The European bureaucracy elaborates and promotes policies that affect the lives of Europeans in all countries without taking into account the often dramatic effects these policies have on European citizens. And maybe the elected political leaders of Europe, such as e.g. Emmanuel Macron, to bring the concerns and anxieties of their citizens to the center of decisions, but powerful bureaucrats like Von der Leyen and the lobbies that run Brussels are accountable to no one and push their own agendas.
Today, European farmers are reacting to decisions that dramatically increase the cost of agricultural production in the European Union in order to achieve the environmental goals set by the European leaders. Farmers point out that the rules imposed by the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) undermine the competitiveness of European agricultural products and facilitate imports from third countries that have much lower production costs because they are not forced to comply with environmental rules. They also protest because while the E.U. causes an increase in the cost of agricultural production, at the same time it enters into trade agreements with low-cost countries of production, such as those that make up MERCOSUR (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela).
The multitude and militancy of farmers helps publicize the problem, in contrast to the passivity or “civilized” reactions of other sectors, which are equally affected by European policies.
The industrialist Evangelos Mytilineos, as president of the European mining companies, has repeatedly emphasized to the European institutions that the very ambitious goals and the urgency of the EU’s environmental policies. are creating huge problems for European heavy industries due to their skyrocketing costs. He has also explained that the cost of the green transition will be borne by European consumers and taxpayers, who have never been asked if they can afford it. And he has substantiated the opinion that if only the E.U. imposes such environmental rules, while the rest of the world continues to burn lignite and oil polluting the environment, there will be no environmental protection and all that will be achieved is the dismantling of European industry and the substitution of European production by imports. So, the damage is multiple and the benefit is minimal.
In Greece, in Italy, in Spain, in Portugal, the application of older policies within the framework of the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU. it led to the destruction of traditional crops degrading the agricultural sector, but also to the eradication of fisheries in order to strengthen the large fishing fleets. And this had multiple negative consequences, such as that today the specific member countries import all kinds of agricultural products that they previously produced in their countries and exported, or that they destroyed the traditional boats and with them their traditional wood-building industry.
Such policies led Britain to Brexit, which cost Britain dearly, but also significantly weakened the EU, especially in defense matters.
Because the policies of the E.U. each time they concern specific sectors, the reactions are of limited extent and finally policies are implemented which, while they have destroyed production sectors, have not offered comparative advantages to the European Union. On the contrary, everyone now finds that the E.U. it has fallen far in economic and political power, but also in global influence, against more powerful groups of countries, such as the countries belonging to the BRICS. The countries in the latter group (Brazil, Russia, India, China) – joined by South Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia and Egypt – are accepting applications from 34 more countries that want to become members of this coalition. Under the current Russian presidency, many – if not all – of them will be accepted and it is clear that their interests and also their geopolitical position are different from that of the EU.
However, the European bureaucracy does not deal with them. It is characteristic that the topic of discussion at the European Council, whose meeting is held under the banner of agricultural machinery, is not about agricultural issues, but about the financing of the war in Ukraine and the isolation of Orban. This fact is an indication of the distance that exists between European producers and citizens and the European leadership.
Regarding the economic policies of the EU in general, even top officials of the European institutions point out that European integration is not progressing satisfactorily at all and that decisions must be made immediately that cover all European citizens, such as the issuance of Eurobonds for the public debt, the unification of the banking system to guarantee European deposits, the unification of European capital markets, the European army, the single immigration policy, etc.
The response of the European leadership to the reactions, whenever they are magnified, is to grant subsidies to the protestors in order to temporarily reduce the pressure, but the essence of the problem remains and the negative effects of the EU’s policies. are consolidated in the long term. And all this ultimately leads to an increase in populism and the rise of far-right parties, with the consequent weakening of democratic institutions in Europe.
