Some political opponents, echoed by the media, claim that the MR has changed its mind on free trade agreements - a few years ago it supported CETA (the agreement between the European Union and Canada), whereas today it opposes the European Union's agreement with Mercosur, as it stands.
The MR has not changed its mind, we remain in favour of CETA and we oppose Mercosur as it stands.
Explanation
As liberals, we support free trade, but only if it serves our strategic interests, whether environmental, social or economic.
Being for or against free trade in general makes no sense. Every free trade agreement differs in structure, issues and impact. CETA and the EU-Mercosur agreement are two completely different agreements, with very different consequences.
Canada is a country with a level of development equal to or higher than that of the European Union, with a similar social protection system, high production and environmental standards, and a reliable traceability and control system. All impact assessments carried out before CETA was signed showed that the agreement would mainly benefit the European Union, including its agriculture. Six years after CETA's provisional entry into force, the figures show that we were right to support this agreement. Indeed, the number of jobs supported by European exports to Canada has risen by 11%; the number of SMEs exporting to that country has risen by 54%.
In total, over the past five years, trade between the European Union and Canada has risen by 31% and Belgian exports to Canada have increased by €1.6 billion. Belgium has particularly benefited from the agreement, since while European exports to Canada rose by a quarter between 2017 and 2021, Belgian exports rose by 62%! “Fears of an invasion of Canadian agricultural products, particularly beef, have proved unfounded, as we predicted. We have not suffered unfair competition from Canada because mirror measures, such as the ban on importing hormone-treated beef, have worked, thanks to a reliable traceability and control system, and because their products are not cheaper than ours,” recalled Benoît Cassart, MR MEP and a farmer himself, who has always defended CETA even when agricultural unions were vocally opposed to it.
The EU-Mercosur agreement, on the other hand, would be signed with 5 countries: Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia. Countries that differ greatly from one another, with equally varying levels of development, social and environmental standards far lower than those required within the European Union, and two of whose member countries are agricultural superpowers (Brazil and Argentina). One can fear the worst upon learning that Argentine President Javier Milei ordered his delegation to withdraw from COP 29 following a phone call with Donald Trump. One is entitled to wonder what position he will take in future, given his statements against the Paris Climate Agreement, his fierce criticism of the United Nations' ideological stance, his rejection of the Pact for the Future, and his withdrawal from the 2030 Agenda.
The EU's agricultural trade balance with Mercosur is already negative to the tune of €15 billion. It is reasonable to think that the agreement will worsen the situation, given that production costs are much lower and Mercosur products are ultra-competitive compared with European products. The risk of unfair competition for our farmers is real. Fears of negative environmental impacts, particularly linked to deforestation, are numerous and scientifically justified.
Doubts about the ability to guarantee food safety for our consumers are justified given a flawed traceability and control system, as shown by the conclusions of an audit carried out by the European Commission on Brazilian beef. Last October, the audit indeed revealed that Brazil was unable to reliably certify the absence of growth hormones in beef intended for export to the European Union, even though the EU has banned the use of such hormones since 1981, both for meat produced in Europe and for meat imported from third countries. Finally, the relationship between the Paris Climate Agreement and the EU-Mercosur agreement remains uncertain.
“Free trade agreements should help us export our social and environmental model, not destroy it. We believe many points remain open in the Mercosur negotiations to make it a good agreement for our interests. That is why we believe it should not be signed as it stands,” concluded Benoît Cassart, MR MEP.