THE EUROPEAN Commission recently held a conference on the future shape of the CAP. Before the Brexit decision this would have been a 'must attend' event for UK farm lobby organisations. Instead it was another reminder of the fact that we are now on a different track to the future than farmers elsewhere in Europe.

That said, what was interesting was the title of the conference. This was 'Have your Say' about the future shape of agricultural policy and support. It did not just attract farmers, but was a good forum to bring all sides in the debate together, and for the Commission to give pointers about how it sees the future. It has to live with the reality of a reduced budget and with competing pressures from farmers and the environmental lobby about what the CAP should deliver.

But the fact that an event like this took place should leave us envious.

Over a year on from the Brexit vote, we are still in the dark about the future of UK farm support. The sense remains that Westminster has no real ideas about the direction in which to take the industry.

This is a far cry from how easy the Leave advocates suggested it would be, when they said we would walk away from the red tape of the CAP to a policy tailored to UK farming. That now seems as distant a prospect as the promise of an extra £350 million a week for the Health Service.

There are plenty of ideas in the farming and environmental lobby about what would deliver a better future. The government at Westminster should emulate the European Commission by accepting that the debate cannot be a closed shop based around politicians and civil servants in London thinking they know what is best for agriculture and the countryside.

The Commission put up some arguments for technology. It suggested there was a growing gap between farmers who make good use of technology and those who do not. Some will see that as ironic, given the Commission's track record over science-based issues like GM crops, glyphosate and now endocrine disrupters. Its lack of commitment to technology also reflects the fact that the CAP helps maintain uneconomic farms by not forcing them to merge or embrace fresh thinking to become more efficient and profitable.

The Commission also claimed that the tension between agricultural productivity and environmental concerns was a thing of the past. If it really believes that is true, when it comes to the CAP and to the relationship between farmers and green groups, it is deluding itself about the real situation.

Away from those comments by the Commission, there good points raised at the event. One in particular should be noted and banked by farmers when it comes to making the case for support in the UK. In his presentation, the agricultural economics professor from Trinity College in Dublin, Alan Matthews, highlighted a positive link between CAP payments and economic growth.

This, he said,was even more apparent in areas of economic disadvantage where there were limited alternative opportunities. This is an argument farmers need to make to policy makers – that funds for farm support are an investment in the wider economy and not just a subsidy. This underlines the UK farm lobby case that each pound invested in agriculture delivers a significant return for the economy.

Interestingly, given the new significance of trade, Prof Matthews said the CAP must be changed to ensure its policies underpin exports, which he said have real potential to deliver for rural areas.

From the World Bank came a warning that agriculture globally is still far from sustainable. Ironically, for a bank, its definition of sustainability was more about the environment and climate change than economics. It sees carbon reduction in return for support as a priority. It believes the EU should unilaterally use its €50 billion CAP budget to drive reduced carbon output, particularly from livestock.

That is worthy, but still impossible to measure realistically. It is also unlikely to be economic when the US and others have little interest in such policies. For farmers here, the Matthews view is more compelling. Getting that accepted would mean at least getting Westminster to back a 'have your say' type event. Then the industry could finally move into a real debate on how farming can deliver as an investment, and not a subsidy, from taxpayers after Brexit.

Ends