The Environment Secretary Gove has been talking to farmers in Oxfordshire (HERE) about the future of farming after Brexit. We are still at the generalised, warm words and consultation stage with agriculture and his speech hasn't really moved things much further forward but it has raised its profile. Farming is one of the areas where Brexiteers will need to tread a very fine line.
On the one hand, Brexit is portrayed as a great 'opportunity' which implies a lot of changes but when the consultation paper Health and Harmony: the future for food, farming and the environment in a Green Brexit (HERE), was sent out last February, the responses didn't really produce a strong consensus. The summary (HERE) said respondents "offered a broad range of views" which I take to mean everybody had different idea. Many of them had nothing to do with the EU's CAP. They called for "greater access to, and uptake of knowledge to be able to adapt to the challenges of the future" and "the current tenancy law was thought to limit opportunities in the tenant sector", whilst others "suggested that the availability of land could make it difficult for new, dynamic farmers to get into the industry. Many farmers felt that a combination of uncertainty about the future, low farm profits, and expensive equipment created barriers to investment in their businesses".
The potential gulf between Gove and some in the farming community can be seen when he said that from 2021, the UK would be able to "largely diverge from EU
regulation", enabling it to pursue its land management priorities and
invest in technology which the EU has "turned its back on". Meanwhile, The Nature Friendly Farming Network (NFFN) is calling on the government
to establish an independent regulator to set clear standards to
safeguard, maintain and enhance animal welfare, the farming landscape
and the industry (HERE).
It isn't clear to me if by 'diverge' Gove wants higher or
lower standards but since the CAP doesn't (as far as I know) prevent anyone applying higher standards I assume he wants to lower them, or at least some of them. On occasions he seems to be leaning towards higher
standards and at other times not. The NFU are more realistic, calling
for no divergence that would damage frictionless trade. This is another
one of the many circles that the Brexiteers will need to square.
If we produce tighter regulations on environmental or animal welfare standards our farmers will I assume find it harder to compete with imports produced to a lower standard, unless we apply tariffs. This would make trade deals, particularly with the USA, all but impossible. Exports to the EU would also be made more difficult because our costs would be higher.
On the other hand, if we go for lower standards, EU exports would become impossible and we might face a flood of cheaper American imports of cereals, chlorine washed chicken and hormone fed beef.
So, divergence either way will have an impact and not a good one. I am not even sure what the purpose of 'largely' diverging from EU rules is. Is it to give us cheaper food or better quality food? Or improve the environment or reduce subsidies?
If we were totally self sufficient in food we could do whatever we liked with our internal food standards. But accepting we only produce 61% of the food we eat, with almost 30% of imported food coming from the EU, I find it hard to see how 'largely diverging' is going to help anyone.
If we produce tighter regulations on environmental or animal welfare standards our farmers will I assume find it harder to compete with imports produced to a lower standard, unless we apply tariffs. This would make trade deals, particularly with the USA, all but impossible. Exports to the EU would also be made more difficult because our costs would be higher.
On the other hand, if we go for lower standards, EU exports would become impossible and we might face a flood of cheaper American imports of cereals, chlorine washed chicken and hormone fed beef.
So, divergence either way will have an impact and not a good one. I am not even sure what the purpose of 'largely' diverging from EU rules is. Is it to give us cheaper food or better quality food? Or improve the environment or reduce subsidies?
If we were totally self sufficient in food we could do whatever we liked with our internal food standards. But accepting we only produce 61% of the food we eat, with almost 30% of imported food coming from the EU, I find it hard to see how 'largely diverging' is going to help anyone.
In May last year the NFU together with leaders of over 100 organisations (HERE) in the UK food supply chain prepared a manifesto (HERE) which was sent to the PM and other cabinet ministers. On page 8 it says:
"We must ensure that in the future UK regulations do not diverge from those of our key trading partners in a way that makes frictionless trade impossible or reduces the competitiveness of the UK food supply sector. The UK should continue to actively engage with those international organisations that are responsible for setting international standards".
But Gove is quoted as saying he believes Mrs May's deal 'will allow UK exporters to maintain continuous tariff-free and quota-free access to EU markets'. This will happen during the transition period but afterwards, the EU are going to want to know what 'largely diverge' actually means before any trade deal is concluded.
The original consultation (HERE) said in chapter 14:
"The EU is our biggest trading partner for agricultural products, so our future relationship with the EU 27 is of vital importance. The government is committed to securing a deep and special partnership with the EU, including a bold and ambitious economic partnership. The UK wants to secure the freest trade possible in goods and services between the UK and the EU. Ensuring as frictionless trade as possible for our agricultural sectors is particularly important where much of the produce is perishable and time is critical".
It looks like more painful trade offs are coming, the more we diverge the less trade there will be and the more farming in this country will suffer.
Addressing the issue of leaving without a deal Gove warned (HERE) that "turbulence" will hit agriculture if the UK crashes out, with smaller operations the worst affected and tariffs a "grim and inescapable fact" - something that Sinn Fein MEP Martina Anderson (HERE) later described as the “understatement of the century”.
By way of reassurance to people worried about imports, he said, "We've taken steps to ensure a continuity approach. There shouldn't be a problem with food coming into the country."
The use of the word "shouldn't" will be noted.
On the same panel of speakers at Oxford was a Dr Clive Black, a senior figure at Shore Capital, a London investment company who apparently told the conference (HERE) that Westminster was becoming an "international embarrassment" and that billions of pounds were flowing out of the City of London because investors did not trust in the stability of the United Kingdom. He described Parliament as a "fish tank full of lunatics".
Meanwhile, probably before Gove had got back home, Owen Paterson a former Environment Secretary himself, had penned an article for The Telegraph disagreeing with him, saying, "Sorry Mr Gove, but Theresa May's Brexit deal traps Britain in the EU's failing museum of farming" (HERE). It may be a museum of farming but it supplies 30% of our food.
The original consultation (HERE) said in chapter 14:
"The EU is our biggest trading partner for agricultural products, so our future relationship with the EU 27 is of vital importance. The government is committed to securing a deep and special partnership with the EU, including a bold and ambitious economic partnership. The UK wants to secure the freest trade possible in goods and services between the UK and the EU. Ensuring as frictionless trade as possible for our agricultural sectors is particularly important where much of the produce is perishable and time is critical".
It looks like more painful trade offs are coming, the more we diverge the less trade there will be and the more farming in this country will suffer.
Addressing the issue of leaving without a deal Gove warned (HERE) that "turbulence" will hit agriculture if the UK crashes out, with smaller operations the worst affected and tariffs a "grim and inescapable fact" - something that Sinn Fein MEP Martina Anderson (HERE) later described as the “understatement of the century”.
By way of reassurance to people worried about imports, he said, "We've taken steps to ensure a continuity approach. There shouldn't be a problem with food coming into the country."
The use of the word "shouldn't" will be noted.
On the same panel of speakers at Oxford was a Dr Clive Black, a senior figure at Shore Capital, a London investment company who apparently told the conference (HERE) that Westminster was becoming an "international embarrassment" and that billions of pounds were flowing out of the City of London because investors did not trust in the stability of the United Kingdom. He described Parliament as a "fish tank full of lunatics".
Meanwhile, probably before Gove had got back home, Owen Paterson a former Environment Secretary himself, had penned an article for The Telegraph disagreeing with him, saying, "Sorry Mr Gove, but Theresa May's Brexit deal traps Britain in the EU's failing museum of farming" (HERE). It may be a museum of farming but it supplies 30% of our food.
