The paradox of the European farmer

A political rebalancing is needed in Europe’s prized sector

The farmers are protesting.

Upon reading that sentence, many of you will jump to the scenes coming out of Germany over the last few weeks. Or perhaps you might think we’re talking about the border blockades by farmers in Poland. Or the same taking place in Romania.  

But these are just the most recent events. What about the protests that took place during the course of 2023, in France, Spain or Belgium? It’s easy to lose track. Seemingly hardly a month can pass without farmers in one European country or another staging an anti-government protest.

Watching this cascade of discontent, an outside observer might conclude that Europe’s farmers are particularly hard done by, that they are one of the mistreated groups in the whole continent. What else could explain such a level of protest from one section of society, far in excess of what we see from almost everyone else?

Yet the reality could hardly be more different. For years, the European system was mocked for paying farmers to deliver unusable food surpluses before it was finally reformed to reduce the distortions. Even today Europe’s farmers still get extensive subsidies to ensure they can stay in business, including direct payments and tax breaks, and tariffs are put in place to protect them from cheaper imports. Spending on agriculture is one of the single biggest components of the EU budget.

Picture generated by Bing AI

Naturally many farmers have been hit hard by the cost of living crisis and so can legitimately claim to be feeling economic pressure, but in this regard they are no worse off than anyone else. In fact, they arguably have much greater income security than many urban counterparts dealing with part-time and flexible hours contracts.

Contrary to the popular image, ‘farmers’ are typically not small families with two cows and five sheep, but instead are medium to large businesses. When we talk about farmer protests, we are almost always talking about the resistance of special interest groups to losing particular advantages (like reduced tax rates on diesel fuel) rather than the organic upswelling of an oppressed class.

And these are not just any special interest groups. These are among the best connected and most politically influential in the whole of Europe, with powerful unions and lobbying groups to continue tilting policy in their favour. This is why it is so strange that they still feel the need to fill the streets with tractors, shut the border crossings or vandalise public buildings.

However, the paradoxical nature of European farmers goes further.

In spite of being disproportionate beneficiaries of EU money, farmers and rural communities form an increasingly vocal part of the support base of eurosceptic parties. While the EU bends over backwards to accommodate them, farmers prefer to throw their lot in with those politicians who see the EU as a great evil that must be at least curtailed and even dismantled entirely.

Similarly, the continent’s farmers end up supporting parties that call for much tighter limits on immigration all while the agricultural sector itself relies intensely on migrant workers, both within and from outside the EU. They demand easy access to foreign workers to pick fruit and work the fields while railing at those same foreigners being found in supermarkets, schools and hospitals.

Just as concerning, many farmers appear to have taken up arms against measures designed to promote sustainability. Farmers in Spain, for example, were angered by proposals to limit the amount of water they could use for irrigation, even though the reserves were being dangerously depleted and a more conservative approach was necessary to ensure the long-term viability of agriculture in the region. Right-wing populists (and parts of the centre-right) have encouraged farmers in this self-defeating strategy, quite content to ride the anger for short-term political benefit, without concern for the unfolding impact of climate change that risk turning today’s groves into tomorrow’s deserts.

The alliance between farmers and the populist right is made even stranger when you consider the fate of those in the UK and their experience with Brexit. Having decided to run with the promise of a more tailored British system, many farming businesses are now facing lower payments and complain of being undercut as new trade deals with countries like Australia and New Zealand were agreed without consultation and with only minimal protections.

So how should moderates respond to the politicisation of Europe’s agriculture? Is the answer to simply abandon Europe’s farmers, undo the protectionist policies and expose them to the bitter winds of globalised trade?

Such an approach may be tempting as a gut reaction to the political positions taken by the farmers themselves and some might argue that to defeat populism, these adjacent movements must also be stripped of their power. However, this attitude would ultimately be counter-productive.

There is an inherent value in conserving a degree of domestic food production. From COVID-19, to Ever Given, Russia’s war on Ukraine or Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, there appears to be no shortage of major events disrupting global supply chains. Having our own farming provides a degree of food security.

In addition, not all international competition is fair. While others may produce food at lower prices, this often comes at the cost of quality, with increased use of chemicals and low standards of animal welfare. It makes no sense to ban certain practices at home only to import them via the backdoor.

Much as international trade brings benefits and pure autarky is a pipedream, we should therefore not be naïve. Openness should be balanced with self-reliance and policies that protect agriculture have value regardless of whether the beneficiaries are grateful or not.

That said, there is a space for mainstream parties to push back on the idea that farmers today are the direct equivalent of yesterday’s famished peasants. Highly disruptive protests in the name of anti-progressive causes do not need to be tolerated without question, especially when other groups are given a much harsher treatment by public authorities and law enforcement.

The lack of solidarity with the people of Ukraine, who desperately need markets for their goods as they resist Russia’s aggression, has been particularly grating. It is both possible and desirable to pursue a policy of domestic food security and local production without mollycoddling reactionary businesses and literal landlords.

A dovish approach has allowed Europe’s farmers to adopt paradoxical views and demand the impossible. Valuable as their work is, they are not beyond criticism and it is time their contradictions were set out for all voters to see.