Europe Day is the perfect time to celebrate and reflect on the future of the European Union. There is all the more reason to be pleased with the early gift of the EU-Mercosur Interim Trade Deal arriving on the 1st of May 2026. At the same time, the fact that negotiations lasted for the better part of 25 years is cause for sober reflection on how the world has become more protectionist and chaotic over time. In light of new memberships being suspended, the usual avenues to peacefully settle trade disputes between countries through the World Trade Organization’s Appellate Body have remained inaccessible since 2019. With no institutional guardrails to keep them in check, countries are also increasingly turning to indirect means to undermine free trade agreements. The EU Commission documented no fewer than 410 non-tariff obstacles in 67 countries in its November 2025 report to the Directorate-General for Trade.
The EU should not treat the negative development lightly. The Union’s objectives of strategic autonomy, industrial competitiveness, and cutting-edge innovation depend on supply chain resilience and minimizing economic leverage from hostile actors. These key points imply striking deals with as many potential allies as possible to diversify supply chains and address strategic dependencies across agriculture, defense, energy, security, and critical minerals. Far from incidental, maintaining and enforcing open international trade is, therefore, paramount to the EU’s existence.
Far from incidental, maintaining and enforcing open international trade is, therefore, paramount to the EU’s existence
To be clear, this statement is not a call for counter-protectionism or an argument against formal agreements. The EU-Mercosur deal has indisputable advantages for the EU. It is a win-win for both sides, inching towards a common market of 700 million consumers where the EU can expect €77.6 billion more in exports by 2040, and Mercosur will grow by a projected maximum of 0.7% of total gross output over the next decade. EU member states have every reason to ratify the trade agreement.
However, formal agreements alone cannot keep up with de facto obstacles. An estimated 23% of the 410 barriers (93 cases) were disguised as supposedly stringent standards, in which the offending state would demand health and safety protocols of European companies that it did not demand of local firms, in an effort to drown European competitiveness in unnecessary compliance costs. Other obstacles included spurious regulatory requirements (79 cases) and artificial caps on imported goods (65 barriers), designed to disproportionately target European companies over local companies and create double standards that nullify the stipulations of trade deals in practice.
The way to preserve free trade is for the European Union to become its own institutional guardian and act against disproportionate import restrictions
An example of how systematic and damaging such barriers have become comes from a Mercosur member, Brazil. The EU explicitly identifies Brazil as one of the worst offenders, with 18 explicit non-tariff barriers. Despite the EU being Brazil’s second-largest trade partner, accounting for 15.3% of the country’s total trade, public bodies impose additional requirements on EU exporters that are time- and resource-consuming, often unnecessarily lengthening customs clearance processes. Another issue arises from Brazil’s use of a two-tiered licensing system that combines automatic and non-automatic elements. While automatic applications are quickly approved via the SISCOMEX system, manual licensing requires explicit authorization from the relevant Brazilian ministries (such as the Ministry of Health for pharmaceuticals). Unsurprisingly, this cumbersome system causes delays and uncertainty for European companies across industries.
The way to preserve free trade is for the European Union to become its own institutional guardian and act against disproportionate import restrictions. One answer comes from the Single Entry Point complaint system, a centralized platform for European stakeholders to report on trade barriers. Another important piece is the Market Access Partnership monthly meeting held by the Market Access Advisory Committee, which allows the Commission and member states to coordinate and address any violations. When Argentina established a new import certification scheme favoring domestically produced ceramic tiles over imported ones, companies were able to file a complaint via the Single Entry Point. The Market Access Partnership listened to their pleas. Consequently, the Commission and member states met with Argentinian authorities in Buenos Aires in 2024 and had the requirements removed, saving EU exporters €16 million. Thus, the EU has already shown it has the mechanisms to remove non-tariff barriers. For the sake of its own future, it must be willing to use them.
Dr. Emil Panzaru is Research Director at the Consumer Choice Center, where he has written extensively on consumer policy, the geoeconomics and geopolitics of international trade.
Sign up to The Parliament's weekly newsletter
Every Friday our editorial team goes behind the headlines to offer insight and analysis on the key stories driving the EU agenda. Subscribe for free here.