Nationality to take over ideology in MEP debate on Mercosur
All the versions of this article: [English] [Español] [français]
Euractiv | 16 January 2025
Nationality to take over ideology in MEP debate on Mercosur
by Maria Simon Arboleas and Sofia Sanchez Manzanaro
The agricultural issue once again exposed sharp divisions within political groups in the European Parliament on Thursday, as EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič faced his first grilling over the EU-Mercosur trade deal since its signing in December.
During the debate on the EU-Mercosur deal in the European Parliament’s International Trade Committee (INTA), MEPs largely expressed the views of their respective countries rather than following the line of their political groups.
French, Polish and Irish MEPs from across the political spectrum oppose the deal, while Germany, Spain and Portugal are staunch supporters. In the Netherlands and Austria, criticism of the deal is widespread, but MEPs are divided.
Romanian EPP MEP Iuliu Winkler, standing in for his Spanish colleague Gabriel Mato, who is in charge of the dossier, defended the deal as an opportunity to strengthen EU leadership and encouraged his colleagues to "seize this moment".
But Dutch EPP MEP Jessika van Leeuwen said EU farmers could not compete with beef and poultry from Mercosur countries, further splitting a pro-trade group like the EPP.
Moreover, Renew’s João Cotrim de Figueiredo said that the liberals were “the staunchest believers of free trade” but his Irish party colleague Barry Cowen questioned the European Commission’s ability to protect farmers across the EU from potential market disruptions.
Šefčovič reassured MEPs that, in the “unlikely” scenario that the EU agri-food sector would be adversely affected, safeguards and an additional financial reserve of at least €1 billion were in place to protect it. “We’re just being extra cautious,” Šefčovič said.
Divisions within the Parliament were evident in a November amendment that can be read as a plebiscite against the deal. Tabled by French MEP Laurence Trochu on behalf of the hard-right European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), it raised concerns about “diverging standards” between the EU and Mercosur and the impact on the bloc’s farmers.
While the move against the deal was not backed by a majority of MEPs, it was supported by French, Polish and Irish members of the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) and Irish MEPs in the liberal Renew group.
The ECR group voted overwhelmingly against the trade deal, with a few exceptions. These include the chair of the AGRI committee, Veronika Vercionová, who chose to abstain. Members of the Greens/EFA group were advised to abstain for political reasons, while they mostly shared the content of the amendment, group sources told Euractiv.
The hearing is just a foretaste of a debate that will rage in the European Parliament over the coming weeks and months.
Next week on 22 January Copa-Cogeca and other major EU farmers’ organisations will stage a flash action against the agreement outside the European Parliament, which is set to hold a plenary session. On 30 January, Šefčovič and Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen will answer questions from MEPs sitting in the agriculture committee (AGRI).
Šefčovič reassures on anti-deforestation
During the debate, several MEPs, including Socialist MEP Kathleen Van Brempt, questioned how the agreement could affect the EU’s anti-deforestation regulation (EUDR) or the bloc’s carbon border tax (CBAM).
A key addition to the 2024 agreement, compared to its 2019 predecessor, is a rebalancing mechanism designed to prevent either side from introducing legislation that could jeopardise agreed market access. For example, the EUDR restricts exports from Mercosur countries, such as soy, beef and coffee, if they are linked to deforestation.
“Mercosur countries know what is in the books,” said Šefčovič as he assured that both EUDR and CBAM were accounted for in the negotiations.
“This is something for what might come in the future,” he added, leaving some uncertainty as to whether future extensions of these schemes - such as including maize under EUDR - could face challenges under the rebalancing mechanism.
