China's divide and conquer approach looks to be paying off in deal on solar panel dispute

China and the EU have finally reached a deal to settle their trade dispute over solar panels, which has lasted for almost an entire year and has escalated significantly over the past few months.

In the end it seems that China’s divide and conquer approach may have won out. The key details of the deal are as follows:

• Price floor of 56 euro cents per watt on European imports of Chinese solar panels. Broadly seen to be around the average price which Chinese solar panel producers have been selling out over the past two years and well below the 80 cents which EU ProSun, the group which launched the complaint, were seeking.
• A limit of 7 gigawatts in capacity imported from China. The total capacity of the European market is thought to be between 10 – 12 gigawatts, of which China currently controls a sizeable majority. This may provide some limit to Chinese control of the market and carves out a chunk for European producers.
• China has agreed to freeze its investigations into European wine and polysilicon according to European officials.

Given the original size of the proposed tariffs (50%+) it does seem that the EU’s Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht has softened his stance substantially (although this has been happening for some time). This is likely due to the erosion of support for the case in some of the key member states – first Germany (which was never particularly enthused by the idea) and then the Mediterranean states (once China launched its investigation into European wine exports). 

China’s agreement to drop its (largely) retaliatory disputes provide little cover for the aforementioned change in position. It seems the most important factor for EU officials was the cap on the capacity which can be sourced from China. This could prove to be important, but it still allows China to maintain control over a large majority of the market. It also suggests an implicit assumption that European producers can control the rest of the market (far from guaranteed if other emerging market producers see an opportunity to fill the gap created by the cap) and that the market will continue to grow, which European producers will be able to take advantage of – again far from guaranteed with the eurozone crisis and a struggling renewables sector in Europe.

This may though not be the last word in this dispute, after EU ProSun said it will challenge the deal at the European Court of Justice (ECJ). This could take some time to run its course, but as we noted when the dispute started, ostensibly, Chinese solar panel producers do receive huge government subsidies. By the letter of the law then, its possible the ECJ could side with the European producers.

Despite these issues, it’s clear that neither side could really afford to continue with this dispute. The more interesting question now is where this leaves the remaining 17 EU trade disputes which involve China. Has the balance of power shifted? Has De Gucht’s position been undermined by intergovernmental disputes? Ultimately, this may be determined by progress in a new investigation into Chinese dumping in the telecoms market. Watch this space.

China launches official investigation into EU wine subsidies

Trade-war back on.

Well, in fairness, we’re not sure it ever went away. It did seem like relations were improving, however, with EU Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht saying (following a meeting with his Chinese counterpart):

“I believe that both sides have now engaged in a sincere way to work towards an amicable solution. That is the good news…Let be me very clear again here today in Beijing: Europe wishes for an amicable solution.”

The rest of the speech continued in much the same way, striking a very conciliatory tone. For his part, Chinese Minister for Commerce Gao Hucheng said that the talks had been “positive”.

This all helped raise hopes that a deal could be reached ahead of the August deadline meaning the EU tariffs on solar panels could be (largely) avoided and Chinese retaliatory tariffs on wine would never be more than an empty threat.

Unfortunately, that no longer looks to be the case. The Chinese government has now officially accepted the complaint from its wine industry regarding illegal dumping and subsidies from the EU to its wine producers, saying:

"China's investigation department will strictly abide by China's relevant laws and regulations and meet the demands of relevant World Trade Organization rules…In the investigation process, the Ministry of Commerce will follow the principles of openness, fairness and transparency, fully respect all parties' legal rights, and make a fair ruling based on objective fact and the relevant laws and regulations."

We’re not sure that will provide much comfort to France and other countries which fear the imposition of tariffs.

Needless to say then, it seems whatever talks have been going on behind the scenes have not been fruitful. This spat looks set to escalate, not least because the WTO is likely to turn into a battleground with two of the largest economies trading blows and trying to garner support. With the August deadline just over a month away hopes for an “amicable solution” look to be fading.

Hey Berlin, this is what an EU without Britain would look like

Open Europe's Director Mats Persson writes on his Telegraph blog,

One of the biggest questions in today’s European politics is what price Germany is willing to pay to keep the UK in the EU. One school of thought – which strangely sees an over-representation of retired Europhiles and hardcore Eurosceptics – claims virtually no price at all. Berlin will choose Paris – and Warsaw – any day of the week. David Cameron might as well throw in the towel now.

Well, the past week may have given Berlin a taste of what an EU without Britain could look like. And it ain’t pretty.

The looming EU-China trade war has again pitted Europe’s north against its south, with Beijing pursuing its patented ‘divide and conquer’ strategy. The dispute was triggered by Brussels’ decision to impose anti-dumping tariffs on heavily subsidised solar panels from China. Beijing’s retaliation was swift: you Europeans spend an awful lot of cash subsidising wine. Is that really legal under World Trade Organisation rules?

It hasn’t been lost on anyone that the biggest wine producers in Europe also are the strongest proponents of the solar panel tariffs: France, Italy and Spain. Given the symbolic importance of wine in these countries, this is no longer only business: it’s personal.

A trade war with China would hurt everyone but, wine exports notwithstanding, it would be particularly bad for Germany. With demand in the eurozone drying up, the boost in German exports is largely due to a rise in its share of the Chinese market. A disruption in these export flows now, when the European recovery is balancing on a knife’s edge, would be a disaster for Germany.

It’s therefore not surprising that Berlin has gone to town over the anti-dumping tariffs, and it has been backed by the UK and other liberal countries.

However, since the EU has so-called “exclusive” competence in trade policy, the European Commission negotiates on behalf of all EU member states and Germany is hostage to majority decisions amongst EU ministers.

The way EU trade policy is decided is complex. A final decision on whether to keep the tariffs in place will be taken at some point towards the end of the year, though it could well be solved before then. But clearly, without the additional pressure and weight of the UK, Germany would struggle to get its way on this one. Any short-team decision to remove the tariffs requires a so-called Qualified Majority. Germany would find it extremely difficult to reach the necessary voting share absent the UK (and may even struggle with it, though the final decision is taken by a simple majority).

And this is where Brexit meets the German economy. At the moment, under a Qualified Majority Vote the Northern, liberal bloc has a “blocking minority” in the EU’s Council of Ministers, which means it can stop the many attempted protectionist measures originating in the Mediterranean. The southern group, too, has a blocking minority – meaning the two blocs balance each other. However, should the UK leave, the Mediterranean block would substantially strengthen its collective voting weight, whilst the German-led North would lose its blocking minority altogether. The field would be wide open for a barrage of anti-dumping tariffs and tit-for-tat trade wars (think “Buy European”) with China and other crucial destinations for German products.

There are several other reasons why Berlin fears a UK exit more than it lets on – prospect of paying even more to the EU, extra costs to UK-bound exports, losing a financial gateway to global markets, geopolitics and more. But as Germany increasingly goes global, it’s the fear that a more protectionist EU could prevent it from doing business across the world which really hits home.