The European Union concludes the trade agreement with Mercosur

by time news

AND ‌“stabbing farmers in the‌ back” according to MEP ⁤Manon Aubry (La France insoumise); A “betrayal of member states” for ⁣colleague Céline Imart (Les ‍Républicains); A “forced passage” according to ⁢the Belgian environmentalist elected European Saskia ‍bricmont…

With⁤ the conclusion of the ⁣trade ‌agreement between the European Union‍ (EU) and Mercosur (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia) on Friday 6 December, European⁣ Commission President ⁤Ursula von der Leyen provoked the ire of⁣ many ‍MEPs. The latter, however, will⁣ be called⁤ upon, in the same ​way as the Member States, to express their ⁣opinion on the future of this free trade agreement.

Ursula von der Leyen, who begins her second term at the helm of the European Commission, kept her trip to ⁣South America a mystery until the end with the aim of concluding ‌this much criticized agreement, especially on ‍the French side. ⁣It was not until Thursday 5⁤ December that ​his⁤ teams suggested that the Germans had landed in​ Montevideo. The negotiations were concluded immediately.

French farmers are in the​ process of liquidating themselves

This ⁣text ‍aims to liberalize trade between the two blocs, which represent more than 700 million consumers: if ​the ‍agreement enters into‍ force, European producers of dairy⁣ products, ⁣wine or cars, among others, ‍should be able to export​ more easily their​ goods ⁢to the Mercosur countries. For their part, South American farmers should be ⁤able to sell⁢ more products to the EU, always ⁤respecting the health standards‌ imposed on⁤ the Old Continent, insists the European Commission.

In total, ‌the agreement ​aims to eliminate more than⁣ 90% of customs‍ duties‌ between the two markets, ‍on‍ industrial and agricultural products. ​Food commodities such as beef will still be subject to quotas, meaning the elimination of customs duties or their reduction will concern limited volumes. ​french farmers,for their part,are opposed to the agreement they consider “catastrophic”.

This‌ thorny issue has been at the center of the European scene for about twenty years. And ‍the twists multiply. A political agreement ⁤was reached in 2019, but was ​never ratified. ​Result: the European Commission‍ reopened the talks, ⁢seeking in particular to obtain greater ⁢guarantees‍ in terms of environmental protection.

The text of the agreement in its new ‌version, which should be made public onyl next week, should insist in particular on correct compliance with⁤ the Paris Climate⁤ Agreement; it should‌ also ⁤strengthen⁢ the fight against deforestation.

Decisive vote in the Council of the European Union

A source within the European ‌Commission assures that at the end of these long negotiations the​ E.U “he ⁣managed to reach ‍a very balanced agreement, which​ takes into account both his ​offensive and defensive interests”. Clearly trade liberalization will be good for the economy ⁢of the Old⁢ Continent. The institution estimates that companies could, through ‌this, save up to 4 billion euros in export duties every year.

Ursula von der Leyen ​says it repeatedly: it is indeed a‌ “win-win deal”. In the European Parliament,the socialist MP Éric Sargiacomo sees⁣ exactly the opposite: he denounces one‍ “Losing deal”for⁤ one block ⁣as for ⁤the othre. ⁣Believe that this text “also not ‌suitable for farmers in Latin America and South America” and denounces the “European trust in economic treaties” who​ judges “surreal”.

A political​ battle begins ⁤in Brussels that promises to be long and boring ⁣with the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament.​ “Today is clearly not the end of⁤ the ⁢story”declared ​in Paris the resigning Minister of Foreign Trade Sophie Primas, who​ states that the conclusion of the negotiations “only binds the ⁤Commission”.

Inside the institution, a source involved in the talks admits otherwise “hold a ‍crystal ball” to find out when the text could come into ‍force: “what happens ⁢next does not depend on us, but ⁤rather on the Member States and the​ European ​Parliament”.

What are the potential environmental impacts ⁣of the EU-Mercosur‌ trade agreement ‌on local agriculture in Europe?

