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.
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.