The European Commission is expected to present the EU–Mercosur agreement for approval today (Wednesday, 3 September), advancing a file that has divided member states and provoked a new round of farmer protests. Presentation by the College would open the way to the EU ratification phase after a political agreement was reached in Montevideo in December 2024.
Officials have also been weighing whether to “split” the agreement, advancing the trade pillar separately from the wider political and cooperation elements. Framing the trade provisions as an EU-only competence would mean consent by the European Parliament and a qualified majority in the Council, rather than unanimous approval across 27 national parliaments. Several MEPs and national politicians have warned against this approach in recent days.
In France, where opposition has been most persistent, the main farmers’ union FNSEA said it is examining legal options to challenge the text while preparing to lobby MEPs ahead of the Parliament vote. The union reiterates concerns over imports produced with pesticides banned in the EU and emphasises enforcement capacity at borders as the practical test for any assurances Brussels offers.
Political resistance is also consolidating in the Parliament. Pascal Canfin, a French MEP who leads the liberals on the Environment Committee, is coordinating a cross-party initiative to ask the EU’s top court to review the agreement. Supporters of this move argue that the deal’s “rebalancing mechanism” could constrain the EU’s future ability to regulate, and want judicial clarity before ratification proceeds.
Farmer organisations at EU level remain opposed. Copa-Cogeca reiterated that the agreement would be economically and politically damaging for farmers and rural communities, and sector groups have announced demonstrations in Brussels this week. National and European NGOs plan to join the protests, citing risks to climate and biodiversity objectives.
The Commission, for its part, points to prospective tariff cuts and market access gains, including the removal of many Mercosur tariffs on EU industrial exports and reductions on a large share of Mercosur exports to the EU. Brussels and several capitals, notably Berlin and Madrid, also present the pact as part of a broader strategy to diversify supply chains and secure access to critical raw materials. Whether those arguments will carry the necessary majorities remains uncertain.
Attention is turning to possible flanking measures. According to officials and prior statements to MEPs, the Commission has prepared a contingency reserve of at least €1 billion that could be activated in the event of market disturbances affecting EU agriculture. Supporters say this would complement safeguard tools in the agreement and existing CAP instruments; farm groups doubt it would offset structural pressures in sensitive sectors.
Paris has sought additional assurances. An “accompanying document” negotiated with the Commission has been discussed at senior political level, but details have not been published and its legal force for Mercosur partners remains unclear. French farm leaders say they will judge any add-ons on their enforceability, and have expressed a preference for so-called “mirror” provisions that would require imports to meet standards equivalent to those applied to EU producers.
The ratification arithmetic is tight. If the proposal proceeds as an EU-only trade agreement, it would need a simple majority in the European Parliament and backing from a qualified majority of member states in Council. France has signalled it will work to block the text; Poland and Italy have also voiced reservations in recent months, while other governments remain supportive. Parliamentary consent is not assured given the cross-party concerns in agriculture-heavy delegations and among environmentalists.
Substantive debates continue over sustainability and enforcement. Proponents highlight recognition of EU geographical indications, public procurement access, and updated sustainability language; critics argue that deforestation and pesticide provisions are insufficiently enforceable and that expanded quotas for sensitive agri-food products would intensify competitive pressure on EU producers. The “rebalancing mechanism” is a particular flashpoint, with analysts warning it could be used to contest new EU rules that affect market access.
Demonstrations in Brussels are planned for Thursday as the institutional process begins. The immediate next steps will depend on how the Commission frames the proposal today and whether it opts to decouple the trade provisions. That choice will set the path—and the political threshold—for one of the EU’s most consequential trade files in a generation.
