At the outset, this debate is not about opposing free trade, nor is it about pretending that Europe can insulate itself from a volatile global economy. In an era with political instability and the imposition of US tariffs on the European Union, international trade agreements matter. They are important and can be beneficial, but importance alone is not enough. When we examine the Mercosur deal, we have to ask whether it stands up to the values and obligations that Ireland and the wider European Union claim to uphold, in particular on climate action and environmental protection. Europe talks a great deal about climate leadership, but too often that statement is not matched by action. Across the EU, in particular in some of the dominant political groups in the European Parliament, we are seeing environmental protections being treated as if they are expendable and something that can be bargained away. That is why environmental standards embedded in the Mercosur agreement give real cause for concern. When it comes to deforestation, biodiversity loss and climate enforcement, the protections simply do not meet the standards we expect or that apply in the European Union itself. If the deal is to proceed, we need some stronger, firmer and enforceable guarantees. While I acknowledge that there are safeguards in the deal, will they be enforceable? This debate is not just an agricultural one, but a political, environmental and ethical one. The agreement affects far more than one sector and demands a far more rigorous analysis than it has received. Crucially, the environmental enforcement mechanisms in the deal may not be robust enough to withstand political backsliding. If there is a change of government in a Mercosur country, a Bolsonaro-type election or we return to a political climate with hostility to environmental protection, as we are seeing happen in other countries, the safeguards in the agreement may not hold. Are they strong enough to prevent renewed deforestation or environmental degradation? In a political climate where climate change is already not taken seriously enough, including in some trade policies, if climate and environmental protection are not central to the deal then the deal is, quite simply, a problem. Caution is not obstruction. Scrutiny is not rejection. Proceeding without adequate guarantees across all trade sectors would be a failure of responsibility. While the debate in Ireland has centred heavily on beef, I want to speak on behalf of family farmers across Ireland, some in my constituency of Dublin Fingal West, in particular, with regard to the very real and damaging impact the Mercosur deal may have on the future of farming in this country. Family farms are already under enormous pressure. Farmers face ever-growing burdens of rules, regulations and inspections. The payments many families depend on are constantly under threat of being reduced or withdrawn if even minor requirements are not met. Compliance and running costs are rising year on year, while family incomes continue to fall behind the cost of living. At the same time, they will be asked under Mercosur to compete with beef imports from countries such as Brazil where production standards, inspections and regulations are not at the same level as those imposed on Irish farmers. It costs significantly less to produce beef in these countries, not because they are more efficient, but because they are not held to the same environmental, animal welfare and food safety standards, and that is why enforcement needs to reflect this. This creates an uneven playing field. Cheaper, lower standard beef will enter the European market and inevitably compete directly with high-quality Irish beef. In today's cost-of-living crisis, consumers will push towards the cheaper option regardless of quality. That threatens farm incomes, rural communities and the reputation of Irish agriculture. For many farmers, the question is no longer how to grow their business but how to survive. For the next generation, the outlook may be even bleaker. Why would a young person take over the family farm when they cannot be guaranteed a living wage? Why would a farmer encourage their son or daughter to stay in the industry when there are such poor prospects for the future? Mercosur may make a difficult situation worse. If we continue down this road, we risk losing the family farm model that is the heart of rural Ireland. That would be a devastating loss, not just economically but also socially and culturally. Ireland cannot continue to demand world-leading standards from its farmers and ask farmers to do more and more in terms of their climate obligations while simultaneously undermining them through trade deals that fail to protect their livelihoods. Our farmers deserve respect, fairness and a future. I want to be clear; this deal and debate go far beyond agriculture. There are benefits for Ireland in other areas but we cannot sacrifice one sector to advance another. While I back the farming community and their concerns about this deal, I take issue with some of the wording in the motion. Looking to the figures, trade policy is a competency of the EU. The EU has a population of 450 million and is the world's second-largest economic area. That brings with it more weight when negotiating with a block of 270 million people in Mercosur countries. We do not have to run a hypothetical on this; we can look next door to the sunlit uplands of Brexit and the trade deals the United Kingdom has done that will affect its farmers over the next ten years. While I support the motion, euroscepticism, that very British phenomenon, has no place here.

Sentiment score: -0.00