BRUSSELS — European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is planning to travel to Australia this month to clinch a security and trade deal, according to a person familiar with the talks. Her trip will follow a meeting next week between European Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič and his Australian counterpart Don Farrell in Brussels, a second person said. Both people were granted anonymity because the schedules are still tentative. The EU and Canberra are moving to revive trade negotiations that collapsed at the end of 2023 amid disagreements over quotas of beef and lamb. The quotas are still being negotiated between Canberra and Brussels, the first person familiar with the talks said. Von der Leyen will take the 20-hour-plus flight to Australia directly after she attends the Munich Security Conference, which takes place in the German city on Feb. 13-15, according to Australian digital newspaper The Nightly, which broke the news of the Commission chief’s four-day trip. EU countries last December allowed the Commission to negotiate a defense deal with Australia. Sealing such a deal would come on the heels of security and defense partnerships signed with the U.K., Canada and most recently India. An agreement with Australia would represent a win for the EU, as it would open access to the country’s vast reserves of strategic minerals. Australia is the world’s largest producer of lithium and also holds the world’s second-largest copper reserves. Coming after the EU’s fraught Mercosur deal with South American countries — criticized by farmers, France and skeptical lawmakers — the pact with Canberra is expected to also trigger pushback due to its significant agricultural component.

PARIS — French President Emmanuel Macron said on Tuesday preparatory work was under way to restart direct discussions between Europe and Russia over the war in Ukraine. “It has to be prepared, so technical discussions are under way to prepare for this,” Macron said, answering a reporter who asked the president about his call in December to restart talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. “It is important that Europeans restore their own channels of communication, it is being prepared at the technical level,” Macron added, during a visit to farmers in the Haute-Saône department. Macron said talks with Putin should be coordinated with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his “main European colleagues,” insisting on the role of the so-called “coalition of the willing,” which brings together like-minded countries supporting Ukraine. The president was, however, quick to note that, by continuing to bomb Ukraine, Russia was not showing any willingness to negotiate a peace deal. “First and foremost, today, we continue to support Ukraine, which is under bombs, in the cold, with attacks on civilians and on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure by the Russians, which are intolerable and don’t show a real willingness to negotiate for peace.”

NEW DELHI — The European Union and India locked arms against U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff offensive and China’s flood of cheaper goods to conclude talks on a landmark trade pact on Tuesday.  Under the deal, India will lower tariffs on European cars and wine, while the EU signaled it would assist Indian companies with decarbonization and negotiate duty-free quotas for Indian steel.  “Two giants who choose partnership, in a true win-win fashion. A strong message that cooperation is the best answer to global challenges,” said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, standing next to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The announcement rounded off a year of intensive negotiations in which the EU sought to lock down a trade deal with the world’s most populous nation. Von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa were guests of honor at India’s exuberant Republic Day celebrations on Monday. Ties between India and the U.S. reached a low point last August, when Trump imposed a 50 percent tariff on goods from the South Asian nation over its purchases of Russian oil.  “Both know that they need each other like never before and in this fractured world where trusted partnerships are very, very hard to come by,” said Garima Mohan, who leads the German Marshall Fund’s work on India. Under the deal, India will gradually slash tariffs on European cars, reducing tariffs from 110 to 10 percent on 250,000 cars every year.  A range of agricultural goods will also see their tariffs drop, coming as a reassurance for the European Parliament and the EU’s farmers who have been heavily protesting in recent months over fears that they would be undercut by cheap farm produce.  Tariffs on wine will be reduced from to 20 and 30 percent from 150 percent now, depending on value. European olive oil will also enter duty free into India, instead of facing a 45 percent tariff. STEEL DEAL The stickiest issues related to steel and the EU’s carbon border tax: New Delhi, a major steel exporter, wanted to make sure that its metals wouldn’t be impacted by an upcoming 50 percent EU tariff on steel, and the carbon levy that has just entered force. In response to those concerns, the EU plans to give India a significant share of the 18.3 million metric tons of steel allowed to enter the bloc duty free — Brussels will negotiate this with its partners as is required by global trade rules.  “There will of course be a difference in how you treat this negotiation on application of steel measures between FTA and non-FTA partners. Therefore I think it was strategic from both sides that we have the agreement now and that India will be treated as an FTA partner,” EU trade chief Maroš Šefčovič told POLITICO.  On the carbon border tax, a new levy on carbon emissions that has irked countries such as the United States and Brazil, Brussels will “help Indian operators to have a smooth introduction of CBAM with all the technical assistance and all the additional advice we can provide,” Šefčovič added, stressing that the Commission would treat all its partners equally.  For India, the deal represents an opportunity to boost its exports of pharmaceuticals, textiles and chemicals.  This story has been updated.

