​​​​​​​ISTANBUL

France’s National Assembly rejected two motions of no confidence Wednesday that were tabled by the left-wing France Unbowed (LFI) and the far-right National Rally (RN) on the EU’s planned free trade agreement with the South American Mercosur bloc, according to media reports.

The motion submitted by the National Rally received 142 votes, well short of the 288 required to bring down Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu’s government.

A separate motion by LFI was backed by 256 lawmakers, also failing to reach the threshold, French news broadcaster BFMTV reported.

The motions were brought as the EU prepares to sign the long-delayed trade agreement with Mercosur countries on Saturday, despite opposition from France and other member states.

French farmers have staged renewed protests this week, warning that the deal would expose them to unfair competition.

Addressing parliament, Lecornu reaffirmed France’s “total opposition” to the agreement, while accusing critics of misrepresenting the government’s position.

“In the current context of international instability, depriving France of stability would amount to internal sabotage,” he said, adding that a referral by France to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) would not automatically suspend the treaty’s application.

The Socialist Party (PS) and the conservative Republicans (LR) declined to support the motions, arguing that censoring the government would not stop the EU process.

RN President Jordan Bardella criticized the outcome, saying French farmers were “the great forgotten ones in these obscure backroom deals.”

Earlier, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen confirmed the EU would proceed with signing the agreement after a qualified majority of member states approved the move. The deal must still be ratified by the European Parliament.

Meanwhile, the Socialist Party called on the government to refer the agreement to the European Court of Justice in an attempt to block its implementation, describing the treaty as “unfair to farmers, dangerous for the climate and legally questionable.”