By Jorge Liboreiro
Allow me to start this newsletter with a flash from the past: April 2023. Poland, Hungary and Slovakia imposed unilateral bans on the import of Ukrainian agricultural products, which had been exempted from duties and quotas as part of the EU’s support for the war-torn nation. Romania and Bulgaria quickly jumped into the fray, threatening to follow suit. Visibly caught off guard, the European Commission struck back, calling the bans “unacceptable” and demanding their immediate abolition. Overnight, an all-out political crisis had exploded. Our readers, of course, know all too well how the story goes. The infamous “grain drama” played out for months, with no shortage of stern rebukes, fiery statements and pressure campaigns. Even a lawsuit before the World Trade Organization was thrown in the ring. Throughout the protracted standoff, the Commission remained firm, repeatedly saying the restrictions were groundless, hurtful and infringed on the executive’s trade competences, which are an exclusive remit.
It was therefore quite perplexing to see Brussels do a U-turn and propose a new mechanism to allow member states who face “adverse effects” to slap temporary restrictions on Ukrainian food-stuffs. Under the new proposal, unveiled on Wednesday, the free-trade regime will be extended until June 2025 but with an option to apply “remedial measures” (a legalistic euphemism that is deliberately open-ended) in case of a new surge in imports.
Additionally, an automatic safeguard will kick in when the volumes of sugar, poultry and eggs coming from Ukraine exceed the levels of the past two years. The emergency brake will re-impose pre-war tariffs on these three “sensitive” products. “Whilst our monitoring has not shown any adverse effects on the EU market as a whole, we are aware that these Ukrainian imports can have some adverse effects which are more localised,” said Margaritis Schinas, one of the Commission’s vice-presidents.
With this volte face, Brussels admits a cold, hard truth: its powers go only as far member states let them go. Despite repeated entreaties, Poland, Hungary and Slovakia never fully lifted their bans on Ukrainian grain. In fact, shortly after Donald Tusk took over as Polish prime minister, his pro-European government said it would keep the restrictions in place but was open to reach a solution with Kyiv. Warsaw’s attitude made it clear the dispute went beyond ideological divides and touched upon something of extreme political sensitivity.
This sensitivity has now reached a fever pitch.
For the past weeks, farmers in Germany, France and Belgium have taken to the streets to protest the rising cost of living, diminishing profits, fuel taxes, late payments of subsidies, free-trade deals, environmental regulation and the loss of market share against foreign competitors, among other grievances. These low-cost competitors include – yes, you guessed it – Ukraine.
The quasi-synchronised protest movement, which the far right is trying to exploit in its electoral favour, has put the EU institutions under intense scrutiny and cast doubt over their ambitious Green Deal. In fact, as this newsletter is being written, a group of rowdy farmers is gathered right in front of the European Parliament, blocking streets, waving flags, setting things on fire and even bringing down a centuries-old statue. The demonstration took place while EU leaders met, barely one kilometre away, to discuss assistance for Ukraine and the Israel-Hamas war.
Speaking to Euronews, one of the protesting farmers, Pierre Lebrun, complained that the laws to contain the carbon footprint of the agricultural sector, which contributes more than 10% of the EU’s total greenhouse gas emissions, do not come with enough money to cushion the bumpy transition.
“We’re asked to make the effort and pay for it ourselves. We’re already being asked to pay a lot, we’re being asked to do lots of things for nature,” Lebrun told us. “We have no problem with that, but we have to finance it. It is not us who must pay to finance the green budget.”
His colleague Charles-Albert Degradi said the protest should be interpreted as an “SOS” from farmers and a call for political leaders to take “emergency measures.” His words, drenched in exasperation and despair, suggest the fury on the streets will be hard to abate.
“We don't earn enough. We earn less than the minimum wage,” Degradi said. “Sometimes, there are even some who earn less than €1,000 per month. So, it’s not feasible.”
|
No comments:
Post a Comment