BRUSSELS — Pressure is mounting on the European Commission to exempt fertilizers from its new carbon tariff scheme, as national capitals side with farmers over industry to unpick one of the EU’s newest climate policies. During a discussion requested by Austria on Monday, 12 countries called for a temporary exclusion of fertilizers from the European Union’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), a levy on the greenhouse gas emissions of certain goods imported into the bloc. They argued that CBAM, which only became fully operational on Jan. 1, is sending already-rising fertilizer even higher, adding to economic difficulties for crop farmers. “European arable farmers are currently facing not just low producer prices, but also rising production costs. The main cost drivers are fertilizer prices, which have increased markedly since 2020,” Johannes Frankhauser, a senior official in Austria’s agriculture ministry, told ministers gathered in Brussels. Eleven countries backed Vienna in Monday’s meeting. Yet critics — which include fertilizer producers, environment-focused MEPs and several governments — warn that such an exemption would not only penalize the EU’s domestic producers but threaten the integrity of the carbon tariff scheme. “High prices of production inputs, including fertilizers, have a direct impact on the economic situation of farms… However, we want an optimal solution in order to maintain food security on one hand and on the other [avoid] possible negative impacts on the competitiveness of EU fertilizer producers,” said Polish Agriculture Minister Stefan Krajewski, whose country is a major fertilizer producer.  Germany, Belgium, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands expressed similar sentiments.  CBAM was phased in over several years and is supposed to protect European producers of heavily polluting goods — cement, iron, steel, aluminum, fertilizers, electricity and hydrogen — from cheap and dirty foreign competition. EU manufacturers of these products currently pay a carbon price on their planet-warming emissions, while importers didn’t before the CBAM came into force. By introducing a levy on imports from countries without carbon pricing, the EU wants to even out the playing field and encourage its trading partners to switch to cleaner manufacturing practices. (Those partners aren’t too happy.) The CBAM price is paid by the importers, which are free to pass on the cost to buyers — in the case of fertilizers, farmers.  Fertilizers make up a substantial share of farms’ operating costs, and EU-based companies do not produce enough to match demand. CBAM is therefore expected to push up fertilizer costs, though estimates on by how much vary greatly. A group of nine EU countries led by France mentioned a 25 percent increase in a recent missive, while Austria reckons it’s 10-15 percent.  The main cost drivers are fertilizer prices, which have increased markedly since 2020,” Johannes Frankhauser, a senior official in Austria’s agriculture ministry, told ministers gathered in Brussels. | Olivier Hoslet/EPA Carbon pricing analyst firm Sandbag, however, says it’s far lower for the next two years — less than 1 percent, or a couple of euros per ton of ammonia, a fertilizer component that costs several hundred euros per ton without the levy. Responding to governments on Monday, Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen noted that the EU executive already tweaked the policy to provide relief to farmers in December, and followed up in January with a promise to suspend some regular tariffs on fertilizer components to offset the additional CBAM cost. SUSPENSION SUSPENSE The Commission in December set in motion legislative changes that could allow it to enact such a suspension in the event of “serious and unforeseen circumstances” harming the bloc’s internal market — in effect, an emergency brake for CBAM. The suspension can apply retroactively, the EU executive said earlier this month. Yet EU governments and the European Parliament each have to approve this clause before the Commission could make such a move, a process expected to take the better part of this year. Environment ministers can vote on the changes in March or June, and MEPs haven’t even chosen their lead lawmakers to work on the Parliament’s position yet. That’s why Austria on Monday called on the Commission to “immediately” suspend CBAM until “the regular possibility to temporarily suspend CBAM on fertilisers is ensured.” The legal basis for such a move is unclear, as the legislation in force does not feature an exemption clause.  Vienna’s request for a debate came after a group of nine countries — Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Luxembourg, Portugal and Romania — wrote to the Commission requesting a suspension earlier this month. During Monday’s discussion, Croatia and Estonia also expressed support for such a move.  Ireland welcomed the Commission’s proposal of a suspension clause but asked for additional details.  