IN A single day, most people’s view of Brexit can change dramatically.
This does not apply to those convinced one way or the other, but most of us swing between concern about what a future outside the EU will mean, to seeing events in Brussels that make leaving the EU look sensible.
That said, certainty that life outside the EU will be better remains elusive – and there is no guarantee the UK government will make legislation a last, rather than a first resort, to decide what industries do.
One event that may persuade people that agriculture will be better outside the EU is the decision by the European Commission to allow a European Citizens Initiative to go forward. ECIs were introduced under the Lisbon Treaty and are similar to a petition to parliament in London. On that basis it is perhaps churlish to criticise the European Commission for having a similar instrument. However this ECI goes to the heart of the anti-science stance in Europe – and the Commission’s inability to stand up to pressure groups that seek decisions regardless of the commercial consequences.
An ECI, once published, is in place for twelve months. If it secures a million signatures from at least seven EU member states, the Commission must consider the plan. The ECI agreed last week effectively calls for action to ban glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and the most widely used herbicide in farming. It also calls for separate curbs on other agrochemicals. If the signatures are secured, the Commission will have to formally justify its stance if it decides not to impose legislation.
This undermines two key principles that should be part of decision making, whether in the EU or the UK after Brexit. The first is that decisions should be driven by science, rather than emotion and pressure group views; the other is that sensible risk management should be central to all decisions. In a perfect world for those that secured this ECI there would be no chemicals, but along with those would go European agriculture, in favour of imports from countries still using these products. This is why EU action would be self-defeating.
Hopefully Brexit will take the UK away from pressure groups having more sway than scientists – although given the lack of interest in farming at Defra that is far from guaranteed. While it is a different product, with some science behind the ban on its use, it has emerged that not using neonicotinoid products has reduced European oilseed rape production by 912,000 tonnes and cost over €900 million. That would be modest compared to what a ban on glyphosate would cost.
On the scary side of the Brexit debate is the growing evidence that the UK will leave the Single Market. This is a double-edged sword, in that we can think of getting lamb or beef into France, or whisky into Germany – but equally the Irish want to get food into the UK, and Mercedes, BMW and Audi do not want to lose one of their best global markets.
Trade barriers are akin to the Cold War nuclear weapons stand-off, in that they are about mutually assured destructions if tariffs or unreasonable rules are used to restrict access to a market. However, many who voted Leave last June did so in expectation that we could be out of the EU, but in the Single Market.
If politics now dictate that we have to abandon the Single Market it should not be the end of the world, although it will make things more difficult. This is because products will not be sold in Europe of right, but because of a political deal. This will make them liable to action by protesting farmers, with France and lamb a potential example.
The UK, outside the EU, can retaliate but in reality is unlikely to do so. Time will decide the difference between being in Europe of right or by invitation, but the prospect of leaving the Single Market can only increase the uncertainty farming faces. The UK could find itself having to match standards set by 27 different member states to do business.
This means we now face a hard Brexit – but how hard it ultimately proves to be depends on whether politicians can retain good relations with EU members as friends and allies, rather than a relationship akin to the ex-spouse in a divorce where there was deep anger on both sides.