“To cede land to Qin is like adding fuel to a fire—as long as the fuel endures, the fire will not be extinguished.” That’s ancient wisdom from the Records of the Grand Historian, and blimey, it fits the EU’s latest escapade to a tee.
So, here we are: the EU and the US strike a so-called “deal” on tariffs. Washington slaps a 15% tariff on EU exports, and Brussels simply nods along. Ursula von der Leyen, the EU’s President, could’ve wielded some counter-tariffs of her own. Did she? Not a chance. Not even a symbolic shot fired. What Europe signed looks less like a mutually agreeable pact and more like one of those humiliating peace treaties you read about in history books where the loser is still wiping the tears off their cheeks.
Europe’s Costly Commitments
Recently, the US brokered basically the same raw deal with both Japan and the EU: 15% tariffs on their exports, no countermeasures. But let’s look at the details—because, as always, the devil lives there.
First, the money. The EU has pledged a jaw-dropping $600 billion worth of investment into the US economy. Japan? A mere $550 billion (as if that's "mere"). Now, Japan’s been on the money-printing treadmill for years, shoving investment abroad like it's going out of fashion. Europe, though, isn’t usually so carefree. Sending $600 billion “across the pond” might feel great for Wall Street, but it’s going to pinch investment at home.
Second, and even more eye-popping, is the promise to buy American goods. Trump claimed the EU would pick up $750 billion in US energy, plus more in military equipment. Japan must be feeling left out; their deal doesn’t demand anywhere near that. Historically, Europe thrived on relatively cheap Russian gas. Since the Ukraine war and Western sanctions, the old supply lines are dead, replaced by expensive US liquefied natural gas. Anyone who thought the Ukraine peace would let Europe sneak back to cheaper Russian energy can now forget it: Washington's deal with Europe has shut the door for good. European industry? Good luck surviving those energy bills.
Open Door Policy—But Only One Way
On to the third point. The US will now charge only 15% tariff on EU car imports instead of the old 27.5%—the same as they’re giving Japan. For Japan, some US rice sneaks in at zero tariff, but in tiny quotas. For the EU, Trump brags they’ll take in way more American goods at zero tariff than Tokyo agreed to. In plain speak: the US gets a bigger bite of Europe’s market.
When von der Leyen came home with this “victory,” she insisted the 15% tariff was the best she could possibly wrestle from Trump, playing up the promise of “affordable” US gas as some kind of win. Unsurprisingly, back in Europe, folks lined up to rip the deal apart. Bernd Lange—who oversees the European Parliament’s International Trade Committee—torched it as “incompatible with Europe’s core interest,” warning that these extra $600 billion asset transfers and huge purchases of US military kit would hamstring European businesses.
Germany’s business elite weren’t any kinder: the deal is “a bad bargain,” “a mistake in direction,” and “a painful compromise.”
Punching Below Their Weight
What really grinds the gears here is that the EU, on paper, is a heavyweight. The 2024 numbers make it plain: the EU’s GDP came in at $19.4 trillion—18.3% of global output—comfortably second place worldwide, dwarfing Japan’s $4.25 trillion. Europe’s military? Not shabby either, certainly when compared to Tokyo.
Yet somehow, Japan—smaller in both economy and firepower—walked away with a seemingly better deal. You don’t need a PhD to see this as a classic leadership fail on von der Leyen’s part.
It’s not just Europe looking feeble here. Compare China’s response when Trump zipped up his trade-war jacket: Beijing fired right back, hitting Washington with counter-tariffs and clamping down on strategic exports like rare earths. China was the only country to play tit-for-tat, keeping important trade chips in hand for future rounds. Von der Leyen, on the other hand, refused to pull any triggers.
Following Washington—To a Dead End
Why the timidity? Well, von der Leyen’s reputation is that of a “white liberal” who’s kept her job thanks to old ties with Biden, following his every lead. When the US hiked tariffs on Chinese EVs, she cheerfully joined in. When it came to the Ukraine war, she echoed America’s costly stance, blowing European resources on a quagmire. Sanctions on Russian energy? She was all-in—never mind that, while America stays “principled” on most Russian energy, it conveniently spares imports of enriched uranium (which it needs) until at least 2028.
Let’s not gloss over how Europe, and Germany especially, built prosperity on cheap Russian power. By waging economic war on Moscow, they’re tossing away their own advantage, while Uncle Sam, being a net energy exporter, is selling over-priced LNG to Europe and not shedding a tear.
Now, Trump’s back in the White House and, surprise, surprise, he instantly cuts off Ukraine aid. But under von der Leyen, the EU keeps scattering money in Kyiv’s direction, alone and outmuscled. To top it all, at the last G7 in Canada, von der Leyen dramatically flourished a rare earth magnet, begging the US to help “weaponize” the supply chain against China. You can almost picture Trump grinning at her naivety, already sharpening the knife for the next lopsided demand.