Spain was ambivalent: “We need to strengthen our industrial capacity to contribute to the strategic autonomy of the European Union. But clearly, the decarbonisation of this sector mustn’t jeopardize farmers’ livelihoods,” said Spanish Agriculture Minister Luis Planas.  Italy, which previously signaled its support for a suspension, did not explicitly endorse such a move — merely backing the Commission’s already-announced tweaks to normal fertilizer tariffs in its intervention on Monday.  Not all countries took to the floor. Czechia, for example — whose new government is opposed to large parts of EU climate legislation, but whose prime minister owns Europe’s second-largest nitrogen fertilizer producer — remained silent. The Czech agriculture ministry did not respond to a request for comment. INDUSTRY ALARMED While exempting fertilizers may win governments kudos from farmers, European fertilizer manufacturers would be irate. The producers’ association Fertilisers Europe warned that such a move would be “totally unacceptable” and “undermine the competitiveness” of EU companies. Yara, a major Norwegian fertilizer producer, said that “CBAM was designed to ensure a level playing field. Weakening it through tariff reductions or retroactive suspension sends the wrong signal to companies investing in Europe’s green transition.” Mohammed Chahim, the vice president of the center-left Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, said that EU companies “need regulatory stability.” “European fertilizer producers have spent precious time and significant resources, often with support from taxpayer money, to decarbonize,” said the Dutch MEP, who drafted the Parliament’s position on the original CBAM law. “Any exemptions for CBAM send a terrible signal — not just to our own industry, but to the world.”  It’s not only makers of fertilizer that are up in arms. Companies in the heavy industry sector — whose competitiveness CBAM is supposed to protect — are warning that granting an exemption once could produce a domino effect, encouraging buyers of all CBAM goods to lobby for relief.  German MEP Peter Liese, environment coordinator of the center-right European People’s Party, said earlier this month that a retroactive exemption would be “theoretically possible” but that he was “very much against it because I believe that if we start doing that, we will end up in a cascade. | Ronald Wittek/EPA “Once one sector gets an exemption, other sectors will want this too,” warned the Business for CBAM coalition, a lobby group of companies and industry groups. “We therefore call on the European Parliament and [ministers] to remove” the exemption clause, it added.  Similarly, German MEP Peter Liese, environment coordinator of the center-right European People’s Party, said earlier this month that a retroactive exemption would be “theoretically possible” but that he was “very much against it because I believe that if we start doing that, we will end up in a cascade. If we suspend it for fertilizers, there are immediately arguments to suspend it in other sectors as well.” 

BERLIN — As Europe’s traditional Franco-German engine splutters, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz is increasingly looking to team up with hard-right Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni as his co-pilot in steering the EU. The two are set to meet at a summit in the opulent Villa Doria Pamphilj in Rome on Friday to double down on their budding alliance. They are both right-wing Atlanticists who want to cool tensions with U.S. President Donald Trump. And they both have their frustrations with French President Emmanuel Macron. In years past, Germany would traditionally have turned to France at decisive moments to map out blueprints for the EU, so it’s significant that Merz is now aligning with Meloni in his attempt to drive forward core European priorities on trade and industry. In part, Merz’s gravitation toward Meloni is driven by annoyance with France. Berlin is irritated that Paris sought to undermine the landmark Mercosur trade deal with South America, which the Germans have long wanted in order to promote industrial exports. Germany is also considering pulling out of a €100 billion joint fighter-jet program over disputes with the French. Against that backdrop, the alignment with Rome has a compelling logic. During Friday’s meeting, Merz and Meloni are expected to sign up to cooperation on defense, according to diplomats involved in the preparations. It’s not clear what that involves, but Germany’s Rheinmetall and Italy’s Leonardo already have a joint venture to build tanks and other military vehicles. Perhaps most ambitiously, Italy and Germany are also teaming up to draft a new game plan to revive EU industry and expand exports in a joint position paper for the Feb. 12 European Council summit. Berlin and Rome style themselves as the “two main industrial European nations” and have condemned delays to the Mercosur agreement. That language will grate in Paris. IN FOR THE LONG HAUL For Giangiacomo Calovini, a lawmaker from Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party, who heads the parliament’s Italian-German friendship group, the Merz-Meloni