In politics when things go wrong, they keep going wrong.

This is the situation the government is in and a prime example came in a survey of Conservative Party members on Brexit. This was doubtless expected to deliver a different outcome on the party's flagship policy, but it revealed that a third of members believe Brexit has created more problems than it solved.

An arch pro-Brexit MP wheeled out to defend the policy struggled. He cited the potential involvement in the trans-Pacific trade and cooperation deal that will take the UK into markets, literally, half a world away.

Significantly, he failed to mention trade deals with Australia and New Zealand – both of which are on worse terms than would have been possible had the UK remained in the EU. He also claimed the importance of sovereignty – despite Boris Johnson's enthusiasm for that being the foundation of trade problems with the EU and all the issues around the Northern Ireland protocol.

These issues flow from wanting nothing to do with the EU single market directly, or via the European Economic Area arrangements others have. He also cited a bonfire of EU regulations – despite legislation being stuck, meaning wet kindling for the bonfire refuses to light.

All in all, not a resounding defence, even from someone committed to Brexit. The failure, particularly in agriculture, is that it is getting EU green policies without the money and political influence, while not getting any of the freedoms promised by those who canvassed for Brexit.

Related Articles:

The reality, whether you are farming in Scotland or Slovakia, is that policy has become completely tied to green aspirations. Food production has become a by-product of these ideals, rather than the reason for farming.

This is despite evidence that good outcomes for the environment and consumers are best delivered by this being the other way around. That is a simple argument and it is one used to great effect in 2016 by those who persuaded many farmers to vote for Brexit.

However, since then the UK government has been determined to out-green the EU, believing this boosts its status as a global green power. In both Brussels and London, net zero has become the single driver of rural policy, squeezing out food security. This is despite the war in Ukraine continuing, food price inflation at record levels and the world being a more uncertain place than for many generations.

Last year, at an EU level, food security topped the agenda as drought and events in Ukraine created real concern about food security not seen since the 1950s, when it was one of the drivers for the creation of the EEC. This led to a just published report from the EU on the drivers to achieve food security, which it defines around the availability and affordability of food.

This report began when food security was topping the EU political agenda – and it still is with many farm ministers – but by the time it emerged, it was a case of being back to business as usual.

It recognised that affordability was an issue, but claimed availability is not a problem in Europe, which has and will continue to have a surplus of grain to export. The EU partly justified its approach by claiming climate change is a threat to availability, meaning measures to tackle this will boost food security.

This ignored the reality that instability is here now, while measures to influence climate change will take decades to have an impact. The EU report concludes that the key drivers of food security – or more accurately food insecurity – are climate change, environmental degradation and the war in Ukraine.

It claimed its policies are directly tackling the first two and suggests this will stop a problem turning into a crisis.

Having come tantalisingly close to food security finally being recognised as an issue farmers will rightly feel frustrated to see it slipping away again. For consumers, this can be summed up as pay up for food and shut up, but feel good about being on a road to net zero.

Going back to that report on disillusion with Brexit, this is a golden opportunity fore the UK government to be different and to make the UK food supply local, high quality and secure.

Those who believe this could happen are however, sadly, as delusional as the EU is in sweeping the food security problem that led to its creation under a big green carpet.