 |
L’Eclaireur est financé exclusivement par les abonnements de ses lecteurs. L’Eclaireur ne fait appel à aucune subvention publique ou privée, aucun abattement fiscal, aucune publicités ou sponsoring, aucuns dons ni financement participatif. Pour soutenir notre travail, nous n’avons que vous. Merci de votre fidélité.
[ Editorial ] Mercosur: The Perfect Political Scapegoat
Three events vie for the label of "historic": the freshly inked EU-Mercosur trade pact, the European Parliament's referral of that deal to the CJEU or the plummeting French agri-food trade balance.
|
| |||||||||||||||
 |
On January 17, 2026, Ursula von der Leyen flew to Asunción, Paraguay, to sign the long-awaited EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement—complete with its massive trade component—after a grueling 25 years of negotiations. The Commission hailed it as “historic,” the creation of the world’s largest free trade zone encompassing 700 million people, a geopolitical win against rising protectionism. Von der Leyen herself called it a bulwark of fair trade over tariffs, with the ceremony attended by European Council President António Costa and Mercosur leaders (minus Lula, represented by his foreign minister).
But signing is not ratifying. The deal’s momentum crashed headlong into the European Parliament’s walls just days later.
On January 21, in a razor-thin vote (334–324, with 11 abstentions), MEPs approved a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The judges in Luxembourg must now opine on whether the agreement complies with EU treaties—specifically, whether its provisions could limit the bloc’s ability to enforce environmental, consumer health, or other policies, and, crucially, whether the legal architecture chosen by the Commission is valid.
That architecture is the heart of the controversy. The full EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement (EMPA) is a “mixed” deal, covering areas of exclusive EU competence (like pure trade) and shared or mixed competence (political dialogue, cooperation, etc.), requiring ratification by all 27 member states’ parliaments, plus the European Parliament and the Council. To sidestep the unanimity trap and national vetoes—especially from vocal opponents like France—the Commission structured it with an Interim Trade Agreement (ITA) covering only the exclusive-competence trade parts. This allows adoption by qualified majority in the Council (achieved on January 9, 2026, 21–5, despite France, Poland, Austria, Hungary, and Ireland voting no) and consent from the European Parliament alone, bypassing full national ratification for the trade agreement.
Critics, including the 144 MEPs who pushed the referral, call this a procedural sleight of hand: splitting the deal to “pass it under the radar” without a clear mandate from the Council for such separation, potentially denying national parliaments their rightful say on an accord with profound implications for agriculture, deforestation standards, and food sovereignty.
The referral freezes the Parliament’s consent vote until the CJEU rules—likely 16–24 months away, possibly longer. Provisional application of the trade parts remains theoretically possible once one Mercosur country ratifies (some diplomats eye March 2026), but the legal cloud makes that risky and politically explosive.
This isn’t mere bureaucratic show; it’s a direct rebuke to the Commission’s high-pressure tactics. MEPs resented being sidelined before the signature, and the vote reflects deep fractures: farmers’ fury over potential hormone-treated beef and soy floods, Green demands for ironclad sustainability, and broader unease about diluting EU standards via backdoor majority voting.
The “historic” signature now looks more like a Pyrrhic victory. The deal hangs in limbo, its fate in the hands of judges rather than politicians. If the CJEU upholds the split, the trade engine could still roar ahead provisionally. If it strikes down the maneuver, the whole edifice will collapse—or at least force a humiliating renegotiation. Either way, the episode exposes the EU’s chronic tension between ambitious global trade plays and internal democratic safeguards. For French agriculture and anti-deal zealots, it’s already a tactical win: time bought, pressure mounted, and the scapegoat narrative alive and kicking.
L’Éclaireur called it on January 9.
 |
|
No one’s betting the farm that the EU-Mercosur deal’s circuitous legal architecture passes muster under the treaties. If the judges rule the Commission’s split—isolating the trade bits into an Interim Trade Agreement (ITA) to dodge unanimity and national parliaments—was an overreach or lacked proper mandate, the EU would look like a laughingstock: a bloc that can’t even ratify its own “largest-ever” trade deal without tripping over its procedural shoelaces. Partners in Mercosur (and beyond) would see confirmation of Brussels’ chronic inability to deliver on big promises. Geopolitically, it hands ammo to every protectionist and skeptic who claims the EU is more theater than powerhouse.
Domestically, the damage multiplies. The Commission, whose core job under the treaties is to act as guardian of EU law, stands exposed for what critics call serial power grabs: from COVID-era overreach to the Digital Services Act’s heavy hand, ChatControl surveillance pushes, that questionable U.S. trade deal, and now this Mercosur end-run. If the CJEU slaps it down, von der Leyen’s team won’t just lose one deal—they’ll lose credibility as impartial stewards of the treaties.
Even more damning: this marks a genuine institutional first. To our knowledge—and the record backs it—no previous European Parliament has ever referred an international agreement to the CJEU before granting consent or allowing ratification to proceed. MEPs aren’t merely signaling opposition to the substance. They’re declaring outright distrust in the Commission’s legitimacy.