alliance makes sense given Macron’s impending departure from the European stage after next year’s French election. “[Our] two countries have stable governments, especially if compared with France’s,” he said. “It is clear that Meloni and Merz still probably have a long path ahead of them, during which they can work together.” Safeguarding the relationship with Trump is crucial to both leaders, and both Merz and Meloni have sought to avoid transatlantic blow-ups. They have been supported in their firefighting by their foreign ministers, Johann Wadephul and Antonio Tajani. “Giorgia Meloni and Friedrich Merz have represented the European wing most open to dialogue with President Trump,” said Pietro Benassi, former Italian ambassador to Berlin and the EU. “The somewhat surreal acceleration [of events] driven by the American president is confirming a convergence in the positions of Italy and Germany, rather than between Italy and France, or France and Germany.” In contrast to the softly-softly approach in Rome and Berlin, Calovini accused Macron of unhelpfully “contradictory” behavior toward Trump. “He acts as the one who wants to challenge the United States of America but then sends texts — that Trump has inelegantly published — in which he begs Trump to have dinner,” he complained. GOOD CHEMISTRY Officials in Berlin now privately gush over the growing cooperation with Meloni, describing the relationship with Rome as dependable. “Italy is reliable,” said one senior German government official, granted anonymity to speak candidly. It’s not an adjective authorities in Berlin have often used to describe their French counterparts of late. “France is more verbal, but Italy is much more pragmatic,” said Axel Schäfer, a senior lawmaker in Germany’s Social Democratic Party long focused on German-Italian relations. An Italian official also praised the “good chemistry” between Merz and Meloni personally. That forms a marked contrast with the notoriously strained relations between Meloni and Macron, who have frequently clashed. In their effort to draw closer, Merz and Meloni have at times resorted to hyperbole. During his inaugural visit to Rome as chancellor last year, Merz said there was “practically complete agreement between our two countries on all European policy issues.” Meloni returned the sentiment. “It is simply impossible to cast doubt on the relations between Italy and Germany,” she said at the time. MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE That is overegging it. The two leaders, in fact, have considerable differences. Meloni refused to support an ultimately doomed plan, pushed by Merz, to use frozen Russian assets to finance military aid for Ukraine. Meloni also briefly withheld support for the Mercosur trade deal in order to win concessions for Italian farmers before ultimately backing it. Critically, Rome and Berlin are likely to prove very awkward allies when it comes to public finances. Italy has long pushed for looser European fiscal policy — and been a natural ally of France on this point — while Germany has served as the continent’s iron disciplinarian on spending. But even here there has been some convergence, with Meloni cutting Italy’s spending and Merz presiding over a historic expansion in debt-fueled outlays on infrastructure and defense. Fundamentally, much of the growing alliance between Merz and Meloni is a product of shifts undertaken for their own domestic political survival. Meloni has dragged her nationalist Brothers of Italy party to the center, particularly on foreign policy matters. At the same time, the rise of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in Germany has forced Merz to shift his conservative party sharply to the right on migration.     This ideological merging has allowed for a warming of relations. As Merz has sought partners on the European level to drastically reduce the inflow of asylum seekers coming to Europe, to reduce regulation and to push for more trade — and provide a counterbalance to Macron — Meloni has become an increasingly important figure for the chancellor. Still, Stefano Stefanini, a former senior Italian diplomat and NATO representative, said there would always be limits to the relationship. “It’s very tactical,” he said. “There’s no coordinated strategy. There are a number of issues on which Meloni and Merz find themselves on the same side.” Stefanini also noted that spending commitments — particularly on military projects — would be an area where Rome would once again find itself in a more natural alliance with France. “On defense spending Italy and France are closer, because Germany has the fiscal capacity to spend by itself, while Italy and France need to get as much financial support as they can from the EU,” he said. Despite such differences, Meloni has seized her opening to get closer to Merz. “Meloni has understood that, as there is some tension in the France-Germany relationship, she could infiltrate and get closer to Germany,” said Marc Lazar, an expert on Franco-Italian relations who teaches at the Luiss University in Rome and at Sciences Po in Paris.

