THE DECISION in Brussels to approve a five-year extension for glyphosate is evidence that common sense can prevail – but nonetheless this decision and the path to it does not cover the EU with any glory.

More of that later, but first some self-defence in response to a letter writer in The Scottish Farmer, who took me to task for suggesting the Conservative party has an urban focus. He suggested I took my lead from The Guardian – a paper I dislike for its self-righteousness and rarely read, but which I had quoted to make the case that, with his Green Brexit plans, the Defra Secretary Michael Gove was receiving plaudits from the left of centre press.

I accept that the Conservatives still have MPs from rural constituencies, but these are not the pro-farming champions of the past. That era ended when Jim Paice was dropped from the Defra team in a 2012 Cabinet reshuffle. The urban focus can be measured from the green Brexit plans and Gove suggesting that after Brexit he may give in to pressure groups by banning livestock exports.

Being an urban party makes voting sense, but on farming issues there is no difference between the present government and the Blair/Brown era – although a Corbyn government would be even less farmer friendly. This over-shadowed the point that the government is planning to pay Brussels £40 billion to buy access to a market we are already in and to allow others to access the UK market. That figure has risen, while according to the Daily Telegraph – not the Guardian – it is set to to get even bigger through ongoing contribution towards pensions and other spending.

Journalistic honour restored, hopefully, it is back to glyphosate and the decision to renew the licence for five years. This is being seen as a victory by the European Commission. In reality it is just a better outcome than the alternative of caving into pressure and denying European farmers a product used everywhere else.

There is no scientific reason for the period of the licence having been reduced from 15 to ten and then to five years. That was down to politics, and having given ground, the Commission has helped the battle continue. It has also created a bad precedent that will be used in attempts to restrict licenses for other products. The Commission's face was ultimately only saved over glyphosate because Germany switched from abstention to a positive vote. This gave the qualified majority needed.

In the event, 18 member states backed relicensing, nine voted against and one abstained. This was a far from ringing endorsement, and France voted against, having pushed for the political victory of limiting the licence to three years.

If we were staying in the EU this would be a major problem, and outside it could still be one. It confirmed science is still not the basis for decision making; it also confirmed that politics, pressure groups and the precautionary principle to ban on rumour rather than science remains alive and thriving in the EU.

No matter what decisions are taken on the future of the CAP, this will remain a millstone around the neck of progressive farmers in all member states of the EU-27. Those opposed to glyphosate now have their sights set on other widely used pesticides, so the battle to protect products is only paused. It is also worth remembering how short a five year renewal is, and it will not be long before the campaign to prevent re-licensing in 2023 begins.

The bigger question for us is what will happen after Brexit. For the years we have been members of the EU, we have made decisions on plant protection products and veterinary medicines on the basis of EU-wide rules. This was one of the foundations of the Single Market, meaning different national rules on inputs cannot be used as a reason to stop trade.

The government is determined to take us out of that customs union, but is prepared to pay £40 billion plus to the EU to fudge that decision and allow trade to continue. That means it needs to answer a simple question. How can we be out of the EU if we have to accept product regulations that apply in the EU-27, but over which we will now have no input?

Qualified majorities in favour of science will be much more difficult without the big British voting percentage.