EU Referendum


Brexit: where sheep can't safely graze


19/05/2021




It is almost a given that when the Tories are in power and the official (i.e., Labour) opposition is in disarray, rebel Tory MPs tend to fill the vacuum. They then serve as an unofficial opposition.

That was very much the case in the early 90s, when Labour was going through the familiar pattern of internal strife and the Tories under Major were tearing themselves apart over Maastricht.

Now, it seems, we are seeing something of the same dynamic as multiple legacy media sources report "ferocious" splits in the cabinet, spilling over into the rest of the party. And, with delicious irony, the proximate cause of this round of Tory infighting is post-Brexit trade policy.

Flying the flag for "fwee twade" is the egregious Liz Truss – with the support of the recently ennobled David Frost and business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng. Collectively, they are pushing for a tariff-free trade deal with Australia which will open up the UK market to cheap antipodean steaks and burgers, and cut-price lamb.

Concluding a deal with Australia - the first of a new batch that go beyond "rollovers" of legacy EU deals – is seen as a "symbolic moment" for Brexiters arguing for the benefits of free trade.

Opposing them in the "protectionist" corner is Defra secretary George Eustice. He is taking some serious grief from NFU president Minette Batters, who finally seems to have realised that cosying up to the Johnson administration is doing her members no favours.

Adopting a rare critical stance, Batters is condemning the Truss initiative. "I cannot state the damage that I feel it would do", she squeaks, describing beef, lamb – and sugar – as "sensitive areas of trade".

And while the flow of such goods from Australia might be relatively modest, and roughly in balance - in 2020, the UK imported £384 million-worth of Australian food and drink while exporting £425 million - outraged farmers declare that so-called "open access" to UK markets would set a dangerous precedent for future trade deals with other countries.

Weighing in to support Batters is Phil Stocker, chief executive of the National Sheep Association. Predictably, he opposes the very idea of additional lamb imports. These, he complains, could "lead to a price war and price reductions".

That, of course, is precisely the intention of the "fwee twaders", amongst them Daniel Hannan, the certified cretin who was appointed last September to the UK board of trade as an adviser, alongside the former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott. He argues vociferously for the deal.

In Hannan's book, NFU officials, the "Defra blob" and a handful of Tory backwoodsmen are trying to preserve the status quo, thus failing to embrace the free trade "opportunities" of Brexit, which included exports to Asia where meat prices (currently) are higher than in Europe. "If we can’t do a proper trade deal even with our kinsmen Down Under, we might as well throw in the towel", he bleats.

What the likes of Hannan fail to appreciate though is that Australia (and New Zealand for that matter, to say nothing of Brazil, which could also be in the queue for a deal) have farms the size of Wales, each run by one man and a dog, where the animals roam free with minimal human intervention.

These enterprises, therefore, enjoy productivity advantages and lower overheads of which British farmers could only dream, especially the smallholders which are particularly reliant on the livestock sector.

Furthermore, the Hannan's of this world also fail to understand that UK farmers – and especially livestock farmers – also contribute significantly to the rural landscape which, in itself underpins a substantial part of the tourist industry. In some regions, this "amenity value" is higher than the income derived from animal sales.

Thus, for the short-term advantage of cheaper meat products (the prices of which can vary on the global market), the UK could lose one of its most treasured assets – its rural landscape – as farmers are forced out of business by cheap imports and the derelict land reverts to scrub.

Interestingly, lined up with Eustice in the "backwoodsmen" corner is Michael Gove, who is warning of the political fallout from a no-tariff deal. He wants a 15-year phase-in of any deal, and even then argues for retaining some tariffs.

As a one-time Defra secretary, when in office Gove pledged that UK farmers would be protected by tariffs in the event of a no-deal Brexit, demonstrating a sensitivity to impact free trade might have on UK farmers.

His intervention, though, has brought supporters of the Truss faction out of the woodwork, to accuse Gove and Eustice of being "more Waitrose than Red Wall", claiming that their stance will keep prices high for consumers. One anonymous detractor complains: "I really don’t know why George Eustice even voted for Brexit if he does not want to take advantage of actually leaving the EU".

Kwarteng, on the other hand, has no qualms about arguing the case out in the open. Looking to the wider opportunities, he told the BBC that: "If we can't do a trade deal with Australia, two countries with a shared culture, I think any other deals are looking very challenging".“ This is mirrored by Truss, who argues that, "if you can't get a good trade deal with Australia, who can you get one with?"

Such is their lack of any grasp of the impact of such deals on British farming, that Kwarteng thinks that "a good deal", could be bolstered by a transition of around a decade to give British farmers "plenty of time to adjust" – as if Welsh and Cumbrian farmers could produce anything other than sheep, or Scottish farmers could find an alternative to their world-famous beef.

Currently, the pressure is on for a conclusion as the Johnson administration announced in April that it is looking to "sprint" to finish line by June, to clear the way for the G7 summit in Cornwall, to which Australian prime minister Scott Morrison has been invited.

The final resolution will be down to Johnson and, as it stands, none of the warring parties have the first idea as to which way he will jump. With a reputation for disliking confrontation and making tough decision, he could go either way.

A complicating factor is the response of the devolved governments, where Scottish and Welsh (and even Northern Irish) famers are likely to bear the brunt of any deal – condemned to a slow death so that Truss can score a quick political point and a 0.01-0.02 percent of GDP over 15 years.

This is putting a serious political edge to the issue as SNP MP Jim Fairlie speaks of tariff-free access to farming produce representing a "complete betrayal" of the promises made about agriculture. It would, says Fairlie, "prove that Boris Johnson is willing to sacrifice the interests of Scotland's farmers and producers to satisfy his Brexiter cabinet".

The stakes, though, could not be higher. As the London-based Sun puts it, the claim that imports will harm our farmers is "rubbish".

Displaying the profound ignorance that only a London paper could manage, it sneers at British farmers, saying that: " Not only will they have a decade before it is fully implemented — but can they really not compete with Aussie rivals who operate to similarly exacting standards and have to ship their meat 10,000 miles?"

We must sign this deal, says the paper, and one with New Zealand too. Both will mean cheaper grub for millions. Leaving the EU was about taking back control of our laws, money and borders while opening Britain up to the world for trade. The "full fat" Brexit we did handed us total freedom to do so.

Thus it concludes: "What a catastrophic signal it will send if 'global Britain' rejects its first brand-new trade deal and pulls up the drawbridge". And, if that is the sort of rhetoric that appeals to Johnson, Minette Batters' troops may be needing to emulate their French counterparts.

How ironic would it be if another "benefit" of Brexit was farmers blockading Whitehall with their tractors and burning tyres in Parliament Square.

Also published on Turbulent Times.