opinion DOWN TO THE WIRE


‘Time and tide’, so the saying goes, ‘wait for no man’’ The same may be said of printers and publishers. For the second issue running, we find ourselves in the position of having to make comment on the most important topic of the moment, in advance of a ‘meaningful vote’ which will (or should) have taken place by the time the comment is being read. At the time of writing, the official date for the UK’s departure from the EU is still 29th


March. That could change, as discussed in


the following paragraphs. Alternatively, as this is read, the UK could be a few days from its formal exit from the EU. Meanwhile, the debate over what consequences will ensue from


a no-deal Brexit has continued. The government has released papers suggesting that the size of the UK economy would be diminished by between 6 per cent and 9 per cent in the event of a no-deal Brexit. These figures concur with earlier studies carried out by the Bank of England, although the Bank’s latest pronouncements suggest the likely reduction in GDP could have been halved by the mitigating effect of no-deal planning which has since taken place. Meanwhile, Mrs May has offered the House of Commons the chance of voting on her revised or, as one newspaper put it, ‘slightly tweaked’ deal, a vote that, by the time that this issue is in readers’ hands, will have taken place. Should it have failed, then the Prime Minister said that she would, the following day, allow a further vote on the question of whether Members of Parliament would be prepared to accept a No Deal Brexit. Should that also have yielded a negative result, then MP’s would be able to instruct the government to go back to Brussels to seek out an extension to the Article 50 deadline of 29th


March. None of these outcomes appear to be particularly palatable or,


even, a realistic prospect. As regards Mrs May’s ‘slightly tweaked’ deal, there seems little reason to believe that MP’s would accept it, having rejected its predecessor by a more-than-substantial majority. As for accepting a No-Deal Brexit, while there is a group of MP’s who would appear to favour such an outcome, it seems unlikely that they command a majority in the House. That leaves an extension of Article 50, given that a complete or, at least, substantial rewrite of Mrs May’s original deal would be required. Timing? Seasoned observers say perhaps three to four months. Meanwhile, on the domestic UK scene, one of the most welcome


aspects of the post-referendum vote has been the initiative of eight trade association members of the Agri-Brexit Coalition, including the Agricultural Industries Confederation. A recent press release from AIC noted that, following a review and an outline of future plans the members ‘expressed their satisfaction that this Coalition format has enabled their voice to be heard higher and more clearly with key stakeholders than would otherwise be possible within individual


PAGE 2 MARCH/APRIL 2019 FEED COMPOUNDER


organisations’. This observation, Feed Compounder would endorse in that following the result of the referendum, this editorial strongly supported the view that the agri-food and feed chains should get together in order to make their views known as effectively as possible, rather than lobby government on an individual basis. In the meantime, the cooperative basis of all those organisations involved in the coalition would seem to have been significantly enhanced and that is welcome, not just in the context of the current Brexit debate but also in the context of broader issues relevant to the food and feed chain as a whole. What are the arguments for an extension of the Article 50


process? Firstly, the cogency of the arguments regarding the pro’s and con’s of leaving or remaining in the EU have been spelt out with far more pungency since the result of the referendum was announced. Prior to the referendum result, dubious data and distorted claims were made by the protagonists on both sides of the argument. Secondly, it is far from clear as to what sort of trade agreements


could be struck by the UK with important trading partners such as the US or China. With regard to the former, it is clear that the US is particularly keen on establishing a trading relationship with the UK but, it would appear, very much on its own terms. This brings the question of regulatory standards into close scrutiny. Environment Minister Mr Gove has said that there will be no diminution of British standards presently in operation as regards food – and here the question of American chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef come into focus. But what sort of pressures would Mr Gove be under in the hothouse of a trade negotiation with the US where many other UK interests would be involved? Some indication of the US position emerged recently when their trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, releasing Washington’s ‘negotiating objectives’, started with ‘comprehensive market access for US agricultural goods in the UK’. By now, the most obvious likelihood is that the feed industry


will have something of a definite idea of the economic and political environment in which it will be operating in the foreseeable future. Whether that is ‘leave’, ‘remain’ or subject to further negotiation is, at the time of writing, not clear. Nevertheless, the industry is in a measurably stronger position to assess its future strategy than it was, following the outcome of the referendum in June 2016. Not only has it a clearer view of its own resources, but it has a more comprehensive assessment of its place in the broader economic environment. That, at least, is one positive outcome as a result of the referendum. Meanwhile, it seems that due to the practicalities of the UK’s domestic scene, the prospect of a decision doing down to the wire on 29th


March is looking increasing unlikely.


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