STRASBOURG — Ursula von der Leyen comfortably survived a no-confidence vote in the European Parliament on Thursday. A large majority of members of the European Parliament backed the center-right European Commission president in a confidence motion brought by the far-right Patriots for Europe group. Of the 720 EU lawmakers, 565 showed up to vote. Only 165 backed toppling the Commission, with 390 voting against and 10 abstaining. Von der Leyen was not in Strasbourg for the vote. The motion’s proponents argued that von der Leyen and her team of commissioners should be dismissed over their handling of the EU–Mercosur trade deal, which they claim undermines European farmers by opening up the European market to unfair competition. Three similar motions had already been defeated over the past seven months. The threshold needed to trigger a motion of censure debate and vote — 72 out of 720 — has prompted repeated attempts to bring the Commission down. Monday’s censure debate ahead of the vote took place in an almost empty chamber, with lawmakers boycotting in protest against the repeated attempts by the far right and far left to topple the EU executive. Even the chair of the Patriots group, Jordan Bardella, missed the event. “How many times do we need to vote on hopeless censure motions until the extremists are satisfied or accept the democratic will?” asked Billy Kelleher, representing the Renew Europe group in the debate.

STRASBOURG — Germany, the chief backer of the European Union’s Mercosur trade deal, called on Brussels to go ahead and implement it even after lawmakers voted on Wednesday to send the accord for judicial review, setting up a major clash between the bloc’s institutions and its two largest economies. The European Parliament voted by a razor-thin margin on Wednesday to pass a motion to seek a legal opinion from the Court of Justice of the EU on whether the Mercosur deal complies with the EU treaties. It was a blow for Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen, who made a last-minute appeal hours earlier to MEPs to advance the deal. The vote widened a rift between France, which has fought an epic rearguard action against the Latin American megadeal to protect its farmers, and a Germany desperate to boost industrial exporters reeling from U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade aggression. “The European Parliament’s decision on the Mercosur Agreement is regrettable,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said on X. “It misjudges the geopolitical situation. We are convinced of the agreement’s legality. No more delays. The agreement must now be applied provisionally.” In Paris, Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu welcomed what he called “an important vote that has to be respected.” Foreign Minister Jean Noël Barrot chimed in: “France takes responsibility for saying no when it is necessary, and history often proves it right. The fight continues to protect our agriculture and ensure our food sovereignty.” Lawmakers will not vote on final consent to the deal until the Court of Justice issues its opinion, which could take 18 to 24 months. The court can “adjust the pace of the proceedings where institutional or political necessity makes a timely response especially important,” its press service said in a statement. DEMOCRACY VS REALPOLITIK In principle, the Commission would be allowed under the EU treaties to temporarily apply the provisions of the Mercosur deal, which would create a free-trade area spanning 700 million people and eliminate duties on more than 90 percent of goods. It’s a finely balanced, yet momentous, tradeoff between democratic accountability and realpolitik as the EU executive seeks ways to stand strong against Washington amidst the ongoing transatlantic rift over President Donald Trump’s threats to annex Greenland. Manfred Weber, the pro-Mercosur leader of the European People’s Party, backed the call by his fellow countryman Merz, for provisional application. “The European Parliament did not take a substantive position on Mercosur today; it voted on a procedural motion instead. This is an attempt to delay a much-needed agreement for ideological reasons,” Weber said in a statement. “In the current geopolitical situation, Europe cannot afford a stalemate. The agreement must now be provisionally applied so that its benefits for our economy can take effect. The European Parliament will have the final say after review by the Court of Justice of the EU.” The Commission, in a strongly worded statement, said it “strongly regretted” the decision by EU lawmakers, calling the concerns raised in the motion “unjustified.” It did not precommit to taking any action, however, saying it would now engage with EU member governments and MEPs before deciding on next steps. Olof Gill, the Commission’s top trade spokesperson, did confirm to reporters last week that the EU treaties did allow for the possibility of provisional implementation.  EU countries withdrew a resolution pledging not to sidestep the legislative process when they backed the deal on Jan. 9, sparking uproar in the corridors of the Parliament.  POWER PLAY Lawmakers argue that the Parliament, as the EU’s only directly elected institution, has the democratic legitimacy to be involved in decisions on trade deals.  