Complexities behind Poles' opposition to Mercosur deal

For more than 25 years, the EU–Mercosur trade agreement remained stalled, weighed down by political resistance despite its strategic importance. Long considered too controversial to finalize yet too significant to abandon, the deal has now moved forward in Brussels, marking a shift in how the European Union approaches trade and geopolitics. No longer framed solely as a commercial arrangement, the agreement is increasingly viewed as a strategic tool in a global environment defined by fractured globalization, intensifying great-power rivalry and weakening multilateral norms.

Geopolitically and economically, Mercosur offers clear advantages for the EU. The agreement secures preferential access to a South American market of around 280 million people, strengthens the global reach of European regulatory standards and positions the EU as a key partner for Latin America at a time when influence in the region is being contested. With China expanding its economic footprint and the United States adopting a more protectionist and transactional trade stance, Brussels sees Mercosur as a way to anchor Latin America more firmly to Europe.

Politically, however, the agreement has been deeply contentious. As highlighted in an analysis by TVP World, the costs of the deal are concentrated among specific groups, particularly farmers in certain EU member states, while the benefits are spread broadly across the economy and will materialize over the long term. This imbalance has fueled opposition in countries such as France and Poland, even where broader national economic interests might favor the agreement.

To overcome resistance, EU institutions relied on procedural mechanisms that are characteristic of the bloc’s governance style. Legal structuring, qualified majority voting and targeted concessions played a key role. A decisive shift by Italy, achieved through negotiated safeguards and compensatory measures for farmers, proved pivotal. According to the article, this episode illustrates how the EU increasingly uses rules, compromise and institutional processes to advance policy in the face of internal division.

What the deal entails

On January 9, EU ambassadors meeting in the European Council voted to adopt the trade pillar of the Mercosur agreement. The Mercosur bloc includes Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, and the trade component aims to eliminate roughly 90% of tariffs while expanding access for European industrial exports such as automobiles and machinery. France, Poland, Ireland, Austria and Hungary voted against the move, while Belgium abstained.

The revival of Mercosur reflects a broader reassessment of Europe’s economic model. For decades after the Cold War, the EU thrived under an assumption that open markets, expanding trade and stable international rules would deliver prosperity and security. That model functioned relatively smoothly for nearly 30 years, but by the early 2020s its vulnerabilities had become apparent. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine underscored the risks of strategic dependency, while shifts in U.S. trade policy in 2025 reinforced the sense that Washington was no longer a reliable guardian of the rules-based order.

China’s growing use of trade and investment as instruments of political leverage further sharpened European concerns. Through export controls, informal boycotts and selective market access, Beijing has demonstrated its willingness to reward compliance and punish resistance. At the same time, Latin America’s economic orientation has increasingly tilted toward China, which has become a dominant buyer of raw materials and a major investor in infrastructure across countries such as Brazil and Argentina. From Brussels’ perspective, this shift marked a critical moment, prompting renewed urgency to finalize the Mercosur deal.

Burdened by asymmetric allocation of costs

Poland’s opposition illustrates the political complexities at play. Economically, the country stands to benefit from the agreement due to its integration into German industrial supply chains. Expanded German exports to Latin America would likely translate into increased demand for Polish-made components and machinery. Politically, however, the immediate and visible risks to Polish farmers outweighed these indirect benefits. Poland is the EU’s largest exporter of poultry within the bloc, and farmers fear heightened competition. Their political influence, combined with domestic scepticism toward Germany, made opposing the deal a safer political choice.

With the ambassadors’ vote concluded, attention now turns to the European Parliament, where the agreement faces further scrutiny. Opponents have called for a referral to the Court of Justice for legal review, potentially delaying implementation. Beyond that, the political component of the deal still requires unanimous ratification by national parliaments, offering additional avenues for resistance and prolonging the debate over one of the EU’s most consequential trade agreements.

By Nazrin Sadigova