Why the Rush? Building Political Support for the EU-Mercosur Agreement
In
On 6 December 2024, Ursula Von Der Leyen surprised many by flying to Montevideo, Uruguay, to sign the EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement. After nearly 25 years of slow and sometimes frustrating negotiations, this deal is finally taking shape, yet not without contestation.
*****
Why the Rush? Building Political Support for the EU-Mercosur Agreement
On 6 December 2024, Ursula Von Der Leyen surprised many by flying to Montevideo, Uruguay, to sign the EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement. After nearly 25 years of slow and sometimes frustrating negotiations, this deal is finally taking shape, yet not without contestation. Considering the current political context, there is still doubt if this was a necessary action or a rushed move. This Agreement represents a turning point for the EU’s competitiveness, which is in constant decrease. Whilst the Commission keeps claiming the great success of the agreement, it should insist more on the environmental consequences of the deal and improve the respect of social rights. Ultimately, the EU should consider the need to propose not only a Trade Agreement but drafting an ambitious political and cooperation section.
For over thirty years, the EU and Mercosur have been negotiating closer economic relations. After both regional organisations agreed an initial Interregional Cooperation Framework Agreement in 1995, they started negotiations for an Association Agreement to establish a Free Trade Area (FTA) in 2002. In December 2024 EU Commission President Ursula Von Der Leyen flew to Uruguay and reached a political deal with regional leaders for an EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement. At its core, the agreement offers the prospect of tapping into a market of 700 million people and diversifying the EU’s supplier base at a time when trade tensions and the threat of tariff wars loom large. At first sight, this constitutes a clear win for the EU’s longstanding approach to economic development. Instead of using economic coercion, the EU prefers to use the attractiveness of its single market to secure bilateral deals on market access. However, despite its potential benefits, the Agreement has also attracted significant controversy.
A Divisive Reaction: Praise and Criticism
The reactions to Von der Leyen’s move were mixed. In Europe, French President Emmanuel Macron expressed dissatisfaction, especially amid a political crisis in France. In addition to France, Ireland, Poland and the Netherland voiced skepticism about this deal. In contrast, Mercosur countries celebrated the agreement, though they remain cautious as the EU must still complete its internal approval process. Critics have raised concerns over agricultural and environmental standards, particularly because Mercosur countries like Brazil and Argentina do not follow the same strict rules as Europe. This has led to worries about lowering environmental protection, especially regarding deforestation. This not only raises environmental concerns but also criticism from the farmers. Their worries relate to prices, since European farmers have more rules to respect and therefore ask higher prices for their products, consequently, they are less competitive. In brief, completing the EU-Mercosur Agreement appears essential to the EU in securing economic benefits and strengthening global trade ties; however, criticism serves as a reminder that rushing could also result in a less-than-optimal deal.
Is the EU Commission Taking Advantage of the Fragility of Member States?
Why did Von der Leyen decide to make this move without informing all the Member States? Even if she is not obliged to, legally, Member States always have a strong voice in trade agreements. Nevertheless, looking at the context in which the agreement was signed, this jump appears if not justifiable, at least understandable for several reasons. First, the EU must go back to the global scene because the European economy struggles to remain competitive. Second, the EU needs a more resilient and diverse economic partnership with multiple potential economic partners that wish not to be left behind. Other powers are attracting Mercosur countries, and this is happening without looking at environmental standards or human rights. The problem is that Mercosur, and more specifically Brazil, does not see the EU as a partner, and it is advancing closer ties with the BRICS instead of with the Western World. Third, it appears that the European Commission took advantage of a period of political fragility in France – the biggest obstacle to the agreement – using its moment of distraction as an opportunity to assert the EU’s right of initiative. While the Commission President was flying to Montevideo, France was managing a government crisis with the vote of no confidence that dislodged Prime Minister Michel Barnier.
In this scenario, the impression arises that the agreement was signed more because of the need to rush than for the achievement of satisfying results. If this is the case, what will be the agreement’s future outcomes? Many feel that approving the agreement as it currently stands will harm several sectors, and those effects will not be offset by the economic benefits promised by the European Commission.
The Road Ahead: Legal Complexities and Political Challenges
The story is still ongoing: the European Commission’s proposals, expected in mid-2025, will clarify the legal basis for the agreement. The key question is whether it will be treated as a “mixed agreement” or split into two separate agreements—one “EU-only” and one mixed. A mixed agreement will include cooperation and political clauses, that would be beneficial for a better impact assessment concerning respect of social rights and the environment, yet harder to approve. While EU-only agreements require merely the consent of the European Parliament and a qualified majority in the Council, mixed agreements must also secure ratification from all individual Member States based on their constitutional procedures. This additional layer of complexity could further delay the agreement’s full implementation, and thus hinder the EU and Mercosur relations. For this reason, there is a high possibility that the EU will choose the second solution, to avoid the impasse of unanimity and secure the ratification of the Council.
In the case of an EU-only agreement, however, the absence of a political and cooperation section could jeopardise the values protected in Article 3(5) TFEU in its external action. Contestation over the Agreement was confirmed by the debate held in the European Parliament’s Plenary in Strasbourg on Thursday 13th February 2025. The discussion centered around two main perspectives: one emphasising the urgent need for the EU to reaffirm its role as a global actor, and the other expressing concerns about the impact on EU workers and environmental protections. More moderate voices remain hopeful that the EU will uphold high standards, and they recognised the step forward compared to the past drafts. In this, the EU Commission inserted the adhesion to the Paris Agreement as a mandatory requirement, as well as the hold on deforestation before 2030.
A Contested Agreement in a Complex World: Need for Balance and Clarity
The challenge is to find the right balance: moving forward with this necessary agreement while ensuring that it does not compromise key environmental and social standards. In doing so, the EU must avoid rushing into decisions that could have long-term repercussions for its internal coherence and external credibility. To this purpose the Commission should push for a more binding and enforceable framework on environmental and social rights, ensuring that these commitments are integrated into the core agreement rather than relegated to annexed protocols. A robust monitoring mechanism is necessary to assess the impact of trade policies on local communities and ecosystems, including independent oversight and compliance reviews.
Rather than treating the agreement as a mere trade deal, the EU should foster a more comprehensive cooperation framework with Mercosur. This can be done by incorporating structured dialogues on human rights, labor protections, and deforestation mitigation. On this last point, the lack of a political cooperation section will result in a fragile and incomplete agreement. Opening up to globalisation and market agreements also requires building mutual trust. Relying solely on economic clauses risks leading both sides to priorities their own interests rather than fostering true cooperation. Despite the potential for longer and more complex discussions, expanding the dialogue beyond market concerns could provide a more sustainable long-term solution, strengthening the EU’s global position and ensuring stable and reliable partnerships.
(Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons)