The International Trade Committee has decided to resume work on the frozen trade agreement with the United States. This involves a vote on part of the trade deal, specifically proposals to eliminate import duties on American industrial goods and lobster.
This could possibly end the temporary suspension following President Trump's threat of higher tariffs due to European protests against Trump's threats regarding Greenland.
Several EP factions believe Brussels should retaliate in kind, but others want to avoid escalating the trade conflict. Although a majority agreed to resume work, fundamental disagreements remain about the conditions under which the agreement can be approved.
The central question is how far the Parliament should go in embedding political safeguards. Several factions want to support the agreement only if clear suspension possibilities are included in the implementing legislation. Moreover, this would mean Commission President Von der Leyen would have to 'go back' to Trump.
Supporters of the suspension clauses say they could be used if the United States does not respect the territorial integrity or essential security interests of the European Union or its member states.
Other factions, particularly within the largest political group EPP, warn that extra conditions could undermine the agreement. They advocate for swift approval, arguing that further delay damages the EU’s credibility.
The S&D social democrats, the second largest party in the Parliament, vote against the deal as long as Trump undermines European sovereignty. They demand a suspension clause be included in the agreement, allowing it to be withdrawn if the US threatens Europe again.
Despite these differences, it has been agreed to continue the legislative process. The trade committee continues working on two legislative proposals implementing tariff agreements from the so-called Turnberry agreement.
A vote in the Trade Committee is expected on February 24. Afterwards, the file can be passed to the plenary session, where the full European Parliament will have to vote on it.
Until then, it remains uncertain whether the political gap can be bridged. It is clear that the outcome is important not only economically but is also seen as a test of European unity and political cohesion.