Year XXXIX, Number 1, July 2026

Fernando Iglesias

Ambassador of the Argentine Republic to the European Union and Belgium. Former co-President of the World Federalist Movement.

Among the many topics absent today from the federalist debate, there is one that seems fundamental to me: the agreement between Mercosur and the European Union. This initiative, negotiations for which began 26 years ago, involves the creation of the world's largest unified market between two regional blocs that are the only ones that respect the federalist integration model, which combines economic and political union.

Federal Model and Democratic Values

Many other initiatives of regional cooperation and integration do exist globally, but none combine these two aspects like the European Union and Mercosur, which was created in the 1980s in the EU's image and likeness. Although the extensive efforts made over these years have not yet reached perfect results (democracy in the region is highly imperfect), Mercosur remains a territory of peace where republican institutions, freedom, and the rule of law are considered fundamental values regardless of the different national performances in these fields. In addition, the bloc expels those who – like the Venezuela of Chávez and Maduro currently – deny these values and massively violate human rights.

When the current situation shows a worrying regression of freedom and democracy on the global stage, Europe and Latin America are the two regions with the highest number of democratic governments in the world. Consequently, their political proximity could become a vital reference point in the near future, particularly if the battle for hegemony between the United States and China grows more bitter. Strong reasons to stay close.

The Federalist Silence

The absence of federalist voices in this debate is therefore incomprehensible, as is the lack of a unified federalist position in favor of the agreement between the two regions that best represent federalist values in the world. This becomes even more surreal when considering that the last obstacle to its final approval resides in the most federalist of the EU institutions: the European Parliament, where a small minority of far-right and far-left nationalists oppose the EU-MS agreement, claiming to represent the European people.

From my position, I cannot interfere in the internal affairs of the EU, but nothing prevents me from asking a few questions. Let me do it in Carl Sagan's style:

– Who speaks for the European people? We know who speaks for the agricultural sector, which deserves all our respect but represents 1.6% of EU production and 4% of EU jobs. But who speaks for the other 98.4% of EU production and 96% of European workers who would greatly benefit from the opening of the South American market? Farmers on tractors say something. What do tractor factories and their workers say? Nobody knows.

– Who speaks for innovation? We know who speaks for the rural world and its traditions, but who speaks for technologically advanced companies and the most forward-looking parts of the European economy, which – as the Draghi and Letta reports show – are losing ground to global competitors and urgently need new trade allies and enlarged markets?

– Who speaks for the consumers? We know who speaks for the 4% of the EU workforce, but who speaks for the 100% of the European population, who are all food consumers? For years, European consumers have eaten meat and agricultural products from Mercosur without any health debacle (meanwhile, Europe suffered major sanitary trouble such as the mad cow epidemic). Now, who speaks for those who pay for the most expensive food and the highest taxes in the world, 35% of which goes to the agricultural sector? Who speaks for the increasing number of Europeans who cannot afford meat on their daily menu?

– Finally, we know those who speak on behalf of the environment. But who really speaks for the Amazon? If you were the Amazon, would you prefer to be preserved through the EU control mechanisms that already exist and work – and that the agreement aims to strengthen – or to fall into Chinese hands, which will be the Amazon's inevitable future if the EU-MS agreement fails?

Geopolitics First

The current outcry over increased Mercosur meat imports – a projected total of one 200g fillet per year per European inhabitant – is a joke. Chinese cars are the true danger to the European economy, and the existential risk for Europe is not about tractors on the Champs Élysées, but Putin's tanks. As security agencies have stated, they could reach the Champs Élysées by 2030 if Europe does not wake up. This is also why the Mercosur agreement is necessary for Europe: to increase the geopolitical relevance of both blocs and secure the vital supply chains for energy and food that Europe already needs – and would need even more in the event of a conflict.

Unfortunately, this long-term political vision, consistent with the federalist tradition, has been obscured by a short-term economicist discourse focused on trade and fueled by fake news that prioritizes fears over facts and rhetoric over reality.

The Risks of Failure

Externally, if this agreement is not reached, the European Union will send a message to the world that its leaders do not understand how isolated and endangered Europe is. Internally, it will signal that EU institutions are not betting on their most modern and competitive sectors, but on the opposite ones. For Mercosur, if the agreement fails, the risks of collapse are extremely high because one of its major countries is leaning toward the BRICS and the other toward the United States, while Uruguay and Paraguay keep dreaming of their own Brexit.

Then, what's the situation right now? With the approval of the agreement by the EU Commission, the EU Council, and the Mercosur countries, and after its provisional entry into force the first of May, only the European Court of Justice resolution on the correctness of the entire process and the final vote of the European Parliament remain as possible obstacles to a definitive approval. As the favorable opinion of the Court is almost guaranteed, the European Parliament has the floor. Paradoxically, we have yet to see if the Parliament of Spinelli will destroy Mercosur, the only regional integration process in the world that resembles the European one. A real tragedy for Mercosur, for the EU, and for the world.

Finally, what are the reasons for the absence of a strong federalist voice in this debate? Regrettably, I believe many federalists have been overtaken by the vision that Altiero Spinelli declared obsolete in the most significant line of the Manifesto: the old divisive line between the Right and the Left, which has led them to an ideological approach instead of a federalist one: a clear support for the two historical experiences that remain federalism's main contribution to world peace and human prosperity.

Let's change it. We still have time.