Mediaboss Marketing

BRUSSELS (AP) In the wake of the elections for EU Parliament, European Union leaders have agreed on the officials who will be the face of the worlds biggest trading bloc on the global stage in the coming years for issues ranging from anti-trust investigations to foreign policy.

The three nominees will hold key positions at the EUs powerful executive branch the European Commission and the forum where the 27 member countries are represented, the European Council, with the final nominee being the blocs top diplomat.

The Associated Press takes a look at who they are, and what they do.

The 65-year-old German politician has been endorsed for a second term as head of the powerful European Commission. Her bid got a shot in the arm earlier this month as the center-right European Peoples Party (EPP), which includes von der Leyens Christian Democratic Union, remained the largest group at the EU Parliament.

Von der Leyen has been praised for her leading role during the COVID-19 crisis, when the EU bought vaccines collectively for its citizens. But she also found herself at the receiving end of sharp criticism for the opacity of the negotiations with vaccine makers.

Von der Leyen has also embodied the EUs plans to become climate neutral by 2050, but her commitment to the Green Deal policies has been questioned in the buildup to the European elections as the EU seemed cautious not to antagonize farmers who argued that EU environmental and climate laws were driving them toward bankruptcy.

Under the EU treaties, the head of the European Commission sets the EU executive arms policy agenda, represents the commission in European Council meetings, G7 and G20 summits, summits with non-EU countries and major debates in the European Parliament and the Council. The European Commission leads trade negotiations and polices competition.

Von der Leyens second term now needs to be approved by European lawmakers in a vote likely to take place in July. In 2019, von der Leyen won a narrow majority (383 votes in favor, 327 against, 22 abstentions) to become the first woman to head the institution.

The former prime minister of Portugal is replacing Charles Michel. The 62-year-old socialist has been chosen for a 2 1/2 year term, which is renewable once.

The Socialists came in second place in the EU elections and the result has helped his case, although he had been considered for the position for months. Costas choice was controversial because of his governments involvement in a widespread corruption probe that forced him to resign as prime minister in November last year. Costa denies any wrongdoing and has not been charged with a crime.

The European Council brings together the EU member states. Its president is responsible for chairing summits and finding consensus within the European Council.

Known as a crafty political negotiator, Costa will also represent the EU at international summits alongside Von der Leyen. His predecessor, Charles Michel, had a tense relationship with the head of the commission.

The Estonian prime minister is a staunch supporter of Ukraine. With her nomination as the EUs top diplomat, she will be holding the highest EU position ever awarded to an Estonian. She was chosen as a successor for Josep Borrell despite the liberal group she belongs to losing ground in the European elections, slipping down to fourth place behind the far-right ECR.

Like von der Leyen, Kallas must also be confirmed by the EU Parliament.

Kallas, a 47-year-old lawyer, has been one of the most vocal European backers of Ukraine and a fierce critic of Russia within the European Union and NATO. Among other things, she has pressed NATO to provide a more thorough defense plan for the three Baltic states Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania that all border Russia.

Kallas, who has led the small Baltic nation bordering Russia as its first female head of government since January 2021, was at some point interested in becoming the next secretary general of NATO. Its finally the outgoing Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte who will hold the position.

___

AP writers Lorne Cook in Brussels contributed.

More here:
Von der Leyen, Costa and Kallas have been approved for EU top jobs. Who are they? What do they do? - WRIC ABC 8News

Apple today said that European customers will not get access to the Apple Intelligence, iPhone Mirroring, and SharePlay Screen Sharing features that are coming to the iPhone, iPad, and Mac this September due to regulatory issues related to the Digital Markets Act.

In a statement to Financial Times, Apple said that there will be a delay as it works to figure out how to make the new functionality compatible with the European Union's competition rules.

Due to the regulatory uncertainties brought about by the Digital Markets Act, we do not believe that we will be able to roll out three of these [new] features -- iPhone Mirroring, SharePlay Screen Sharing enhancements, and Apple Intelligence -- to our EU users this year.

Apple Intelligence includes a wide range of additions that overhaul everything from Siri to apps, while iPhone Mirroring is a feature that allows the iPhone to be controlled on a connected Mac. SharePlay Screen Sharing lets users take control of another person's screen while using the SharePlay feature, with the aim of providing assistance.

Some of the Siri-related Apple Intelligence capabilities will not be launching until 2025, but Genmoji, Image Playground, Writing Tools, and many new in-app capabilities are set to be available starting in September, and these are what iPhone, iPad, and Mac users in the European Union will miss out on. It is not clear how long it will take Apple to expand this features to the EU, nor what changes Apple might have to make to introduce them under the DMA.

Apple's warning comes as the European Commission prepares to make a ruling on whether prior changes to allow for app marketplaces meet the terms of the DMA. Regulators have said that there are "very serious" issues with Apple's implementation, likely related to the Core Technology Fee that Apple is charging.

Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Apple today released new firmware update for several products, including the Lightning and USB-C versions of the AirPods Pro 2, the first-generation AirPods Pro, the AirPods Max, the second and third-generation AirPods, the Beats Fit Pro, and the PowerBeats Pro. The second-generation AirPods Pro models, the PowerBeats Pro, and the Beats Fit Pro now have firmware version 6F8, up from 6F7,...

Apple today released the second betas of iOS 18 and iPadOS 18 to developers, and the software adds support for new features that Apple is working on, plus it tweaks some of the interface changes that have been made in the updates. Apple will refine iOS 18 over the course of the next few months, with multiple changes and refinements expected from now until September. We've highlighted...

Apple is rumored to be planning a revamp of the Apple Watch for the device's tenth anniversary, and 91mobiles claims to have sourced CAD renders of what could be the "Apple Watch X" or Apple Watch Series 10 from industry insiders. The site claims that the renders are of a "larger" model featuring a 2-inch display. The current Apple Watch Series 9 has a 1.7-inch display, while the Apple Watch ...

Apple's upcoming iOS 18 software update is packed with features for supported iPhones, but it also promises to make your AirPods Pro experience better with a handful of sophisticated new capabilities that draw from machine learning improvements and AI enhancements. The following five AirPods Pro features are expected to arrive later this year, when iOS 18 is released to the general public in ...

With the second beta of iOS 18 that came out yesterday, Apple added an RCS toggle, but RCS messaging was not working at that time. RCS support appears to now be rolling out, based on reports from iOS 18 users. Some testers who have iOS 18 installed have confirmed that they are able to send RCS messages to Android users, with RCS features available. Texts that are RCS-based instead of...

Continue reading here:
Apple Intelligence Features Not Coming to European Union at Launch Due to DMA - MacRumors

By SAMUEL PETREQUIN, LORNE COOK and ELLA JOYNER

BRUSSELS (AP) European Union leaders were poised to approve Ursula von der Leyen, Antnio Costa and Kaja Kallas as the heads of the 27-nation blocs top institutions for the coming years, tasking them with shaping policy for the worlds biggest trading bloc.

After the three mainstream political groups in the European Parliament reached an agreement earlier this week, the trio were expected to be approved at a two-day summit starting Thursday in Brussels, despite criticism from the far right.

Under the deal reached by negotiators from the conservatives, social democrats and liberals, von der Leyen, a conservative, will be proposed for a second term as European Commission president. Costa, a former Portuguese socialist prime minister, will be nominated to succeed European Council President Charles Michel, while Kallas, the Estonian prime minister known for her tough line on Russia, will be proposed as the blocs top diplomat to replace Josep Borrell.

While Michel's appointment is decided by EU leaders, both von der Leyen and Kallas will also need to be approved by lawmakers.

The European Parliament election held June 6-9 saw the EU's legislature shift to the right and dealt major blows to mainstream governing parties in France and Germany. But the three mainstream groups managed to keep a majority of seats and didn't take into consideration the rise of the far-right group of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, whose political group in the European Parliament is now the third-largest.

Under the EUs treaties, the leaders choice of candidates should reflect the results of the election, sharing the posts among the winners. At their previous meeting earlier this month, leaders failed to agree on the blocs top jobs.

Meloni criticized the deal on the eve of the summit, saying it didn't take into account the will of EU citizens "who are calling for a more concrete, less ideological Europe.

Under the EUs complicated division of powers, the leaders get to nominate the next president of the European Commission, which is responsible for drawing up EU policy on everything from the climate to the colossal shared budget.

Over the last five years, von der Leyen led a huge drive to secure billions of COVID-19 vaccine doses during the pandemic, set up an economic recovery fund and drummed up support for Ukraine after Russia launched its full-scale invasion, including by backing Kyivs future EU membership.

The European Council presidents job is to broker deals between the EU's member states, while the top diplomat represents the bloc on the world stage.

See the article here:
European Union leaders set to endorse Von der Leyen, Costa and Kallas for the bloc's top jobs | Daily Independent - Daily Independent

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Zip Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

Read this article:
European Union leaders agree on top officials who will be the face of world's largest trading bloc - Citrus County Chronicle

On May 14, 2024, the United States announced tariffs for thirteen imports from China, the most notable of these being the 100 percent duties imposed on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs). Prior to this, in October 2023, the European Union started an anti-subsidy investigation against Chinese EVs, sampling three large EV manufacturers: BYD, Geely, and SAIC. Approximately a month after the publication of the U.S. tariffs, on June 12, 2024, the European Commission preannounced that the investigation had been concluded and that tariffs will be imposed on EV imports from China. Preliminary tariffs will be imposed from July 4, and then permanent tariffs, which normally stay in place for five years, will have to be voted on in November.

The time proximity of the imposition of tariffs on Chinese EVs by both the United States and the European Union triggers an unavoidable yet premature connection between the two. Yet, the two types of tariffs could not be more different. They do not only differ in content but also and especially in purpose, and they are a good reflection of the different Transatlantic approaches to the issues China poses. Additionally, for the European Union the imposition of tariffs on EVs may present a pivotal moment in its relationship with China, which is not the case for the United States. To avoid an unnecessary escalation, it is important to clarify that the European Unions tariffs are not about geopolitical competition, nor about protectionism or containment, but are about the good old search for the level playing field, a longstanding pillar of the European Unions approach toward Chinaeven before the two became systemic rivals. The clarification will not be a guarantee against an escalation but highlights a fundamental distinction in purpose and thus in what it is the European Union is seeking. Considering that the European Commission has made clear that it is open to solving the issue via negotiations with China, that distinction deeply affects how the situation can be solved and what China and the European Union can do to address the core issue currently on the table: the lack of a level playing field.

Before diving into what differentiates U.S. and EU tariffs, it is, however, worth noticing three points of connection between the U.S. and EU tariffs. The first is that albeit with different motivations, they both adopted tariffsin the case of the European Union, it announced the intention to adopt tariffs. The second point concerns the imposition of tariffs following processes of investigation. The United States imposed new tariffs following the review of the tariffs imposed during the Trump administration, and the European Union may impose tariffs following an investigation into nonmarket practices adopted by China. Yet, the processes in the United States and the European Union clearly differ: in the United States, 13 tariffs have been imposed all together. In the European Union, each open investigation has a different angle as different tools are implemented, from trade defense instruments to the new foreign subsidies regulation. Thus, each investigation will provide its own result, which may or may not lead to tariffs against the items investigated. The European Unions process will also trigger different types of tariffs depending on the type of investigation. All in all, albeit differently, both the United States and the European Union did their homework before reaching a decision.

The third contact point between the two is the preemptive approach that both tariffs embody. True, there are nuances in the preemption related to imports of EVs. The United States only imports about 2 percent of total EV imports from China, while the European Union imports about 37 percent. Additionally, the European Union has seen a growth in imports in the past years that the United States has not. If Chinese EVs are left undisturbed, their market share in the European Union will be set to grow further. That is not a given for the U.S. market. That said, both the European Union and the United States are attempting to prevent a future where Chinese EVs will have occupied their respective markets that is not here yet. In a previous piece, the author highlighted how prevention rather than response is the new guiding principle in economic security, and the United States approach to EVs, but also the European Unions approach, has proven that to be right.

The United States imposed 100 percent tariffs on EVs along with a much longer list of 13 items, spanning from raw materials to components and final products. None of the other items have tariffs as high as those imposed on EVs, but the list is long and may grow in the future. The European Union, on the other hand, has announced much lower tariffs, and, for the moment, it has only announced tariffs on EVs without officially imposing them yet. The European Commission announced the imposition of 38.1 percent tariffs to be added to the 10 percent already in place. The tariffs are higher than expected for an anti-subsidy investigation, which normally imposes tariffs between around 15 and 25 percent. There are, however, some caveats. A lower tariff, 21 percent, will be imposed on companies that have collaborated during the investigation. Tesla is undergoing a separate investigation and different thresholds have been proposed for the three sampled companies: 17.4 percent for BYD, 20 percent for Geely, and that same 38.1 percent for SAIC.

The instrument chosen by the European Union to investigate Chinese EVs encapsulates the purpose of the European Unions action. The official issue is the subsidies that the Chinese EV sector has been receiving from the Chinese state. The argument is that those subsidies have allowed Chinese companies to produce cheaper items and, to a certain extent, granted those companies the global success that they are witnessing. By this reasoning, had China not provided the EV sector with state subsidies that facilitated its success, and had Chinese EVs been successful and widely present in the EU market anyway, the European Union would not have adopted the recently announced additional duties. This is, perhaps, a counterfactual that is difficult to imagine for a China so embedded in a system that promotes industrial sectors via state subsidies. But a thought exercise is needed to understand where the European Union is coming from with these tariffsessentially, not geopolitical competition, not protectionism, but the issue of the lack of a level playing field. And that alone puts miles between the motivations of the United States and the European Union with regard to the adoption of tariffs.

Opinions within the European Union, and even within EU institutions, may differ, and some may seek and perceive more protective goals rather than a level playing field in the duties against EVs. After all, concerns about the prosperity of the EU automotive sector have triggered the thinking around the issue and its investigation. However, ultimately, the importance of respect for the rules in the European Union trumps the more protective drives that may emerge more prominently in the United States actions. Additional proof of the fact that this is hardly a protectionist move lays in the quantity of the new tariffs. Unlike U.S. 100 percent tariffs, the maximum imposable tariff of 38.1 percent plus the 10 percent tariffs that already exist will still not shied European car manufacturers from Chinas competition, as proven in a report by the Rhodium Group.

To avoid tariffs, China has used a mix of carrots and sticks, offering to find a solution to the European Unions concerns while warning it of the consequences of its actions. The threats as well as the offers have been mostly directed to the European Union not only because, unlike in the case of the United States, China saw the possibility to change the outcome in the European Union, but also because the EU market is already an important one for Chinese EVs, and losing it would be painful. This is despite the fact that, again, the tariffs imposed by the European Union are unlikely to amount to a loss of the EU market for Chinese EV producers; rather, the tariffs will make production more expensive.

Nonetheless, the fear is that this will start a trade war between the European Union and China in a tit-for-tat, retaliatory exchange. That is why the European Union has made quite clear in its announcement of the tariffs that it is open to negotiate with China. This is quite the challenge and at the same time an important test of the relationship between the European Union and China. The European Union has explained what its concerns arenamely, that Chinese EV manufacturers have been receiving unfair advantages that damage the European industry. China has expressed openness to the idea of addressing the European Unions concerns; if this expression is sincere, then there is space to negotiate a solution. Unfortunately, two major obstacles persist. The first is setting up a process that would somewhat guarantee that China implements whatever agreement is settled upon. The second relates to the European Union spelling out what it needs from China; after all, we are speaking of advantages in EV production built over decades. Would a temporary suspension of those advantages and/or a temporary imposition of tariffs by the European Union, alongside a clear plan on how to progressively lift them, suffice, for example? Or does the European Commission want China to impose higher costs on its EV producers? Considering the already emerging calls to use investment screening mechanisms for greenfield investments in the EV sector, it seems unlikely that the European Union is after a solution that views Chinese automakers investing in the production of EVs inside the EU single market. However, Chinese EV manufacturers are already considering localization in the EU market as an option.

Ultimately, U.S. and EU tariffs differ not only in quantity and intent; perhaps most importantly, compared to the United States, the announcement and potential imposition of tariffs is a much more pivotal moment for the European Unions approach to this issue and for the future of its relationship with China.

Francesca Ghiretti is an adjunct fellow (non-resident) with the Wadhwani Center for AI and Advanced Technologies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

Excerpt from:
Not All Tariffs Are the Same: The Core Differences between U.S. and EU Tariffs against Chinese EVs - CSIS | Center for Strategic and International...