EU countries green light Mercosur free trade deal(dw.com)
dw.com
EU countries green light Mercosur free trade deal
https://www.dw.com/en/eu-countries-green-light-mercosur-free-trade-deal/a-75445812
40 comments
Very sad day for the EU during an already very sad period.
First, this vote by the commission is a mockery of the EU own rule. The commission is not competent for comprehensive deal mixing trade and cooperation and splitting the deal like they have done at behest of Germany is a disgrace and likely illegal. I hope and fully expect the ECJ to strike this down.
Second the content of the deal is completely outdated. No mirror close while the EU tightened their own rules so much is insane. The alleged safe guards are completely insuffisant. We are basically saying it's ok for a foreign sellers to do things we ban here. It's even more insane when you consider that it's Bayer actually selling the banned pesticides and they are amongst the companies benefiting the most from the deal.
Third the market we are supposedly opening to Europe have already moved on. European automakers already have factories in the Mercosur so exports won't move. The only things which will change is how expensive it is to ship parts so the deal is basically lining up the margins of auto companies with no local job increase. That leaves pharmaceutical and industrial machineries but even there Europe is quickly losing ground to China and India. The commission knows that and pivoted into pretending the deal is actually about securing source of raw materials like lithium from Argentina but ironically the main consumers of this lithium in Europe will be Chinese companies factories in Hungary. We are destroying the livelihood of our farmers, a fully local part of the economy, to help China.
Fourth the deal affects various countries in a massively unequal way with clear losers and counties which incorrectly think they win. I can't stop noticing that it's always the same country blocking common investments, blocking transfers, using the common currency and internal devaluation to prop up its exports at the expense of its neighbors, killing common procurement to try to favour its own industrial base, currently trying to destroy our space industry so moneys go to its startup. So much for the supposed solidarity I guess. There is very little union in the so called European Union.
First, this vote by the commission is a mockery of the EU own rule. The commission is not competent for comprehensive deal mixing trade and cooperation and splitting the deal like they have done at behest of Germany is a disgrace and likely illegal. I hope and fully expect the ECJ to strike this down.
Second the content of the deal is completely outdated. No mirror close while the EU tightened their own rules so much is insane. The alleged safe guards are completely insuffisant. We are basically saying it's ok for a foreign sellers to do things we ban here. It's even more insane when you consider that it's Bayer actually selling the banned pesticides and they are amongst the companies benefiting the most from the deal.
Third the market we are supposedly opening to Europe have already moved on. European automakers already have factories in the Mercosur so exports won't move. The only things which will change is how expensive it is to ship parts so the deal is basically lining up the margins of auto companies with no local job increase. That leaves pharmaceutical and industrial machineries but even there Europe is quickly losing ground to China and India. The commission knows that and pivoted into pretending the deal is actually about securing source of raw materials like lithium from Argentina but ironically the main consumers of this lithium in Europe will be Chinese companies factories in Hungary. We are destroying the livelihood of our farmers, a fully local part of the economy, to help China.
Fourth the deal affects various countries in a massively unequal way with clear losers and counties which incorrectly think they win. I can't stop noticing that it's always the same country blocking common investments, blocking transfers, using the common currency and internal devaluation to prop up its exports at the expense of its neighbors, killing common procurement to try to favour its own industrial base, currently trying to destroy our space industry so moneys go to its startup. So much for the supposed solidarity I guess. There is very little union in the so called European Union.
No need to go to Gemini, you have said it all.
“Free Trade” is just nice naming veneer for ongoing exploitation of the lower classes.
Rich countries get richer, poor countries stay poor.
Rich countries get richer, poor countries stay poor.
They aren’t forced to sign up, so they must see some upside in order to sign. Unless the implication is there is some corruption where people are selling their countries out for personal gain.
Well, the poor aren't calling the shots in most countries. Its the elite. Those in the ruling party and their friends. In terms of improving conditions for the poorest decile, its a bad deal. This is why we're seeing so much wealth concentrated with Musk, Bezos, Ma, Bernard Arnault, etc. And for those in the top 20-30% economically, a fair deal too.
The poor weren't forced to sign up. They're too economically illiterate to understand what's happening. And even if they did understand, they're not empowered to alter the outcome--even in democratic countries. It takes money to steer policy. Or a revolution.
The poor weren't forced to sign up. They're too economically illiterate to understand what's happening. And even if they did understand, they're not empowered to alter the outcome--even in democratic countries. It takes money to steer policy. Or a revolution.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/08/french-farmers... has more (but still very little) background on why EU farmers dislike the deal: because it opens EU to agricultural imports, but doesn't require those imports to meet the same standards EU farmers are held to. The Guardian article mentions allowing imports of crops grown with pesticides that are banned in the EU. Basically sabotaging EU farming.
There are probably other double standards, but I can only speculate, because the quality of reporting is abysmal. The Guardian gives scant specifics, DW gives none, just meaningless rhetoric like "bases that are too outdated" or "hails 'milestone' agreement".
There are probably other double standards, but I can only speculate, because the quality of reporting is abysmal. The Guardian gives scant specifics, DW gives none, just meaningless rhetoric like "bases that are too outdated" or "hails 'milestone' agreement".
