After more than 25 years of negotiations, the trade agreement with the Mercosur countries (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay) reached an important milestone on Friday 9 January, when the Member States’ ambassadors to the EU (Coreper) gave the green light.
Unsurprisingly, France, Poland, Austria, Ireland and Hungary opposed the text, but failed to create a blocking minority (at least four States representing more than 35% of the EU population). Belgium abstained.
The EU/Mercosur agreement is in fact made up of two parts: a Joint Partnership Agreement (EMPA), which requires ratification by all Member States, and an Interim Trade Agreement (iTA), which falls under the exclusive competence of the EU.
The latter reflects the “trade and investment liberalisation pillar of the EMPA” and “will function as an autonomous agreement”, as the Council of the EU points out.
It will cease to apply once the Partnership Agreement has been ratified by all the EU Member States and the Mercosur parties.
However, “it is possible that we could end up in a CETA-type scenario”, explained one source, referring to the free trade agreement between the EU and Canada. The trade part of this agreement has only applied provisionally since 2017, as it has not been ratified by all Member States (see EUROPE 13660/24).
A sense of urgency. The interim agreement with Mercosur also skipped a stage, by the vote by written procedure in the afternoon, meaning that European Ministers did not have to meet at a sectoral Council to approve the text.
A European source commented that this procedure was popular because there was “a sense of urgency” among Mercosur’s partners. The signing in Latin America, originally scheduled for 20 December, was postponed due to Italy’s reluctance (see EUROPE 13776/3).
The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, can now fly to Paraguay as early as next week, on 17 January, to sign this “win-win” agreement, which she says will enable EU exports to Mercosur to grow “by almost €50 billion by 2040, and Mercosur exports (...) by up to €9 billion”.
Validation of the safeguard clause. The Coreper also validated the interinstitutional agreement on the safeguard clause, negotiated on 16 December, by modifying the thresholds for price reductions and volume increases for imports of Mercosur products into the EU. They have agreed to raise them to 5% instead of 8%, thus returning to the European Parliament’s initial position (see EUROPE 13775/9).
This is one of the concessions made to satisfy the heavily populated countries that had expressed reservations in recent weeks, such as Italy and France (see EUROPE 13781/4).
Entry into force of the provisional agreement without the approval of MEPs. In the end, Parliament had no say on the entry into force of the interim agreement, as the Cyprus Presidency of the EU Council decided to ignore a declaration recognising a vote of consent by Parliament.
This decision has not failed to provoke reactions from MEPs, particularly those from countries opposed to the agreement, such as the French “Europe Ensemble” delegation within the Renew Europe Group.
“Ursula von der Leyen must renounce any provisional entry into force of the agreement, made possible by the unacceptable decision of the Cyprus Presidency”, wrote the delegation in a joint statement.
On a more acerbic note, Belgian MEP Saskia Bricmont (Greens/EFA) regretted the manoeuvre. “Mrs von der Leyen wants to celebrate the signing of the agreement on 12 January in Paraguay, with no guarantee that Parliament will ratify it. She’s not afraid of the ridiculous”.
MEPs are divided on this agreement. Otherwise, the divisions in Parliament are clear. The EPP Group indicates that it will vote in favour of the text. The President of the S&D Group, Iratxe García, also supports it (see EUROPE 13782/3).
According to the European Green Party, the agreement risks “exacerbating deforestation, weakening social and environmental rights and reinforcing economic models based on the extraction of resources in Mercosur countries”.
For The Left Group, this agreement is “the worst ever concluded by the EU, as it exposes European farmers to unfair competition from products that do not respect European social, environmental and health standards”.
Possible referral to the Court of Justice of the EU. Parliament will indeed have to give its consent, but before doing so it could potentially decide to refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) for a ruling on the agreement’s compatibility with the EU treaties. Member States, such as France, can also refer cases to the Court.
Last November, 145 MEPs from five political groups had already tabled a resolution calling for this legal opinion from the CJEU, which would suspend the procedure for ratification of the text by Parliament for a potential period of at least 12 months (see EUROPE 13755/21).
A vote to this effect could finally take place at the January plenary session in Strasbourg.
According to Pascal Canfin MEP (Renew Europe, French), this vote will come down to barely 15 votes, mainly because the Italians from the Fratelli d’Italia party (ECR Group in Parliament) are likely to align themselves with the final position of Giorgia Meloni’s government, which ended up voting in favour of the Mercosur agreement (see EUROPE 13781/1).
Agricultural mobilisation continues. In addition, the European agricultural organisations and cooperatives within Copa-Cogeca have announced that they will continue to mobilise against this free trade agreement.
They remain “unanimous and united in denouncing an agreement that remains fundamentally unbalanced and flawed in its essence”, says Copa-Cogeca in a press release.
The organisation also believes that not waiting for Parliament to give the green light reflects “a certain nervousness” and shows that “a majority opposed to the agreement remains possible, if not likely”. Copa-Cogeca leaders will meet on Monday 12 January to define the next stages in their mobilisation.
The European Coordination Via Campesina (ECVC) believes that the agreement gives priority to the interests of agribusiness to the detriment of farmers’ livelihoods.
The NGOs are also highly critical. The European Trade Justice Coalition condemns the fact that validation of the agreement “ignores the objections of major European countries such as France and Poland”.
Greenpeace considers the agreement to be deeply damaging to the environment, particularly the Amazon rainforest, and incompatible with climate commitments and forest protection. (Original version in French by Pauline Denys with Lionel Changeur)