After having done so for the environmental transition, Europe is also starting what would appear to be a new ideological battle on international trade. Even in this case, the result could be to divide Europe, ending up damaging it. The new European Commission, as its first important act of commercial and industrial policy, decided to sign the Mercosur free trade agreement with the Latin American countries, whose negotiations had been ongoing for over 20 years. It is certainly a significant choice, but also decidedly controversial and perhaps risky. In fact, the contrary position of some large European countries, such as France and Poland, is known. While some European industrial sectors, such as the metalworking and automotive sectors, welcome the treaty, others, in particular the world of agriculture, strenuously oppose it. The Italian government has expressed reservations, and its position could prove decisive. In fact, approval requires a qualified majority in the European Council, and Italy’s vote could determine a blocking minority, sufficient to scuttle the treaty. All this happens in a context in which the global debate on trade policies seems to be going in exactly the opposite direction, towards protectionism, with Donald Trump threatening to start a new season of tariffs, including against Europe. From the point of view of industrial policies, the central issue is always the same: Europe lives under the illusion that it can have much more stringent social and environmental standards than the rest of the world, totally open borders and its own domestic industry. Unfortunately, these three goals conflict with each other. We can achieve two out of three, but not all three together. A balance is necessary, the choice of which is up to the institutions. And, unfortunately, the institutions, also in this case, as has already happened for the albeit necessary environmental transition, seem to have chosen against pieces of the European production system, without caring too much about the differences in rules between Europe and other countries. In this case, the one to be affected will be our agricultural sector, which, being subjected to numerous regulations – from the use of land to permitted or prohibited chemical products – is not able to compete on equal terms with its South American colleagues, that they are not subject to these regulations, but that, if the treaty is effectively ratified, they will be able to freely export their products to our markets. Even if some sectors will benefit, it would be a serious mistake for the productive world to allow itself to be divided on an issue that concerns everyone: finding a balance between the right needs of having high social and environmental standards, an open society and its own industrial capacity and independence . Free international trade, if it is to be truly sustainable, must take place on a basis perceived as fair by all. Otherwise, a backflow crisis will be generated, as is already happening for the issues of environmental sustainability, which instead of bringing us closer to the goal of achieving free and fair international trade, will distance us, fueling strong aversion. If and when Donald Trump begins a new season of protectionism, Europe will have to shy away from an ideological vision that sees globalized free trade as an objective to be achieved in itself, rather than a mere instrument for more widespread prosperity. The globalization of the last 20 years has certainly generated prosperity and many winners, but also a lot of inequality and many losers. If they want to expand free international trade, our institutions must take on board the differences in rules, either by reducing the requirements required internally, or by imposing the same rules on others, before opening the borders. Otherwise, further division will be generated in Europe at a time when there is decidedly no need for it.
