Rome and Paris urge caution as farmers’ protests, political pressure and economic anxieties cloud the future of a landmark EU–South America agreement.

As winter settles across Europe, a familiar fault line has re-emerged in Brussels: trade liberalisation versus domestic protection. Italy and France, two of the European Union’s largest agricultural producers, are calling for a delay to the long-anticipated vote on the EU–Mercosur trade agreement, arguing that the political and economic conditions are not yet right to move forward.

The agreement, negotiated over more than two decades with the Mercosur bloc — Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay — was once hailed as a strategic breakthrough. Supporters say it would create one of the world’s largest free trade areas, linking more than 700 million consumers and opening new markets for European industry, services and exporters. But in recent weeks, opposition from key member states has hardened, placing the deal’s future once again in doubt.

Rome and Paris have jointly signalled that an EU-level vote should be pushed back, citing mounting pressure from farmers, unresolved concerns over environmental standards, and fears of unfair competition. Their stance reflects a broader unease spreading across several capitals, where rural protests and political fragmentation have made trade agreements increasingly difficult to sell at home.

At the heart of the resistance lies agriculture. European farmers, already struggling with rising costs, volatile prices and stricter environmental rules, see the Mercosur deal as a direct threat to their livelihoods. They argue that cheaper imports of beef, poultry, sugar and soy from South America would undercut EU producers who must comply with higher standards on animal welfare, pesticides and deforestation.

In France, farmers’ unions have mobilised strongly, framing the agreement as incompatible with Europe’s climate ambitions and food sovereignty. Tractors blocking roads and demonstrations near government buildings have become a recurring image, reinforcing the political sensitivity of the issue. Italy, while traditionally more open to trade, has echoed similar concerns, particularly from livestock and cereal producers in the north and centre of the country.

Government officials in both capitals insist that their position is not a rejection of trade with South America, but a call for guarantees. They want clearer safeguards to ensure that imported products meet EU standards and that sensitive sectors are protected. Without these assurances, they argue, pushing ahead with a vote risks deepening social tensions and eroding public trust in EU institutions.

The timing is also delicate. Across Europe, governments are navigating fragile coalitions, rising support for populist parties and a broader backlash against globalisation. Trade policy, once the domain of technocrats, has become a lightning rod for wider frustrations over cost of living, climate policy and perceived loss of national control.

Proponents of the Mercosur deal counter that delaying the vote sends the wrong signal at a moment of growing geopolitical uncertainty. They argue that Europe needs reliable partners and diversified supply chains, especially as global trade becomes more fragmented. From this perspective, closer ties with South America would strengthen the EU’s strategic autonomy and reinforce its role as a champion of rules-based trade.

Business groups, particularly in Germany, Spain and the Nordic countries, warn that further delays could effectively kill the agreement. They point out that Mercosur countries have made concessions over market access and regulatory alignment, and that continued hesitation risks pushing them closer to other global powers willing to move faster.

The European Commission finds itself caught in the middle. Having invested significant political capital in reviving and updating the agreement, it must now balance internal divisions with external expectations. Officials acknowledge the concerns raised by France and Italy but stress that the deal already includes commitments on sustainability and deforestation, alongside enforcement mechanisms.

Whether those assurances will be enough remains uncertain. For many farmers and activists, trust has been eroded by past experiences, and promises on paper are no substitute for concrete enforcement. Meanwhile, Mercosur partners are growing impatient, warning that endless delays undermine the credibility of the EU as a negotiating partner.

As the year draws to a close, the Mercosur agreement stands at a crossroads once again. The call by Italy and France to delay the vote highlights how profoundly the political landscape around trade has changed. What was once framed as an economic opportunity is now inseparable from questions of identity, sustainability and social cohesion.

For Brussels, the challenge is not only whether to move forward with the deal, but how to reconcile competing visions of Europe’s future. The decision to delay — or not — will resonate far beyond trade policy, offering a telling snapshot of the pressures shaping the Union as it looks ahead to the coming year.