opinion MOMENTOUS TIMES


As chance would have it, retaining our time slot on the press to ensure this issue of the magazine came out on schedule necessitated sending the layouts to our printers on the very day on which the House of Commons was due to vote on the Prime Minister’s proposed deal for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Which makes writing an Opinion column on the subject somewhat challenging, to say the least! It is fair to say, though, that for both the feed industry and for the individuals who work within it, the dawn of 2019 has meant that we are entering collectively into uncharted waters. Michael Gove, speaking earlier in the month at the Oxford Farming


Conference, warned his audience that a ‘no-deal Brexit would spell severe disruption for the UK’s farming and food industries, and hardship for small farmers in particular’. The predictions have become more apocalyptic with every day that has passed. Taking the most extreme version of a no-deal Brexit, UK agricultural exports to the EU could be hit by World Trade Organisation tariffs as high as 40 per cent. This is to say nothing of the potential for products destined for the EU being subjected to a protracted regulatory inspection regime, perhaps causing significant delays and consequent loss of competitiveness in EU markets. A recent YouGov poll, funded by the respected Economic and


Social Research Council, suggests that around fifty-seven per cent of Conservatives would support leaving the EU with no agreement compared to twenty-three per cent prepared to back the Prime Minister’s position, with just fifteen per cent of Tories supporting remaining in the EU. Such divisions have split families and workspaces. It is surely safe to say that no issue in years has so fundamentally fractured British politics. Readers of this column will have their own views as to what


should have happened in the run-up to the parliamentary vote on the Prime Minister’s withdrawal proposal. Although absolutely nothing is certain in this context, it now at least seems beyond reasonable doubt that the vote will actually have taken place by the time this issue is in readers’ hands. However, there appears, at the time of writing, to be little chance of the Prime Minister’s proposal securing a parliamentary majority when it is put to MPs. Much the same considerations apply to any other proposition, ranging from a hard no-deal (or, as some prefer it to be called, WTO) Brexit at one end of the spectrum, to a decision to abandon the whole process at the other. Due to the lack of any resolution likely to command a parliamentary majority in the House of Commons – and that says nothing about the potential response of their Lordships – a no-deal Brexit currently looks increasingly likely. It is, to use the phrase used by the Economist, the default option – and one with unquantifiable consequences. What are the other options? It is possible, one supposes, that the EU might agree to further negotiations on the basis of the Prime


PAGE 2 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2019 FEED COMPOUNDER


Minister’s current proposition, although it has to said that the signs of any substantive changes being offered are not very promising. It is possible that the UK could request an extension to the March 29 deadline – but what would follow? Some inside and outside of Parliament would like nothing better than to cancel Brexit altogether, by any available means. Feed Compounder has warmly endorsed the setting up of the Agri-


Brexit coalition, backed by eight of the most influential organisations and trade associations, including the Agricultural Industries Confederation, involved in agribusiness. Certainly, the coalition is collectively well- placed to advise on the future shape of UK agricultural policy, a process which is already underway, albeit that participants in the British agricultural community argue that too much emphasis is being placed on the environment and not enough on the business of agricultural production – in other words, farming. The proponents of Brexit have laid stress on Britain’s economy in


a global context. There has been much emphasis on the potential of a future trade agreement with the United States. However, it would seem likely that the current US administration would demand a substantial level of deregulation as part of any trade deal between the UK and the US; the much-touted case of chlorinated chicken would only be at the start of a long list. Several prominent Brexiteers, in the context of the Foreign Secretary’s visit, have touted Singapore’s low regulation policies as a future model for the UK but Brussels is, according to one authoritative source, ‘keenly aware’ of the risk of the UK undercutting EU standards. As a result, and in order to preserve UK access to the EU as its largest trading partner, in the context of any future trade deal between the UK and the EU, the UK is likely to have to preserve a degree of regulation that may not be acceptable to the current US administration. It is, of course, possible that some accommodation may be reached


between the UK and its EU partners before 29 March. It may be that some of the more horrific possibilities suggested in the context of the UK’s departure, such as shortages of medicines or, even food, may prove to be images generated by what has been described as Project Fear. What seems certain, however, is that there would be a degree of disruption in normal trading patterns, the extent of which can only be surmised in general terms. How should the feed industry respond? The industry has already taken steps to mitigate the most severe


consequences of the disruption of current trading patterns such as are likely to impact on the UK in general and the agricultural sector in particular. Contingency plans will also have been put in place. It may be that these are not needed. No matter, for that is what contingency plans are all about. The important thing is that the agricultural supply industry, together with the rest of the UK economy, is set to embark upon uncharted waters – and must make appropriate preparations.


Comment section is sponsored by Compound Feed Engineering Ltd www.cfegroup.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60