The EU is a dirty laundry house of its 27-member states, WEF, WTO and large corporate policies
The Europeans never dreamed of living in the “United States of Europe”, however this was the vision and dream of the EU President, Ursula von der Leyen, when she stepped into her office in end of 2019. How far she has succeeded to pursue making her dream to come true? The EU has always aimed to harmonize policies and legislation’s across the member states, the reason behind this, didn’t come across, as taking over the ruling power from the sovereign member states, today it looks pretty much like that.
Today EU Commission is going too far and too fast. European citizens are losing their fundamental human rights faster than the Netflix is updating its movie content. From breaching citizens right to privacy, to EU COVID passport with traveling restrictions and latest is the Green Deal that endangers local food production and farmers livelihoods.
The EU is pushing propaganda of “European values”, Green agenda for the climate and the planet, but how does closing the local farms and food production systems, reflect any of these values, or make progress to increase the well being of the European citizens, that at the present, live in increasing poverty, without food and housing? Does it have any positive impact in climate change at all?
Climate change policies that were aimed to reduce nitrogen and other pollutants in Europe, have pushed farmers taking to the streets with their tractors in the Netherlands, paralyzing the whole countries roads, food delivery and transportation system. The German farmers who anticipated their government would take on similar measures have joined the Dutch “boerenprotest”. These protests are massive, but not reported by the mainstream media. As if they are scared that it lights the fire and expands to become a Europe wide protest.
The new legislation’s are affecting every farmer inside the EU. The governments obeying the EU Commission rule, are misusing their power to dictate, what the farmers may do in their own lands. Their actions are endangering local food production and turning the whole European Union to become dependent from imported food products. The way how the whole thing is implemented is wrong from the start.
First, I need to say, that I don’t support animal factory farming, but at the same time, I acknowledge, that because I don’t approve with it, I cannot stop it either. It might come as a surprise to some, why I am even writing about this subject? The answer is that, if I cannot end cruelty, there are ways to make it less cruel, even when the lifespan of the animal might not change. Placing the possibility of 30% farm production being moved to Latin Americas, were it would destroy forests, community lands and wildlife habitat is unacceptable. This possibility is far closer than anyone might know, you cannot know unless you have followed the MERCOSUR, and FTA agreements and how they are violating Indigenous Peoples rights and raping the environment on daily bases.
I am also opposing strongly the Government policies, that are politically motivated and pushing 30% of Dutch and other European farmers out of their livelihood. Without properly consulting them and engaging them to talks, to find out solutions that they can implement together to reduce nitrogen content, without giving up their farming altogether. The way Rutte’s government is implementing the EU’s regulation is authoritarian and coming across as arrogant, executed with an iron fist and without respecting the farmers right to have a say, on matters affecting their lives. It violates the basic human right to self-determination, right to land and practice a profession that was chosen by their own free will.
Going back to the topic of climate change and food safety, use of fertilizers and to “Why the actions of the governments do nothing good to the climate change”. By moving the local production to elsewhere, outside the EU, it means the meat is imported, import itself will result to more traffic that increases pollution. There will be inevitably increase of nitrogen levels elsewhere in the planet, unless the consumers should be on board and reduce their consumption by 30% too. Where is the benefit to the climate in this plan? Instead of decreasing nitrogen levels, it increases the amount of pollution in global level.
From food safety perspective, countries like Brazil have different understanding on human rights and saving the environment. Everyone remembers the Amazon fires in 2019, when Brazilian government under Bolsonaro regime burned forest, the indigenous peoples lands, to convert them to meat or animal feed production fields. The food safety and use of antibiotics and hormones are under Brazilian and other Latin American’s countries jurisdiction. Many substances banned in Europe will find way to European market, including GMO. EU has already signed MERCOSUR trade agreement, that would see Latin Americas rainforests destroyed and communities getting displaced. At the moment President Macron has opposed the MERCOSUR ratification, in order not to anger the French farmers, but for how long this can last, when the EU is suing countries for too much Nitrogen pollution? It’s a matter of time that the France and Austria support MERCOSUR, as where else they can regain the lost locally produced meat production?
Even if they wouldn’t, the Von der Leyen announced to seek for more decision-making powers, even if not all member states would agree. The Merkel government in past, supported MERCOSUR agreement, Germany is an powerful ally to push through EU, WEF agenda unfortunately.
How this affects the consumers?
Example from Africa, in French speaking Congo they have their own dairy and grain production. Instead of selling it from farms to citizens, it gets exported to other countries for processing, after imported back as a processed product to the shelves. What happens to prices, is that they have become too expensive for local citizens to purchase. Not something we should allow to happen in the EU.
The governments in EU, empower large food chain giants, holding monopolies, wrapping everything in unsustainable plastic and soaked in unhealthy preservatives. The EU wants to leave the local farmers receiving meeker subsidizes, paid by the tax payers’ money, to keep their fields empty. Many small local producers, selling from farm to consumers would be by far a better solution.
Instead of Globalization, it’s time to move to Localization and stop the Governments trying to break this evolution. The WEF and Paris agreement or other structures, are making profit for implementing useless insane policies like the EU introduced Green deal, that Rutte applies in The Netherlands today.
