Update of 21 January 2026: The European Parliament voted, by 334 votes to 324 with 11 abstentions, to request an opinion from the Court of Justice of the EU on the EU‑Mercosur agreement, which in practice puts the Parliament’s final vote on ratification on hold until the Court delivers its ruling.
However, despite this referral, some European leaders and diplomats are advocating for the agreement to still enter into force on a provisional basis as soon as a first Mercosur country has ratified it, an option that remains highly contested politically.
As the European Union finalizes one of the most extensive trade agreements ever negotiated, the EU-Mercosur agreement stands as a major political test. Presented by the European Commission as a lever for growth, competitiveness, and geo-economic power, it nevertheless faces sustained opposition in many European countries. There is much more at stake in this treaty than a simple reduction in customs duties: it is a confrontation between two visions of globalization, pitting industrial promise against agricultural concerns, climate emergency, and a democratic deficit.
For more than twenty years, the EU-Mercosur agreement has progressed in fits and starts, blocked, revived, and rewritten, without ever truly being embraced by citizens. Even today, much of the European population remains unaware of its precise content while expressing deep mistrust. This gap between the scale of the issues and the weakness of public debate fuels the image of a Europe making decisions far removed from its people.
EU-Mercosur Agreement: a South American giant at Europe’s doorstep
To understand the agreement, we must first look at the South American bloc itself. Mercosur (Southern Common Market) was created in 1991 with the Treaty of Asunción, signed by Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. The ambition was clear: to build a common market based on the European model, gradually removing internal customs barriers and adopting a common external tariff.
Today, Mercosur comprises these four founding members, joined later by Venezuela (suspended since 2016) and Bolivia (currently consolidating membership). Associated countries like Chile, Peru, Colombia, and Ecuador participate in certain agreements without being full members. Economically, the bloc carries significant weight, accounting for around 62% of South America’s GDP and serving as a major trading partner for the EU.
25 Years of Negotiations: Why Now?
The history began in the late 1990s. By 1999, the two blocs officially launched negotiations. Divisions quickly emerged: Mercosur sought greater access for agricultural products (beef, poultry, sugar), while the EU aimed to open South American markets to European cars, machinery, and chemicals. After a series of halts, an agreement in principle was announced in June 2019.
However, surging deforestation in the Amazon under Jair Bolsonaro and the rise of the European Green Deal turned the treaty into a symbol of contradiction. Member states like France, Austria, Ireland, and the Netherlands voiced refusal to ratify a text deemed incompatible with the Paris Agreement.
Lula’s return to the Brazilian presidency in 2023 changed the landscape. With promises to combat deforestation, Brussels attempted to salvage the text with an “additional instrument” on sustainable development. In January 2026, the Council of the EU finally approved the agreement.
EU-Mercosur Agreement: Industry vs. Agriculture, who wins, who loses?
The Commission presents this as one of the world’s largest free trade areas, covering 750 million consumers. Bilateral trade already exceeds €100 billion per year.
- The Winners: The agreement eliminates duties on 91% of EU exports, potentially saving EU companies €4.5 billion annually. Key beneficiaries include the automotive, chemical, and pharmaceutical sectors, alongside high-value products like wine and cheese.
- The Risks: In exchange, Mercosur gains significant quotas for beef, poultry, and sugar. This adds pressure to European farmers already struggling with international competition. Furthermore, the EU secures access to strategic minerals like lithium and copper, essential for the energy transition.
Social Rights and Climate: Insufficient Guarantees?
While the text includes a “Trade and Sustainable Development” chapter, critics point to a lack of binding enforcement. Unlike commercial clauses, social and environmental violations are met with dialogue and expert panels rather than trade sanctions.
Regarding the climate, reports from the Veblen Institute and NGO Canopée label the text a “climate time bomb.” A French-commissioned report suggests the agreement could increase deforestation by 5% per year due to cattle and soy expansion.
Climate and deforestation: a ‘time bomb agreement’?
On climate change, the criticism is even more direct. On paper, the agreement confirms the commitment to implement the Paris Agreement, combat deforestation and strengthen environmental cooperation. But several independent assessments, notably those by the Veblen Institute and the NGO Canopée, describe the text as a “climate time bomb”, arguing that it will encourage deforestation and emissions rather than reducing them.
A report commissioned by the French government concludes that implementation of the agreement could lead to an annual increase in deforestation of around 700,000 hectares, or an increase of around 5% per year in Mercosur countries, mainly due to the expansion of cattle grazing and soybean cultivation for export. The researchers point out that, over the last forty years, around 77% of new pastureland created in Latin America has been at the expense of natural vegetation, which contradicts the idea that agricultural intensification alone would be enough to prevent the clearing of new forests.
