Danish farmer about #Ukraine's membership of the #EU :
"I had not imagined that there would be war in Europe again. But if EU membership for Ukraine can ensure that it doesn't happen again, I would be more than happy to pay 25 per cent of my agricultural subsidies from the EU to them," says Leif Hougaard.
- "This would mean a lower income and less to fall back on. But that's how it is and should be. Because no one is dying here."
While this is a very noble thing to say by one Danish farmer, it would be naive to think that all EU farmers would share this attitude, especially as we faced similar conflicts of interests in 2000’s when many new Central and Eastern European joined EU and CAP, competing with Western European farmers.
Of course, this is going to create frictions, especially in the same CEE countries that don’t yet feel that confident as their businesses had been competing on the common market for the last ~20 years, half of which involved huge investments to comply with EU rules.
And of course, it’s going to be in long term good for everyone in the EU, but it requires a very careful and balanced policy management in order to deescalate such conflicts among all participants.
EU farming is complex, which creates plenty of traps to fall for, as demonstrated by this years Poland grain embargo. E.g. if German push for cheap feed from Ukraine using their lobbying weight this will once again antagonise Polish farmers who will rightly feel screwed by what they perceive as dumping practice. That’s why I highlight it has to be done very carefully.
@kravietz @Ruth_Mottram yeah.
Food security is IMO one of main reasons for the established long term funding of Ukraine by Germany.
This is also one thing to keep in mind. German political establishment is less concerned about T-72s on the Elbe. But quite a lot about food security from the 2040s onwards...
As you remember, “energy security” was one of the main reasons quoted by Germany for construction of NS2, mostly against the energy security of remaining Member States 😉
Leadership assumes there’s some defined set of facts and values according to which someone is going to lead. In the world of postmodernism that dominated political philosophy of Western 20-21st century, the very concept of “fact” is questioned, not to mention “values”. As result, the facts and values of course are still there but are not discussed publicly, and leadership of course still happens, just not on the surface.
No, I’m just saying leadership is incompatible with postmodernism, not that it’s impossible or not necessary.
That’s 100% my point - this “pounding the table” is fundamentally incompatible with the postmodernist nature of today’s political philosophy.
It applies equally to “left-wing” and “right-wing” movements, which is best illustrated by declaratively Christian activists “defending” religious organisations from investigations into child abuse, which is probably the most un-Christian crime out there. At the same time declaratively left-wing activists silence criticism of medieval “religious” practices as long as they are practised by minority groups, ignoring the fact they are as much contradictory with left-wing values as they can be.
And I’m not saying any of these is good thing or is desirable, I’m just stating a fact. 21st century Western popular politics became largely tribal, taking us back straight to pre-Enlightenment times. It starts with the idiotic divide into “left” and “right”, where everyone expects you to “pick a side”, meaning taking a whole bundle of both agreeable and utterly deranged postulates.
Ruth Mottram
kravietz 🦇
Tobias Merkendorf
Voron