Article by French author Joël Schmidt, Political Science student at Sciences Po University in Strasbourg. 29/06/2025. Published on https://bilat.org.
France’s Perspective on the EU-Mercosur Agreement
On November 14, 2024, French President Emmanuel Macron announced his rejection of the free trade agreement between the EU and Mercosur, stating that he will not sign the agreement or at least not in its current form.
Known for his opposition to protectionist policies, Macron here challenges the European Commission and its persistent efforts to finalize a historic free trade deal with the South American trade bloc.
However, France’s position reflects both domestic political tensions and a firm stance on production standards and climate concerns. While the removal of tariffs on an advantageous 7.3% of various goods is intended to create economic opportunities for both Europeans and South Americans, the agreement has raised serious questions in Paris particularly regarding one sector. Among the many sectors targeted by the deal, including automotive, chemical, pharmaceutical, textile, and services, agriculture stands out as the primary reason behind France’s opposition.
I: Competition and agricultural norms
France, with €96 billion in agricultural production, is the largest agricultural producer in Europe. Deeply rooted in its history, farmers play a major role in the country’s economy and have often been vocal when they felt politically betrayed. Growing protests from the agricultural sector have not played in President Macron’s favor. Although farmers represent only about 8% of the electorate, they remain an important community due to their right-leaning tendencies. Losing their support could greatly benefit the far-right populist party, the Rassemblement National (RN), which has been vocal about what it considers unfair practices by Brussels harming France’s agricultural sovereignty.
The vice-president of the National Rally (RN), Louis Aliot, called the treaty “catastrophic” as the RN launched a national campaign against this free trade agreement, which still needs to be ratified by European countries. “We could only agree to it if there were reciprocity in production standards. You can open your market to global products, but they must comply with the same rules,” he further stated.
This condition has been a key factor for the French political class to even consider agreeing to the treaty. The main threat to French farmers is not necessarily the volume of South American products like beef, but the quality of those imports. EU farmers must comply with strict production rules under the Common Agricultural Policy. The European Union notably prohibits the use of growth hormones or antibiotics aimed at promoting animal growth and enforces stronger animal welfare policies compared to South American counterparts. French farmers have therefore denounced what they see as unfair competition a paradoxical European approach where French producers must follow stringent regulations while imports face laxer quality checks.
For this reason, the French government has demanded the inclusion of “mirror clauses” to ensure that imported products respect the same production standards as those in Europe. This stance is logical, as the EU previously ruled that imports must meet the same standards as domestic production. France’s rejection of the treaty thus rests mainly on agricultural and health concerns particularly since red beef consumption in Argentina and Uruguay has been linked to higher rates of colorectal cancer.
II: Climatic challenges
The agreement has been positioned as part of Europe’s broader strategy to transition toward a “green economy” and reduce dependence on countries like China especially by tapping into South America’s strategic minerals like lithium. However, since the 2020 Ambec report, French and European experts have warned that the potential economic gains may not offset the environmental costs.
This paradox lies at the heart of France’s reluctance. President Macron has repeatedly emphasized that the goals set by the Paris Climate Agreement must be upheld. He insists that any EU-Mercosur trade deal should include binding climate commitments, along with a mechanism to suspend the agreement if these standards are not respected by South American countries.
Agricultural practices in some Mercosur nations particularly the deforestation of the Amazon to expand farmland stand in direct contradiction to EU climate commitments. Moreover, experts have raised concerns about increased greenhouse gas emissions, health risks, and discrepancies in production standards. For example, Brazil’s maximum residue limits (MRLs) for pesticides are, in most cases, higher than those permitted under European or French regulations. The current deal lacks binding requirements on critical issues such as animal welfare, feed quality, and the use of agrochemicals further fueling skepticism in Paris.
III: The role of France in EU trade policy and why the nation can block the agreement
As the second-largest European economy and a key actor in agriculture, foreign policy, and defense, France wields significant influence over its European partners. With the second-largest number of seats in the European Parliament and a political system that allows for rapid executive action, France often plays a central role in shaping EU direction.
However, the EU-Mercosur agreement is being negotiated by the European Commission, which holds the exclusive power of legislative initiative within the EU. Despite this, both the European Parliament and the Council of the EU must approve the final agreement. The Council vote is particularly crucial. If a qualified majority is used, France must rally blocking partners representing at least 35% of the EU population to halt the deal. So far, only Poland has joined France in formally opposing the treaty in its current form.
Yet the EU’s supranational powers are not absolute. Since the agreement covers areas that fall under both EU and member states’ authority, it must be ratified by national parliaments as well. This means that even a single country’s rejection can block the entire deal. In France, the agreement will need to go through a parliamentary vote after government and committee review.
The European Commission could also decide to separate the agreement into two parts, as it did with the EU-Canada deal (CETA). In that case, only the trade-related provisions falling under EU competence would be implemented immediately, without requiring national ratification meaning France might have to apply part of the agreement even if its parliament does not approve the full deal.
IV: What Could make Paris rethink it’s position?
Geopolitical concerns are, of course, to be taken into account. Major pressure from European partners to find new trade alternatives to the isolationist USA and the market-driven PRC could work against France in the long run. Yet the most likely outcome would be a swift change in standardization within South America. As a sign of goodwill, it will be important for Latin American countries to reshape their regulations on meat production and establish a more transparent and traceable production cycle. To this extent, it is crucial for South American actors to remain loyal to their environmental obligations and seek a compromise around agricultural exports.
Other products might perhaps benefit the signatories of the treaty if French farmers remain wary of unequal competition, which could be an opportunity for South America to diversify its exports. Moreover, French reluctance is also a call for South America to diversify. The potential of the continent is vast, which could lead to new opportunities in the production of technological goods, making South America less reliant on food exports.
In addition, the continent must work together to establish general guidelines regarding production, which would make an agreement with Europeans easier since quality standards wouldn’t differ as much between countries. All these factors might, in the end, lead to a harmonization of South American agriculture, which would be advantageous to both continents.