Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

174. To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the reason he or a representative from the Government did not attend the meeting organised by France of EU member states with concerns regarding the Mercosur trade deal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25622/25]

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

176. To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will outline his engagements and position regarding the Mercosur trade agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27331/25]

Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask the Tánaiste to outline his engagements and position regarding the Mercosur trade agreement. We know the issues that exist for Irish farmers in this regard. They are afraid of 100,000 tonnes of South American beef entering the EU at the expense of deforestation. That means our farmers will need to do more while receiving less from the CAP. We are talking about this in the context of the Irish Government's failure to deliver a workable forestry framework. I attended a meeting with the IFA recently. Its representatives had been in Brussels and spoke about the feeling they had, no more than when we got the briefing last week from the Commission, that this was a done deal. They believe they are being sold out because they are being told they will have to accept this if they want anything on the derogation, which is obviously unacceptable.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 174 and 176 together.

I thank Deputy Ó Murchú. His party is working him hard today. I assure him that my officials and I remain in ongoing and close contact with a number of like-minded countries, including France, which the Deputy referenced in the question, on our opposition to the current EU-Mercosur trade deal. Indeed, as I stated in response to an earlier question, I held a bilateral meeting on 14 April with my French counterpart, the foreign minister, Mr. Barrot, at which we discussed international trade developments, including the Mercosur agreement.

Regarding the meeting referred to in the question, I hope the Deputy appreciates that it is not possible for the Government to attend every meeting but Ireland is very active in this space. As a small, open economy, we depend for our prosperity upon good two-way trading relations with the nations of the world. That is an important context. Ireland has traditionally always been a supporter of free, fair and open trade, in particular via the EU's free trade agreements. That is why I sought approval for legislative change at Cabinet this week that will allow us to ratify CETA, the free trade agreement with Canada. We have always been clear, however, that such agreements must defend our vulnerable sectors and that our farmers’ livelihoods must not be undermined through weak or ineffective environmental standards in other countries. Our position is clearly outlined in the programme for Government, which states that the Government will work with like-minded EU countries to stand up for Irish farmers and defend our interests in opposing the current Mercosur trade deal. In our trade negotiations, we have always been guided by standing up for and defending the interests of Irish farmers, along with securing enhanced market access opportunities for them and agrifood exports from our country.

On 6 December 2024, the European Commission announced that it had concluded negotiations with Mercosur. Since then, officials from my Department and other Departments have been carefully analysing the text of the additional legal instrument addressing sustainability commitments. My officials and I have continued to engage at EU level at every opportunity, with both the European Commission directly through the trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič and with counterparts in EU member states, including France, to voice our concerns with the agreement and to interrogate the outcome of negotiations to assess if our concerns have been adequately addressed. I am not convinced they have been.

While our engagements with the Commission and counterparts in other EU member states are continuing, Ireland’s position on the EU-Mercosur agreement remains as clearly outlined in the programme for Government.

Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Tánaiste is well aware of the fears in rural Ireland and particularly among farmers. I was worried when we had that briefing in the AV room where it was stated that, to a degree, all deals were done. It is unacceptable if this is a take it or leave it-type scenario, which is the way it was proposed. I ask for detail on the engagements that are happening. What are the engagements with the European Commission at this time? What are we looking at? We all know the issues, which have already been stated, around South American beef. We all understand that, to a degree, what is being done here is a deal to facilitate the sale of German cars and other goods. While that is obviously going to be part of any trade deal, we cannot be the whipping boy and Irish farming cannot suffer on that basis. We also know that there will be issues in terms of food security into the future.

We are always talking in this House about the sustainability of family farms. We have worries about the maintenance of the derogation. Some farmers have been impacted by the loss of the previous nitrates directive derogation. What is the Government's plan in terms of engagement with other like-minded countries? What are its plans for what can be done? What has the engagement with the Commission been like? The Minister mentioned that there had been a meeting on 10 April with other EU countries that opposed Mercosur that Ireland did not attend but he said that there had been a significant amount of engagement. What are the plans coming out of that engagement? What has the engagement with the Commission been like and, more importantly, what answers have been given by the Commission?

