free trade

MERCOSUR : Le Temps des Plates Excuses

L’accord entre l’Union européenne et le Mercosur est remis en question – sous de faux prétextes. Il est temps de réaliser les vrais enjeux qu’il recouvre.

L’accord commercial entre l’Union européenne (UE) et le Mercosur (une communauté économique regroupant plusieurs pays d’Amérique du Sud) est critiqué – voire pratiquement mort selon plusieurs déclarations politiques. C’était l’intention de la France dès le début : plus de protectionnisme, moins de libre-échange.

Tout a commencé avec les feux dans l’Amazonie, au Brésil. D’après l’expert forestier et spécialiste environnemental Emmanuel Macron :

“Notre maison brûle. Littéralement. L’Amazonie, le poumon de notre planète qui produit 20% de notre oxygène, est en feu. C’est une crise internationale. Membres du G7, rendez-vous dans deux jours pour parler de cette urgence. #ActForTheAmazon”

Avec de tels appels, la chose pertinente à faire est de mettre les choses en perspective. Nous savons que le nombre d’incendies au Brésil cette année est supérieur à celui de l’an dernier, mais il est aussi à peu près le même qu’en 2016 et inférieur à 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010 et 2012.

Les données de l’Institut national de recherche spatiale du Brésil, qui collabore avec la NASA, montrent que 2019 n’est pas en décalage. Ces données sont obtenues grâce à l’analyse de l’imagerie satellitaire.

Bien que le nombre d’incendies en 2019 soit en effet 80% plus élevé qu’en 2018 – un chiffre largement rapporté ces derniers temps – il n’est supérieur que de 7% à la moyenne des dix dernières années. De plus, la plupart des incendies se produisent actuellement sur des terres déjà déboisées en Amazonie.

MERCOSUR: Feux de foret au Bresil de Janvier à Aout par année (1999-2019).

Un mythe populaire

Le mythe populaire veut que l’Amazonie soit « le poumon de la Terre », produisant « 20% de l’oxygène du monde ». C’est en tout cas ce que dit le tweet d’Emmanuel Macron. En réalité, ces deux éléments sont inexacts… et pas seulement parce que vos poumons ne produisent pas d’oxygène.

Pourtant, ce chiffre continuera de circuler tant qu’il y aura des reportages à produire ; l’agence Associated Press elle-même l’a propagé – elle a dû le retirer ensuite.

Selon le site de fact-checking Snopes :

« En fait, presque tout l’oxygène respirable de la Terre provient des océans, et il y en a assez pour durer des millions d’années. Il y a de nombreuses raisons d’être consterné par les incendies d’Amazonie de cette année, mais l’épuisement de l’approvisionnement en oxygène de la Terre n’en fait pas partie. »

Donc non, vous n’étoufferez pas à cause des incendies de l’Amazonie.

Les vraies raisons…

L’Irlande et la France proposent malgré tout de mettre fin à l’accord avec le Mercosur, pour des raisons environnementales.

Malheureusement pour elles, aucun prétexte écologiste ne pourra cacher leurs vraies motivations : défendre les intérêts protectionnistes des agriculteurs irlandais et français, qui se sont plaint d’une concurrence accrue de la part de pays comme l’Argentine.

Il faut savoir que cet accord a une grande importance géopolitique ; il constitue un signe fort contre le protectionnisme. S’il est ratifié, cet accord avec le Mercosur établirait la plus grande zone de libre-échange que l’UE ait jamais créée, couvrant une population de plus de 780 millions d’habitants, et consoliderait les liens politiques, économiques et culturels étroits entre ces deux zones.

L’accord élimine les droits de douane sur 93% des exportations vers l’UE et accorde un « traitement préférentiel » aux 7% restants. De plus, il supprimera à terme les droits de douane sur 91% des marchandises que les entreprises de l’UE exportent vers le Mercosur.

Le nombre de plaintes officielles présentées à l’OMC en 2018 était de 122% supérieur à celui de 2009. En 2018, l’UE était le deuxième plus gros défenseur des plaintes à l’OMC, soit près de deux fois plus que la Chine.

L’importance de la Chine

Ce pays n’est pas cité au hasard. Il est crucial de comprendre l’influence chinoise sur le terrain sud-américain.

