Imports, China and the “green” agenda: how the EU leadership is destroying the economy

Mercosur agreement is just a starting point for talking about a much deeper transformation of Europe. This is not about farmers and tariffs, but about a change in model: from production and autonomy to controlled consumption, dependence and simplified administration.

Content

• 1. Mercosur as a mechanism, not a “bug”
• 2. Europe without industry and without farmers
• 3. Cheaper today, more expensive tomorrow
• 4. China as an excuse and as a dependency
• 5. Destruction of Europe or simplification of governance?
• 6. Who benefits from it?
• 7. Proletariat 2.0

1. Mercosur as a mechanism, not a “bug”

From the point of view of Greek agriculture, the main problem of Mercosur is not that “imports are bad”, but that competition is becoming asymmetrical. Greek farmer works within a system of requirements EU: environmental standards, reporting, certification, restrictions on plant protection products, inspections, cost of fuel and energy. He pays for the “correctness” of production and for the European regulatory model.

Imports from South American countries objectively benefit in price not because there are “better farmers” there, but because there different cost structure. And when such a product gains expanded access to the EU market, pressure on purchase prices becomes inevitable: retail chains gain leverage, and the local manufacturer gets a choice without a choice – to reduce the price to the point of unprofitability or leave.

Next the chain starts: reduction in income → rising debts → closure of farms → depopulation of rural areas → land concentration and degradation of the local economy. As a result, the country loses not only producers, but also the social layer that traditionally supports the regions, infrastructure and local employment.

This is where the “strategic version” begins. Because unlike spontaneous errors, this result is too predictable. If a decision is accepted, then its consequences are either unimportant to those who vote or are considered an acceptable price to pay for other goals.

2. Europe without industry and without farmers

Your question about the European industry sounds harsh, but logical: what industry can we talk about with high taxes, expensive energy, high labor costs, strong social burden and strict regulations, if in parallel there is China as a “world factory”?

It is important here: Europe is losing not only to China, it is losing to itself in many ways. Manufacturing within the EU has become expensive not “because the world is a cruel place”, but because the European model has made it expensive through a combination of regulations, energy costs and administrative complexity. This can be justified by values, ecology and social protection, but economics is not canceled by slogans.

If one accepts a hard, almost conspiratorial hypothesis, Mercosur and the EU’s common trade policy work as part of a larger process: controlled deindustrialization of the periphery. The north and center of Europe are controlled by finance, high technology, logistics, and bureaucratic control. The South is increasingly reduced to services, tourism, real estate and imports of “everything else.”

Agriculture in this scheme turns from a strategic sector into a “social item”. It is supported just enough so that mass riots do not break out, but not so much that it remains an autonomous and strong player. Because a strong farming class is politically awkward class.

3. Cheaper today, more expensive tomorrow

The most dangerous part is the price effect. In the short term, imports can indeed create the feeling that everything has “become easier”: more goods, lower pressure on price tags, supermarkets are happy, politicians are showing “the fight against inflation.” But then something begins that usually does not end up in press releases.

When a domestic producer is displaced, the market becomes dependent. And then the price is determined not by the work of the Greek farmer, but by external conditions: currency, logistics, climate, political crises, trade wars. Any failure turns into a price jump.

There is a separate issue of quality. When price becomes the main criterion, standards gradually become an object of bargaining and compromise. And if today it looks like an abstraction, then tomorrow it becomes an everyday experience.

4. China as an excuse and as a dependency

China plays a dual role in this story. On the one hand, he is the main competitor. On the other hand, it is the main stabilizer of the European social model: cheap imports help maintain consumer prices.

If you look at it from a conspiracy perspective, China is an “external workshop” and at the same time a “convenient argument.” When a European plant closes, you can always say: “global competition.” But the reality is simpler: the market is demanded by those who control the rules of the market.

5. Destruction of Europe or simplification of governance?

Is this not an element of the destruction of Europe? In the “hard” version, this is a simplification of the governance of Europe to an administrative space: less production, less autonomy, more dependence and control.

People who are completely dependent on the state are much easier to manage.

6. Who benefits from it?

EU supranational structures benefitlarge trading corporations, financial funds and external production centers. This is not beneficial for Greeceits farmers and its food autonomy.

Europe is gradually turning not into a producer, but into a sales market. For some it’s a business. For others, there are delayed consequences.

7. Proletariat 2.0

As a result, Europe is moving towards a society without property and without autonomy. Proletariat of the 21st century – this is not a revolutionary force, but a controlled mass, convenient until the first serious crisis.

This is where the key paradox comes into play: By destroying autonomy for the sake of control, the Brussels bureaucracy is depriving itself of what makes control possible at a critical moment.

Source link