UK likely to side with the green lobby

This was made supremely clear at this week’s farm council, when the farm commissioner, Phil Hogan, was asked about the UK’s involvement in the discussions on CAP reform. He said that while it would be up to member states to decide, he believed it would be ‘inappropriate’ for the UK to take part in discussions if they are on post-Brexit issues.

This makes sense, since CAP reform will be after 2020, by when the UK will be long gone from the EU. To be fair to the government at Westminster, it seems to be imposing a voluntary purdah on itself, by timing its engagement in EU discussions that go beyond when Brexit will have happened.

At the farm council, the UK, however, raised the fair point that if the post-2020 CAP is to be based around simplification, why is it not be possible to bring some of that thinking to the existing rules.

That suggestion’s validity was underlined by discussions on greening, where the tweaks to the policy have the potential to make it more, rather than less bureaucratic.

The only plus in the commission plans is that it did not raise from 5% to 7% the area that must go into ecological focus areas. However, that may have only been there in the first place to be dropped, so that no concessions would have to be given.

The lack of progress on simplifying greening, a wide public consultation on what the CAP should deliver and a suggestions from Phil Hogan that it must deliver more for the environment after 2020 does not fit well with a commitment to simplifying the policy.

On that basis, UK farmers might feel relieved that they are escaping the CAP. The problem in Brussels is that, while the failings of the CAP are recognised, there is still a desire to hold on to the idea of a common policy.

This is partly driven by the many countries that are nett beneficiaries, but also by the federalist EU agenda to protect one of the few common EU policies, other than the euro.

Departure would feel a lot more comfortable if there were signs of the UK coming up with a new policy that farmers could genuinely believe is better. The opportunity is there to do this.

We could break away from the CAP and its anti-science stance, its excessive regulation and the constant desire to justify the policy by making it greener and less practical. The problem is that those same sentiments could drive policy at Westminster, with the added dimension of a Treasury that will not want to see funding saved from EU contributions going to farmers.

In the UK, voting power and, therefore, political power, does not lie with farmers. That means politicians at Westminster will be over-influenced by the green lobby, in its broadest sense, when it comes to setting policy for the countryside.

This creates a danger that farmers could escape the frying pan of the CAP, only to jump into a fire of UK regulations driven by the same thinking – but with less money available.

Last weekend saw a summit between the leaders of the UK farm unions, meeting in Northern Ireland. In a joint statement, they pressed for the government in London to seize the opportunity of a new agriculture policy to liberate farmers from regulation.

The potential for this to happen lies in the Great Reform Bill, which will bring EU legislation into UK law. Over time it can then be changed.

However, so far as agriculture is concerned, the fact that we will be leaving the CAP has to raise questions about the need to bring across all those regulations.

The ministers at Defra have rightly been accused of having few ideas about where they will take agriculture. They are certainly a lot less far down that road than the European Commission, given that both must have a new policy in place by 2020.

However, Defra and its pro-Brexit ministers could put clear blue water between London and Brussels, by saying that the CAP and associated regulations will not be part of the Reform Bill, and committing themselves to a light touch regulatory approach for the future.

That would be a great outcome for agriculture, but sadly it is an unlikely prospect from a government department with a track record for gold-plating, rather than minimising EU regulations.