IN THE run up to the discussion by member states on the future for glyphosate (Roundup) we again saw some members of the European Parliament grandstanding.

The European Commission wants to move towards decisions based on science. But a majority on the parliament's environment committee still think they know better than all the experts who have given advice on this product.

We also saw the EU's food safety commissioner, Vytenis Andriukaitis, who is a heart surgeon by background, having to be seen to listen to the views of pressure groups behind a Citizens' Charter calling for a ban on glyphosate. This group also wants this to be a stepping stone to a ban on all pesticides.

Over the years there have been many products where politics and science have been unhappy bedfellows in Brussels. This began back in the 1980s with hormone growth promoters in beef, has continued through genetically modified crops and now to glyphosate.

At issue is a view held by a number of MEPs that the Commission should ignore science and adopt the precautionary principle. This would stop all progress, since everything we do in life is a balance between risk and gain. Farmers and the companies making agrochemicals are not natural allies of those with negative views of technology.

This already saw the proposed extension to the glyphosate licence reduced from 15 to ten years, and in a further compromise it could be reduced again. There is no reason for this. It is gesture politics to let some claim that their anti-science efforts that ignore economic realities were worthwhile.

This has little to do with the safety and quality of food. It is about groups in the European Parliament pursuing their own agenda, and using products like glyphosate to do so. The problem of the European Parliament from its outset is that it has always enjoyed power without real responsibility or budget realities. This has allowed it to behave more like a debating chamber than a serious parliament.

It secured increased power over the years to influence and block decisions, and in time that could include Brexit. As an institution it is one the UK will leave after Brexit with few tears shed. Some MEPs – perhaps the majority from the UK – have used the parliament well and effectively. But all too often their efforts have been frustrated by the political group structure that creates a 'group think' mentality.

In the debate about Brexit, few politicians keen on leaving the EU have yet said they will be glad to see the UK beyond the control of the European Parliament. What would be even better would be a statement now that future decisions will be guided by science and that the precautionary principle, so loved by many MEPs, will be consigned to history.

This is not about taking risks with consumers' safety – it is about basing decisions on the best advice available from independent scientists. Over glyphosate this week we saw claims that one of the scientists questioning its safety was well rewarded by lawyers acting for those seeking compensation over its use. We need genuinely independent science as a basis for decisions.

Outside the politically charged structures of the EU, the UK will have the chance to create its own approach. If it fails to do so, and instead buys in without any influence to the EU decision making process, people will rightly again ask what then was the point of Brexit?

On a less contentious note, the European Commission has quietly confirmed the end of an era. From early next year legislation that was the basis for export refunds will quietly lapse, allowing the EU to tell the World Trade Organisation it is moving more quickly than some others to end trade distorting subsidies.

Export refunds have all but disappeared and were even resisted during the 2015/2016 dairy crisis. They had their roots in the milk lakes and beef mountains of the 1980s, when refunds were used to dispose of vast tonnages for which there was never any hope of a market in Europe. This led to quotas, the MacSharry reforms and later single farm payments.

But soon refunds will be just another part of the history of the CAP. Aid for surpluses will be limited to intervention for set tonnages and subsidies for short term private storage. The market will again be king, and in it, the UK after Brexit will find the EU-27 a tough and aggressive competitor.