? How many BILLIONS of Euros in German subsidies went into Dalmer-Chrysler-Benz? Pot calling kettle! Pot calling kettle, can you read me? You are black, repeat you are black, over!

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-03-01 09:30am

Col. Crackpot wrote:How many BILLIONS of Euros does France funnel into Airbus, Renault and Peugot every year? How many BILLIONS of Euros in German subsidies went into Dalmer-Chrysler-Benz? Pot calling kettle! Pot calling kettle, can you read me? You are black, repeat you are black, over!

Then you should go to the WTO and sue the EU. It's not our problem you didn't.
And IIRC they tried it with Airbus, but got a negative decision.

For nitpicking: It is Either Daimler-Benz, and DaimlerChrysler after the fusion. The car brand is Mercedes-Benz, made by DaimlerChrysler

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-03-01 09:45am

Dahak wrote:[
Then you should go to the WTO and sue the EU. It's not our problem you didn't.
And IIRC they tried it with Airbus, but got a negative decision.

Starting an intercontinental pissing contest is always great for the economy.

The point in the EU is starting a trade war with the US over something they do themselves.

as for Airbus, that negative decision is a joke. If the US or Canada supported Boeing or Bombardier they way France supports Airbus Paris and Berlin would be screaming bloody fucking murder.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-03-01 09:48am

Col. Crackpot wrote:The point in the EU is starting a trade war with the US over something they do themselves.

Proof?

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-03-01 09:52am

Col. Crackpot wrote:
as for Airbus, that negative decision is a joke. If the US or Canada supported Boeing or Bombardier they way France supports Airbus Paris and Berlin would be screaming bloody fucking murder.

[lawyer]the facts of the case would be best for judging this[/lawyer]

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-03-01 12:04pm

AIAA report

So far, the U.K. has committed to about $800 million, and Germany to $1.5 billion. With a similar sum expected from France (which has not yet announced firm spending plans), a total of $3.8 billion would be almost exactly one-third of the A3XX $12-billion development bill.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-03-01 12:05pm

Another amusing tidbit. That'll teach me to post before going through the whole article.

From the U.S. standpoint, the 1992 agreement was a necessary evil. While allowing Europe to publicly fund one-third of development costs sounds high, it was a considerable improvement over the 60% provided by European governments for the A330/340 development program in the 1980s.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-03-01 12:22pm

Taking into account what Howedar just dug up, what do you think the response would be by the EU, if the US and Canada began massively subsidizing new jet designs by Boeing and Bombadier? HMMM???

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-03-01 12:39pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:Taking into account what Howedar just dug up, what do you think the response would be by the EU, if the US and Canada began massively subsidizing new jet designs by Boeing and Bombadier? HMMM???

Which is irrelevant to the topic at hand. That being the US is carrying on with a practice the WTO clearly has ruled against, and allowed the EU to impose punitive tolls.
If they don't like it, go to the WTO, and not just cry foul play.
The US could have easily avoided it by changing the relevant law. They didn't.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-03-01 12:44pm

It is not irrelivant. The EU is having it's cake and eating it too.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-03-01 12:45pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:Taking into account what Howedar just dug up, what do you think the response would be by the EU, if the US and Canada began massively subsidizing new jet designs by Boeing and Bombadier? HMMM???

Well the article points out that the US signed an agreement to allow the subsidising up to 30%, the EU is simply acting in accordance with an agreement signed between us and the US. Is it really our fault that Airbus has actually started to gain a market share and that your government signed an agreement under pressure from Boeing to allow this subsidising? The US doesn't have a leg to stand on over the Airbus issue (and as the article points out the EU does have a number of none legalistic agreements in its favour including the fact US air companies got a large shot in the arm during the 50-60s with cross over from military production something Airbus didn't really enjoy) but where they do have a leg to stand on they do engage the WTO, so don't paint them as saints who are above going to the WTO.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-03-01 12:46pm

So, an international body rules something the US does illegal, and the EU responds by enacting measures to try and force the US to comply. The general opinion is.. To cry foul. Now, I'll admit I haven't dug into this yet, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's politically motivated by France and Germany trying to 'get back' at the US, but I find a certain degree of irony in the 'Fuck 'em! What do they think they can do to us?' attitude with most international body's and the US, and the sudden 'But! But! They do it tooooo!' when an international body can actually make America feel pressure.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-03-01 12:56pm

Howedar wrote:It is not irrelivant. The EU is having it's cake and eating it too.

The US could've gone to the WTO. They didn't. Why is this our problem?
This is about the enforcing of a WTO decision.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-03-01 01:19pm

Dahak wrote:
Howedar wrote:It is not irrelivant. The EU is having it's cake and eating it too.
The US could've gone to the WTO. They didn't. Why is this our problem?
This is about the enforcing of a WTO decision.

The problem is massive hypocrisy. That's what the problem is.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2004-03-01 01:30pm

Rogue 9 wrote:The problem is massive hypocrisy. That's what the problem is.

*Cough* Steel Tarrifs *Cough*

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-03-01 01:41pm

Faram wrote

*Cough* Steel Tarrifs *Cough

*cough Bullshit cough* over since DEC////

President's Statement on Steel
Statement by the President

Steel Proclamation

December 4, 2003

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today, I signed a proclamation ending the temporary steel safeguard measures I put in place in March 2002. Prior to that time, steel prices were at 20-year lows, and the U.S. International Trade Commission found that a surge in imports to the U.S. market was causing serious injury to our domestic steel industry. I took action to give the industry a chance to adjust to the surge in foreign imports and to give relief to the workers and communities that depend on steel for their jobs and livelihoods. These safeguard measures have now achieved their purpose, and as a result of changed economic circumstances it is time to lift them

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 204-5.html

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-03-01 01:44pm

Faram wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:The problem is massive hypocrisy. That's what the problem is.
*Cough* Steel Tarrifs *Cough*

*cough* taste of your own medicine *cough*

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-03-01 02:03pm

*cough Bullshit cough* over since DEC////

So what if he repealed them (after a year, I might add)? They should never have existed in the first place.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-03-01 02:07pm

Joe wrote

So what if he repealed them (after a year, I might add)? They should never have existed in the first place

Yep...... Free Market..... Free Market ...... Free Market..... !!!!

Oddysseus · Post by **Oddysseus** » 2004-03-01 02:12pm

LOts of people want free markets and trade...then they want to be sure it only counts towards their advantage. All sides need to start making changes.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-03-01 10:29pm

SirNitram wrote:Now, I'll admit I haven't dug into this yet, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's politically motivated by France and Germany trying to 'get back' at the US,

Sorry to quote only a snippet, and thus quote you really somewhat out of context, but just to clear this up so that no one else argues the same thing.

France and Germany have about as much sway with the Comission at the moment as the UK does with the ECB, which is to say none.

The Comission is actually trying to fine Shroeder and Chirac for violating the EU's 'Growth and Stability pact' which is about the amount of defecit in terms of GDP.

Make no mistake, while there are French, German, British, Italian, Spanish, Greek, etc 'comissioners', they are not under the control of their respective governments at all!

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-03-01 10:36pm

Ugh.. fucking merchantilism...