If, as seems likely, the EU member states agree on Friday to proceed with the signing of a contentious trade agreement with the Mercosur group of South American states, it will bring to an end a negotiation that has dragged on for more than a quarter of a century.
Until recently, opponents of the deal had harboured some hope of assembling a blocking minority under EU rules. That prospect receded as it became clear that Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni’s position had shifted, following concessions from commission president Ursula von der Leyen on the early release of farm subsidies.
Against that backdrop, it appeared earlier this week that the Irish Government might also soften its stance. The calculation was that little was to be gained, and political capital to be lost, by remaining obstinately on the losing side of an EU decision. There was also the possibility of extracting further concessions from the commission at the final stage. That calculation, however, failed to reckon with the depth of opposition within the ranks of Government TDs across Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and, most importantly, Independents.
By Thursday morning both the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste acknowledged that Ireland would be voting no. Suggestions that the Government might fall over the issue were exaggerated, but the episode underlines how this administration ignores sentiment in rural Ireland at its peril.
READ MORE
If today’s vote proceeds as expected, Ireland will at least have registered its dissent. The longer-term question, however, concerns the substance of the agreement itself.
Supporters argue it will lower tariffs and reduce barriers for European exporters in sectors where Ireland and the EU have strengths, including machinery, pharmaceuticals, medical devices and services. It will offer Mercosur countries improved access to the EU market for agricultural exports, giving European consumers greater choice and, potentially, lower prices. It will deepen ties with South America, counterbalancing the gravitational pull of China and the US and reasserting the value of a rules-based international partnership at a moment of geopolitical volatility.
None of this negates the grounds for concern. The environmental implications of increased beef and soy production, particularly the risk of accelerating deforestation in the Amazon, remain unresolved. So too do questions of food safety arising from differing standards. Assurances that safeguards exist have yet to convince sceptics. Critics also warn of uneven gains, with large agribusinesses and multinationals benefiting at the expense of smaller farmers and workers.
If the agreement is to command legitimacy, the EU will need to show, in enforceable terms, that commercial advantage is not being purchased at the expense of climate ambition, rural livelihoods, or public confidence in standards.
