Ursula von der Leyen moved last week to progress the Mercosur trade deal by applying the provisional application rule.

The move has angered some politicians and been criticised by a number of MEPs, including some of Ireland’s representatives in Brussels, with some stating that the move to proceed with provisional application is ignoring the democratic processes that Europe has been built on.

The French president Emmanuel Macron has also criticised the decision, saying it was disrespectful to the European Parliament. The European Court of Justice ruling weakened Ursula von der Leyen’s hand politically, and there was a thought that she wouldn’t risk upsetting more MEPs by essentially rushing the deal through.

ADVERTISEMENT

Increased imports

The deal still has to be voted on in the EU parliament, but this could take longer than expected now. The first Mercosur country that ratifies the deal, which is expected to be Uruguay, will trigger increased imports of Mercosur beef into Europe on a phased basis over a number of years.

It’s ironic that in the same week when the decision was made to go for provisional application, the EU Commission published its findings on the breaches which led to the Europe-wide recall of beef products contaminated with illegal hormones.

Noel Bardon goes into great detail on pages 12-13 this week on the audit findings. The European Commission’s report highlighted serious discrepancies in the auditing and inspection of farms that were cleared to export beef to Europe.

Reading the report, there are many questions around the competency of the Brazilian authorities and their ability to oversee the requirements that Brazilian farms have to meet to export beef to Europe.

Having visited the country last October, I would have grave concerns as to Brazil’s ability to guarantee that beef exported to Europe will be free from hormones.

The lack of any birth-to-slaughter traceability systems or tracking of antibiotic or hormone use makes that a very difficult task for the authorities to oversee.

The findings in this report are very similar to the findings of a 2024 Commission audit, so essentially nothing has changed in the last 12-18 months despite the EU Commission highlighting their issues after the 2024 audit.

Will we be back here in 2027 discussing more inspection failings? Time will tell.