Outside the EU’s single market, food exports to the EU are going to face a number of obstacles. This précis of the latest Leave Alliance monograph sets out in detail what problems may lie ahead for our agricultural sector once we leave the EU. You can also download it from the Brexit DVDs, Books and Monographs page of our website.
We now have less than three months to wait until Mrs May will invoke Article 50 and we formally begin the process of leaving the EU. This means we will finally see her “Brexit means Brexit ” statement fleshed out, although it is doubtful if we will know all the detail by the end of March, especially as there are likely to be a good few twists and turns between the invocation of Article 50 and Independence Day.
During 2017 the Campaign for an Independent Britain will continue to fight for the best possible Brexit deal, working alongside other like-minded individuals and organisations. We will let you more as our plans develop, but here are a few guidelines which we believe will help ensure Brexit is successful.
Firstly, Brexit DOES NOT mean a trade-off between single market access and free movement of people from the EU. If the Government is considering remaining in the European Economic Area (EEA) – possibly by re-joining EFTA, the European Free Trade Area – as an interim position, the “four freedoms” of the Single Market are not indivisible for a non-EU country, in spite of claims to the contrary by the likes of Guy Verhofstadt, the former Belgian Prime Minister.
Iceland suspended free movement of capital following its banking crisis and, as has been pointed out on this website and elsewhere, Liechtenstein imposed restrictions on free movement of people over 20 years ago. Readers may remember that David Cameron’s “deal” included a so-called “emergency brake” – an agreement with the other 27 member states that if we voted to remain in the EU, we could restrict the in-work benefits paid to migrants for four years.
All Mr Cameron was doing was asking permission to apply Article 112 of the EEA agreement. Outside the EU, if we took the EFTA route, we wouldn’t have to ask the 27 member states and could impose far tougher restrictions than merely restricting benefits. Like Liechtenstein, we could drastically limit the numbers too. Liechtenstein has done nothing more than making use of an article in an existing agreement. We could do the same if the government chooses to go down the EFTA route.
Of course, we do not know if this is Mrs May’s plan, but it is inconceivable, given the number of on-line articles and research papers which have addressed this subject, that she and her advisers are not aware of Article 112 and Liechtenstein’s use of it. It is high time that the canard of the indivisibility of the “four freedoms” was laid to rest once and for all.
So what else does Brexit mean?
Firstly, freedom from the European Court of Justice. UK law and its courts must be the final arbiter of British justice. We should pull out of participation in the European Arrest Warrant, which has resulted in UK residents being sent for trial abroad on hearsay evidence. Furthermore, Brexit must lead to the return of trial by jury and other features of our historic legal system which have gradually been eroded by our membership of the EU.
Next, Freedom from any involvement with the European Defence Agency and an independent foreign policy. We should obviously work together with the EU where it is mutually beneficial so to do, but we should not be involved with the EU’s empire building in the Balkans or former soviet republics such as the Ukraine.
Brexit must mean an end to the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). As John Ashworth has argued, the concept of “Community waters”, the quota system, and the ridiculous amount of fish caught by boats from other EU member states in what are our national waters by right is a disgrace that has cost thousands of jobs in the fishing industry. The opportunity to revive our coastal communities through a well-designed fishing policy on similar lines to the Faroese scheme must not be passed over.
A replacement to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) must also be designed. Unlike the CFP, which hardly benefits any UK fishermen at all (apart from those who have bought quota and then re-sell for profit), the CAP’s single farm payment is a lifeline for many in the agricultural sector. As an interim measure, a single payment system managed in Westminster rather than Brussels may be the answer, but looking further ahead, something more imaginative is essential as the CAP, initially designed to support small French farmers, has never been a good way to manage farming in the UK.
Finally, Brexit means not only taking the UK out of the EU but taking the EU out of the hearts of UK citizens. Schoolchildren and students have suffered years of indoctrination through pro-EU propaganda. They will be the biggest beneficiaries of Brexit, but as anyone who has taken part in debates on the EU in schools and universities has discovered, most of them don’t realise it at the moment.
So there will be much to keep us in the Campaign for an Independent Britain busy as 2017 approaches. On that note, may we wish all our members and supporters a Happy New Year.
Would you like to live in Vladimir Putin’s Russia? Probably not. It’s less oppressive than the Soviet Union used to be but it’s hardly a bastion of freedom compared with the UK. Mr Putin isn’t a particularly pleasant man; suspicions persist regarding his involvement in the assassination of the Russian security officer Alexander Litvineneko in London and a number of his opponents within Russia itself have died in mysterious circumstances.
So the idea that the good folk of Ukraine of their own free will want to keep as much distance as possible from this nasty man and align themselves, like the former Warsaw Pact nations, to those bastions of liberty in Western Europe is at first glance a pretty convincing narrative. Unfortunately, it doesn’t stand up to serious scrutiny.
For one thing, a substantial minority of the Ukrainian population would actually prefer the embrace of Mr Putin. There can be no doubt that Russia was heavily involved in Crimea’s secession from Ukraine and its military is working closely with the Russian-speaking groups in the Donbass region, but there is equally no doubt that in these two areas, the majority of the inhabitants feel far more affinity with Moscow than with Kiev, let alone with Paris or Berlin. The vote to re-join Russia in the Crimea was not rigged by the Kremlin and the Russian troops in the east are viewed more as brothers-in-arms than foreign invaders.
Secondly, the EU has gone to great lengths to cultivate Ukrainian support for membership of the Community. Financial aid amounting to over €2 billion has been provided in the last two years alone to prop up the country’s failing economy. Ukraine certainly needs help; the annual inflation rate has consistently topped 50% in the last five months, interest rates stand at 27%, the money supply is shrinking and GDP fell by 17.6% in the first quarter of 2015. Furthermore, the country is rated as the most corrupt in Europe and life expectancy for men is lower now than in 1964. In short, the country is in a terrible mess, so why are we investing so much in it? Altruism? Sadly not. Ukraine is in the forefront of the EU’s desire to expand its sphere of influence and in the process to rub President Putin’s nose in the dirt. There is strong evidence of EU involvement in the coup which ousted former pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovich in 2014.
There is a distinct lack of logic here. Why is Ukraine being cultivated as a potential EU member whereas Russia is being excluded? Historically, the two nations have been close – indeed, Kiev was the capital of a state regarded by Russians, Ukrainians and Byelorussians alike as the place from whence their civilisations sprang. It was in Kiev in 988 that Prince Vladimir the Great converted to Orthodox Christianity. The EU has already allowed Greece and Bulgaria, historically Eastern Orthodox, to join the club. If Ukraine is welcome too, why not its Orthodox northern neighbour?
Indeed, the only real justification for our supporting Ukraine is that under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum the UK and US are guarantors (morally, if not legally) of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Our task has not been helped, however, by either the EU’s territorial expansionism or its cold-shouldering of Russia. The deterioration in relationships between the EU and Russia cannot be blamed entirely on its president. It was the EU which backed away from closer trading links a few years back. Basically, the powers-that-be in Brussels just do not want a good relationship with Moscow.
And who is paying the price for their pig-headedness? Not just the people of Ukraine caught up in a war which has largely disappeared from the headlines; Europe’s dairy farmers are suffering as one of their biggest export markets has been closed. When the EU imposed sanctions on Russia, the Kremlin replied by banning imports of dairy products. Russia was one of the EU’s biggest markets for dairy products, accounting for 32 per cent of cheese exports and 24 per cent of butter exports. The net result is that European wholesale milk prices have fallen by 20% and no less than £365 million emergency aid has had to be provided to the EU’s agricultural sector to keep it going. Even this gesture only came about following a demonstration by tractor-driving farmers in Brussels which brought the part of the city in which the EU institutions are located to a grinding halt.
Our farmers are affected as we are part of the EU. However, if we were an independent country, we could keep our nose out of many aspects of this unsavoury regional rivalry which is really of very little strategic interest to us. Norway decided to join the EU and the US in imposing sanctions on Russia, but the decision was made by the Norwegian government. Switzerland initially refused to apply any sanctions, only joining in during August 2014 and again, the decision was taken by the Swiss government. Some EU member states in Eastern Europe have not felt comfortable with the sanctions and view them as counterproductive, notably Hungary and Bulgaria, but they have no scope to lift them unilaterally. Whether our government would pursue a more independent course if we left the EU is very much dependent on who was in power at the time. At least, however, we would have the opportunity to do so.