If this deal is a preview of what’s to come, Europe’s prospects under current leadership look, well, pretty grim. “Serving Qin by ceding land” didn’t go well in the old days—and it’s hardly a winning formula now.
Lo Wing-hung
Bastille Commentary
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
Some people fancy themselves legal eagles. So they exploit every procedural loophole to challenge the government. The practical effect: draining public resources and burning through taxpayers' cash.
Enter Chow Hang-tung. The former vice-chair of the now-defunct Hong Kong Alliance took issue with prison dress codes. Her legal gambit hit a wall on Tuesday when High Court Judge Russell Coleman tossed the case and stuck her with the bill.
On September 6, 2024, Chow filed her judicial review application over the CSD's inmate clothing policy. Her complaint: Female inmates must wear long pants during summer unless granted special permission, while male inmates wear shorts. She also alleged that in July and August 2024, she verbally requested permission to wear shorts from CSD staff on two separate occasions—both times refused. Therefore, Chow sought judicial review of both the clothing policy itself and the Department's alleged denial of her shorts request.
Chow was previously jailed after being convicted of "inciting others to knowingly participate in an unauthorized assembly." She's still awaiting trial this year on a separate charge of "inciting subversion of state power."
Court Slams the Door Shut
The High Court judge dismissed Chow's judicial review application. In his judgment, Judge Coleman pointed out that the current inmate clothing policy—including requiring female inmates to wear long pants during daytime in summer—was formulated by the CSD under authority granted by the Prison Rules. The court was satisfied that the Department possessed professional expertise and experience in this area, had carefully weighed various factors and consulted professional opinions during the decision-making process, and conducts continuous reviews. The court ruled that Chow failed to prove the current policy discriminates against female inmates.
The CSD emphasized the importance of uniformity in inmates' clothing. Think of it like school uniforms—it helps train discipline and accommodates female inmates' emphasis on privacy, covering scars, leg hair, and so forth.
Judge Coleman also agreed with CSD Senior Clinical Psychologist Hung Suet-wai's assessment that female inmates' mental health is more vulnerable, and some female inmates are particularly sensitive with unique clothing needs. Additionally, since male staff regularly enter female correctional facilities, appropriate clothing should be provided to protect female inmates' privacy. Wearing long pants therefore allows female inmates to feel psychologically more comfortable and secure.
Regarding Chow's claim that she requested to wear shorts between July and August 2024 and was refused by the CSD, Judge Coleman found her account unconvincing.
What the Evidence Actually Shows
Observing Chow's conduct and the entire judicial review proceedings, several conclusions jump out.
1. Chow's passion for making requests
As the High Court judgment pointed out, according to CSD records, between July 2021 and September 2024—a span of 3 years and 2 months—Chow made a total of 297 requests (averaging 21 requests per month).
Yet oddly, never once did she include a request to wear shorts. During the same period, across 136 consultations with CSD doctors, she never mentioned feeling uncomfortable or overheated from wearing long pants, nor had she ever requested to wear shorts for any health-related reasons.
This clearly shows her allegation of making requests that were refused by the CSD was completely fabricated. She's simply hunting for various reasons to challenge the CSD, constantly wanting to sue the government.
2. Burning public funds on the public's dime
Chow formally submitted hundreds of requests to the CSD. Just responding to her requests already left CSD Staff exhausted. If dissatisfied, she'd complain through various channels, or even file for judicial review to challenge the Department's decisions—wasting massive CSD resources and court time.
Many people complain about lengthy scheduling delays at the High Court. These "serial filers" constantly filing lawsuits occupy precious court time.
3. Prison is not a holiday resort
Jimmy Lai's children complained that it was too hot for him in prison without air conditioning. Before the judgment, Chow's Patreon account grumbled about the inability to shower or change into fresh pants when the trousers get dirty from daily prison routine—freedoms she suggested ordinary people take for granted. They seem to treat imprisonment like a vacation, expecting various freedoms.
Prison indeed, as Chow said, has "no such freedom." If prison offered all sorts of freedoms, plus basically provided food, accommodation, and priority medical care, many people would deliberately commit crimes to go to prison.
How Prison Oversight Actually Works
I am a Justice of the Peace and regularly inspect prisons. I fully understand that to ensure inmates' rights are protected, the CSD provides various channels both within and outside the Department for inmates to voice complaints—for example, to Justices of the Peace who conduct regular visits or to the Ombudsman.
The Department has continuously implemented multiple measures to improve the detention environment within prisons. I've seen powerful fans installed in prisons. New gates and windows with better ventilation efficiency are also being installed to improve air circulation within facilities.
Hong Kong's treatment of prisoners is already very humane—unlike the United States, which sends unconvicted illegal immigrants to prisons in El Salvador with harsh conditions. That Barbie-doll-like US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem even made a special trip to pose for photos outside prison cells in El Salvador, treating inmates' privacy as nothing.
I fully support the High Court's dismissal of Chow's judicial review application and ordering her to pay the CSD's legal costs, reducing the burden on taxpayers.
Lo Wing-hung
