UE-Mercosur: the big deal, the big ambiguity

Translated by Francesca Valsecchi 

After twenty-five years of negotiations, postponements, crossed vetoes, and layered compromises, on Friday the European Union finally gave the political green light to the trade agreement with Mercosur. It is the largest trade agreement ever signed by Brussels, at least on paper: a colossal free trade area of about 700 million people, capable of connecting Europe and Latin America in a single economic architecture.

The approval came from a qualified majority of member states, formalised with a written procedure a few hours after the green light from the ambassadors in Brussels. France, Poland, Austria, Ireland, and Hungary voted against; Belgium abstained. Italy, after having imposed a postponement the previous month, supported the agreement. The text now has to face the European Parliament and, for the parts of mixed competence, the national parliaments.

A compromise built on the internal front

The approval was not the result of a natural political convergence, but rather of a patient work to contain internal dissent. For years, the EU-Mercosur negotiations were blocked by the fears of the European agricultural sector, which gradually became not only an economic matter, but also a matter of identity. The fear of an asymmetric competition - linked to environmental, health, and social standards perceived as less stringent - transformed the agreement in a symbol of the break between market openness and democratic consensus.

The Commission's response has been eminently compensatory. Rather than redesigning the architecture of the agreement, Brussels decided to mitigate its political effects through a system of selective protections: stringent tariff quotas for the most sensitive products, rapid safeguard clauses in case of import shocks and, above all, a massive injection of public resources for the agricultural sector.

The 45 billion euros advance under the Common Agricultural Policy is not only a financial concession, but also a clear political signal: faced with the risk of a deadlock, the EU preferred stability rather than reform.

This reveals a contradiction that is difficult to ignore. While the public debate evoked scenarios of collapse of the European agriculture, the agreement ended up consolidating the status quo, strengthening protections for the most emblematic products and substantially limiting the access of South American producers to the European market. The result is a compromise which, despite the apocalyptic rhetoric, drastically reduces the scale of the feared “shock” and highlights the resilience - and the political weight - of European agricultural lobbies.

Von der Leyen and the political price of success 

For Ursula von der Leyen, the agreement with Mercosur represents both a diplomatic win and a risky political bet. The President of the European Commission has made the relaunch of the European trade policy one of the pillars of her mandate, investing personal political capital to reopen a dossier that many considered irretrievable. The final support, built patiently between sceptical capitals and reluctant allies, is the result of a strategy of mediation rather than of shared enthusiasm. 

However, the consensus achieved remains fragile. The announcement of a motion of censure by Patriots for Europe, although unlikely to succeed, signals how Mercosur has become a catalyst for tensions that go far beyond trade. Agriculture, economic sovereignty, environmental protection, and globalization are intertwined in a polarizing political narrative that can easily be exploited by eurosceptic forces.

In this sense, the agreement is not just a page in trade policy, but a test for the Commission's leadership. Von der Leyen has shown that she knows how to build complex compromises, but she has also exposed the Commission to new fault lines at a time when the legitimacy of European policies is continuously under scrutiny.

A geopolitical success, as seen from Brussels

From Brussels' point of view, the agreement with Mercosur represents much more than a trade deal: it is a claim of geopolitical relevance at a time when the European Union is often described as a slow and cumbersome actor, squeezed between the assertive activism of the United States and the systemic insights of China. Concluding an agreement of this magnitude allows the EU to overturn, at least in part, this narrative, demonstrating that the rules-based international order - a pillar of European external projection—is not a relic of the past, but still a viable tool for global influence.

In comparison to Washington, the EU is trying to differentiate itself from a predominantly security and unilateral approach, focusing on structured cooperation, market access, and regulatory integration. At the same time, the agreement responds to China's advance in Latin America, where Beijing has gained influence through rapid investment and asymmetrical bilateral relations.

In this sense, the Mercosur agreement becomes a demonstration of European soft power: the ability to build lasting alliances without resorting to coercion, valuing shared interests and long-term political convergences.

It is not a coincidence that the agreement also ends up strengthening regional leaderships such as that of Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who - together with other Mercosur partners - maintained a patient dialogue with the EU, even during periods of stalemate in negotiations. The creation of a framework for cooperation that goes beyond trade, including political dialogue and institutional coordination, helps to anchor South American countries in the European orbit, in an increasingly polarized international context.

Mercosur becomes an attempt to regain ground, strengthening political relationships and reviving Europe's presence in high value-added sectors such as automotive, mechanical engineering, and aviation. However, the fundamental question remains open: to what extent will the EU be willing to test the consistency between geopolitical ambition, trade policy, and climate objectives in order to avoid being marginalized in the competition between the big powers?

The environmental issue: between guarantees and realities

And this is where the deepest contradiction comes out. From an environmental point of view, Mercosur conjures up a brutal image: more meat exports to Europe mean more pastures, and therefore less Amazon rainforest. In other words, more steaks for the global North, fewer trees for the planet.

The agreement includes clauses against illegal deforestation and a formal commitment to comply with the Paris Agreement. However, the guarantees remain fragile, difficult to monitor, and even more difficult to enforce. In its current form, the treaty risks reinforcing extractive export models, exacerbating environmental and social damage in Mercosur countries.

The European Greens say it straight: according to co-president Vula Tsetsi, the the agreement exposes European farmers and workers to the competition of products that do not meet EU standards and, at the same time, accelerates deforestation. Ciarán Cuffe speaks of a “structurally unbalanced” model, misaligned with European climate goals and unable to truly putting people and the planet at the center.

The European dilemma 

Mercosur reflects a broader dilemma: the European Union wants to be a global trading power and, at the same time, a credible climate leader. However, reconciling these two ambitions requires more than just environmental clauses in a trade agreement.

If Europe truly wants to build sustainable strategic partnerships, it will have to demonstrate that opening markets and protecting the planet are not incompatible goals. Otherwise, the risk is that the largest trade agreement in its history will also become a symbol of its greatest inconsistency.

Mondo Internazionale APS - Riproduzione Riservata ® 2026