Depuis 2005, la China Development Bank et la China Export-Import Bank ont consenti plus de 141 Mds$ en prêts à des pays et à des entreprises appartenant aux Etats d’Amérique latine et des Caraïbes.

En Amérique latine et ailleurs dans le monde, les prêts chinois sont considérés à la fois comme une recherche de profit et comme une forme de diplomatie.

La Banque de développement se concentre sur huit domaines : électricité, construction de routes, chemins de fer, pétrole, charbon, télécommunications, agriculture et services publics.

Avec cet accord, il devient possible de contrer l’influence chinoise. La France et l’Irlande doivent cesser de s’y opposer et travailler sur un accord commun en Europe.

Donner plus de choix aux consommateurs, garantir plus de libre-échange pour les producteurs des deux côtés et défendre les intérêts géopolitiques par le biais de la politique commerciale : tout cela devrait être évident. Il semble malheureusement que ne plus rien n’est évident, pour la classe politique actuelle…

Originally published here.


Pour en savoir plus sur l’accord MERCOSUR, consultez notre infographie ici.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org.

Democratic Presidential Debate: How did consumer choice fare?

With the 2020 presidential race running on full steam, 12 Democratic candidates for president participated in yet another televised debate last night in Ohio.

Considering consumers will be directly impacted by many of the policies mentioned, here’s a breakdown by categories mentioned by the candidates and our own spin on how it relates to consumer choice.

HEALTHCARE

Mayor Pete Buttigieg makes some good points on keeping competition for healthcare insurance, blasting Sen. Elizabeth Warren for not being straight on whether taxes will go up with her Medicare For All plan.

Buttigieg: “No plan has been laid to explain how a multi-trillion-dollar hole in this Medicare For All plan that Sen. Warren is putting forward is supposed to get filled in.”

He prefers “Medicare For All Who Want It,” continuing to allow private healthcare insurance and a public option for those who want it. As we’ve written before, more choice in healthcare is what should be championed.

And Buttigieg had another great line:

“I don’t think the American people are wrong when they say that what they want is a choice…I don’t understand why you believe the only way to deliver affordable coverage to everybody is to obliterate private plans, kicking 150 million Americans off their insurance in four short years.”

Warren, on the other hand, calls her plan the “gold standard,” again stating that while taxes on the wealthy will go up, costs for middle-class families will go down. Here, she’s taking an objective view of the total costs to families, mixing taxes and healthcare expenses. Of course, that’s very convoluted, and doesn’t leave much clarity to consumers.

Sen. Bernie Sanders is more honest: “I do think it’s appropriate to acknowledge that taxes will go up…but the tax increase they pay will be substantially less than what they were paying for premiums and out-of-pocket expenses.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar: “We owe it to the American people to tell them where we’re going to send the invoice…we need to have a public option.” She calls Medicare For All a “pipe dream,” calling for an expansion of Obamacare.

Former Vice President Joe Biden: “The [Medicare For All] plan is going cost at least $30 trillion over 10 years.” He similarly wants to just expand Obamacare.

Overall, it seems there is still a lot of support for competition in healthcare, and that is to be celebrated. Medicare For All, which would remove all aspects of competition and free choice, only got moderate support by all except Sanders and Warren.

CANNABIS LEGALIZATION

The idea of a smart cannabis policy was quite absent from the debate. That’s quite a mishap, considering the ongoing issue of federal cannabis prohibition while select states continue with their own version of legalization.

The only two mentions came in the context of the opioid crisis, by Sen. Cory Booker and Andrew Yang. They only mentioned that cannabis could be used as an alternative for those addicted to opioids.

What about the very real fight to have smart cannabis policy implemented at the federal level? We hope this is covered more in future debates.

AUTOMATION

The idea of a federal job guarantee was fresh on the lips of Bernie Sanders, but that was shot down by most people on the stage.

Entrepreneur Andrew Yang hit it out of the park with this one:

“Most Americans do not want to work for the federal government. And saying that is the vision of the economy of the 21st Century is, to me, is not a vision that most Americans would not embrace.”

He promotes his Freedom Dividend, offering $1,000 a month to every American as a replacement for welfare, as a way to boost consumer spending, and help workers who lose their jobs due to automation.

There is much that could be written about whether or not this universal basic income would be good for consumers, but it is at least a different policy debated by mainstream presidential candidates on a national state.

