Officially, the EU’s Mercosur trade deal is a defeat for Europe’s farmers. In reality, farm lobbies just can’t stop winning. EU countries endorsed the bloc’s long-delayed agreement with South American nations on Friday, clearing the way for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to fly to Paraguay later this week and close a deal that has haunted Brussels for more than two decades. The agreement is going through despite tractor protests, border blockades and fierce opposition from farm groups and capitals including Paris and Warsaw. But the price of getting Mercosur over the line was steep. In the run-up to the endorsement, Brussels quietly stacked the deck in farmers’ favor. Import safeguards were hardened. Controls tightened. And last week, the Commission unveiled a €45 billion budget maneuver allowing governments to shift more money to farmers under the EU’s next long-term budget. Taken together, the concessions mean Mercosur will enter into force wrapped in protections and paired with a farm budget settlement that leaves the sector stronger than before. “Other sectors complain,” said one Commission official involved in agricultural policy. “Farmers block roads.” The official, like others in this story, was granted anonymity to speak freely. The blunt assessment captures a familiar reality inside the EU institutions. Farmers may represent a shrinking share of Europe’s economy, but they remain one of its most powerful political constituencies, capable of reshaping trade deals, budgets and reform agendas even when they fail to block them outright. Ultimately, to get Mercosur over the line, Brussels had to back away from plans to loosen farmers’ grip on the EU budget and shift money to other priorities. PRESSURE THAT WORKS The leverage farm leaders wield rests on more than theatrics. Few officials in Brussels dispute that large parts of the sector are under real strain. Farm incomes are volatile. Costs for fuel, fertilizer and feed have surged. Weather has become harder to predict. Working days are long and isolation is common in hollowing rural communities. “I understand the anger,” Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen told POLITICO in an interview last month, as Brussels prepared for tractors to roll into the EU quarter. Christophe Hansen said the Commission had “heard the concerns of farmers” and responded with “strong and unprecedented support measures.” | Photo by Omar Havana/Getty Images Sympathy for farmers runs high across much of Europe, tied not just to economics but to culture, place and identity. That has always made farm subsidies one of the most politically sensitive lines in the EU budget — and one the Commission knew would be hardest to touch. That sensitivity was on display again last week, when agriculture ministers traveled to Brussels for a hastily convened meeting outside the formal calendar, called in response to farmer protests only weeks earlier. Inside, the language was ritualistic. Praise for farmers. Assurances they were being listened to. Repeated references to unprecedented safeguards and financial backing. Hansen summed it up afterward, saying the Commission had “heard the concerns of farmers” and responded with “strong and unprecedented support measures.” REFORM MEETS REALITY This outcome marks a sharp reversal of earlier ambitions inside the Commission. It’s also a reminder of just how high the stakes are when farm subsidies are in play. The Common Agricultural Policy remains the single largest line in the EU budget, absorbing roughly a third of total spending and anchoring a political contract that dates back to the bloc’s postwar foundations. Public money, in exchange for food security and rural stability, has long been one of Europe’s core bargains. That bargain has survived decades of reform. The CAP has been trimmed, greened and made more market-oriented. But its central promise — that farming would be protected — has never disappeared. After von der Leyen’s re-election in 2024, officials quietly explored loosening how tightly farm spending is locked into the EU budget. Draft ideas for the post-2027 budget would have made farm funds more flexible and easier to redirect to priorities such as defense, climate transition or industrial policy. It was a technocrat’s answer to a crowded budget. It did not survive contact with politics. The proposal landed as farm incomes came under pressure from rising costs, climate volatility and disease outbreaks. Tractors returned to Europe’s streets. Agriculture ministers closed ranks, warning of political fallout in rural heartlands. Farm lobbies mobilized in force. Hansen spent much of his first year in office traveling to farms and meeting unions, describing agriculture as a strategic asset and warning of a “convergence of pressures” hitting the sector. Behind closed doors, he fought to keep large chunks of farm funding protected. Tractors park in front of the Arc de Triomphe during a demonstration of the French agricultural union Coordination Rurale (CR) in Paris, France, on January 8, 2026. | Jerome Gilles/NurPhoto via Getty Images Those efforts didn’t calm farmers’ anger. Instead, pressure became constant, feeding into a series of concessions that steadily narrowed the scope for reform. First came assurances that most farm spending would remain ring-fenced in the post-2027 budget. Then came a new rural spending target, designed to funnel more money back into countryside projects. Last week, to get the Mercosur deal over the line, the Commission went further, proposing that farmers get early access to up to €45 billion from a broader cash pot the EU would have been saving for a rainy day. In effect, much of the post-2027 EU farm budget is on track to be sealed at levels approaching today’s, before negotiations have even begun in earnest. LOSING THE TRADE FIGHT, WINNING THE POLITICS The €45 billion now being front-loaded was originally conceived as crisis insurance. After the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Brussels concluded that future EU budgets needed more flexibility to respond quickly to shocks. Money reserved for incremental spending reviews was meant to be the first line of defense in the next crisis. If national capitals embrace the Commission’s proposal, much of that money would be locked in for farmers before the cycle even starts, leaving less for other priority areas. Mercosur became the perfect vehicle for that pressure. Long championed by industrial exporters, the deal turned into shorthand for everything farmers fear about global competition and loss of control. The reality is more uneven. Some EU farmers, particularly in high-end food, wine and dairy, stand to gain from better access to Mercosur markets. Others, especially in beef and poultry, face tougher competition. Yet even there, trade analysts have long dismissed fears of South American goods flooding the EU as exaggerated. But nuance rarely survives a protest banner, and even the unprecedented concessions haven’t stopped farmers from protesting. The EU’s largest farm lobby, Copa-Cogeca, said Friday that the process of getting the Mercosur deal across the line “erodes trust in European governance, democratic processes and parliamentary scrutiny at a time when institutional credibility is already under strain.” The group said it would continue mobilizing farmers. Privately, Commission officials express frustration about the farm lobbies’ hardening demands.  One said that even though Brussels bends over backwards to meet farmers’ demands, every concession still falls short for farm leaders. Another pointed to Commissioner Hansen’s efforts to engage in direct dialogue with farmers across the EU. “And still, they talk as if we had done nothing,” the official said, referring directly to Copa-Cogeca. For now, farm leaders are winning.  Von der Leyen might be boarding that plane to South America. But when she returns to Brussels, they will already be gearing up for the next fight, confident they can lose the trade battle and still bend Europe’s policy in their favor.

