Two main lessons are to be drawn from the fall of Michel Barnier’s government in France.
The first is that talk of Europe massively re-arming itself and substituting for the U.S. as the chief backer of Ukraine while maintaining existing levels of health care and social security is idiocy. The money is simply not there.The second is that the effort by “mainstream” establishments to exclude populist parties from office is doomed in the long run, and in the short run is a recipe for repeated political crisis and increasing paralysis of government.
Two countries are central to the European Union, the European economy, European defense, and any hope of European strategic autonomy: France and Germany.
And they are bickering.
The accord, which eluded von der Leyen in her first term, marks a massive geopolitical win as she embarks on her second. It seeks to deepen ties between the EU and Mercosur — which comprises Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and newcomer Bolivia — just as Donald Trump threatens to launch a global trade war when he returns as U.S. president next month.
The agreement, which took 25 years to complete and would create a free-trade zone spanning more than 700 million people, is furiously opposed by France, which fears that a glut of cheap poultry and beef imports would undercut its farmers.
Just one of the most potent and quasi-eternal of the blocks to moving the world ahead — over-identification of national, communal, and personal survival and well-being with modes of life that cannot survive in a rapidly modernizing changing world without massive subsidies and their attendant wild irrationalities.
In a democracy its necessary to keep the voters happy. If they think the program hurts them something has to change. Subsidies are one way. If they are expensive the country has several options.
In the US we can print more money but in Europe deficits are frowned on. EU limits them. So one less option.
Can a nation go bankrupt? Or will voters be educated to tolerate the changes required to become more efficient?
The 2018 update of the free trade agreement between the EU and Mexico added ag products, to the existing free trade of manufactured goods. Of course, the Mercosur block is much larger than Mexico.
Be interesting to see if Mexico starts buying its farm seeds from Europe due to US tariffs on US-made comparable farm seeds. You can bet the big farm seed companies in the US will be unhappy. And Mexican farmers will be happy to buy seed at lower prices from Europe.
If the US erects tariff barriers, as threatened, I can see Mexico entirely pivoting to trading with the EU instead. European owned factories, like those of Electrolux, VW, and Stellantis simply pivot. Factories with no place to produce for, like GM’s, will be sold.
I know that VW and Stellantis are looking for cheaper production bases, as they close high cost plants in Europe (sounds familiar, doesn’t it). That being said, several on this board have commented native Europeans are not making enough babies, but they don’t want the people from Africa and the Middle East. Seems Latin America is where a lot of European grunt work will go.
The thrust of national power. The power begets wealth. Those without the crazy scheme are worse off. But the environmental havoc is killing all of us eventually.
This comment misses the mark by a mile. The seed industry is dominated by Corteva (spun off from Dupont), Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) and Syngenta (now owned by the Chinese). They are global players.
Seeds are usually grown regionally to get plants that suit the local environment. Genetically modified crops are banned in Europe and very popular in the US. I’d be surprised if seed imports are significant.
Third, US tariffs might be a factor on seeds imported from Mexico but no impact the other way unless Mexico enacts similar tariffs.