IF THE polls are right - and that is a big 'if' after the fiasco of the General Election predictions - and speculation is correct about the timing of the EU referendum, UK agriculture could be contemplating a future outside the EU sooner than people thought likely.

It is now increasingly clear that people's reasons for voting yes or no are more about issues other than a strong business case one way or the other.

Perhaps as the referendum moves closer, logic will enter the debate. But for now it is being driven by emotion, with issues like migration dominant. It is also about high stake politics, and whether David Cameron secured as much as he could have in his negotiations with other EU heads of state.

My hunch is that when the referendum comes, the status quo will just about win the day. That is not much more than a guess, but it is a view that reflects the uncertain world in which we now live which sees people preferring certainty over a step into the unknown.

The focus on politics means neither side is addressing the economic issues. This seems arrogant, and I have yet to hear a 'no' advocate putting forward a reasoned case as to why farmers would be better off outside the EU. Their argument is that since the UK is a net contributor to Brussels, it gets less from the CAP than it contributes. On that basis they suggest farmers could get more from the UK government outside the EU, and without the red tape of the CAP. That would be a sound argument if either of the major political parties confirmed that would be the case.

In reality, funds going to agriculture would be, at best, the same - but because they would be driven by London parties with a firm urban bias they would be driven by the environment more than farming. As to red tape, since the UK has a reputation for gold plating what comes from Brussels, it is hard to believe that a new stand alone UK agriculture policy would mean less red tape.

If the 'no' camp have done little to convince farmers to back their cause, the 'yes' camp have been equally reticent about making their case. There is a sense that they are taking farmers for granted, because of the CAP.

However they need to be making the case that the EU links farmers in the UK to the power of the European farm lobby, which would be lost with a no vote. This is an argument they could press, since farmers here have been helped for years by the strength of pro-CAP countries like France and Ireland shaping the CAP.

There is also a strong case about access to European markets, and of the need for market strength in a volatile and uncertain global market. This would help bolster the case for a yes vote, but those arguments are absent on the political stump.

As the referendum date approaches, the politics may become more focussed on practical issues. As things stand when people put their cross on the ballot, one way or the other, it will be about a gut feel for what they think is right, rather than a reasoned business argument.

This week, the well-respected agricultural economist, Allan Buckwell, produced a report on the future for UK agriculture in and out of the EU. This was drawn up for the Worshipful Company of Farmers in London. His view is that outside the EU farmers would not receive more in support, and he believes it could possibly be less.

He believes there would be some phasing out of existing supports, and that with the Treasury driving the debate, there would be pressure for degressive payments, built around reducing support for larger farmers. He also believes that even with some form of free trade arrangement, the 'penalty' for UK agricultural exports to the EU would be 2% to 5%.

While these might look like strong pro-EU sentiments, Buckwell concludes that whether the UK is in or out, the CAP as it stands is not sustainable. He also claims that an exit by the UK could be a 'cold bath' of reality that would bring a new focus to British agriculture - but then that is exactly the sort of thing people do not want in uncertain times, and it is a prospect that makes them less likely to take a risk with the status quo.