The agreement does include a promise to “take measures” to end deforestation by 2030, but this deadline is considered too late in view of the climate emergency, and less ambitious than certain internal commitments already announced by Brazil. Above all, it is not accompanied by any binding mechanisms. The measures remain vague, with no quantified targets or automatic sanctions in the event of non-compliance.
From the perspective of the left and environmentalists, Mercosur therefore threatens to become an obstacle to the rise of climate policies, at a time when the EU is asserting its desire to strengthen its regulations against imported deforestation.
EU-Mercosur Agreement: Who is For and Who is Against in Europe?
On January 9, 2026, the Council gave the green light with 21 votes in favor and 5 against (France, Ireland, Poland, Hungary, Austria), with Belgium abstaining.
- The “Yes” Camp: Led by Germany, Spain, and Italy, focusing on industrial gains and geopolitical ties.
- The “No” Camp: Concerned with agricultural protection and environmental inconsistency.
Public opinion remains skeptical. A January 2026 YouGov poll across six countries showed that 63% of respondents want the agreement stopped, reflecting fears over Amazonian deforestation and unfair competition for local farmers.
€4.5 billion
This is the annual amount in customs duties that European companies would save thanks to the agreement, mainly in industrial sectors. However, scientists weigh this financial gain against a potential 5% increase in annual deforestation in Mercosur countries to meet new agricultural demand.
EU-Mercosur Agreement: European public opinion is hostile in the countries surveyed
On the public side, available data points to widespread opposition in countries where polls have been conducted specifically on the EU-Mercosur agreement. A YouGov poll commissioned by SumOfUs, cited in several analyses, already showed more than 80% opposition to ratification in a number of European countries in 2019; figures of around 75% unfavourable opinions are still being reported in 2021.
In January 2026, a new YouGov poll in six countries (France, Germany, Belgium, Ireland, Austria and Spain) indicated that 63% of respondents believed the agreement should be stopped, compared with only 14% who wanted it to continue; the rest were undecided. These data do not cover all 27 countries, but they are consistent with the strong mobilisation observed in France, Ireland, Belgium and Austria, where the agreement is associated with deforestation in the Amazon and competition in the beef market.
Are lobby groups more powerful than European democracy?
On the Mercosur issue, the recurring criticism is as follows: large industrial interests have had privileged access to European negotiators, far superior to that of NGOs and trade unions. A report by Friends of the Earth Europe, for example, documents that representatives from the automotive, chemical and agri-food sectors held numerous meetings with Commissioners and Directors-General of the Commission, while environmental NGOs were largely confined to technical levels.
Organisations such as BusinessEurope – the main European employers’ federation – and ACEA (automobile manufacturers) publicly defend the agreement, presenting it as a historic opportunity for European industry, and call for its rapid ratification. Conversely, farmers’ networks, climate NGOs and research institutes (such as the Veblen Institute) denounce the text as “driven by big business” and “contradicting the Green Deal”.
In fact, the asymmetry of access is well documented: industrial lobbies are more present and better resourced in the corridors of Brussels than civil society organisations.
But the biggest democratic criticism concerns the possibility of implementing the commercial core of the agreement before the European Parliament has voted on it! Legally, this is based on two elements. Article 218(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU authorises the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, to decide on the provisional application of an agreement at the time of its signature.
In concrete terms, the Council approved the signing of this EU-Mercosur agreement in early January 2026, without a prior vote by the European Parliament before any provisional application could begin. This breaks with recent practice, where the EU generally waited for Parliament’s consent before triggering this early application, even though the treaties did not formally require it to do so.
Lawyers and NGOs are denouncing this as a “fait accompli”. Indeed, if the EU-Mercosur agreement begins to apply provisionally (reduction in customs duties, opening of quotas, etc.), it will be politically much more costly for Parliament to reject the agreement afterwards, even if it still has the legal right to do so. The democratic scope is thus reduced to a simple yes or no vote, with no possibility of amending the text.
Parliament can only accept or reject the text as a whole, without amending it, which reinforces the feeling that the real negotiations take place between the Commission, governments and lobbies, well before the vote.Once again, this agreement shows how the current rules of trade policy distribute power: very early on to the Commission and governments, in an environment of intensive lobbying, and further down the line to citizens and Parliament, with little influence over the content once the text has been finalised.
It is precisely this imbalance that the Mercosur affair has brought back to the forefront of European political debate. It is this asymmetry that fuels the idea of a Europe where “lobbies are stronger than democracy”. Citizen, trade union and parliamentary participation comes late in the day, with few concrete levers to reopen the text, except at the risk of a head-on confrontation with governments and business circles.
How are European politicians reacting?
