MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, June 7th 2023 - 19:12 UTC



EU report quantifies losses for farmers from a trade accord with Mercosur

Thursday, April 28th 2011 - 18:48 UTC
Full article 4 comments

A week before the next round of negotiations for an ambitious association and trade agreement between the European Union and Mercosur, a paper from the EU Joint Research Study centre, JRS, quantifies the alleged losses of such a deal for European farmers. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Mariaeugenia

    European governments & workers care about job losses, whereas in the US jobs are outsourced & nobody cares or, if they care, they can't do anything about it

    Apr 29th, 2011 - 06:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GeoffWard

    “Ireland would see its annual farm revenues fall by more than 4% in 2020, due to the high share of beef production in overall farm output, while farm income in Britain and France would fall by 3 and 2% respectively”.

    Yes, but think of the gains that will be possible for reciprocal high-tech product sales from those European countries still able to make them - Germany and France.

    It might be tough for Ireland and the UK (perhaps leading Ireland to de facto bankrupcy) but it will be big-nett-benefit-time for the leaders of Europe.

    And when the big beasts benefit, there is trickle-down benefit for all the little countries as well.

    However, all depends on the Intellectual Property Rights agreement and the blocking tactic of Argentina.

    If CFK makes it a 'local-election-politics' issue, the greater populations of two world continents will suffer. . . .
    . . . . and S.A. will gradually and inexorably be swallowed up (and sucked dry) by the super-powers of other continents: China and the USA.

    Apr 29th, 2011 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Tte Estevez

    Geoff,we had those policies before in the '90 in Argentina and were,deadly......
    trickle down benefits....I did not see any.Only a lot of poor people......
    USA and before uk protected their industry tremendously.Only in th '80 they decided to import openings........
    Japan,South Korea and many smaller countries are extremely protective of their industry. SA sucked up.....
    I see,sincerely no advantages for SA,is not really reciprocal.....
    witzerland is very protective also of their industry( and banks).For the Eu,no question they will benefit,but SA?
    Sorry,but I do not see it that way.
    There no historical record,of any country that has developed the industry,withou resorting to protection.

    Apr 30th, 2011 - 02:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GeoffWard

    Hi Tte E,
    Re. the trickle down effect - I was referring to the EU.
    And obviously if the products sold are German, made in Germany and traded by Germany, then the bulk of the profit goes to Germany.
    But an integrated Bloc like the EU is more than just an EEC, it distributes monies across the Union - thus the road transport infrastructure across most of Europe carries EU Project Numbers. Travel anywhere in Ireland, Spain, etc, and you will see roadside placards displaying this information. The more global money generated by world trade the more the trickle down distribution.
    Japan and SK act as solus nations and have no knock-on structural distributions, though both have received, historically, significant US funds for development.

    As I have said before, Argentina is just too small and economically fragile to 'go it alone'. It NEEDS the protection of a large Mercosur/CAN to play with the big boys (even the UK with its huge GDP, and high ranking in world trade ranked listings needs the protection of a EEC/EU).

    But taking the protection means the giving of flexibility.
    Joint agreements means giving and taking for the greater benefit of all.
    Hence the Irish will 'give' on beef prices, and will be compensated elsewhere in the economy, or within animal agriculture at a different time.
    This is 'accommodation', and it can hurt locally and temporarily, but the bigger game gives much greater benefits for all.

    If a player refuses to play the game and consistently takes away the ball, all players on both sides lose - teams end up relegated, and all players suffer a cut in wages.
    What do the team coaches do to avoid this? They side-line or sell the recalcitrant player, however good he is.
    France did this with many of the national squad, and a number of clubs did it with Anelka.
    And if the team coach can't manage the squad effectively, the 'League' bosses sack the coach - like Maradona.

    Managing a trading economy is little different, and rogue players are side-lined; hen

    Apr 30th, 2011 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!