EU countries green light Mercosur free trade deal
dw.com
dw.com
Everyone else doesn’t actually need to deal with the mafia like tactics and uncertainty.
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Second the content of the deal is completely outdated.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.
Rich countries get richer, poor countries stay poor.
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.
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".
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...
So foreign farmers are permitted farming practices forbidden to EU farmers. And now get to compete in the same market.
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"
Does that saying also apply to non-competitive car companies and solar panel makers?
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.
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.
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
This kind of stuff only grows discontent. The EU desires to kill itself I guess.
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.
Was that your intention?
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.
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.
Yes, they are in fact hidden even better. How do you see that bananas contain banned pesticides or that meat contains banned antibiotics?
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