Why safeguards for farmers may reshape EU-Mercosur trade agreement Euronews explains

The future of the EU-Mercosur trade agreement, the largest free trade area ever negotiated by the European Union, hinges on a fragile and highly politicised sequence of votes in the European Parliament.

As reported by Euronews, three parliamentary decisions could either derail the deal entirely or reshape it in ways that risk reopening negotiations with South American partners after more than twenty years of talks.

Although the agreement was politically concluded a year ago, it still requires approval from both EU member states and the European Parliament. While national governments are currently navigating the final phase of negotiations, parliamentary resistance has emerged as a parallel and unpredictable threat.

The first flashpoint will come during the December plenary session, when lawmakers vote on a safeguard package aimed at protecting European farmers from competition from Mercosur imports.

Central to this package is a controversial “reciprocity clause” that would require Mercosur exporters to comply with EU environmental, sanitary and animal welfare standards. Proponents argue that it is necessary to prevent unfair competition. “Respecting reciprocity helps ensure that our farmers do not face environmental, sanitary, or animal-welfare dumping.

Each time a product fails to meet our standards, we should trigger a market safeguard clause,” Belgian MEP Benoit Cassart told Euronews. He added that “Mercosur countries must establish supply chains that comply with the standards in force in the EU, to gain access to our market”.

Yet the proposal is politically divisive and legally contentious. Parliamentary officials warn that such a clause may violate World Trade Organization rules and could be technically unworkable. Its inclusion in the Parliament’s trade committee passed by a margin of just one vote, revealing deep fractures across party lines.

Major political groups, including the European People’s Party and the Socialists and Democrats, opposed it, raising the likelihood of a narrow and volatile outcome in the plenary vote.

Paradoxically, some lawmakers may support the clause precisely because they expect it to fail later. As one Parliament official explained, rejecting it outright “would be seen as a provocation by farmers”, adding that some MEPs may vote in favour “knowing it may be struck down later during the negotiation with the Council”. 

National positions further complicate the picture. Italy’s stance is particularly decisive, as Belgium is expected to abstain, leaving Rome’s support crucial to reaching a qualified majority in the Council.

Italian Agriculture Minister Francesco Lollobrigida reinforced the political sensitivity of the issue, stating, “If rules on the use of crop protection products and antibiotics are imposed on our producers, in order to protect the environment and labour rights, we cannot allow products that are completely at odds with these standards enter the market”.

Even if the safeguard vote clears the way for Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to sign the agreement in South America, parliamentary uncertainty will persist. The signed text would only be a provisional agreement, subject to ratification by the European Parliament in 2026.

Before that, lawmakers will vote on whether to challenge the deal in the EU Court of Justice, following claims that the Commission unlawfully split the agreement to bypass national parliaments. “We will ask a legal opinion from the ECJ on the compatibility of the deal with the EU treaties,” said Green MEP Saskia Bricmont.

By Tamilla Hasanova