Rafał Skórniewski: Death Agreement for Polish Village. Mercosur is an attack on farmers

The European Commission deals with Mercosur

The European Commission has announced the adoption of a temporary trade agreement with Mercosur, a block of South American countries comprising Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. This agreement is the consequence of multi-annual negotiations, culminating in the agreement signed politically in December 2024. Brussels is now entering the implementation phase. The provisional version of the agreement is to become applicable before formal ratification by all associate States. The consent of the European Parliament and at least 15 EU countries representing 65% of the community's population is sufficient. This is explained by the Commission's desire to accelerate economical benefits, especially for manufacture and European exports.

According to the agreement, many customs duties and trade barriers are to be abolished, administrative procedures will be simplified and method standards should be harmonised with global standards. The EC presents this as an impetus for growth and occupation creation. However, agriculture is the most controversial issue. The agreement provides for the beginning of the Union marketplace to import a number of agricultural products from South America, specified as beef, poultry, sugar, honey, ethanol and pork. Although quantitative limits on the most delicate goods are to apply, many countries, including Poland, fear negative effects on their own agricultural sector.

It's not just a trade deal. It's a political decision.

Let's not be fooled! What the European Commission calls a "trade agreement", in fact, is simply a profoundly political decision, taken beyond the real influence of citizens. Brussels not only negotiates specified agreements behind closed doors, but besides does everything to guarantee that the ratification process is as transparent and as rapidly as possible pushed away. alternatively of full ratification by all associate States, as should be the case in specified a serious case, the Commission proposes a "provisional implementation" which requires the consent of only any countries and the European Parliament. This is simply a bypass to a real debate. It is simply a mechanics designed to minimise opposition and especially from those countries that have strong agriculture and societies that are delicate to economical sovereignty.

The Mercosur Agreement is not just a method substance of customs and regulations. This is simply a decision that changes the structure of the European market, the way agriculture operates and the direction European economical policy is heading. It is simply a motion that clearly shows that the interest of the large manufacture present is higher than that of local communities, household farms or national economies. The European Commission's decision is not a "compromise". It's an act of political will. And political decisions have political consequences. And if we don't question them, we'll be pushed into the function of inexpensive labour and the recipient of another people's goods.

We are an agricultural country, and that's what Brussels agriculture is dedicated to.

Poland is not a country that can pass by this agreement. We are not just an importer of German cars or a subcontractor for Western industry. We are, above all, an agricultural country: with many regions where farms are the foundation of the local economy, culture and social stability.

There are about 1.3 million farms in Poland. Most are tiny and medium-sized household farms which have nothing to do with large-scale, mechanized agricultural production from Brazil or Argentina. It's not just numbers. It's a model of life, a way of working, household ties, and multigenerational traditions. Agriculture in Poland is more than an economical sector – it is an component of our identity. Meanwhile, the European Commission agrees to open up the marketplace for agricultural products from Mercosur. Cheaper products, produced under different conditions, with the exception of standards that we must respect. This is not a fair competition. It is simply a silent dismantling of European agriculture, with the full agreement of Brussels officials.

Beef from the Amazon will compete with Polish beef. Sugar from Brazil with sugar from Wielkopolska. Honey from Paraguay with honey from Podkarpacia. but this competition is set from the start. There, production costs little due to the fact that it is at the expense of the environment, workers' rights and food safety. alternatively of protecting its own market, the EC allows it to destabilize. And it does so with full awareness that it will hit countries like Poland. It's not a coincidence. It's a choice. And this choice means that our farmers are to be losers in a large game of "trade liberalization".

Another effort to destruct the mediate class in the countryside

Not the first time Brussels has shown that the village is an uncomfortable problem for her – not a partner. The EU's agricultural policy is increasingly like the management of the extinguished sector of the economy. First, in the name of "green transformation", farmers are burdened with absurd standards, and now they are additionally sentenced to an unequal fight against inexpensive imports from the another end of the world.

Who's gonna last this? Not tiny farms from Lublin, Podkarpacie or Podlasie. Only the largest or abroad agro-concerts will survive, who will buy the land erstwhile the native farms fall. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's already happening. The land ownership structure in Europe is changing rapidly and the position of household farms is weakening all year. Western politicians and technocrats can afford specified decisions due to the fact that their agriculture is mostly industrial, mechanized, organized into immense holdings. The Polish village is inactive something else. She's more balanced, more local, more social. But that's why it's uncomfortable. due to the fact that it does not fit the economical model pursued by the European Commission.

Opening the marketplace to food from Mercosur is not an accidental consequence, but a logical component of the larger plan: marginalisation of the mediate class in the countryside and pushing tiny producers out of the system. To make area for "effective" – larger, stronger, more dependent on the global market. This trial has been going on for years. But now it's accelerating. And if we don't halt him now, we'll lose not only farms, but full communities. And with them, real food independency and social stability.

This is not a fair competition – it is food from an unknown source

The European Union is celebrated for any of the highest standards of food production in the world. Farmers must comply with tens of regulations on environmental protection, animal welfare, sanitary safety, plant protection products and even packaging aesthetics. All of this is costly, time consuming and increasingly hard to handle – especially for smaller farms.

Meanwhile, the European Commission opens wide doors to agricultural goods from a region that does not even meet the basic standards that apply in Europe. Beef from Brazil, poultry from Paraguay, sugar from Argentina – these products are cheaper not due to the fact that the farmers there are more efficient. They are cheaper due to the fact that they can usage chemicals banned in the EU, they do not gotta pay decent wages, they do not gotta comply with environmental standards. It's not a competition. That's dumping. And if the Commission pretends not to see it, then it is consciously acceptable to play by double rules.

