Very sad day for the EU during an already very sad period.

First, this vote by the commission is a mockery of the EU own rule. The commission is not competent for comprehensive deal mixing trade and cooperation and splitting the deal like they have done at behest of Germany is a disgrace and likely illegal. I hope and fully expect the ECJ to strike this down.

Second the content of the deal is completely outdated. No mirror close while the EU tightened their own rules so much is insane. The alleged safe guards are completely insuffisant. We are basically saying it's ok for a foreign sellers to do things we ban here. It's even more insane when you consider that it's Bayer actually selling the banned pesticides and they are amongst the companies benefiting the most from the deal.

Third the market we are supposedly opening to Europe have already moved on. European automakers already have factories in the Mercosur so exports won't move. The only things which will change is how expensive it is to ship parts so the deal is basically lining up the margins of auto companies with no local job increase. That leaves pharmaceutical and industrial machineries but even there Europe is quickly losing ground to China and India. The commission knows that and pivoted into pretending the deal is actually about securing source of raw materials like lithium from Argentina but ironically the main consumers of this lithium in Europe will be Chinese companies factories in Hungary. We are destroying the livelihood of our farmers, a fully local part of the economy, to help China.

Fourth the deal affects various countries in a massively unequal way with clear losers and counties which incorrectly think they win. I can't stop noticing that it's always the same country blocking common investments, blocking transfers, using the common currency and internal devaluation to prop up its exports at the expense of its neighbors, killing common procurement to try to favour its own industrial base, currently trying to destroy our space industry so moneys go to its startup. So much for the supposed solidarity I guess. There is very little union in the so called European Union.

Well, the poor aren't calling the shots in most countries. Its the elite. Those in the ruling party and their friends. In terms of improving conditions for the poorest decile, its a bad deal. This is why we're seeing so much wealth concentrated with Musk, Bezos, Ma, Bernard Arnault, etc. And for those in the top 20-30% economically, a fair deal too.

The poor weren't forced to sign up. They're too economically illiterate to understand what's happening. And even if they did understand, they're not empowered to alter the outcome--even in democratic countries. It takes money to steer policy. Or a revolution.

> First of all, they can't import their goods, if they contain residues of those banned pesticides.

You are implying, but aren't saying directly, that using those pesticides would automatically mean the produce would contain them above the EU limits. But if that was the case, then why not appease France and write into the agreement that food from crops sprayed with them can't be imported? So clearly it's possible to use those pesticides and still pass EU food safety checks. You're also assuming those safety checks are and will continue to be rigorously enforced on imports.

> Also European Farmers are heavily subsidized (up to 50% of their total income).

"Up to" is meaningless. The average was 33% [1]. And they are also the most stringently regulated, with the highest labor costs. They also probably don't want to rely on those subsidies too much to stay competitive, as there's no telling how long they'll last, or if e.g. Brazil might increase its own subsidies. Regardless, the complaint was completely factual - they're forbidden farming practices that their competitors are allowed. Ad hominems are not a reason to dismiss them.

[1] https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/data-and-analysis/financing...

Edit as reply because HN "posting too fast" makes it impossible to carry on a conversation:

"No it wasn't. The post claimed doesn't require those imports to meet the same standards EU farmers are held to"

Yes. Those imports may be produced in ways EU food may not.

"It's a common fraud, also used by many "organic" food exporters from outside the EU. Why write something into an agreement you probably can't enforce anyway?"

I was very clear on the "why" - because it would put them on paper on equal footing with EU farmers, which would appease France, that asked for it. The fact they refused tells me they expect some advantage from it. Which I was also clear on. Please don't make me re-state my post a 3rd time.

That's simply wrong. The minimum limit for products ban in the EU but actually sold to Mercosur countries by Bayer is above zero. That's the heart of the French disagreement. The deal doesn't contain mirror close. We are allowing the Mercosur country to sell us products that would be banned in the EU.

How is someone from across the continent voting to destroy your agricultural sector democratic?

Yes, which is why we have two houses in the legislature and there are limits on the number of seats in the house and electoral college votes. No polity should be able to procreate their way to political dominance over a peer polity nor should they be able to incentivize law breaking for the same purpose.

And more on point to the subject, imports should be tariffed so that there are not wage benefits to importing products from overseas. It's major bullshit for a country to say "you must have all these employment standards, safety, wage, retirement, health, holidays, etc." for any business in their area and then go and buy competing goods from outside their area with completely different labor standards.