METROPutting out a fire runs the risk of it starting again. By early 2024, the agricultural crisis had been resolved as best it could, based on promises and ambiguities. As some were still pending and others had not been lifted, peasant anger once again threatened to be heard, starting on November 18, throughout the territory. Added to the unsatisfied grievances of spring and the devastating effects of climate change on crops was a powerfully unifying issue: the imminent conclusion of the free trade agreement between the European Union (EU) and the Mercosur countries (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay , Paraguay and Bolivia).
This treaty, negotiated for almost twenty-five years, constitutes a source of favorable opportunities for European industry, dairy products and alcohol, while guaranteeing protected geographical indications for many food products. On the other hand, for livestock farmers, poultry farmers and grain producers, the free trade agreement is a setback that would weaken sectors that are already in poor condition. In addition to an increase in export quotas, these sectors denounce the risk of being subjected to unfair competition that could accelerate the decline of French agriculture.
Little echo at European level
There is no shortage of reasons to criticize this agreement. In a column published in the world600 parliamentarians highlight its incompatibility with the 2015 Paris climate agreement, especially in terms of deforestation. The lack of adequate controls on imported products exposes French agriculture to competition whose production methods are much less demanding from a regulatory point of view, whether due to the use of pesticides and hormones or due to respect for animal welfare. Above all, the agreement highlights competitiveness gaps that are difficult to overcome for a French model characterized by smaller farms. MPs finally warn that the security of our agricultural supplies is being called into question.
While the French political class is more divided than ever, the rejection of the Mercosur agreement is the subject of an unusual consensus, from the National Assembly to the government, including the President of the Republic. Under the pressure of an agricultural anger that can no longer be appeased, everyone is proclaiming loud and clear that the Treaty is not acceptable. “as is”. But this unanimity finds little echo at the European level, where France is struggling to rally to its cause the blocking minority that would allow the text to be suspended.
Most Member States believe, on the contrary, that it would be dangerous to abandon this agreement at a time when, after the election of Donald Trump, the protectionist temptation is taking hold in the United States, while China is ready to take advantage of the delay of the Twenty-seven to strengthen their positions in South America. Does Europe, which seeks to establish itself as a power in a world increasingly hostile to it, have the means to deprive itself of new commercial outlets?
Weakened by an agricultural model that is losing strength and paralyzed by the prospect of a social crisis at the worst possible moment, France barely has the means to influence the debate. If Brussels decided to ignore Paris’ advice, this would mark an unprecedented decline in France’s weight in Europe. Even more serious, the episode risks leaving a damaging and lasting mark on French opinion by fueling anti-EU sentiment.
