Although we are going to deal with a topic that, unfortunately, is “nothing new”, the truth is that it has regained special prominence in these weeks due to the recent signing of the EU-MERCOSUR trade agreement and the also recent ruling of the CJEU that declares the agreement null and void. EU-MOROCCO agreement for not contemplating the rights of the Saharawi People (not Moroccan sovereignty) nor the labeling rules for products coming from a geographical area unduly included in the Agreement, given that it is not Morocco.
We are obviously referring to the traditional double discourse of the European Commission, and of quite a few EU Governments, which after “filling their mouths” and publicly and normatively defending the pillars of the Community Agricultural Policy (CAP) and Rural Development, betting on an indispensable economic sustainability of our livestock and agricultural farms, when it comes to making this discourse compatible with that of free trade, globalization, free competition or environmental sustainability, they forget something as fundamental as that both the Treaty of Rome (art.42) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (art.42) explicitly recognize the regulatory obligation (of Parliament and the Council) to “modulate” or “adapt” the general rules on free competition to production and trade of agricultural products.
This power has been endorsed by different rulings of the CJEU, which have always confirmed the objective difficulty of making the most orthodox rules of free competition compatible with the more interventionist policies for the protection of the CAP and for guaranteeing the sustainability of the farms and rural areas. Judgments such as “Maizena” 280/1993, make clear the primacy of agricultural policy in relation to the objectives of the Treaty in the field of competition and endorse the total powers of the European Council to decide to what extent the competition rules are applied. in the agricultural sector.
If this is so, and this possibility exists, what has really been happening for many years now and especially in the last five? In my opinion, the heterogeneity of sectoral and strategic interests among EU countries and the growing political weakness of many EU governments means that the Council and the Commission (a faithful reflection of this complex situation) have reached a situation of practical schizophrenia to try to satisfy those inside (north, south and enlargement, eastern countries…, with different interests and economies) and also those outside (third countries), to maintain a geopolitical balance that is often incoherent with the norms and rules of the Treaties and the EU’s own historical and consolidated policies.
The new Commission, just launched, will have a very difficult time if it does not intelligently and urgently change its political strategy to “make compatible” the strategic and commercial interests of “industrial and technological Europe” with those of “agrarian Europe.”
Community treaties and regulations provide more than sufficient margin, recognized and endorsed by the CJEU, to adopt “compensatory and/or corrective” measures in favor of the agri-food sector when it comes to avoiding unfair competition due to the entry of products from third countries. , who produce cheaper than us, not only because the labor and labor regulatory framework is more flexible and cheaper, but because they do not have the administrative bureaucracy that we suffer in the EU to produce, nor the “thousands” of technical, health and environmental requirements that wrongly put “environmental sustainability” before the “economic sustainability” of the sector.
Supporting or defending free trade, of which we are all convinced, at the cost of unprotecting or dismantling the agri-food productive fabric, by preventing it from competing on equal terms in all markets, putting our food security in the hands of third countries, is a very serious error that cannot continue to be sustained, much less expanded, with the signing of treaties such as Mercosur.
The political and geostrategic interests of the EU must be compatible with the interests of its diversified “domestic” economy. It is not about choosing between the automobile sector and the cereal sector (to give an example), it is about intelligently making the interests of both compatible and guaranteeing free competition in a real situation of equality for all.
The “field” has to learn to compete if it wants to be economically sustainable, but it cannot be forced to do so in a situation of inequality compared to third countries.
Europe has all the political and legal mechanisms to guarantee free competition and eradicate unfair competition in all markets and products. If it does not do so soon, I fear that the mobilizations, pressure from lobbies, actions before the European Parliament and pressure on each Government will increase in defense of these objectives, without prejudice to the fact that, in parallel, it may be necessary to study legal defense mechanisms at European and/or state level that, although always difficult and slow, prevent this situation of defenselessness.
Finally, a brief reflection regarding the Spanish position on these latest “events” (Morocco, Mercosur), leads us to sound a new voice of alarm in the face of the complicit silence of Minister Planas and the euphoria of President Sánchez who, for example, before the EU-MERCOSUR agreement, has stated that “the pact reached is historic and will make everyone more prosperous and stronger.” Perhaps he should explain what he means by “everyone” and, in addition, on one of his many tours, stop in Paris or Rome to be told why these governments, among others, oppose this agreement.
#European #Commission #faces #double #discourse #defense #CAP #agrifood #sector
