While the chances of concluding the EU/Mercosur trade agreement are increasing, the exchange between the members of the European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade (INTA) on Tuesday 2 December highlighted the tensions that remain over the protection of the European agricultural sector from Mercosur imports. Many MEPs took the floor in turn to defend or attack the proposed safeguard clause in the agreement, which is currently in their hands. The Council of the EU has already adopted its position, adopting the Commission’s proposal unchanged (see EUROPE 13755/21).
The rapporteur, Gabriel Mato (EPP, Spanish), called on his colleagues not to adopt any amendments during the vote due to take place on Monday 8 December in the INTA committee. “I think the text should be approved without amendment. Not because I want to, but because we run the risk of certain Member States rejecting the text and the Mercosur countries not supporting it either. That’s not what I’m looking for”, explained the fervent supporter of the EU/Mercosur agreement. And he insisted that the regulation proposed by the Commission already contained solid tools to protect farmers.
His argument was supported by many of his group colleagues, as well as a number of elected members from Renew Europe and the European Conservatives and Reformists. For Svenja Hahn (Renew Europe, German), the rapporteur’s position is the right one. She called on her colleagues not to adopt any amendments.
Mika Aaltola (EPP, Finnish) warned that if the EU made no progress in concluding the agreement with the Mercosur countries, China would take its place.
Defending the European Parliament’s democratic role. On the other side of the House, many elected representatives protested against the rapporteur’s call for no amendments to be adopted. Even within the ranks of the EPP, some MEPs are denouncing the desire to bypass the European Parliament. “We’ve been discussing the agreement for 25 years and now all of a sudden we’re in a hurry”, highlighted Jessika van der Leeuwen (EPP, Dutch). Her colleague Daniel Buda (EPP, Romanian) echoed her sentiments, questioning the whole argument of the free trade treaty’s defenders: “If the agreement is so beneficial, why has the Commission set aside €1 billion in compensation for farmers?”
The S&D members were more discreet during the debate, not making the differences of opinion within their group apparent.
PfE, Greens/EFA and The Left have stated their firm opposition to adopting the text without amendment. For Anna Bryłka (PfE, Polish), the safeguard mechanism is not at all effective in protecting farmers, as it is too difficult to activate.
According to Saskia Bricmont (Greens/EFA, Belgian), the European Parliament, by fast-tracking this text, “is taking its cue from the EU Council, and even from France” – Paris has made its green light for the agreement conditional on the adoption of the safeguard clause.
The Agriculture Committee is up in arms against the text. As announced, on Tuesday 2 December the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee unanimously adopted an opinion in the form of a letter criticising the ineffectiveness of the safeguard clause in the free trade agreement between the EU and the Mercosur countries (see EUROPE 13763/14). The opinion is addressed by the Chair of the Agriculture Committee, Veronika Vrecionová (ECR, Czech), to her counterpart on the Committee on International Trade, Bernd Lange (S&D, German). (Original version in French by Léa Marchal and Lionel Changeur)