Internal divisions within the Alternative for Germany (AfD) parliamentary group are intensifying over the EU’s controversial free trade agreement with Mercosur, exposing a significant rift in the party’s economic policy direction. A vote on two competing motions concerning the agreement is slated for Tuesday, according to sources within the group confirmed to POLITICO.
The disagreement highlights a fundamental clash between factions prioritizing agricultural protectionism and those advocating for pro-business stances, even if it means compromising on environmental and consumer protections. Initially, a motion rejecting the agreement was expected to pass during a previous faction meeting. However, dissenting voices forced the postponement and the introduction of a second, markedly different proposal.
One motion, originating from the group’s agricultural working group, strongly advocates for the agreement’s rejection. Its accompanying documentation argues that the Mercosur deal creates an uneven playing field. It criticizes the permitted use of pesticides, hormone treatments and environmentally damaging practices by South American producers, which are banned within Germany and the EU, while simultaneously opening the European market to these products. The document labels this situation as “not a fair competition.
In stark contrast, a motion presented by Leif-Erik Holm, the group’s spokesperson for economic policy, urges the parliamentary group to avoid any initiative related to the Mercosur agreement entirely. Holm’s argument presents a surprisingly broad endorsement, claiming the agreement offers economic advantages across sectors including industry, finance, social affairs, foreign policy and even agriculture. He argues that a rejection would be detrimental, particularly emphasizing the potential negative impact on German businesses, entrepreneurs, taxpayers, consumers and a majority of AfD voters.
The rationale behind Holm’s motion underscores a broader strategic calculation within the AfD. Recognizing the significant public focus on economic issues alongside immigration and domestic security, the motion’s authors suggest aligning the AfD’s stance with perceived popular sentiment. The document notes the current intense media scrutiny on the party’s economic policies, making a controversial stance on a high-profile trade agreement potentially damaging to their broader image.
Ultimately, Holm’s proposed resolution calls for the parliamentary group to refrain from introducing any motion to reject the EU-Mercosur trade agreement within the German Bundestag, illustrating the complex and often contradictory political maneuvering within a party grappling with defining its economic agenda. The upcoming vote promises to reveal the depth of this internal struggle and provide insight into the future direction of AfD’s economic policies.