Except that is wrong, and your article doesn't back up your point
Any product entering the EU market must comply with the EU’s stringent food safety standards, the agreement does not change that
https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-cou...
You can also read the whole agreement Online
https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-cou...
Any product entering the EU market must comply with the EU’s stringent food safety standards, the agreement does not change that
https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-cou...
You can also read the whole agreement Online
https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-cou...
They don't have bureaucrats over there closing farms based on lies about nitrogen. They also have a rather large forest to slash and burn for more land whereas bureaucrats here demand we do the opposite.
From my article: [France] also sought [but failed to get] permission to ban imports of crops grown with pesticides, which are banned in the EU.
So foreign farmers are permitted farming practices forbidden to EU farmers. And now get to compete in the same market.
So foreign farmers are permitted farming practices forbidden to EU farmers. And now get to compete in the same market.
First of all, they can't import their goods, if they contain residues of those banned pesticides. The Trade Deal also doesn't change legislation around the Food Safety Standards
Also European Farmers are heavily subsidized (up to 50% of their total income). They always cry about everything, even while doing very well. So complaining about an unfair advantage for Brazilian farmers is not an argument to take very seriously
In Germany there is the saying "Why do farmers give their children always shoes to small? So their children learn crying young"
Also European Farmers are heavily subsidized (up to 50% of their total income). They always cry about everything, even while doing very well. So complaining about an unfair advantage for Brazilian farmers is not an argument to take very seriously
In Germany there is the saying "Why do farmers give their children always shoes to small? So their children learn crying young"
> In Germany there is the saying "Why do farmers give their children always shoes to small? So their children learn crying young"
Does that saying also apply to non-competitive car companies and solar panel makers?
Does that saying also apply to non-competitive car companies and solar panel makers?
> First of all, they can't import their goods, if they contain residues of those banned pesticides.
You are implying, but aren't saying directly, that using those pesticides would automatically mean the produce would contain them above the EU limits. But if that was the case, then why not appease France and write into the agreement that food from crops sprayed with them can't be imported? So clearly it's possible to use those pesticides and still pass EU food safety checks. You're also assuming those safety checks are and will continue to be rigorously enforced on imports.
> Also European Farmers are heavily subsidized (up to 50% of their total income).
"Up to" is meaningless. The average was 33% [1]. And they are also the most stringently regulated, with the highest labor costs. They also probably don't want to rely on those subsidies too much to stay competitive, as there's no telling how long they'll last, or if e.g. Brazil might increase its own subsidies. Regardless, the complaint was completely factual - they're forbidden farming practices that their competitors are allowed. Ad hominems are not a reason to dismiss them.
[1] https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/data-and-analysis/financing...
Edit as reply because HN "posting too fast" makes it impossible to carry on a conversation:
"No it wasn't. The post claimed doesn't require those imports to meet the same standards EU farmers are held to"
Yes. Those imports may be produced in ways EU food may not.
"It's a common fraud, also used by many "organic" food exporters from outside the EU. Why write something into an agreement you probably can't enforce anyway?"
I was very clear on the "why" - because it would put them on paper on equal footing with EU farmers, which would appease France, that asked for it. The fact they refused tells me they expect some advantage from it. Which I was also clear on. Please don't make me re-state my post a 3rd time.
You are implying, but aren't saying directly, that using those pesticides would automatically mean the produce would contain them above the EU limits. But if that was the case, then why not appease France and write into the agreement that food from crops sprayed with them can't be imported? So clearly it's possible to use those pesticides and still pass EU food safety checks. You're also assuming those safety checks are and will continue to be rigorously enforced on imports.
> Also European Farmers are heavily subsidized (up to 50% of their total income).
"Up to" is meaningless. The average was 33% [1]. And they are also the most stringently regulated, with the highest labor costs. They also probably don't want to rely on those subsidies too much to stay competitive, as there's no telling how long they'll last, or if e.g. Brazil might increase its own subsidies. Regardless, the complaint was completely factual - they're forbidden farming practices that their competitors are allowed. Ad hominems are not a reason to dismiss them.
[1] https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/data-and-analysis/financing...
Edit as reply because HN "posting too fast" makes it impossible to carry on a conversation:
"No it wasn't. The post claimed doesn't require those imports to meet the same standards EU farmers are held to"
Yes. Those imports may be produced in ways EU food may not.
"It's a common fraud, also used by many "organic" food exporters from outside the EU. Why write something into an agreement you probably can't enforce anyway?"
I was very clear on the "why" - because it would put them on paper on equal footing with EU farmers, which would appease France, that asked for it. The fact they refused tells me they expect some advantage from it. Which I was also clear on. Please don't make me re-state my post a 3rd time.
No it wasn't. The post claimed
doesn't require those imports to meet the same standards EU farmers are held to
And the final goods are held to the same food safety standards as the foods created inside the EU with regards to residues inside.
> then why not appease France and write into the agreement that food from crops sprayed with them can't be imported
You can spray them with pesticides in an early stage, and don't have measurable residues in the end product.