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I had a significant one-on-one meeting with my French counterpart specifically about Mercosur. Our links and engagement with France on this remain intense and ongoing.

Our position within the European Commission is very well understood. I do not think other member states would be in any way surprised by Ireland's position. What happens next is important. At the moment, the agreement is undergoing a legal scrubbing, after which it will be translated into all the EU languages.

It is worth repeating that there is still a degree of uncertainty over what form the final Commission proposal to member states will take. There is one of two ways it can go. It can go as what is called a mixed agreement - this would require unanimous member state approval, which clearly does not exist; or it could go as a split agreement, with the trade elements applied on an interim basis, which would require approval at Council under qualified majority voting. That is where the question arises as to whether there is a blocking minority, for want of a better phrase.

My sense of the situation is that a number of member states remain resolute in their opposition. An acknowledgement from some countries that the Commission has made steps to try to make improvements around the sustainability agenda and other important aspects, including empowerment of women and making the climate provisions of the Paris Agreement much more binding, would be helpful. There have been good efforts but I am sure we have not reached the level of clarification and assurance we in Ireland require. That work continues. I am also sure that is the position of a number of member states. There are some who seem to have a position that is somewhat evolving on this situation.

In the interim, my Department and other relevant Departments are continuing their own detailed analyses, continuing to consult with other member states and seeking further clarification and information from the Commission. It is expected that the Commission will present the final agreement package either late in quarter 2, which could be next month, or early in quarter 3, which would be after the summer recess.

Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Tánaiste has indicated that we will have some element of clarification by the end of quarter 2 as to what the agreement looks like but we still do not have clarity as to how agreement is to be determined. The Tánaiste is promising the State will be resolute in the sense of what we understand this agreement to be. Mercosur is utterly unacceptable and I cannot see how there will be any movement in that respect. I assume, on the basis of what the Tánaiste said, that the European Commission has not offered, by way of this clarification, that there can be real wins from our point of view. Beyond that, it is a case of maintaining a relationship with those member states that have similar positions and ensuring we look after Irish farming and opposing any agreement that would be detrimental to it. At this point, we have a promise from the Tánaiste and the Government in that regard.

The Tánaiste made reference to CETA. Most of the parts of that trade agreement are in operation. Our big fear is the investor court system and the chilling impact it has had across the board.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will say more on CETA another time when we can have a proper debate. If we cannot ratify a free trade agreement with Canada in the middle of all the turbulence that is going on in the world, I am concerned. I cannot think of a better, less offensive nation to trade with and have a trade agreement with than Canada. Let us have that debate when the time comes. It is for another day. The Deputy provoked me there.

I want to make a broader point regarding Mercosur, which is that free trade is a really good thing. I say that as Minister with responsibility for trade. The IFA is a member of the Government trade forum. Most of what Irish farmers produce is exported and I want them to have lots of places where they can sell their produce. It is some of the best produce in the world, we are proud of it and it is an important part of our economic model. I made the point at the recent working lunch of the Foreign Affairs Council's trade configuration that Europe, including its member states and the Commission, must get better at working out how we can engage with farmers and the agriculture sector earlier on in the process. Otherwise, this issue will arise time and again as we seek to make other free trade agreements.

Our position on Mercosur is outlined in the programme for Government. I am not changing it or deviating from it. I ask the Deputy, please, not to think I am. However, as we go forward, we must look at how we can involve farmers and the agriculture sector in protecting their interests much earlier in the process in order that we do not end up with a trade agreement that has good elements but leaves us asking, "What about the farmers?" That is not a clever way for us to proceed. We will want and need more free trade agreements and we must think about how we bring farmers and their interests with us from the start of the process rather than getting to the end and wondering whether there is any way to make it work for farmers. That sequencing is completely wrong.

We will continue to engage on Mercosur with like-minded countries. Our programme for Government commitment still stands. The IFA is on the Government trade forum, which gives it a seat at the table in terms of trade policy and stakeholder engagement as we go forward. Europe really needs to crack this issue because we need more free trade agreements and we need to work out a way of bringing farmers with us, not just in Ireland but across the European Union.