“It Could Have Been Worse”: A Silver Lining for Some in Contentious US-EU Pact

Amid a wave of disappointment and criticism surrounding the new US-EU trade agreement, some industry voices are finding a sliver of silver lining in the outcome. The prevailing sentiment is one of relief that the most extreme threats, such as a rumored 200% tariff on European wine, did not materialize.
Christophe Chateau of the Bordeaux winemakers association encapsulated this feeling of reluctant pragmatism. While lamenting the new 15% tariff as a “brake” on sales, he admitted, “It could have been worse.” This perspective acknowledges that while the deal is far from ideal, it successfully averted a catastrophic, full-blown trade war that could have decimated entire European export sectors.
This view is implicitly shared by proponents of the deal within the EU, who argue that accepting these terms was a necessary evil. The agreement provides a predictable, albeit conditional, path for lowering the 27.5% auto tariff, offering stability to a market that has been plagued by uncertainty. For industries facing the threat of complete market exclusion, a 15% tariff is seen as a manageable, if undesirable, cost of doing business.
However, this “it’s not as bad as it could have been” defense does little to satisfy those who feel their interests were sacrificed. While some may be relieved, others, like the French wine federation, remain “hugely disappointed.” The deal, therefore, is being judged not only on its content but on the dark alternatives it helped to avoid.