A new non-binding framework agreement governing relations between the Commission and the Parliament, still to be green-lit by lawmakers, states that if the Commission intends to pursue provisional application of the deal, it should first seek the Parliament’s consent. The move to bypass Parliament would also mark a departure from established practice. Although it’s possible to provisionally apply the trade deal before the European Parliament’s consent, it hasn’t been the practice for over 10 years.  “Provisional application doesn’t take effect before the consent of the European Parliament or before the European Parliament has had the chance to express its view — and that is standard practice since the EU-South Korea agreement [in 2011],” said David Kleimann, a senior trade expert.  Even if the Commission wants to expedite implementation of the deal, it will need to wait until the Mercosur countries ratify the agreement, Sabine Weyand said in an email sent to trade lawmakers less than two weeks ago, seen by POLITICO. “On the side of the Commission we very much wish the Mercosur agreement to become a reality as quickly as possible, given its importance for the EU’s strategic autonomy and sovereignty,” she said. Asking for the Parliament’s “swift consent” on the deal as a whole, she reminded lawmakers that Mercosur countries “need to have completed their respective ratification procedures, and then notify the other side thereof” before the Commission can implement the deal in Europe.  Max Griera reported from Strasbourg and Camille Gijs from Brussels. Giorgio Leali contributed to this report from Paris and Ferdinand Knapp from Brussels.

STRASBOURG — In a vote that could delay the European Union’s trade deal with Mercosur by up to two years, the European Parliament on Wednesday sent the Latin American accord for a judicial review. By a majority of just 10 votes, MEPs backed a resolution to seek an opinion from the Court of Justice of the EU on whether the texts of the EU-Mercosur agreement comply with the EU treaties. The motion was carried — to applause and cheers from its backers — with 334 votes in favor, 324 against, and 11 abstentions. The Parliament won’t be able to vote on the deal itself until the court has issued its opinion — a process that typically takes between 18 to 24 months.  The delay now raises the question of whether the EU executive will provisionally apply the agreement while waiting for the court to rule — putting the two institutions on a collision course over democratic accountability. The outcome represents a major defeat for the European Commission and countries backing the deal, which want to deepen ties with the Mercosur countries — Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay — and see the accord as the perfect opportunity to stand strong against U.S. President Donald Trump’s erratic tariffs.  “The more trading partners we have world-wide, the more independent we are. And that is exactly what we need now,” the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in a last-minute appeal to lawmakers earlier on Wednesday.  Bernd Lange, the chair of the Parliament’s international trade committee, condemned the outcome of the vote. “Absolutely irresponsible. This is an own goal,” Lange posted on X. “Those against #EU #Mercosur should vote against in consent procedure instead of using delaying tactics under the guise of legal review. Very harmful for our economic interests and standing. Team Europe putting itself offside.” This story has been updated.

Undecided lawmakers in the European Parliament will make or break a deal to create the world’s largest free trade area, according to a POLITICO analysis of voting intentions. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa signed a long-awaited trade deal with Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay amid fanfare last weekend. The Mercosur trade agreement, 25 years in the making, covers 700 million people, and Brussels considers it a key strategic tool for the EU to strengthen trade ties with Latin America as relations with both the United States and China deteriorate. But the mega-deal must still win the approval of the European Parliament before it can enter into force. POLITICO reporters reached out to party groups and individual lawmakers and ascertained the voting intentions of 673 of the Parliament’s 719 MEPs. The findings put the deal at risk of running aground. At least 301 of those lawmakers are expected to oppose the Mercosur deal if and when it lands in the Parliament, while 319 MEPs would support it. It’s a tally that undecided and undeclared lawmakers could easily swing. CRITICAL TEST It’s a pivotal moment for the trade agreement.  The Parliament isn’t due to vote on the deal itself for months, potentially not until May. But on Wednesday, lawmakers will decide whether to send the deal’s text for legal review to the EU’s court of justice.  The process would kick the can down the road by up to two years. This vote is effectively a dry run of where the majority would stand on final approval. Many of the lawmakers who support the deal are expected to reject sending it to court. However, that is not the case for some: The 12 German Green lawmakers, for example, are in favor of the deal but also support sending it to court to assess its legality — making Wednesday’s vote even tighter.  