TECH REGULATION

There was much room for beating up tech companies that offer great services for ordinary consumers. That includes services like Facebook, Amazon, and Google. We’ve written about the trust-busters and their desire to usurp consumer choice before.

Warren led the salvo, using a quip about separating the umpire and the baseball team as some kind of strange metaphor about Amazon selling its own products on its website. Enter her zinger: “We need to enforce our anti-trust laws, break up these giant companies that are dominating big tech, big pharma, all of them.” Pretty clear there.

Yang: “Using a 20th-century anti-trust framework will not work. We need new solutions and a new toolkit…the best way to fight back against tech companies is to say that our data is our property. Our data is worth more than oil.” He made the case for his Value Added Tax on digital services as well, which we’ll examine below.

Sen. Kamala Harris pleaded her fellow candidates to support her call to get Twitter to ban President Donald Trump from Twitter but got no love.

The person who made the most consumer-friendly response about tech regulation was, surprisingly, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke.

“Treat them as the publishers as we are. But I don’t think it’s the role of the president to specify which companies will be broken. That’s something Donald Trump has done…we need tough rules of the road, protect your personal information, privacy, and data, and be fearless in the face of these tech giants.”

He was one of the only people in the debate to mention consumer privacy and pushed back against trust-busting, and should hence get a pat on the back.

TRADE

No Democrat mentioned the trade wars, the harmful impacts of tariffs, and the promise of free trade. Rather, trade got mostly slammed.

Elizabeth Warren: “The principal reason [for losing jobs] is trade. Giant multinational companies have been calling the shots on trade…they are loyal only to their bottom line. I have a plan to fix that: accountable capitalism.”

Warren’s version of accountable capitalism:

  • 40% of corporate boards should be elected by the employees
  • We should give unions more power when they negotiate

Again, no mention of the USMCA free trade agreement, no talk of free trade with the European Union or any other countries.

Sen. Cory Booker agrees that unions should be empowering to offer Americans a “living wage.”

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard says universal basic income is a “good idea to help provide that security so that people can have the freedom to make the kinds of choices that they want to see.” It’s not a total endorsement for freedom of choice for consumers, but at least invokes a good notion of free choice. Not sure her take on global free trade.

TAXES

Though the candidates mentioned many new taxes they’d endorse, the one that concerns consumers the most would be the idea of a VAT – Value Added Tax.

Andrew Yang mentioned that instead of Warren’s wealth tax, he’d pass a VAT of 10%, like in European countries to help fund his Freedom Dividend. That would be akin to a national sales tax, but allowing the opportunity for businesses to claim this amount back if it’s a legitimate business expense, and the same for tourists visiting on vacation.

On its face, an American VAT would raise costs for ordinary consumers and be regressive. As the Tax Policy Foundation notes, this tax would have a disproportionate impact on lower-income households, as they tend to spend more of their income on consumption. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich made the same point while watching the debate:

Many states and municipalities have their own sales taxes or none at all, and that does impact consumers who spend more. But a move to a national VAT would mean higher prices for ordinary goods and services for all consumers.

PROTECTING CONSUMERS

Really the only direct mention came when Warren tooted her own horn on her consumer protection agency.

“Following the Financial Crash of 2008, I had an idea for a consumer agency (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) that would keep giant banks from cheating people. And all of the Washington insiders and strategic geniuses said “don’t even try” because you won’t get it passed…it has now forced big banks to return more than $12 billion directly to the people they cheated.”

The Trump Administration has taken the CFPB to court over whether or not it is constitutional, and Republicans have consistently attacked the organization since its founding during the Obama Administration.

“Make no mistake, it does little to protect consumers and was created during the Obama administration to enforce burdensome regulations which have stunted economic growth and negatively impacted small businesses and consumers,” said Sen. Ted Cruz, who has introduced legislation to abolish the agency.

“America has three branches of government – not four,” said Senator Sasse, who has also co-sponsored the bill. “Protecting consumers is good, but consolidating power in the hands of Washington elites is harmful. This powerful and unaccountable bureau is an affront to the principle that the folks who write laws must be accountable to the people.”

CONCLUSION

There wasn’t much mention of the impact the debated policies would have on consumers, and unfortunately no mention of free trade and lifestyle freedom.

Regardless, on healthcare and tech regulation, there were good debates and some good principles that should be championed, but still, more could have been mentioned on ways to promote innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice.

Scroll to top