On the institutional side, the President of the European Commission defends the agreement as a “strategic partnership” that is essential for strengthening the EU’s economic and diplomatic weight vis-à-vis the United States and China, taking a very geopolitical view of the treaty. The three groups on the left of the European political spectrum are united in their criticism of the agreement, but with significant differences in tone and strategy.
For The Left, the EU-Mercosur agreement is a symbol of “old-style globalisation”: Manon Aubry and her colleagues see it as a treaty that sacrifices farmers, the climate and social rights for the benefit of multinationals, and denounce a “contempt for democracy” which, in their view, justifies referral to the Court of Justice of the EU. The Greens/EFA go just as far on the substance, but focus on the agreement’s incompatibility with the Green Deal, the climate emergency and the fight against deforestation, to the point of launching a public campaign called “Say no to EU-Mercosur” and describing the agreement as a direct threat to forests, biodiversity and human rights.
The socialists and social democrats, meanwhile, are more divided: the leadership of the S&D group continues to talk of a “historic opportunity” to deepen ties with Latin America, while demanding stronger guarantees on labour rights, the environment and agriculture, whereas some delegations, notably the French one, have clearly stated that they will vote against the agreement.
The EPP, the largest group in the European Parliament, remains the pivot for ratification. While the conservative group’s leadership supports the agreement in the name of industrial competitiveness and geopolitics, an internal debate persists: several national delegations, including the French Republicans, are firmly opposed to it in order to protect their agricultural sectors.
How are trade unions reacting in South America?
But what are the positions of trade unions and social movements in Mercosur? Here too, the landscape is mixed. In Brazil, unions such as the CUT (Central Única dos Trabalhadores) have long criticised free trade agreements that strengthen agribusiness, dependence on raw material exports and the precariousness of work.
They denounce the risk of seeing an acceleration of a model based on soybean monoculture and extensive livestock farming, with consequences for industrial employment, the rights of rural and indigenous communities, and deforestation. In Argentina and Uruguay, several trade unions and farmers’ organisations are divided: on the one hand, the prospect of new opportunities for agribusiness and certain export industries (such as the automotive industry in Argentina), and on the other, the fear of greater volatility linked to dependence on the European market and the rejection of an agreement perceived as asymmetrical, in which Mercosur would remain confined to the role of raw material supplier.
But as in Europe, several South American trade union networks and social movements are highlighting the risk of pitting workers in the North and South against each other in a race to the bottom in social and environmental terms, instead of building high common standards. They are calling for truly binding social and environmental clauses, accompanied by mechanisms enabling trade unions and affected communities to refer cases to independent bodies and obtain effective sanctions in the event of violations.
What emerges from the known positions is above all criticism of an integration model that does not challenge the international division of labour: industry and technology in the North, soya, meat and minerals in the South.
FAQ: Everything you need to know about the EU-Mercosur agreement
When will the EU-Mercosur agreement enter into force?
The agreement was signed by the Council in January 2026. Some of the trade measures can be applied provisionally after signature, but full ratification requires a vote by the European Parliament and, depending on the final form of the treaty, the national parliaments of the 27 Member States.
Which countries oppose the agreement?
France is the main opponent, followed by Ireland, Austria, Poland and Hungary. These countries are primarily concerned about unfair agricultural competition and environmental risks in the Amazon.
u003cstrongu003eWill the agreement increase deforestation?u003c/strongu003e
This is the main concern of NGOs. Independent studies (such as that conducted by the Veblen Institute) estimate that increasing beef quotas could increase deforestation by 5% per year in Mercosur countries, despite the u0026quot;sustainability clausesu0026quot; included in the treaty.
Does the agreement impose the same environmental standards on Mercosur farmers as on European farmers?
This is the main point of contention. Although the agreement mentions compliance with the Paris Agreement, it does not impose strict u0026quot;mirror clausesu0026quot;. This means that South American products can be imported even if they do not meet all European production standards (pesticides, animal welfare), creating what agricultural unions denounce as a distortion of competition.
Are there penalties for labour law violations in Mercosur?
No, and this is the main criticism levelled by the trade unions (CES and CUT). Unlike the trade sections, the chapter on sustainable development and labour law (ILO conventions) does not provide for financial penalties or the suspension of customs duties. In the event of non-compliance with freedom of association or the use of forced labour, the mechanism relies on a u0026quot;panel of expertsu0026quot; and political dialogue, without any direct binding power.
