Tariffs aside, regulations mean the EU rarely imports certain US products, such as meat and dairy.
Archived version: https://archive.is/newest/https://theconversation.com/eu-consumers-dont-trust-us-goods-a-look-into-trumps-trade-deficit-claims-249315
Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.
The perfect EU in your hypothetical would reject the premise of tariffs entirely. Instead of retaliating or lobbying for their removal, it would focus on rendering them irrelevant. It would invest in internal innovation, resource alternatives, and trade partnerships that bypass dependency on the offending nation. A perfect system doesn’t beg for scraps; it redefines the table.
But let’s not kid ourselves—this utopia assumes rational actors in a world where power is never ceded willingly. The reality? Even a “perfect” EU would face sabotage, propaganda, and economic warfare. The problem isn’t how it reacts to tariffs; it’s that the global system is built to punish those who refuse to play its exploitative game. Perfection wouldn’t survive in this cesspool.
Thanks for your perspective.
I don’t see counter tariffs as begging for scraps, but rather the easiest and quickest applied method to show that trying to force you is not without consequence and then afterwards you work on the other points your post mentioned.
And your second paragraph is exactly why I asked the question and wanted to know your view. To a certain degree you need to play the bad game, even if you know it’s bad, if it’s the only way to proceed.
Counter tariffs may seem like the “quickest applied method,” but they’re a band-aid on a gaping wound. They perpetuate the same exploitative system you’re trying to resist, reinforcing the very dynamics of coercion and retaliation. It’s not about showing consequence; it’s about breaking free from the cycle entirely. Playing the bad game, even temporarily, is still playing their game.
Your approach assumes that power respects defiance when, in reality, it thrives on it. The only way to proceed isn’t to play better but to flip the board. Anything less is just rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship. If your goal is genuine change, you don’t tweak the system—you dismantle it.
Appreciate the discussion—it’s rare to find someone willing to engage beyond surface-level noise.
Same to you!