Bt Richard Wright

WHETHER you were the most enthusiastic Remain or Leave voter, you now share a common uncertainty about the future.

This applies to all parts of social and economic life, but it is particularly so in farming. It was good this week to see the UK farm unions confirming they will work together in the long negotiations to create a successor for the CAP and maintain access to EU markets.

Their approach is built around confidence in the short term – maintaining CAP commitments through to 2020 – and certainty for the long term, so that farmers can continue investing in their businesses.

These will be difficult negotiations, but in terms of the person calling the shots at Westminster, I was disappointed by the article the Defra minister, Andrea Leadsom, penned for The Scottish Farmer last week. This was a classic example of a document crafted to say all the right things, while actually saying nothing.

There was plenty of fluff, but no real fire; more importantly there was no commitment to recognise that in the UK, and every other major economy, farming cannot exist without support – unless borders are closed to imports and consumers forced to pay a lot more for their food.

There is also an obvious concern that pro-Brexit trade and agriculture minsters in the UK are so desperate to conclude trade deals that they will use access to the UK food market as a bargaining chip.

That this could happen was shown when the government sought to spin access to the United States market for UK lamb as a post-Brexit trade victory.

In reality, this was negotiated over some years by EU and US officials, and applies to other countries as well as the UK. It is understandable the government wants to show it can secure trade deals.

But farmers need to be aware of the risk that, if these are with South America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand or even the US, it would be tempting for officials to concede access to the food market. They would see this as a win-win to secure a deal and at the same time drive down food prices.

This is something the EU resisted and still does, but the stance of the UK is an unknown.

There have been attempts by some to sound the death knell of agriculture by claiming that UK farmers will face huge tariffs to access the EU-27 market when we are no longer a member. This is based on the tariffs imposed on other countries within the European Economic Area. However, there is a big difference between, for example, Norway and Switzerland, exporting food to the EU, and the UK situation. Neither of those countries are major food exporters, so the tariffs were irrelevant.

By contrast the UK is a big food trader, and that includes importing 40% of the needs of its 60m population. The Irish will still want to supply meat and dairy products, the Danish, Polish and Dutch bacon, the French dairy products and wine – this applies to just about every major agricultural economy in the EU-27.

They cannot afford to lose these markets by refusing the UK access to the post-EU single market or imposing big tariff barriers. The UK would simply respond with similar barriers and look elsewhere in the world for food supplies.

That is an agenda that would in fact suit Brexit advocates well, as it would accelerate the conclusion of trade deals.

This underlines that the UK is not just another small country on the edge of Europe, such as Norway, that wants to have friendly dealings with the EU. The UK and European economies are interlinked, always have been and will remain so after the UK exits the EU.

People might see the appointment of the federalist former French minister, Michel Barnier, as the commissioner responsible for Brexit negotiations as a blow to our access to the single market. However, at the end of the day, cool heads will win out in the negotiation.

Talk of ridiculous tariff barriers being imposed on the UK food exports is simply wrong. When it comes to tariffs neither side is in a position to attack the other.