BRUSSELS — Ursula von der Leyen wanted her next EU budget to have a rainy-day fund in case of war, pandemic or competition from other world powers. Instead, the European Commission president is already raiding it to pay off farmers and nail down the Mercosur trade deal. National leaders — including those of Mercosur holdouts France and Italy — have rushed to claim credit for the offer to free up €45 billion for Common Agricultural Policy spending years ahead of schedule. Budget analysts and diplomats, however, called it a major step back from the Commission chief’s initial ambition to help the bloc spend more nimbly in response to global chaos. The concession is part of an attempt to make the EU-Mercosur deal palatable for the bloc’s farmers, who fear their products will be undercut by Latin American exports. The sense of urgency was on full display Wednesday as agriculture ministers made their way to Brussels through snowfall and travel disruption for an extraordinary meeting called in response to last month’s farmer protest in the EU capital. Inside, the exchanges followed a familiar script. Praise for farmers was paired with assurances they had been heard, alongside repeated references to safeguards, support measures and flexibility built into the EU’s draft budget. Yet farmers, in early reactions, seemed less than impressed. In a statement, the Irish Farmers Association said von der Leyen’s proposal “smacks of desperation.” TRADING AWAY THE BUDGET The European Commission’s additional money for farmers isn’t new — it’s been brought forward from an existing rainy day fund in the EU budget proposal, which is still being negotiated and will only come into force in 2028. The Commission set aside a financial buffer to tackle unforeseen emergencies during the mid-term review of the budget in 2030 in an attempt to make the EU’s common cash pot less rigid than it currently is. In order to lock in France and Italy’s support for the Mercosur trade deal, the Commission on Tuesday offered countries the possibility of immediately handing over €45 billion from that cash pot to farmers. Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič said after the ministers’ meeting that the concessions were part of a broader effort to secure backing for the Mercosur deal, which he described as “the biggest free-trade agreement we have negotiated.” Brussels, he added, had gone “further than ever before” with safeguards to address agriculture fears. “We listened to the concerns of farmers and rural communities, and we acted,” Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen said, arguing that the proposed €45 billion could be mobilized as soon as the next EU budget begins in 2028. While this will significantly increase the EU’s agricultural funding in the short term, it will empty the EU’s crisis fund further down the line. “Farmers are taking all the remaining flexibility in the budget,” said Eulalia Rubio, a senior fellow at the Jacques Delors Center think tank, noting that it will eat up EU spending on other areas.  The Commission is showing “its willingness to accept that member states use all flexibility in favor of agriculture [and] not in favor of cohesion [funding to poorer regions]” or other priorities, she said. In a further concession to farmers, the Commission also pointed to a vaguely defined “rural target” worth €48 billion, floated late last year to keep the European Parliament on side during budget talks, as a pot that could be used first and foremost for agriculture. “This comes at the expense of one of the key features of the reform — flexibility,” said an EU diplomat.  Ultimately, without new funding pots, farmers don’t see much to cheer at this point. | Tobias Canales/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images CLAMORING FOR CREDIT Von der Leyen could be encouraged by the initial reactions from capitals: National leaders claimed victory, presenting it as a trophy they had personally scored for their farmers. French President Emmanuel Macron credited his “constant commitment to [France’s] farmers” for the win, while Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said it “shows Greece’s voice in Europe is heard more loudly and more clearly.”  And with Rome set to cast the tie-breaking vote on a Mercosur measure Friday, Italian Agriculture Minister Francesco Lollobrigida called the “good news” evidence of “the seriousness of the work carried out by Italy.” Not all ministers were quite so quick to celebrate. Speaking after the extraordinary meeting, Spanish Agriculture Minister Luis Planas described the €45 billion offer as “an interesting and important step forward,” but added that, evidently, discussions on the future CAP were far from over.  Farm lobbyists were more guarded in their praise, however. For Luc Vernet, secretary-general at Farm Europe, the move is “potentially an improvement.”  Vernet zeroed in on the fact that von der Leyen’s offers are merely optional for capitals, “not an obligation” to hand over the cash to farmers. In his view that could lead to disparate outcomes around the bloc, depending on the success that farmers enjoy in negotiating with their governments, “further undermining the C [Common] of the CAP.” Ultimately, without new funding pots, farmers don’t see much to cheer at this point.  “Bringing forward €45bn that has already been promised to Member States isn’t the same as an additional €45bn,” said the Irish Farmers Association. Nektaria Stamouli contributed reporting from Athens.  This article has been updated.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission announced Monday it had reached an agreement with Ukraine to update their existing free trade agreement, granting Kyiv improved market access compared to pre-war terms, though not fully restoring wartime trade liberalization measures. The deal marks a significant reprieve for Ukraine, which continues to resist Russian aggression more than three years after President Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale invasion. Earlier this month, Ukraine lost emergency trade waivers granted by Brussels early in the war. “Today’s agreement in principle is balanced, fair and realistic. It represents the best possible outcome under difficult geopolitical conditions,” EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič told a news conference. “Politically, this is a strong signal of support to Ukraine as it defends its sovereignty and democratic future. And crucially, it is also a response to concerns voiced by our member states, farmers and food producers.” The revised deal, which confirms an earlier report by POLITICO, builds on the existing EU-Ukraine free trade agreement but updates it to reflect lessons from the war.  Ukraine has committed to continue aligning its farming standards with EU rules — a process already underway as part of its path to membership. Full alignment is expected by 2028, including in areas like animal welfare and pesticide use.  The deal also allows either side to curb imports if they cause serious market disruption. And while Ukraine won’t regain the blanket tariff-free access it enjoyed during the war, the new terms raise quotas for many products that weren’t previously liberalized, while keeping tighter limits on a narrow list of politically sensitive goods like sugar, poultry, eggs and wheat. Ukraine’s top trade negotiator Taras Kachka described the outcome as “a really good deal,” telling POLITICO the level of liberalization secured in the agreement will allow Ukraine to maintain wartime trade volumes, with only a few exceptions.  “We actually follow EU standards — and we started this not today but 15 years ago,” Kachka said, adding that the agreement helps show Ukraine is “a predictable trade partner” and lays the groundwork for deeper economic integration. The agreement follows months of tense negotiations and uncertainty for Ukrainian exporters. The EU’s temporary wartime measures had initially lifted tariffs on all Ukrainian products, but later reinstated caps on sensitive agricultural goods. When these Autonomous Trade Measures (ATMs) lapsed on June 6, the Commission introduced a hasty interim solution, snapping back quotas to pre-war levels and sparking a scramble among Ukrainian exporters to move goods before hitting the ceiling. BRIDGES OF RESILIENCE European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen hailed the agreement, saying in a statement it will build “bridges of resilience and economic solidarity in the face of Russia’s unjustified war of aggression.” The deal would safeguard the interests of European farmers, while embedding Ukraine as part of the European family, she said in a statement: “We remain committed to a path of mutual growth and stability, leading to its full integration in our Union.” Ukrainian exports to the EU have surged since Russia’s full-scale invasion, bolstered by the wartime suspension of tariffs. That liberalization helped offset Kyiv’s wartime losses, but triggered a political backlash in frontline EU countries, where farmers blame cheap Ukrainian goods for undercutting prices. A patchwork of national bans and licensing systems remains in place in countries like Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Romania.  Following Monday’s agreement at political level, both sides will work to fine tune its technical elements, the Commission said, with EU member countries and the European Parliament to be briefed in the coming days. Subject to hammering out a final legal text, both sides will proceed with formally endorsing the update to the existing trade agreement. On the EU side, the deal would need to be endorsed by the Council, representing EU member countries. It would then be formally adopted by the EU-Ukraine Association Committee. This story has been updated.

BRUSSELS — The Netherlands is rolling back its nitrogen reduction targets, setting the stage for a showdown with its own judges and Brussels over one of Europe’s most contentious environmental issues. The Dutch government on Friday confirmed it will push back its deadline to halve nitrogen emissions from 2030 to 2035, defying a recent court order and putting its green commitments at risk. The move, spearheaded by Agriculture Minister Femke Wiersma of the Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB), is meant to give farmers more time to adapt, but could instead entrench a years-long standoff over how to cut pollution from intensive livestock farming. The decision comes despite a Dutch court ruling in January that ordered the government to meet its existing 2030 deadline to protect sensitive nature areas from nitrogen pollution, most of it from manure, with fertilizer use also contributing. Brussels may also weigh in, as the delay risks breaching the EU’s Habitats Directive, which obliges member states to prevent the deterioration of protected ecosystems and to restore them “within a short period.” The Netherlands has long been ground zero for Europe’s nitrogen crisis, with its high-density farming blamed for dumping excessive nitrogen into Natura 2000 conservation areas. The country ranks among the worst in the EU for nitrogen pollution per hectare, at around four times the European average — far more than its landscapes and protected habitats can absorb. Successive governments have struggled to square environmental obligations with farmer pushback, a conflict that helped topple the last coalition and fueled the rise of Wiersma’s BBB, which became the largest party in the Dutch Senate in 2023 and joined the national coalition government last year. FIVE MORE YEARS The new plan includes a €2.2 billion “starter package” to encourage farmers near vulnerable nature sites to downsize, relocate or invest in cleaner technologies. The package covers voluntary buyouts for livestock farmers, including €750 million for those who choose to shut down and €627 million for dairy producers who scale back. Another €100 million is set aside for nature restoration. The government is also preparing to overhaul how nitrogen is regulated. Up until now, Dutch policy has been based on how much nitrogen pollution settles in protected areas — the so-called critical deposition value (KDW). Wiersma’s plan signals a move away from that system toward setting emission limits directly at the source, on individual farms and factories. How those caps will be calculated remains unclear. “This plan offers perspective for farmers and space for innovation while we keep working toward nature recovery,” Wiersma told reporters ahead of the adoption. Environmental groups, legal experts and the Dutch state attorney had already warned in recent days that the plan could fail to meet judicial requirements, after details of the proposal began circulating in the Dutch press on Wednesday and Thursday. COURT RULING LOOMS In January, a Dutch court sided with Greenpeace in a case challenging the government’s slow progress on nitrogen reduction. The ruling ordered the state to cut pollution fast enough to bring at least half of all nitrogen-sensitive conservation areas below harmful thresholds by 2030. The judge cited the Netherlands’ obligations under the Habitats Directive, which prioritizes the health of protected ecosystems over economic flexibility. The government has appealed the decision but must comply with the ruling while that process is ongoing. By unilaterally shifting the target to 2035, Wiersma’s plan risks being seen as non-compliant with both the Dutch court and EU law, potentially exposing The Hague to further lawsuits and financial penalties. Environmental groups, including Greenpeace and Mobilization for the Environment (MOB), have already signaled they will take the government back to court if the delay goes ahead. Greenpeace called the adopted plan “an insult to the rule of law,” accusing it of lacking binding measures for agriculture, proper calculations or sufficient funding. BRUSSELS WATCHING The European Commission has so far held back from saying whether the Dutch delay is compatible with EU law, though officials in the environment department have repeatedly stressed that the Habitats Directive leaves little room to put off required action. “The Netherlands must put in place and implement effective measures to reduce nitrates and nitrogen pollution in order to meet the EU requirements on nature and water quality,” Commission spokesperson Maciej Berestecki told POLITICO. “It is up to the Dutch authorities to decide on effective measures to ensure compliance and reach agreed targets.” Commission lawyers are expected to review the Dutch plan following the government’s adoption of the package on Friday. Any failure to comply with EU law could eventually trigger infringement proceedings from Brussels.  The delay hands Wiersma’s BBB a political win with its rural base, at least for now, but risks locking the Netherlands into another round of courtroom battles at home and in Brussels. This story has been updated to include reaction from Greenpeace and the European Commission.

MEDYKA BORDER CROSSING, Poland — Legally, the two ambulances should be allowed to cross into Ukraine unhindered, but the Polish farmers standing sentry on the border take the law into their own hands and motion for the drivers to stop.  They open the doors and peer inside, scanning for contraband, suspecting the vehicles are carrying unregistered cargo. They find nothing and wave the ambulances through. The farmers have taken it upon themselves to check all commercial traffic on the four-lane border crossing at Medyka. There are a dozen of them, clad in fluorescent vests and carrying Polish flags, braving a biting wind that brings sleet, then snow.   It may seem like a lonely picket on a bleak winter’s day, but these border protests have helped generate an important political dynamic in a country that was once seen as Ukraine’s most resolute ally against the common enemy: Russia. After three years of war, the public mood is souring over economic sacrifices made for Kyiv, and sympathy for the farmers is playing a significant role in that shift.  At the most fundamental level, the farmers are pushing back against a European Union system of “solidarity lanes” that allowed agricultural heavyweight Ukraine to pour its massive exports of grain and other foodstuffs over the land border into the EU because they could no longer be shipped out via the Black Sea.  The economic argument that Poland’s support for Kyiv carries too high a price — that Ukraine’s goods don’t meet EU standards and that Polish produce is being undercut — has resonated. At a peak last year, a survey by the Public Opinion Research Center, a leading pollster, found that 81 percent of Poles supported the farmers’ protests. But the grievances in Poland cut deeper, and the farmers’ protests are feeding into broader national debates about history and identity looking back to World War II and earlier — topics that loom large in the run-up to the presidential election on May 18.  “The story we were sold was that we had to help Ukraine, that we had to take their food so they’d have money for the war … that was a lie,” complains Jan Wardęga, a farmer from nearby Żurawica, gripping a fishing pole repurposed as a flagstaff. “This fight isn’t for the poor Ukrainians — it’s for big corporations and Western capital.” FROM FRONT LINE TO FARMLAND Around Medyka and beyond, Polish farmers have blocked border crossings and organized noisy rallies over the past two years. They describe their struggle as a fight to defend not just their own livelihoods but Poland’s sovereignty and its national interests. “This isn’t just the Polish border. It’s the Schengen border. It’s up to us to defend it,” says Wardęga, his yellow vest stretched over puffer jackets that engulf his slight frame. Yet the complexity of farmers’ struggles has been reduced in media and political narratives to the simplistic notion that Ukraine is to blame for everything. In reality, the increased flow of goods across the border has exposed long-existing cracks in Polish agriculture. After joining the EU in 2004, Poland’s farmers faced pressure to modernize and compete on international markets. But while sectors like poultry, dairy and fruit became regional powerhouses, many farms remain small, family-run plots vulnerable to price swings and external competition. That disparity intensifies perceptions of inequality. Polish farmers see themselves as bound by strict EU regulations on pesticides, environmental protections and labor standards — hoops they have jumped through to produce zdrowa żywność, or healthy food. Ukrainian imports, they say, aren’t. “We’re not against the Ukrainian people. We helped them at the start, housed them, fed them. But we can’t be victims of oligarchs who profit off the chaos,” says Roman Kondrów, a stocky man with a Colonel Sanders-like beard who leads the Medyka protest. The tension in Poland isn’t about whether to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia — next to no one in Poland wants Vladimir Putin’s troops to triumph. But the farmers’ rhetoric, cloaked in seemingly pragmatic economic complaints, has normalized a view of Ukraine as too corrupt, too backward and too wild to be trusted. OLD WOUNDS REOPENED Historical fault lines have also resurfaced, amplified by right-wing groups and fueling a powerful narrative of imbalance. During World War II, Ukrainian nationalists killed tens of thousands of Polish civilians in Volhynia in what is now western Ukraine — atrocities widely known in Poland as the Wołyń massacres. Earlier still, in 1918, Polish youths known as the Orlęta Lwowskie (Lwów Eaglets) fought bitter battles over the city of Lviv, now part of Ukraine. Even though the conflicts took place generations ago, they remain potent symbols of sacrifice and suffering in Polish historical memory. “Our children died for Lwów (Lviv), for Wołyń, and now they come here and just want to take, take, take,” one farmer says. He declines to give his name but insists that Poles have already paid too steep a price. Such raw sentiments have helped shape the presidential election campaign. Politicians of all colors have seized on Volhynia, using the tragedy to question Ukraine’s moral standing or to demand concessions from Kyiv. Amid the rancor, however, there has been one small breakthrough: Ukrainian authorities recently agreed to begin exhumations at three sites — a step many Poles see as crucial for acknowledging wartime atrocities. Meanwhile, voter dissatisfaction with Donald Tusk’s brief tenure as prime minister is growing. With only a fraction of his centrist coalition’s 100 electoral promises fulfilled — stymied by legislative roadblocks left by its Law and Justice (PiS) party predecessors and infighting among allies — the Polish leader is under mounting pressure. His ally, Warsaw Mayor Rafał Trzaskowski, is running for the presidency — and if he wins in May, they could finally navigate a way out of the political minefield left by PiS. But the two face the challenge of supporting Ukraine without alienating voters, walking a thin line that risks satisfying no one. Warsaw’s interests lie in a strong, independent Ukraine — a strategic buffer against Russian aggression and a potential partner within the EU and NATO. Yet with Donald Trump now in the White House, diminished United States support for Kyiv could put even more pressure on Tusk and Trzaskowski to shore up domestic unity while ensuring Ukraine’s security. Against this backdrop, the unresolved dispute over Volhynia poses a test of trust between the two neighbors. Bartłomiej Gajos, a historian at the Mieroszewski Centre for Dialogue, a research institute monitoring Polish-Ukrainian relations, warns that delays in addressing these historical wounds risk fracturing the fragile solidarity. For Poles, Volhynia is a deeply symbolic issue, Gajos told POLITICO: “It ties historical justice to a broader sense of moral obligation. Resolving it would signal mutual respect — ignoring it does the opposite.” TOWARD A NEW REALITY It would be too easy, however, to say Polish society is “turning against” Ukraine. The overwhelming support Poles displayed at the outset of the war was never guaranteed to remain sky-high. Over time, war fatigue has set in, inflation soared and the initial surge of solidarity has ebbed. Today, sentiment is more nuanced. A report from the Mieroszewski Centre, published in January, found that only one in four Poles has a positive opinion of Ukrainians, while nearly a third hold a negative view. Most Poles continue to support Ukraine’s sovereignty and its struggle against Russia. But they increasingly weigh this support against economic costs and practical concerns. Farmers, through their protests and vocal demands, have become a visible driver of this shift, though Gajos believes they aren’t alone. “What we experienced right after the war was an anomaly — calling each other brothers and sisters and so on,” he says. “That was a moment of genuine emotion, but in the long run, it’s not sustainable.” Even so, the strain is undeniable. What began as a trade dispute is now entwined with broader and historical issues, all magnified by the spread of rumors and misinformation that risk deepening the divide between Poland and Ukraine. Russia has actively sought to exploit these tensions, launching propaganda campaigns aimed at Polish and European farmers. Yet there is little evidence to suggest these efforts have gained substantial traction. More often, the narratives seem to originate organically. Coordinating their actions through messaging apps and Facebook groups, Polish farmers share stories of murky dealings at the border. Rumors of contraband shipments, dubious humanitarian aid and lax inspections are common. Amid this information fog, it becomes easier for misinformation — some possibly amplified by Moscow’s channels — to take hold. Farmers like Kondrów and Wardęga rattle off stories of shady enterprises and disguised shipments. “I’ve seen trucks supposedly carrying ‘humanitarian aid’ — tulip bulbs bound for Ukraine! What war needs tulips?” Kondrów scoffs. The contrast fuels a perception of inequity even as Poland makes huge economic and political gains from closer ties. Ukrainian labor has helped fill gaps in construction, retail and services, boosting Poland’s gross domestic product and easing workforce shortages. At the same time, Polish exports to Ukraine — from machinery to processed foods — are at record highs. TRUST AT A CROSSROADS The standoff in Medyka at the end of last year pales in comparison to earlier protests, when farmers, joined by truckers, blocked the entire border with Ukraine. It wasn’t even ostensibly about Ukraine — this time, the farmers were using the narrow choke point of the border to pressure Warsaw over an EU trade deal with Latin American countries. But the echoes reverberate far beyond this corner of Europe. Warsaw’s stance on Ukrainian imports has shaped an EU debate on whether to maintain — or even tighten — Kyiv’s access to the single market and could affect the country’s long-term membership prospects. Controversy over security guarantees and military aid underscores the complex challenges of assisting Ukraine in wartime. By co-opting some of the farmers’ grievances, Tusk has sought to undercut the narrative of PiS and far-right nationalists — Poland’s third political force — who claim he is blind to rural struggles. It’s a gamble that’s worked before, but one that could backfire ahead of May’s presidential vote by normalizing falsehoods and negative perceptions of Ukraine. Brussels is keeping a wary eye on Tusk’s tightrope act. With a new proposal on EU-Ukrainian trade due in the first half of the year, the European Commission needs Poland to cooperate in projecting a united front. Yet each time farmers protest, it underscores the fragility of an alliance forged in wartime and tested by economic and social realities. As dusk settles on the border in Medyka, the taillights of diverted trucks fade into the distance. Farmers gather around a burning barrel, sipping tea laced with hooch, their faces lit by the flickering flames. On the surface, their demands seem straightforward: transparency, fairness, stability. But beneath these calls lies a deeper truth: Poland’s support for Ukraine is no longer driven purely by emotional solidarity or moral duty.  “We’re not done fighting,” Kondrów says, silhouetted against the glow of the fire. “If need be, we’ll come back to this border again and again.” Giovanna Coi contributed reporting.

PARIS — Emmanuel Macron reckons he has found in Giorgia Meloni the perfect ally in his crusade against the European Union’s massive trade agreement with South America. But before the French president breaks open the Champagne to celebrate the demise of a deal he has fought against for years, he may be forced to realize that the Italian prime minister is playing a different game. After a quarter of a century of on-and-off-again negotiations, EU chief executive Ursula von der Leyen shook hands on Dec. 6 with leaders of the Mercosur bloc — which brings together Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay — on a free-trade accord that would create a common market of nearly 800 million people and account for a fifth of global gross domestic product. For years Italy, the EU’s second-biggest exporter to the region, quietly supported the agreement, which enjoys the backing of a corporate establishment that sees the chance to open up new markets. But, in recent weeks, leaders in Meloni’s right-wing government have started to question it, expressing concern that farmers could be hurt by cut-price food imports from South America. The Italian shift culminated just before von der Leyen’s Montevideo trip, with officials from Meloni’s office saying the conditions to sign the deal had not been met. The change of tone in Rome has been music to the ears of France, where the deal is hated by farmers along with politicians across the political spectrum who want to build an alliance to block it in a future EU vote. After lobbying the Italians for months to join the anti-deal camp, the French government has been quick to celebrate. Ministers trumpeted that France has found a new ally and, before that, Macron congratulated Meloni for making “a good move on Mercosur” at last month’s G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro. But France risks making a big mistake by counting Meloni as an ally. Officials with direct knowledge of the file and experts told POLITICO that Italy hasn’t yet made up its mind, and would be unlikely to oppose the deal when it eventually goes to a vote among EU member countries.  Meloni’s recent reservations mainly aim to keep the farm lobby quiet, they say, while pleasing her right-wing, trade-skeptic base. On top of that, the Italian premier has good strategic reasons to fuel ambiguity around Rome’s position as she stands to benefit from her status as the deal’s kingmaker in Brussels.  “She is playing wait and see and trying to keep a foot in both camps,” said Alberto Rizzi, a Rome-based policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations who assesses that the deal would be economically beneficial to Italy.  Even Italian foreign ministry officials and diplomats aren’t sure where Italy really stands on Mercosur, added Rizzi.  STRATEGIC AMBIGUITY  In Montevideo, von der Leyen celebrated the deal as the first political victory of her new term. But the agreement, which would remove tariffs on goods spanning from cars to beef, is loathed by European farmers, who fear that an import glut of cheap poultry and beef could undercut them.  A blocking minority of at least four countries representing at least 35 percent of the EU’s population could still veto the agreement in a vote that would happen after the final text of the deal has undergone legal checks and translation — a process that could take several months. Poland is so far the only big country France can count on to oppose the deal, while Ireland and Austria are also against it. To reach that critical threshold Paris would need another big ally — and Italy is the only candidate. One person with direct knowledge of the Italian position, who was granted anonymity as they are not authorized to speak on the record, stressed that, despite appearances, Rome and Paris aren’t exactly on the same page. Italy is ready to back the deal if it obtains concessions — a point that Meloni’s agriculture minister, Francesco Lollobrigida, made in Brussels last week. | Francesco Ruta/EPA-EFE While Paris still radically opposes the deal, Italy is ready to back it if it obtains concessions, such as stricter sanitary controls on imported products, as well as cash for farmers to ease the pain of South American competition. It’s a point that Meloni’s agriculture minister, Francesco Lollobrigida, made in Brussels last week. HOME FIXTURE Meloni’s posture on the Mercosur deal has more to do with domestic politics.  Powerful farmer lobby Coldiretti, which is close to the government and to Lollobrigida, strongly opposes the deal, which is backed by industry lobby Confindustria. The government is meanwhile fractured on this file. The foreign minister, who also holds the trade portfolio, is Antonio Tajani from center-right Forza Italia party. Tajani backs the deal, while Matteo Salvini of the League is against it. Meloni and the prime ministers who preceded her haven’t said much about the deal, which hasn’t attracted wide public attention. And they prefer to keep it that way. Ask a French person in the street about the EU-Mercosur deal, and they will likely respond with a list of arguments against it. It’s a different story in Italy, where the media and political bubbles only started talking about it a few weeks ago. Then there’s the national interest. “It would be a mistake for Italy to oppose this agreement,” said Antonella Mori, an economics professor at the Bocconi University in Milan and Latin America expert at the Italian Institute for International Political Studies. For Mori, Italy’s economic interests are more aligned with those of Germany, the deal’s No. 1 supporter, than those of France. Importantly, the automotive industry concentrated in the north of the country is tied to that of Germany, which itself is going through a slump and sees exports to the South American market as a potential source of salvation. “Italy, in the end, will vote in favor of the deal,” predicted Mori. Antonio Tajani from the center-right Forza Italia party backs the deal, while Matteo Salvini of the League is against it. | Clemens Bilan/EPA-EFE A study commissioned by the Italian foreign ministry in 2020 also concluded that, overall, the agreement would be beneficial to the Italian economy.  For Rizzi, the analyst at the European Council on Foreign Relations, Meloni could be playing a dangerous game, as joining the anti-Mercosur camp would undermine her relationship with von der Leyen.  On top of compensation for farmers in the medium term, some think Meloni might also be tempted to trade Italy’s support for the Mercosur deal with concessions on other files, as von der Leyen’s European Commission turns its attention to reviving Europe’s industrial competitiveness and turning around the bloc’s economic slide. “It would fit the great Italian tradition for her to try to maximize the return on investment on her vote by playing for time,” said an EU diplomat, who was granted anonymity to comment candidly about another country’s position. “Maybe she’s trying to see which side can offer her the most?” This story has been updated.

LONDON — For four generations, Judith Jacobs’ family has defied British farming convention by voting Labour — a party that has traditionally struggled to win rural areas. At July’s general election, many other farmers — feeling betrayed by the then-Conservative government’s failed promises on Brexit and “unfair” trade deals — followed suit, helping Labour Leader Keir Starmer secure a mega majority in the House of Commons. Never again, said Jacobs, who runs a 600-acre arable and livestock farm in Peterborough, Cambridgeshire. The seeds her farm produces are used to supply Colman’s Mustard, a quintessentially English brand. She is one of thousands of farmers who say they bitterly regret their choice at the election — and now many are preparing to descend on Westminster Tuesday to protest budget measures which among other shakeups changed inheritance tax rules. Chancellor Rachel Reeves infuriated farmers when she used her first fiscal event last month to announce changes to reliefs for family-owned farms. From April 2026, farms worth more than £1 million will be liable for 20 percent inheritance tax — though ministers argue that, subject to individual circumstances, farms worth as much as £3 million will still be able to be passed on tax-free once remaining reliefs are taken into account. The changes, the government said, are necessary to plug the “£22 billion fiscal hole” they inherited from the previous Conservative government and close a loophole exploited by some of the wealthiest estates. But the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) said the changes would force many hard-working farming families like the Jacobs to break up their land. ‘SEVERELY LET DOWN’ “My dad will be turning in his grave because he was a firm Labour supporter,” Jacobs said, barely holding back tears. “He was all for the people — the hard-working people — and his dad before him. Now I feel severely let down because Labour is not working for the people that it needs to work for.” Jacobs and her late husband bought their own farm with a hefty mortgage in 2002. Following his death earlier this year, 50 percent of the farm will go to their four children, all of whom help out with the family business. Jacobs had hoped to one day pass on her half of the farm to her children, too — including her son Rob, currently an engineer who plans to return home to continue the family tradition. But with the prospect of an inheritance tax bill in the hundreds of thousands, the family is seriously concerned that this may no longer be a viable option. “Is it sensible for my son to give up his job, to come home to farm for very little remuneration, in an industry that’s not valued a bit by the government?” Jacobs said. A recent survey suggested that farmers’ confidence was at an all-time low, exasperated by challenging weather and cuts to government subsidies. | Oli Scarff/AFP via Getty Images Rob said the only way the farm would be able to keep going was if the family “cut costs somewhere else, which would probably mean stopping investing in improvements to machinery and buildings or modernization. You can get around it in the short term, but what long-term impact will this have? Are you going to end up falling behind?” ‘THE LAST GENERATION’ The prospect of her family leaving the profession makes Jacobs feel “desperately sad.” “I may well be the last generation [of farmers.] My children may not carry on in my footsteps much longer,” she said. For now, the government is standing firm. Now the prime minister, Starmer this weekend told the Welsh Labour conference he would “defend our decisions in the budget all day long,” after being greeted by a convoy of tractors and angry farmers. “I will defend facing up to the harsh light of fiscal reality,” he said. “I will defend the tough decisions that would be necessary to stabilize our economy and I will defend protecting the pay slips of working people, fixing the foundations of our economy and investing in the future of Britain and the future of Wales, finally turning the page on austerity once and for all.” But he will undoubtedly be coming under increasing pressure from MPs in his own party, which thanks to its landslide victory in July, is representing a number of rural seats for the first time in years. Just over a year ago, Jacobs was among the farmers who cheered at the NFU’s annual conference in Birmingham as Starmer promised that if he won the election, he would introduce a “new relationship with the countryside and farming communities” based on “respect and genuine partnership.” Looking back, Jacobs said she felt “betrayed.” “I don’t think the government appreciates the value of a farm and how it isn’t monetary,” she said. “The average profit of a farm for the past 20 years [has] ranged between minus two percent and two percent. Most businesses wouldn’t carry on. But it’s a way of life. We’re all passionate for very little return. Why persecute us hard-working people who pay our taxes and support the whole economy?” David Exwood, deputy president of the NFU, warned that the changes were the “final straw for so many farmers after some really difficult years.” A recent survey suggested that farmers’ confidence was at an all-time low, exasperated by challenging weather and cuts to government subsidies. “They’ve had enough,” he said. NFU president Tom Bradshaw is particularly concerned about the impact on the elderly generation of farmers, who have been left with little time to plan for the changes. “It’s simply wrong,” he said, pointing out that many older farmers rely on drawing value from their farms later in life in lieu of pension savings. “Any spare money has been reinvested in the farm to deliver for food production. Now that money is going to be spent [not only] on saving for a pension but also life insurance to protect the farm for the future,” he said. Many farmers are also concerned about the impact on their incomes of increases to employers’ national insurance contributions and the minimum wage. | Nathan Stirk/Getty Images FOOD SECURITY FEARS As well as the impact on individual families such as the Jacobs, the inheritance tax hike may also affect British consumers through higher food prices in the shops, critics say. And it’s not just the inheritance tax changes that worry farmers. Many are also concerned about the impact on their incomes of increases to employers’ national insurance contributions and the minimum wage. Tax measures that will see double cab pick-up trucks treated as company cars are also due to hit farmers, and there are fears that plans to introduce a carbon tax on imports from 2027 would drive up the cost of fertilizer. Jacobs currently employs 35 full and part-time staff on her farm, as well as her farm shop, excluding members of her own family. “We employ a lot of young people so the increase in living wage and national insurance are going to impact us enormously,” she said. “But we want to stay open as a business. We will just have to pass on the uplift to the consumer. So they are only going to have to pay more money for what we do — otherwise we’ll close, too.” DESCENDING ON WESTMINSTER Rob, the engineer, and his siblings will be among 1,800 NFU members expected to attend a mass lobby of MPs in Westminster Tuesday, with thousands more farmers expected to take part in a demonstration outside parliament attended by television presenter-turned-farmer Jeremy Clarkson. Olly Harrison, a farmer who helped organize the demonstration, said it would be led by children on toy tractors to highlight the generational impact of the inheritance tax changes. But he insisted that they won’t be going “full French,” a reference to recent in Europe protests against trade agreements seen as harming farmers, which saw roads blocked with tractors and manure sprayed at police. “It won’t be like that because we can’t do that and get public support until the public actually knows why we are angry,” he said. The Treasury has insisted that almost three-quarters of farmers would end up paying no more inheritance tax under the new system than they would have pre-budget. In a joint statement issued ahead of the demonstration, Reeves and Environment Secretary Steve Reed said the reforms would ensure that “wealthier estates and the most valuable farms pay their fair share to invest in our schools and health services that farmers and families in rural communities rely on.” They added: “We are steadfast in our commitment to Britain’s farming industry because food security is national security … But with public services crumbling and a £22 billion fiscal hole that this government inherited, we have taken difficult decisions.” Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Environment Secretary Steve Reed said the reforms would ensure that “wealthier estates and the most valuable farms pay their fair share to invest in our schools and health services that farmers and families in rural communities rely on.” | Pool photo by Isabel Infantes via AFP/Getty Images Tax Justice UK, which campaigns for a fairer tax system, has defended the government’s plans, saying of the current inheritance regime which sees family farms taxed at a lower rate: “many super rich families — with no real connection to farming — are increasingly buying farmland in order to exploit this loophole.” Critics have pointed to wealthy individuals including vacuum-cleaner magnate James Dyson, who is reported to own 36,000 acres of farmland. But this narrative is contested by the NFU, which says the environment department’s own figures show up to two-thirds of farms could be hit, (a claim the government in turn rejects.) “It [the tax change] brings most farms and food production in scope in a way that goes way beyond just targeting wealthy landowners,” said Exwood. “They have no idea what they’ve done and the damage this is going to cause. It’s anti-investment, anti-growth, and it’s going to undermine confidence in the industry.” Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch has voiced her support for those demonstrating today, branding the changes a “cruel tax hike.” “Under my leadership the Conservative Party will staunchly oppose the family farm tax, which threatens our vital rural economy and our food security, with increased costs and a greater reliance on imports,” she said in a statement ahead of the march. Bradshaw said he hoped ministers would U-turn on the changes after seeing the strength of opposition. He predicted farmers would turn out in their thousands. “I don’t want an abrasive relationship with the government,” he said. “This should be about delivering the food security that was in their manifesto. Instead, we’ve ended up having an argument about a relatively small amount of money within the budget on a policy they said they weren’t going to change.” He added: “Farming has nothing left to give. We’ve been bled dry, and we cannot absorb any of these cost increases.”

PARIS — French farmers are taking to the streets again. Two of the country’s main farming unions say they are planning a new wave of protests next month to voice their opposition to the trade deal being negotiated between the European Union and South American countries of the Mercosur bloc. The announcement comes as the two sides are aiming to finalize the pact by the end of the year, potentially on the sidelines of a G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro on Nov. 18 and 19. French farmers oppose the agreement as they fear they’d lose business if Europe opened its market to cheaper — and arguably lower-quality — beef and agriculture products. “We call on our network to restart protests from Nov. 15, 2024,” the presidents of FNSEA and Jeunes Agriculteurs, Arnaud Rousseau and Pierrick Horel, told French daily Ouest-France. Rousseau said at a news conference on Tuesday that the protests could also reach Brussels.   French and European farmers came out in force earlier this year to voice their displeasure with several issues, including the European Green Deal, prompting both Brussels and the French government to backtrack on green rules. France has long been the most prominent opponent of the Mercosur deal, but with Paris’ influence in Brussels not what it once was, the European Commission and supporters of the deal led by Germany see a unique opportunity to finally push over the finish line a trade agreement that has been in the making for a quarter of a century. Publicly, the French government still opposes the agreement. French Agriculture Minister Annie Genevard reiterated her country’s stance at a meeting with her European counterparts on Tuesday, while Trade Minister Sophie Primas told French daily l’Opinion that approving the deal without France’s backing would “open a breach in the French people’s confidence in Europe.”  However, French officials are privately coming to terms with the fact that Paris won’t be able to veto it. POLITICO reported earlier this month that the European Commission is working on a compensation fund to appease farmers and overcome French resistance to the deal. While a French diplomat who was granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter called the compensation fund an “interesting option,” Primas said France will not “accept money to destroy the agricultural sector.”  Rousseau told reporters on Tuesday that both progress on the deal and revelations about the compensation fund — which he previously likened to a “consolation prize” in an interview with POLITICO —“pushed us” to act. The agricultural sector at large believes the government is not delivering on all its promises from the previous round of demonstrations, nor is it doing enough to stop the trade deal with the Mercosur bloc, which includes Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia. “The situation is worse than one year ago … it is going off in all directions,” farmer Laurence Marandola, a spokesperson of left-wing farmers’ union Conféderation Paysanne, said. The Conféderation , which also opposes the trade deal, is not joining the Nov. 15 protests for now. But Marandola said that President Emmanuel Macron and the government were opposing the deal publicly “while letting negotiations proceed.” Judith Chetrit contributed to this report from Paris, and Paula Andrés from Luxembourg.

BRUSSELS — When Commission President Ursula von der Leyen presented the conclusions of her Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture last month, it looked like a PR coup. The seven-month forum on agri-food policy had calmed both riotous farmers and outraged NGOs, while yielding an apparently balanced report that she could loot for legislative ideas. Yet that success may be short-lived. Copa-Cogeca — Europe’s largest and most influential agricultural lobby — is hardening its position, POLITICO has learned. The group’s national members were outraged by some of the dialogue’s final recommendations, particularly the need to promote plant-based diets. After a raucous month in which members repeatedly blasted the Copa-Cogeca presidency — at a farm event in Hungary, in emails to its Brussels office and at the Copa presidium on Sept. 26 — the umbrella group wants to beef up its bargaining power at the European Board on Agri-Food (EBAF), the proposed successor to the Strategic Dialogue. “In the Strategic Dialogue, just five out of 29 participants were farmers,” Copa-Cogeca wrote in a Sept. 20 letter to the Commission, obtained by POLITICO. “At least half of the Board should be composed of participants representing the farming world, and Copa and Cogeca … should be granted a stronger presence in comparison to other actors.” The group also called for the inclusion of bodies representing “livestock and crops sectorial organisations, inputs [and] agriculture machinery,” as well as a shift from the fast-paced, confidential and person-to-person talks towards a slower, more transparent, and organization-based format.  “What we really need to focus on is making it work for farmers because that, from my point of view, was the initial objective of the dialogue: it was a reaction to farmers’ protest,” said Jan Doležal, the president of the Czech AKČR agrarian chamber. Looking forward, “we’ll work to improve our negotiation position,” he told POLITICO. That’s going to be a problem as von der Leyen seeks to convert the conclusions of the dialogue into a “Vision” for the future of EU agriculture — one of several action plans she has promised to deliver within 100 days of her new Commission being sworn in. The 29-stakeholder dialogue sought to overcome the extreme polarization of von der Leyen’s first term, encouraging compromise and trust between a motley crew of agricultural associations, food manufacturers and retailers, environmentalists, academics, and financiers. Participants mostly came alone, ate together, and shared stories about themselves and their families. Stacking the EBAF with farmers will likely be seen as a unilateral power grab, breaking the tentative cease-fire and tipping Europe’s agri-food sector into turbulence once more. Likewise, converting the nimble talks into rigid meetings, where envoys run every suggestion through their bulky membership lists, will kill the goose that laid the golden egg.  Factor in grumpy European lawmakers and capitals, both upset at being excluded from the process, and the results of von der Leyen’s unorthodox farm talks could end up having a short shelf life. MEXICAN STANDOFF IN BRUSSELS Since its announcement in January, the Strategic Dialogue had ticked along nicely. With its members sworn to secrecy, it was hard to gauge how things were going, but everyone seemed reasonably satisfied. There were no major leaks and participants praised the constructive atmosphere and optimistic outlooks.   By late August, negotiations had entered the final phase and people started to sweat. The dialogue’s conclusions were meant to be unanimous and Peter Strohschneider, the German historian who moderated the debate, began to apply pressure to reluctant delegates. He told one group of holdouts that he would keep on chairing meetings for as long as it took, recalled one participant. When Commission President Ursula von der Leyen presented the conclusions of her Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture last month, it looked like a PR coup. | Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images When the 100-page report was published on Sept. 4, everyone scrambled to claim victory. NGOs trumpeted how it supported the EU’s recently-adopted nature restoration law. Consumer groups celebrated its food labeling and fair pricing sections. Young, organic and smallholder farmers highlighted the bits on reforming the EU farm budget, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Copa-Cogeca, the traditional behemoth of Brussels agri-food, struggled to sell it across the bloc though. “Really dangerous” is how Coldiretti, Italy’s largest farmer union, judged the recommendation for the CAP to prioritize smaller farmers. “I don’t like that at all,” said the head of the Dutch LTO on the need to decarbonize diets. Overall, the text “falls well short of expectations,” sniffed the president of the German Farmers’ Association (DBV). France’s FNSEA remained silent. Neither the organization nor its outspoken president, Arnaud Rousseau, posted a word about the report on its website or X account. That was despite the fact its former president is Christiane Lambert, one of the three Copa-Cogeca leaders who signed the conclusions and who uploaded a mass of posts about it on social media.  That week, most Copa member representatives were in Budapest for a farm conference. “This was our first chance to discuss it together,” said one participant, granted anonymity to speak freely. “There was unhappiness at part of it, particularly in relation to diets and consideration of alternative diets and plant proteins … anything essentially that would go against our position on livestock.” Two days after the report’s publication, four Copa members from the Visegrad countries — Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary — shot a highly critical letter at the secretariat. It demanded Copa-Cogeca retrospectively reject the report’s conclusions and withdraw from the Strategic Dialogue entirely.  “After 20 years of membership of the European Union and of the Copa-Cogeca family, we thought that our differences would be understood and safeguarded,” the four wrote in the letter obtained by POLITICO. “We expected the Copa-Cogeca Secretariat and Presidents to take a more cautious position and to insist on discussing the very sensitive and often controversial conclusions” with members, they complained: “The process was very non-transparent, especially in the last three days of the negotiations, when we had zero opportunity to intervene.” The group’s leadership tried to smooth things over. At the Copa presidium on Sept. 26, they assured unions the document was just a starting point. Some were assuaged. “I think people have accepted it with caveats, people are willing to move on,” said the participant present in Budapest.    Others were not. POLITICO spoke to one attendee who argued the lobby showed a lack of courage during the dialogue and its endorsement is not easily reversible. Von der Leyen wants the report to guide future legislation and has explicitly tasked her designated agriculture commissioner, Christophe Hansen, with following up on its proposals. WHAT HAPPENS NOW There’s disagreement over whether Copa-Cogeca could still withdraw from future talks. In a statement to POLITICO, the secretariat said that “the Strategic Dialogue is a report, not a legally binding agreement, so the question of a general withdrawal doesn’t apply.”  Both Doležal, the Czech farm boss, and the representative present in Budapest agreed with that idea, though for different reasons. Doležal, one of the four signatories of the Visegrad letter, told POLITICO that “I don’t think this will be on the table actually,” since Copa-Cogeca’s subsequent letter to the Commission has appeased him. The representative from Budapest was more pragmatic. “We’ve got a new secretary-general, Ellie Tsiforou: I don’t think it will be in her interests after her first couple of weeks … to announce that the farmers are” out, and risk immediately alienating von der Leyen, they reflected.  The dialogue’s conclusions were meant to be unanimous and Peter Strohschneider began to apply pressure to reluctant delegates. | Nicolas Tucat Not everyone got the memo though.  Any breach of the principle of consensus — such as signing a trade deal with South America or proposing a new pesticide reduction law — would mean trouble, warned José María Castilla, the head of Spain’s largest farmer union Asaja. “If [the EU] doesn’t comply with the agreement, we will be back on the streets,” he told POLITICO.