This is the latest snub for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen: on Wednesday, the trade agreement between the European Union and the Mercosur countries was referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union by a majority of MEPs: 334 votes for, 324 against. We would now have to wait for the verdict of the European judicial authority before Parliament ratifies or not the treaty, which could take between eighteen months and two years. It is not a political disagreement that MEPs are asking the Court to examine, but a possible abuse of power by the Commission over its prerogatives and vis-à-vis the European treaties.
In fact, MEPs are first calling for an examination of the split of the agreement into two texts, one commercial and the other political, by the Commission. Because this decision is not trivial: the commercial aspect being the prerogative of the Commission, it no longer requires the approval of national parliaments (which could have blocked it) – which on the other hand is necessary for a political text. Then, the deputies are concerned about a mechanism of “rebalancing” present in the text, but potentially contrary to European treaties, and dangerous for food sovereignty: this system would allow Mercosur countries to claim compensation if changes to European regulations were to restrict their exports – in the event of a mirror clause essential to the survival of our farmers, for example.
The EPP threatened sanctions against MPs tempted to vote for censure
Ursula von der Leyen, who had just signed this agreement with the Mercosur countries, “regretted” this decision of Parliament. Especially since the protest has spread to the ranks of the coalition which put her at the head of the Commission: a small quarter of the deputies of the European People’s Party (EPP) voted in favor of the referral, as did a large quarter of the socialist elected representatives and a third of the members of Renew. Enough to sow discord within the great European family: Germany immediately called on the Commission to overcome the deadlines to provisionally – but immediately – apply the agreement, while the EPP threatened with sanctions those MEPs who were tempted to vote for censure of the Commission, proposed by some at the same time.
Because while awaiting the decision of the Court of Justice, the Commission can still decide on a provisional application of the treaty, by virtue of a power conferred on it by the Council of the European Union. Its president, Antonio Costa, has also called on the Commission to do so quickly, just like Germany and Spain. At the risk, however, of precipitating a political crisis or exposing itself to censorship again. This is why the Commission has for the moment been content to mention the need for dialogue… under contradictory pressures. “If the Commission ignored the vote of the European Parliament, it would be a democratic rape”declared French government spokesperson Maud Bregeon, in contrast to Germany. A position defended by the entire French political class in Paris and in the European Parliament: last Wednesday, all French MEPs voted for this resolution.