Time.news Editor: Welcome to Time.news, where we delve deep into the pressing issues shaping​ our world today. I’m excited to have with us an expert in international trade agreements and environmental policy, Dr. ​Claire Delacroix. Dr. Delacroix, thank you​ for joining us.

Dr. Claire Delacroix: ⁣ Thank ​you for having me.⁣ It’s‍ a pleasure to discuss such an crucial topic.

Editor: Let’s dive right in. There has been ‌massive backlash from MEPs following the conclusion of​ the EU-Mercosur trade ‍agreement, especially from figures like Manon Aubry who‌ described it as “stabbing farmers in the back.” What are the main‍ concerns from those legislators?

Dr.Delacroix: The concerns primarily revolve⁤ around the impact this agreement may have on European farmers and the agricultural sector. Many fear that ‍importing products from Mercosur countries, which often have lower production costs due to less stringent environmental regulations, could undermine local agriculture. This notion ​of “betrayal” reflects a deeper ‍anxiety about safeguarding European agricultural standards and ensuring fair competition.

Editor: Absolutely, and we’ve also seen⁤ MEP Céline Imart call it a “betrayal of member states.” From ⁢your perspective, how meaningful is this backlash in the broader context of EU policy-making?

Dr. Delacroix: It’s critical. The EU prides itself on a ⁢unified agricultural policy, and any perceived⁣ undermining of that‍ can lead to serious divisions among member states. This backlash⁤ signifies not just individual discontent but a potential unraveling of trust in EU institutions.If legislators feel that‍ their voices​ and​ the interests of their constituents are being ignored, it could disrupt future negotiations and cooperation efforts within the EU.

Editor: interesting point. You mentioned the competition aspects. MEP⁤ Saskia Bricmont characterized the agreement as a “forced passage.” in what ways does this sentiment resonate with ​environmental concerns?

Dr. Delacroix: ⁤The phrase ⁢“forced passage” speaks to the urgency with which⁢ this deal was advanced despite considerable opposition.Environmentalists are especially worried about deforestation and land use changes in Brazil and​ other Mercosur countries,driven by ‍increased agricultural production⁤ to meet European demand. The agreement could be seen as prioritizing‌ trade over critical environmental protections, exacerbating climate change challenges and threatening biodiversity.

Editor: That’s a significant concern. Can the EU reconcile it’s trade⁣ ambitions with its commitments to environmental sustainability, or are these ideals fundamentally at⁢ odds?

Dr. Delacroix: It will definitely‍ be ​a challenge, but reconciliation is absolutely possible. The EU can enforce ‍mechanisms that ensure imported goods meet environmental and labor standards. This can be done through rigorous certification processes and sustainable development clauses that‍ hold Mercosur countries accountable for their environmental practices. However,it requires political will and​ a ‍commitment from both sides to prioritize sustainability over mere economic gain.

Editor: ⁤ Looking ahead, Dr. Delacroix, what steps⁣ do you believe should ⁤be taken to address both MEP concerns and environmental responsibilities as this agreement is deliberated further?

Dr. Delacroix: First, there should be a extensive⁢ impact assessment that evaluates the potential repercussions ⁢of⁢ this trade deal on local farmers and the‌ surroundings. Second, there ​must be transparent discussions among MEPs, stakeholders, and civil society to ensure that all voices are heard. implementing strong monitoring and enforcement‍ mechanisms post-agreement⁣ will be crucial to balancing trade benefits ⁢with environmental and social responsibilities.

Editor: Thank⁢ you for those insights, Dr.Delacroix.The implications of this trade agreement will undoubtedly ​resonate for years to come. We appreciate your expertise and perspective⁣ on these complex issues.

Dr. Delacroix: Thank you for having me. It’s crucial that we ‍continue these ⁣discussions as we⁢ navigate the intersection of trade, agriculture, and environmental stewardship. ‍

Editor: Indeed. This has been a fascinating conversation about ⁣the pressing issues surrounding the EU-Mercosur trade agreement. Thank you for tuning in to Time.news,and we look forward to bringing you more ⁤expert insights on the challenges shaping our world.

You may also like

Leave a Comment