It's a common fraud, also used by many "organic" food exporters from outside the EU. Why write something into an agreement you probably can't enforce anyway?
Also I'd argue that most consumers only care if it is contained in the final product.
And the final goods are held to the same food safety standards as the foods created inside the EU with regards to residues inside.
> then why not appease France and write into the agreement that food from crops sprayed with them can't be imported
You can spray them with pesticides in an early stage, and don't have measurable residues in the end product.
It's a common fraud, also used by many "organic" food exporters from outside the EU. Why write something into an agreement you probably can't enforce anyway?
Also I'd argue that most consumers only care if it is contained in the final product.
In that case, why not allow European farmers to follow the same relaxed farming standards?
Because these pesticides might be harmful for European workers, working on these farms, or the ecosystem surrounding it?
Saying "Look we don't want any of these pesticides in the final product delivered to us" is easier in negotiations than forcing them to accept all EU Regulations regarding farming for Mercosur
Saying "Look we don't want any of these pesticides in the final product delivered to us" is easier in negotiations than forcing them to accept all EU Regulations regarding farming for Mercosur
Well that's great for the EU consumer, but citizens have interests beyond those of mere consumers, and this doesn't help put their farmers on equal footing.
That's simply wrong. The minimum limit for products ban in the EU but actually sold to Mercosur countries by Bayer is above zero. That's the heart of the French disagreement. The deal doesn't contain mirror close. We are allowing the Mercosur country to sell us products that would be banned in the EU.
What’s even worse is that even though France voted against, they will have to receive the imports anyway.
This kind of stuff only grows discontent. The EU desires to kill itself I guess.
This kind of stuff only grows discontent. The EU desires to kill itself I guess.
You can't work out sensible deals, if a single country can throw a wrench into the wheel.
A Union that works is better than one, which is in a permanent gridlock
21 Countries voted for it, 5 Countries against it
For things like these agreements you need a majority of 55% of the states which represent at least 65% of the EU Population.
A Union that works is better than one, which is in a permanent gridlock
21 Countries voted for it, 5 Countries against it
For things like these agreements you need a majority of 55% of the states which represent at least 65% of the EU Population.
When the EU inevitably collapses because of this undemocratic behaviour, let’s see what’s sensible.
How is a majority vote (of both states and represented population) and a parliamentary vote undemocratic?
How is someone from across the continent voting to destroy your agricultural sector democratic?
Isn't this a question the US faces every day by having California and Iowa in the same union?
Yes, which is why we have two houses in the legislature and there are limits on the number of seats in the house and electoral college votes. No polity should be able to procreate their way to political dominance over a peer polity nor should they be able to incentivize law breaking for the same purpose.
And more on point to the subject, imports should be tariffed so that there are not wage benefits to importing products from overseas. It's major bullshit for a country to say "you must have all these employment standards, safety, wage, retirement, health, holidays, etc." for any business in their area and then go and buy competing goods from outside their area with completely different labor standards.
And more on point to the subject, imports should be tariffed so that there are not wage benefits to importing products from overseas. It's major bullshit for a country to say "you must have all these employment standards, safety, wage, retirement, health, holidays, etc." for any business in their area and then go and buy competing goods from outside their area with completely different labor standards.
Exact same way someone from across the street voting in a way you disagree with is democratic. Nice try appealing to xenophobia though.
Because the french agreed to those terms when they entered the European Union, that they would negotiate their trade deals together, and a qualified majority is sufficient to make these deals.
They're also free to leave at any time.
"Destroying the agricultural sector" is stupid hyperbole, especially given the small quotas in sensitive parts of the agricultural sector.
They're also free to leave at any time.
"Destroying the agricultural sector" is stupid hyperbole, especially given the small quotas in sensitive parts of the agricultural sector.
The EU is already incapable of checking for cancerous substances in packages coming from China so I'm not sure how they will check for food compliance.
There's a huge difference between checking packages addressed to individuals vs checking bulk goods.
Cool, how many containers with drugs pass checks in Antwerp, Rotterdam and Hamburg?
Because groceries are the same high margin items, that are hidden in sophisticated ways?
> are hidden in sophisticated ways?
Yes, they are in fact hidden even better. How do you see that bananas contain banned pesticides or that meat contains banned antibiotics?
Yes, they are in fact hidden even better. How do you see that bananas contain banned pesticides or that meat contains banned antibiotics?
You take a sample of a charge and test it.
If it contains forbidden substances you fine the importer.
Most grocery chains in Germany with the exception of Edeka (I guess it's similar in other countries) apply stricter standards than the legal limit anyway with their suppliers, and ensure compliance by testing on their own
If it contains forbidden substances you fine the importer.
Most grocery chains in Germany with the exception of Edeka (I guess it's similar in other countries) apply stricter standards than the legal limit anyway with their suppliers, and ensure compliance by testing on their own
How is Edeka different? Honest question.
I don’t know why you are being downvoted, any small business owner would be mightily annoyed if they had to follow standards that free trade imports do not have to follow. European farming has extremely stringent limits and requirements for food production that are expensive to follow, and not shared with the countries that the deal is being done with.
Everyone else doesn’t actually need to deal with the mafia like tactics and uncertainty.