Sources:
- European Commission – Official factsheet on the EU-Mercosur Agreement (content, key figures, timetable):
https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/mercosur/eu-mercosur-agreement_en - European Commission – France factsheet “EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement: France”:
https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/mercosur/eu-mercosur-agreement-france_fr - European Commission – Q&A on the EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement:
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_24_6245 - EU Council / agency reports – Xinhua analysis on Member States’ green light:
https://english.news.cn/europe/20260110/fa48b80927444dafa1e6c7af52cbbee2/c.html
Major general media outlets
- Le Monde – “EU-Mercosur agreement: Five key questions about where things stand”:
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2026/01/10/eu-mercosur-agreement-five-key-questions-about-where-things-stand_674 - Le Monde – “Mercosur: agriculture, minerals, industry… What the agreement contains”:
https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2026/01/10/mercosur-agriculture-minerais-industrie-ce-que-contient-l-accord_6661235_3234.html - France 24 – “Macron says France will vote against EU-Mercosur deal after farmers’ protest”:
https://www.france24.com/en/france/20260108-macron-says-france-will-vote-against-eu-mercosur-deal-after-farmers-protest - BBC News – “EU reaches South America trade deal after 25 years of talks”:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ceqzj49gny4o - EUobserver – “EU-Mercosur trade deal gets green light despite French opposition”:
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar515c7d87
Critical analyses, climate, deforestation, social issues
- Mediapart – “The EU–Mercosur trade deal: a ticking climate time bomb and biodiversity catastrophe”:
https://www.mediapart.fr/en/journal/international/120126/eu-mercosur-trade-deal-ticking-climate-time-bomb-and-biodiversity-catastrophe - Novethic – “EU–Mercosur agreement: green light despite the risk of social and environmental dumping”:
https://www.novethic.fr/economie-et-social/transformation-de-leconomie/accord-ue-mercosur-valide-controverse-impact-environnemental-et-social-151303.html - Carenews – “EU-Mercosur agreement ‘still faces strong objections'”:
https://www.carenews.com/carenews-info/news/l-accord-ue-mercosur-souleve-toujours-autant-d-objections-severes-concernant-les - Veblen Institute – “Key insights into the final EU-Mercosur agreement”:
https://www.veblen-institute.org/IMG/pdf/vf_key_insights_into_the_final_eu-mercosur-agreement_jan_2025.pdf - Attac France – “10 reasons to oppose the EU-Mercosur agreement” (argumentary dossier):
https://france.attac.org/IMG/pdf/210131attac_mercosur.pdf - Greenpeace EU – “Reaction to the Mercosur agreement: ‘Adding fuel to the fire already burning in the Amazon rainforest’”:
https://www.greenpeace.org/belgium/fr/communique-de-presse/61816/reaction-a-laccord-mercosur-de-lhuile-sur-le-feu-qui-brule-deja-dans-la-foret-amazonienne/
Public opinion and polls
- Bilaterals / SumOfUs – YouGov survey “Vast majority of Europeans opposed to EU-Mercosur trade deal”:
https://www.bilaterals.org/?poll-vast-majority-of-europeans - Le Petit Journal – “78% of French people say ‘no’ to the EU/Mercosur agreement”:
https://lepetitjournal.com/rio-de-janeiro/78-des-francais-disent-non-laccord-uemercosur-287956
Reactions from NGOs and trade unions
- Friends of the Earth Europe – “The powers pushing for the planet-wrecking EU-Mercosur trade deal”:
https://friendsoftheearth.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/The-powers-pushing-for-the-planet-wrecking-EU-Mercosur-deal.pdf - EFFAT – “EU-Mercosur Agreement betrays European farmers, workers, consumers and the environment”:
https://effat.org/in-the-spotlight/eu-mercosur-agreement-betrays-european-farmers-workers-consumers-and-the-environment/ - European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) – “EU-Mercosur: Safeguard mechanisms and flanking measures for workers must be added to the agreement”:
https://www.etuc.org/en/pressrelease/eu-mercosur-safeguard-mechanisms-and-flanking-measures-workers-must-be-added-agreement - Greenpeace EU & Greenpeace Brazil – statements on the agreement and deforestation:
https://www.greenpeace.org/belgium/fr/communique-de-presse/61816/reaction-a-laccord-mercosur-de-lhuile-sur-le-feu-qui-brule-deja-dans-la-foret-amazonienne/
European political groups
- The Left – “MERCOSUR – A threat to our future”:
https://left.eu/mercosur-a-threat-to-our-future/ - The Left – “The Left requests Court Challenge to EU-MERCOSUR deal”:
https://left.eu/the-left-requests-for-court-challenge-to-eu-mercosur-deal/ - S&D – “Mercosur: EU must not miss historic opportunity to deepen ties with Latin America”:
https://www.socialistsanddemocrats.eu/newsroom/mercosur-eu-must-not-miss-historic-opportunity-deepen-ties-latin-america - Greens/EFA – Press release on EU-Mercosur:
https://www.greens-efa.eu/en/article/press/eu-mercosur-10809 - Greens/EFA – Campaign “For people and the planet, say no to EU-Mercosur”:
https://www.greens-efa.eu/en/campaigns/mercosur