By invoking Article 218 TFEU to seek a prior opinion, they’ve turned a routine consent procedure into a preemptive judicial veto. That’s not posturing; that’s tantamount to a constitutional rebuke.
The “historic” tag von der Leyen slapped on the January 17 signing in Paraguay now risks ironic immortality. If the CJEU upholds the maneuver, provisional application might limp forward. If it doesn’t, this becomes the case study in hubris: a Commission that bet the house on procedural gymnastics, only to watch Parliament and the courts remind everyone who really holds the reins.
For French agriculture, sovereignty hawks, and anyone fed up with Brussels’ top-down habits, it’s poetic justice. The deal that was supposed to showcase EU global clout could instead etch a lasting lesson in checks, balances—and the high cost of treating democratic safeguards like inconveniences. Historic? Absolutely. Just not in the way the Commission scripted.
Judiciarization of the Institutional Clash? Hell Yes—and It’s a First-Class Tremour
With the European Commission cornered and Ursula von der Leyen staring down her fourth motion of censure in a mere seven months, is the Parliament at last shaking off its original shackles as a glorified rubber-stamp assembly?
It probes the EU’s foundations, its power balances, and its very survival in a world of rising nationalism and trade wars.
France’s predicament is no less epochal—and pathetic. Emmanuel Macron struts as the farmers’ unyielding bulwark, publicly skewering von der Leyen and vowing to block the deal that would drown French fields in cheap South American imports. Yet whispers from closed-door Council meetings paint a murkier picture: France couldn’t rally a blocking minority on January 9, letting qualified majority rule steamroll ahead despite its “no” vote.
Meanwhile, French agriculture is gasping its last breaths, on the brink of its first trade deficit in nearly 50 years. The 2025 agri-food surplus withered to a pitiful €240 million by November, down from €3.5 billion in 2024, ravaged by skyrocketing cocoa, coffee, and butter imports, brutal intra-EU competition from cost-cutting Spaniards and Italians, and self-sabotaging regulations that choke innovation. Cumulative data through September 2025 even showed a €351 million deficit—a humiliating flip for the EU’s supposed farm powerhouse.
Macron’s tough talk buys headlines, but it masks decades of neglect: bureaucratic bloat, input-cost explosions, retailer price wars, and climate hysteria have hollowed out the sector. France’s EU output share? A shrinking 16.2% in 2024. If this is “grandeur,” it’s the grandeur of denial. The Mercosur scapegoat lets leaders dodge the mirror, but the rot is domestic—and deepening.
L'ÉCLAIREUR is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The Real Culprit Isn’t Mercosur—It’s the Neighbors France Can’t Keep Up With
France’s agricultural freefall is historic, all right—a slow-motion collapse that’s turned the EU’s former agricultural titan into a cautionary tale. But let’s stop the charade: this debacle owes nothing to Brazilian beef, Argentine soy, Canadian grains, or Mexican whatever. The killers are right next door—fellow EU members who’ve adapted, scaled up, specialized, and out-competed France in the very single market Brussels sold as a boon for everyone.
Spain didn’t wait for miracles. It bet big on volume, low costs, massive irrigation, regional hyper-specialization, and ever-larger operations. Result? It’s cemented its spot as the EU’s undisputed No. 1 supplier of fruits and vegetables, flooding shelves from Berlin to Paris with tomatoes, peppers, citrus, and more at prices French growers can only dream of matching. While France wrestles with fragmented smallholdings and sky-high compliance costs, Spain’s agro-industrial machine churns out efficiency.
Germany doubled down on transformation: a network of automated mega-slaughterhouses turning live animals into high-value processed meat. The Netherlands went full tech—high-tech greenhouses for veggies, intensive livestock logistics that make Dutch tomatoes and pork the backbone of European supply chains. Poland? Simple: leverage rock-bottom labor and production costs to undercut everyone on volume basics.
The numbers don’t lie. France’s main beef supplier isn’t Brazil or Argentina—it’s the Netherlands and Germany, shipping in processed cuts and live animals that French abattoirs once handled themselves. For processed foods—the real black hole dragging the trade balance into the red—the culprits are Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, and Italy. Not a single Mercosur flag in sight.
French leaders scream about Mercosur as the existential threat, conveniently ignoring that the real hemorrhage comes from intra-EU rivals who play the game smarter.
Mercosur? The perfect political scapegoat—distant, exotic, easy to demonize without admitting the crisis is Franco-French and pan-European. Blame the South Americans, rally the tractors, posture for votes. But the mirror shows the truth: France’s agriculture isn’t dying from foreign invasion. It’s bleeding out because it lost the plot against its closest competitors. Until leaders confront that uncomfortable fact instead of chasing external villains, the decline won’t stop. It’ll accelerate.
Vous êtes abonné gratuit à L'Eclaireur. Pour accéder à l’ensemble de nos contenus, merci de souscrire à la formule d’abonnement payant de votre choix.
| ||||||||||
© 2026 L'Eclaireur - Alpes
Directrice de la publication : Patricia Cerinsek
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire