Agreement and arrangements are words used in all possible cases in recent days. The problem, however, is that the only thing that can be said about the meeting between the government and farmers in Jasionka is the fact that the signed document has nothing to do with either the agreement or the arrangements. Everything is questionable – from the way the talks were convened, through their participants, to the content of the signed document.
- During the annual European Agricultural Forum in Jasionka, agreements were signed between the government and protesting farmers.
- Both the shape of the “agreement” itself and the manner of its conclusion arouse many emotions.
- Farmers are embittered and disappointed with the way they were treated.
- In the text, we present what the negotiations looked like and why they caused so much emotion.
First, Artur Balazs, chairman of the EFRWP Foundation Chapter and former Minister of Agriculture, announced the great success. All mainstream media followed suit. It seems that only farmers did not notice what a great thing had happened and what a great “success” they had achieved. Looking from the side, it is impossible not to get the impression that a classic political game took place. A game that is not about the good of agriculture.
Lots of doubts? We’ll take a closer look at them, but to do that we have to go back a few weeks.
So let’s start with the first meeting with the Prime Minister, which took place on February 29. It seemed then that this was the beginning of great changes. Long talks and the attitude of the Prime Minister allowed the proverbial light to appear at the end of the tunnel. Especially since there was a declaration of another meeting at which specific details were to be presented. The date was supposed to appear within 24 hours. She did, because farmers ultimately learned about the meeting from the Prime Minister’s press conference, organized a few days later. The talks are scheduled for March 9.
Sin one: ignorance
It didn’t have much to do with being taken seriously, but that’s okay. The problem is huge, there are no solutions, and if the Prime Minister invites you to talks, you should take up the gauntlet and put honor aside.
It was supposed to be specific. After several more hours of talks, there was less enthusiasm. The date of the next meeting has been tentatively set – this time in working groups. However, before the interview room doors closed properly, the date was canceled. Information about the new one was supposed to arrive within… 24 hours. And here once again the government thumbed its nose at the farmers. Because he didn’t specify the date at all. On Friday, March 15, information appeared that Czesław Siekierski was convening a meeting with farmers during the European Agricultural Forum in Jasionka. However, he forgot to invite the leaders of agricultural protests, who had so far participated in all talks with the Prime Minister. Well, that’s hard. Farmers gathered and went to the forum without invitation. There, during the debate, they learned that an agreement would be signed between the government and the protesters.
Sin two: negligence
At this point, a right question is asked: with which protesters, if they were not invited to talks? Well, I hasten to answer. A group of farmers sat down at the table, but they received invitations because there were several such people. Trade unionists also sat down at the table. How were the farmers selected? Nobody really knows this.
Farmers’ representatives included: Andrzej Sobociński, a farmer from Żuławy; Władysław Serafin, president of the National Association of Agricultural Circles and Organizations; Tomasz Obszański, president of NSZZ Rolników Indywidualnych Solidarność, Adam Koncik, farmer protesting at the border in Świecko; Filip Pawlik from Agrounia; Roman Kondrów, leader of the protest in Medyka, and Wiesław Gryn, a farmer from the Lublin region.
Some people on this list are an obvious choice, such as Wiesław Gryn, who has been fighting for agriculture for years, or Roman Kondrów, the organizer of the protest in Medyka. However, there are also choices that are, to put it mildly, controversial.
While it is understandable that representatives of agricultural unions, which, although they have not had a good run lately, are associated with agriculture, are at the negotiating table, the presence of an Agrounia activist, who also acts as an assistant to deputy minister Kołodziejczak, caused huge outrage.
But it could have been otherwise. It was enough to select one person from each voivodeship. One leader who would sit at the table as a representative of a given region. That would be fair. In the end, however, it looked like a regular game – putting people at the table who were somehow comfortable, just to gain a majority over the farmers. However, the agreement, or as it was finally said, the arrangement, was signed by more people than sat at the negotiating table.
Sin three: arrogance
To say that the debate itself was lackluster would be an understatement. Five-minute statements by representatives of the social side. No specific answers from the Minister of Agriculture and the presenter, who was probably the only one who felt like a fish out of water. Without much inhibition, he commented on the questions asked from the floor, interjected words with the minister and uncompromisingly informed the audience that if an agreement was not concluded now, there would be no chance for such an agreement again. Why this sudden rush?
It was clear that an agreement had to be signed. Sooner or later. This is what both farmers and the ministry strived for. But why in this form? Why so suddenly? And why did farmers actually have no say in its content? Why did it become clear at the beginning of the meeting that there was no question of jointly creating a document, but that we were simply discussing subsequent points imposed by the moderator?
And finally, why, or rather by what right, was the role of farmers fighting for change diminished? What else can you call throwing the slogan to asking farmers: you already did it, nothing came of it, let the people who can do it take care of it?
Arrogance and arrogance. Even though the words are much harsher.
Let’s add to this the blackmailing of farmers participating in the meeting. If you do not sign the agreement now, you will not participate in any further talks.
Combining all these points, we get a beautiful picture. A picture of misery and despair. A picture of the political game and the objective treatment of thousands of farmers, whose representatives, despite fighting for farmers’ rights for many weeks, were excluded from the talks at someone’s whim. Why were the same people who sat at the Prime Minister’s office inappropriate for the debate? It was clear that not everyone would be able to sit at the table. After the second meeting with the Prime Minister, farmers unanimously selected a list of 10 representatives who will represent them in contacts with the highest state bodies. Why was this list ignored? Why did people who had not participated in the talks before come across it?
Sin four: lying
The agreement was signed by all participants of the meeting – announced Artur Balazs triumphantly. – Physically, it does not contain the signatures of Mr. Sobociński and Mr. Gryn, but they have already gone to put out the protests at the borders – he added.
And here comes another sin. Because Wiesław Gryn had no intention of signing the presented document. He took him to the Lublin region to ask the farmers’ opinion. On Wednesday, March 20, a meeting with farmers was organized in Zosin. Gryn also went to the blocked borders to talk to people about the shape of the document. There was no enthusiasm. To put it mildly. Just like a signature on a document.
Sin five: appearances
The key word is the apparent nature of the provisions in the document. Because apparently the subsidy rates per tonne of grain sold have been increased. They fell, but were not recorded in the document.
The second element indicating the high semblance of the document is the provision regarding the minister’s submission of an application to the Council of Ministers to suspend transit from Ukraine through the territory of Poland on April 1, 2024, until the date of entry into force of the EU ATM regulation (June 5, 2024). Both the embargo and and the suspension of transit will also cover sugar.
Sounds good? Not exactly. Because it’s still nothing concrete. The Ministry will, of course, fulfill its role – it will submit the application, but this does not mean that the transit will take place. So there’s still no specifics.
Sin six: denial
All participants of the meeting, as one, disavow the fact that an agreement was signed. And the further into the forest and the more negative voices they hear, the more they deny that these are just arrangements.
One thing is certain – the voice of farmers irritated by the situation is heard very clearly. But does anyone actually care about him?
There are grassroots leaders of some protest site, but with all due respect to them – on whose behalf will such a leader sign an agreement? He is not really a representative – said Tomasz Obszański, chairman of NSZZ Rolników Indywidualnych Solidarność, in one of the interviews.
It’s hard to find respect in these words.
Just like it’s hard to find meaning in signing a document that brings nothing. Exactly the same paper could have successfully been signed much earlier. Even after the first talks with the Prime Minister. In exactly the same way, it would not bring anything new.
The explanation that the document is needed for negotiations with Ukraine – because that was also the case – is not even stupid. What is absurd is that this is a document written on the knee and causing even greater tensions than before. And I will emphasize once again, it contributes nothing. Because looking soberly, which of the provisions would be important in the upcoming talks?
Sin seven: protectionism
The seventh sin. The heaviest. Protectionism. Or, if you prefer, nepotism, cronyism, supporterism. There are many synonyms. As much as the phenomenon itself is disgusting.
In this case, it involved a carefully selected list of people who would sign the document. On a list selected to ensure success.
Because the document was signed not only by farmers and trade unionists taking part in the debate (and not all of them, but it seems that the ministry was perfectly prepared for this). Gabriel Janowski (former Minister of Agriculture, recently closely associated with NSZZ RI Solidarność), Rafał Nieżurbida (Agrounia activist), Błażej Bieniasz (also from Agrounia) and Maciej Iżowski (organizer of the protest in Barwinek) also signed.
It is therefore clear that those who were allowed to participate in the talks were those who guaranteed the success of the mission and the creation of a possible majority if, however, the few farmers’ representatives did not sign the document.
Where were the representatives of other protesting organizations and provinces? Where were the representatives of the West Pomeranian Voivodeship that had been protesting the longest, the organizers of the nationwide strike from Elbląg, or the leaders from Greater Poland? Why did people who had a real impact on the recent events in the country put a lot of hard work into organizing the protests and why were talks with the ministry postponed at a crucial moment? Why were as many as three activists of Agrounia, which is currently no longer a significant force, allowed to replace them?
Is the government trying to break the farmers’ unity? If so, you will be surprised, because both the farmers’ anger and determination are only growing.