Fertilizers can be changed to more environmentally friendly versions. Removing Bayer/Monsanto from the market and using locally made, natural fertilizers instead. The rising Nitrogen levels are not only due to the cows and pigs or fertilizer, Industry and cars are bigger polluters than the farms. The industry and car pollution are not reusable, unlike cow and pig manure, that can be converted to biogas and other products. The energy prices are soaring, together with the inflation. Europe is in deep energy crisis caused by shortage of gas and fuels to heat the homes next winter. There is an urgent need to find new energy sources and instead of demanding closing of the farms, the EU countries should ask farmers to engage in converting the manure to biogas, oil or another material manure is useful.
The government should offer financing and other incentives to the farmers to collect the manure from the fields. This would provide a financial benefit for them, moving from paid fuels, to one made by themselves or received free of charge from bigger gas converting facility they help to supply.
At the best, this solution would provide additional income, even if they would keep less animals and are able to turn them out to graze on the fields, instead of keeping them indoors. The consumers can reduce their meat consumption by couple of days a week. This, in turn allows farmers to keep less animals, but with the income from the manure their cashflows would stay unchanged.
This is what Rutte and the EU autocrats should be talking about. We already saw with the COVID pandemic, that the Governments lacks the knowledge, skills and will, to find good solutions, instead they rely on control and authoritarians’ measures to implement their conservative solutions.
Another reason why I am writing about this matter. Because I cannot stay silent while witnessing, how the governments are adopting Klaus Schwab’s WEF agenda, in hopes that the citizens would be brainwashed enough not to take notice. We don’t need an “EU Reich”, WEF or WTO. The most corrupted and dangerous institutions to Europe and the whole world, especially to the Global South and Indigenous Peoples communities.
More information about MERCOSUR and how the trade agreement relates to closing of the local farms. Why closing the farms in Europe is placing the Global South and the biodiversity in peril.
“SAO PAULO (Reuters) – The European Union and the South American trade bloc Mercosur could by year’s end resolve environmental concerns that are holding up a free trade agreement, EU Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevicius told Reuters.” here
“The EU keeps on using natural resources in the Global South for luxury products and keeps on, at least indirectly, driving deforestation. Products that come directly from deforested areas could be sold to China, while the EU imports so-called ‘sustainable products’. By being part of total demand the EU’s consumption is still responsible for – in 2017 – 16% of tropical deforestation.”
“A Trojan Horse for the EU-Mercosur Free Trade Agreement ?
Critical civil society organisations within the Seattle to Brussels network view this deforestation law as an attempt to handle the very critical response to the EU-Mercosur FTA, which was provisionally concluded in 2019. If ratified, this FTA would have dreadful consequences, as highlighted by The Trade Otherwise coalition in an analysis partly based on interviews with people from the Mercosur.
In Mercosur countries, increased soy, meat and sugar production for the European Union will go hand in hand with the destruction of nature and the violation of land rights of small farmers and Indigenous peoples. Eddy Ramirez of the Hugo Foundation in Paraguay who is interviewed in the Trade Otherwise analysis fears the agreement will mean even greater problems for smallholders: “The deal will drive people from their land and create more displaced persons. The use of pesticides – part of which are banned in the EU – is horrific for the environment, the water reserves and fish, and therefore, for traditional fisheries. The majority of these people are already struggling, so the consequences will be huge.”
The FTA will also deepen the gap between continents. It is a neo-colonial deal that specifically targets the export of raw (mining) materials and (luxurious) agricultural products from Mercosur, in exchange for industrial products from the EU with a large added value. South American industrial companies and workers will be hit by competition with European cars, textiles, machines and more. Tato Figueredo of Argentina’s Institute of Popular Culture sums up the situation perfectly: “Free trade agreements deepen historical injustice and present a legal framework that enshrines this unfair economic system. It endangers vital water systems and the food system, and causes rural poverty.””
You can read the full article here
France and local farmers, versus Indigenous peoples lands in Brazil.
“…the French president wanted to avoid upsetting his farmers by backing new trade deals with agricultural powerhouses like Latin America, Australia or New Zealand.”
“The most difficult will be ratifying the EU’s trade deal with the Latin American Mercosur countries of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay. NGOs, lawmakers and some countries like France and Austria have been opposed to the deal — which the European Commission concluded in 2020 “— for environmental reasons because of the continued deforestation of the Amazon rainforest.”
Macron’s position in 2022: here
“The regulation will rely on producer country laws to determine whether goods are linked to human rights violations, like land grabs. In a country such as Brazil, this would mean relying on the Bolsonaro government to protect Indigenous rights, something it has willingly avoided.”
Opposition to MERCOSUR ratification and EU’s ignorance to member states that oppose the trade deal
“The European Commission has ignored its legal obligation to ensure [that] the trade agreement with the Mercosur group of South American countries will not lead to social, economic, environmental degradation and human rights violations,” says the letter.
When the agreement was signed in the summer of 2019, the European Commission had not yet completed the final Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) report on Mercosur’s environmental performance.” here
WTO and Indigenous Peoples communities
“In the 26 years of the World Trade Organization, its neoliberal framework has raised people’s resistance for tilting towards the interests of the big corporations, few global economic elites, leading to destroyed livelihoods and the environment.” here
“‘Talk with us, not for us’: fishing communities accuse UN of ignoring their voices
Developing countries’ delegates at UN conference seek recognition of small fisheries’ role in protecting oceans and fighting hunger” here