THE OXFORD Farming Conference has been and gone – and with it went the last hope farmers might have had that Brexit would happen in a way that would guarantee farm incomes. 
Instead, based on what two Defra ministers said, we are heading for a situation where the government will seek to deliver a post-Brexit farming policy on the cheap – and in a way that will go down well with the majority of taxpayers who are not farmers.
Promising to get rid of regulation is an easy way for any minister to get applause. Even the European Commission president, Jean Claude Juncker, who is not known for his political skills, was applauded at the Agriculture Outlook event, in Brussels when he promised a simpler, less bureaucratic CAP after 2020. 
Defra minister, Andrea Leadsom, also promised less red tape, but this was more spin than substance. What she effectively said was that, after Brexit, the rules of the CAP would no longer apply. 
As a statement of the b.....g obvious, this was a good example, along with a suggestion that farmers would no longer have to display a notice showing they received EU aid. Given that few will recall seeing such a sign, other than on big rural development projects, that’s not much of a reward for those farmers who backed Brexit.
When it came to greening, the minister promised an end to the deeply unpopular three-crop rule. However, what was actually promised was a consultation on this and other aspects of greening, which is a long way from the bonfire of EU regulations that was implied in Mrs Leadsom’s comments. 
What was clear in answers from Ms Leadsom and George Eustice, as the more farmer friendly face of Defra, was that the Treasury is going to call the shots. This is exactly what the farm commissioner, Phil Hogan, predicted when he said farmers could bet on the certainty of the CAP or gamble on the generosity of the UK Treasury. 
That was where reality came away from the spin about a bonfire of regulations.
The key question to Defra was about what pot of money would be available to fund a new post-Brexit UK agricultural policy? Before the referendum last June, those advocating ‘Leave’, including both George Eustice and Andrea Leadsom, suggested there would be a £2bn pot of money for UK farming, thanks to savings in the amount going to Brussels. 
That would have ensured farmers did not lose out compared their counterparts remaining in the EU, but there has been a change of emphasis. The approach now is to come up with an agricultural policy, and then seek funding from the Treasury. 
Compared to that £2bn promise last year, this really is trying to get Brexit on the cheap – inevitably, farmers will lose out because it is highly unlikely that payments will match current levels of direct payments.
As to the policy itself, the NFU in England still seems to be leading the other UK unions up a blind ally. It is drawing up plans for the agricultural policy it wants, but in reality what will be on offer is a large-scale countryside management type scheme. All payments will be based on environmental delivery. 
This can be sold to taxpayers, when in a post-Brexit economic climate there will be questions asked about why any level of funding is going to agriculture, rather than for example the NHS or education. That will be a big change of approach. 
The farming lobby needs to accept the direction of travel of government polic, and do the best deal it can to make these environmental payments work well and with little red tape.
The focus needs to be on future policy and not on an illusion of regulations being removed that would in any event lapse once the UK is no longer part of the CAP. Devolved administrations also need to push hard to get decision-making away from London. 
That would be best if it began with a budget and there must be a drive to convince Defra ministers that they are wrong in an approach that sets the policy and then seeks a budget.
The other way round, ideally based on that £2bn promise before the referendum last June, would be a better and fairer approach.