LCan the progression of the far right in the European elections significantly influence Brussels’ trade policy? The question arises in the case of parties which put sovereignism at the center of their programs, sometimes declining it in a protectionist mode, as is the case in France with the National Rally. But the answer is far from clear, and not only because the number of seats won by this movement remains limited on a European scale.
The European extreme right is in fact far from agreeing on trade issues. During votes concerning free trade agreements with Canada, New Zealand or Chile, European Conservative and Reformist (CRE) deputies were more often in favor of the agreements, unlike members of the Identity and Democracy (ID) group. ). But above all, each of these two main far-right groups appeared deeply divided.
The programs broadcast on the occasion of the European elections show clear divergences. That of the CRE sees “a future where the European Union prospers thanks to free trade” and invites you to imagine “a world where market-led prosperity, trade barriers eradicated, and rock-solid agreements (…) are the norm »while unfair trade practices are addressed “with finesse” ; a line fully compatible with the priorities of Ursula von der Leyen’s European People’s Party, with even an additional liberalism.
Peremptory declarations
The Italian Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, leading figure of the CRE, also declared that Italy “should improve cooperation with China on trade issues”, while Viktor Orban appears to be China’s main ally in this area within the European Union (EU), with promises of industrial investments in Hungary. As for the ID group, of which the RN is a part, its campaign documents simply do not mention commercial issues.
Suffice to say that the loudly protectionist rhetoric developed for years by the National Rally will have difficulty finding support in this context. Especially since it is accompanied by a consistency that is doubtful to say the least, for example when its program proposes“require imports to comply with European environmental and social standards”, while its MEPs oppose regulations on the duty of vigilance or abstain on the ban on products resulting from forced labor. Or when he pleads for “a real carbon tax at European borders”without having voted for the carbon border adjustment mechanism on the grounds that its scope would be unsuitable, even though it is the tool chosen by the EU to move in this direction and that subsequent adjustments to this scope are explicitly planned. Without even talking about an exit from free trade agreements, which could only result from a qualified majority vote in the Council and which no one is seriously considering, at a time when the EU is mainly wondering about the right way to strengthen partnerships to face growing geopolitical tensions.
You have 44.75% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.