In the Council of the EU, the bloc’s intergovernmental branch, the agreement won a qualified majority despite the opposition of France, Poland, Austria, Ireland and Hungary. Belgium abstained; Italy only backed the deal after securing safeguards and funding commitments for its farmers. A Parliament vote against the deal would deal a massive blow to Brussels and the pro-deal camp led by Germany. “We must not let this opportunity go to waste,” Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said last week, calling on the European Parliament to back the deal. “We need not talk any further about European sovereignty or Europe’s ability to act if we do not succeed in bringing such free trade agreements to a positive conclusion.”  INTERNAL RIFTS Opposition in Parliament comes from different corners: Lawmakers from the far-right Patriots for Europe and Left groups are expected to vote against the deal. Other political groups are divided. Even within the ranks of von der Leyen’s own European People’s Party, one-fifth of lawmakers are expected to vote against the Mercosur text. There are also rifts within the liberal Renew group and the Greens, while POLITICO’s analysis shows the trade deal dividing the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists down the middle. A big question mark hangs over the Spanish delegation within the EPP. With their 22 lawmakers, they were earlier seen as one of the main promoters of the deal. But pressure from farmers opposed to Mercosur ahead of regional election races has cast doubt over whether they will stay in the pro-deal camp. Senior EPP officials are still counting on their support despite the last-minute wobbles. Reporting by Hanne Cokelaere, Max Griera, Lucia Mackenzie, Camille Gijs, Bartosz Brzeziński, Carlo Martuscelli, Koen Verhelst, Gerardo Fortuna, Nette Nöstlinger, Pieter Haeck and Eliza Gkritski.

STRASBOURG ― European trade commissioner Maroš Šefčovič faced an almost empty European Parliament on Monday evening to defend the European Commission’s signing of the Mercosur trade deal. Many backers of the motion of no-confidence in the Commission over the issue failed to turn up, suggesting that the trend of calling them ― this was an unprecedented fourth in seven months ― has run out of steam. Supporters of the motion argued that the Mercosur trade deal will open the door to unfair competition from south American countries, with European farmers subject to higher environmental standards than their peers. “The safeguard clauses from the Commission are simply empty promises which don’t actually provide proper protection for European farmers“ said the Patriots first vice president Kinga Gal, Hungarian Prime Minster Viktor Orbán’s right-hand in the European Parliament. She added that Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s failure to attend the debate “shows contempt for the thousands of farmers protesting in the streets and several millions of voters who are represented by the Patriots.” But it was the Patriots own far-right lawmakers and other signatories of the motion who also didn’t turn up. Out of more than 110 lawmakers who signed the motion, less than a quarter attended. “Looking in this room, apparently it was not important enough to actually change some dinner plans and to be at the debate,” said Jeroen Lenaerts, chief whip of EPP ― von der Leyen’s center-right political family. The no-confidence motion, backed by the Patriots for Europe group and lawmakers from the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), will now be put to a vote on Thursday, though it is widely expected to fail. Three similar motions have already been defeated over the past seven months, dampening lawmakers’ interest in Monday’s debate. The low threshold of 72 out 720 lawmakers required to trigger a motion of censure debate and vote has prompted repeated attempts. “This motion is not about accountability, it is about headlines,” said Lenaerts. Some lawmakers are calling to change the threshold and make it more difficult to launch a motion of censure. Others describe that as censorship. The Parliament’s centrist and left-wing factions — including the center-right EPP, the center-left Socialists and Democrats, and the liberal Renew group — boycotted the debate with only 10 of their lawmakers attending the debate. European Parliament President Roberta Metsola also skipped chairing the debate, instead sending one of her deputies, vice president Katarina Barley. These moves followed the Commission’s decision not to send either President Ursula von der Leyen, nor the full college of 26 Commissioners to stand beside her, as has been the case on previous occasions. “How many times do we need to vote on hopeless censure motions until the extremists are satisfied or accept the democratic will?,” asked Billy Kelleher, representing the Renew Europe group. Only one political group leader showed up to the debate. It was not Jordan Bardella, Patriots for Europe chair, who first announced the motion on X, but the von der Leyen’s party chief, EPP’s Manfred Weber.