In addition, we have no warrant that this food will be decently controlled. Imports from 3rd countries are a different logistics scale, another risks, a different level of supervision. The consumer in Poland or Germany will have no thought where the product he buys in the marketplace comes from. It will only see a low price and good packaging. And that behind this price is simply a farming strategy that destroys the Amazon and is based on semi-slavery work? No 1 will compose that on the label.

Brussels ensures that imports are "controlled" and "safe". But those words have long lost meaning. In fact, we (consumers and farmers) will be at risk. And we'll pay the real price.

What about the climate, the environment, the Amazon forest?

The European Union continues to talk about Green Rule. About climate change. The request to reduce emissions, defend biodiversity, liable agriculture. Farmers in Poland hear this all day in the form of bans, restrictions, obligations. Sometimes it sounds like a plan, more like a threat. But the rules are clear: farms must adapt, even if this means an increase in costs, a decrease in production and failure of profitability. Meanwhile, the same Commission, which demands European farmers to control to "sustainable" and "climate" agriculture, signs an agreement with a region where the mass deforestation of the Amazon is part of average economical practice. Where forests are cut down to make area for pastures, soy plantations or sugarcane. Where greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture beat all records.

Importing products from Mercosur is not just a substance of economics. It's a civilization choice. Brussels says 1 thing and it does the other. It imposes expanding restrictions on EU farmers while supporting a production model which in practice undermines all European climate objectives. And it is not just hypocrisy – although it is obvious. The point is, these 2 policies are contradictory. Either we are fighting the climate crisis, or we are doing business with those who deepen it. You can't do both at once.

Safety brake is fiction

In consequence to the increasing wave of criticism, especially from Poland and the countries of Central and east Europe, the European Commission announced with the mouth of the Polish Commissioner the introduction of the so-called. safety brake. This is intended to be a safeguard mechanics to temporarily reduce imports of agricultural goods if they prove to destabilise local markets. Sounds good. But only on paper.

First, this mechanics will not be automatic. In order to activate the ‘brake’, it will be essential to carry out the full notification procedure, collect data, show the impact of imports on the market, get the approval of Brussels and then (maybe) something will be blocked. It means months, if not years, before the reaction occurs at all.

Secondly, the decision will proceed to lie with the Commission, which already present shows that it listens more to manufacture than farmers. Does anyone truly believe that the same EC that pushes the Mercosur deal will abruptly stand up for Polish producers?

Thirdly, erstwhile the ‘brake’ works (if at all) there may be nothing left to save. Losses will be incurred, farms will fall and the marketplace will be flooded with inexpensive products. Agriculture has no margin of error. It is not possible to "repeat" the effects of the decision after the fact.

This ‘brake’ is simply a smokescreen. It's expected to calm public opinion and disarm criticism. But in practice, he doesn't defend anyone. This is simply a political motion of apparent concern, not a real protection of the interests of European farmers.

Whose voice is Brussels speaking today?

It is even harder to pretend that Brussels is inactive speaking in the voice of European citizens. He does not represent the interests of nations. It does not defend the balance between regions, industries and values. Instead, we hear the language of global corporations, industrial lobby and “experts” who have never stood in a agrarian yard. The decision to deal with Mercosur is no coincidence. This is the consequence of many years of force from the automotive, chemical and export industries – mainly Germany, France and the Netherlands. These sectors see a gigantic outlet in South America. For them, beginning the door to Mercosur is simply a chance for greater profits and dominance in the global market.

But individual has to pay for it. And it is known who will pay: farmers, consumers and smaller countries whose economies are little diversified. Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Lithuania are countries that will be given their pocket. Brussels says it is simply a "benefit balance". Only this balance sheet is one-sided.

Whose voice is the European Commission speaking today? Where is the place for the voice of a Polish farmer who struggles with costs, regulations, uncertainty and competition from the East all day? Where is the public consultation, where is respect for the sovereignty of the associate States?

The answer is brutal: for Brussels, the interests of respective companies are more crucial than the future of millions of people surviving from the ground. And that's not just a political problem. It's a moral problem. due to the fact that if the European task is to survive, it must talk human language again. And present he speaks Exceli, lobbyists, and corporate PR.

Summary

The Mercosur Agreement is not a method item or "an accelerated step towards free trade". This is simply a fundamental decision on the direction in which the European Union is going and on who is going to win and who is going to lose.

Today it is clear: large manufacture will win, farmers will lose. As a country with 1 of the strongest and most diverse agricultural sectors in the EU, Poland will pay an exceptionally advanced price for this decision. Not only in numbers, but in people – those who lose farms, the achievements of life and sense. There's no agreement to specified a model of development. There is no agreement that decisions about the future of the Polish village will be made in cabinets that have no thought what work on the farm is. And there is no agreement that agriculture, or the pillar of our economy and culture, will be sacrificed on the altar of corporate interests.

That is why this text is an appeal. To politicians: not to sign blindly what the Commission is imposing. To the public: so as not to be fooled by the PR mush about the "balance of benefits". To farmers: not to be afraid due to the fact that they're right. And anyone who cares about independence, food safety and common sense.

There's inactive a way out. You can inactive say no. And if we don't do it now, then there won't be much left to save.

Rafał Skórniewski