On Wednesday 17th December, Ellie spoke in plenary to discuss the contradictions between the EU’s position on climate change and the terms in the EU-Mercosur trade deal.

Speech:

Madam President, the central question here is consistency. Is our trade policy consistent with our climate goals? With regard to the EU—Mercosur deal, the answer is clearly ‘no’. It is, of course, true that trade can be beneficial for both parties. Any child can tell you that, exchanging cards in the playground. But not all trade is good trade, and so—called free trade has hidden social and ecological costs. We all pay the price for destruction of forests and for climate change. Exporting more fossil-fuelled cars from Europe in exchange for more beef grown on land that was previously the Amazon is making no sense at all.

Minister Tuppurainen, Commissioner Hogan, you both mentioned the Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) chapter. Minister, you called it ‘robust’. I actually initially heard the word ‘rubbish’, and I had to step back and question myself for a bit. It’s not rubbish, but let’s be perfectly honest about it: there is nothing in that chapter that will put a brake on Bolsonaro.

Commissioner Hogan, you also referred to the commitment on Article 5, but it could not be clearer that President Bolsonaro frankly does not give a toss about the Amazon or about the climate. His obstructiveness at COP 25 last week was yet more evidence of that. Some of my colleagues elsewhere in this House have claimed that we will have more leverage if we sign this agreement. There is no evidence whatsoever that this will happen. The point of leverage is before signing. We need evidence of concrete change and improvement and also evidence from our side that trade policy is compatible with our climate and biodiversity goals. I call on you to ensure that.