Parliament goes into recess this week but Lord Stoddart of Swindon is keeping the pressure on the Government in regard to its agenda for dealing with the EU, by submitting the written questions below. We are not sure when the answers will be supplied as the recess means that they are not answered on a daily basis and will appear in a weekly round-up. We will keep you posted. Alternatively, you can keep up with the many written questions Lord Stoddart puts to the Government at: http://www.parliament.uk/writtenanswers
You might be interested to know that Lord Stoddart was named by the Freedom Association as Parliamentarian of the Week on 3rd July. Read more about it here.
Written question HL1436: Lord Stoddart of Swindon 14-07-2015
Asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon
Asked on: 14 July 2015
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to challenge the imposition of a £642 million fine on the United Kingdom relating to the administration of Common Agricultural Policy farm payments; and whether in their negotiations for a return of powers to the United Kingdom they will include the removal of European Union powers to impose financial penalties on Member States.
Written question HL1437: Lord Stoddart of Swindon 14-07-2015
Asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon
Asked on: 14 July 2015
Department for Education
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Nash on 16 June (HL521) concerning schools’ compliance with sections 406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996, whether they are aware of campaigns by the European Commission to promote the European Union in primary and secondary schools; and how those educational establishments will provide a balanced treatment of the issue of United Kingdom membership of the European Union.
Farmers would be ‘reckless and naive’ to think current farm support levels would continue if the UK left the European Union, according to a leading Conservative MEP.
Richard Ashworth was responding to claims made by UKIP MEP Stuart Agnew that farmers would be better outside the EU, during a feisty European elections hustings event in London on Wednesday evening.
Mr Agnew, a Norfolk farmer himself, fought a lone battle on the issue of EU membership, as politicians from four other UK political parties all made the case for staying in Europe, albeit while pursuing reform of its flawed institutions.
Mr Agnew announced himself at the NFU-organised event, which took place at the Farmers Club, by declaring ‘the party is over’ as far as UK farming’s relationship with the EU is concerned.
While admitting Europe provided a ‘bonanza’ for UK farmers in the decade up to 1984, he said the bad has increasingly outweighed the good since.
“We feel in UKIP we would be better to be outside the EU, particularly for agriculture,” he said.
He made repeated reference throughout the evening to how Europe has ‘strangled’ British agriculture through regulation, citing the neonicotinoid ban, the inability to grow GM crops and a raft of legislation imposed on pig and poultry producers.
If you work for the European Commission, he said, your one job is to make rules. “It is a job for life. The only way to get sacked is if you are a whistle blower.”
While the other candidates for the May 22 European Parliament elections argued that UK farmers needed to be part of the single EU trading block, Mr Agnew said, if it left the union, the UK could forge its own trading relationships, for example, with Japan.
“You don’t have to be in a political union to trade with it. If we were to leave the EU we would still be members of the WTO,” he said.
UKIP has pledged to continue the Single Farm Payment at the same level but, realistically, is not going to be in a position to make that decision.
Mr Agnew derided the ‘shambles’ of last year’s CAP reform. He argued that CAP funding has been falling – its share of the EU budget is now 48 per cent, compared with 80 per cent at one point – and will continue to do so as member states look to contribute less to central EU funds and the union expands east bringing in more net beneficiaries.
“We are getting a smaller share of a smaller cake,” he said.
He pointed out that, as the second biggest net contributor, the UK would save money by leaving the EU, while other member states would have to cut payments in the absence of the UK contribution.
But Mr Ashworth, a South East MEP and, like Mr Agnew, a member of the EU Parliament’s Agriculture Committee, dismissed the suggestion UK farmers would not be harmed by leaving the EU.
He pointed out that they still receive €4.18bn (£3.44bn) a year from the CAP and that this money typically accounts for 50 per cent of a farm’s net income.
“The idea that we could leave the EU and manage without 50 per cent of net farm income is not going to run,” he said.
“We are not going to be able to pass that onto consumers because retailers would fly around the world and get and buy the food from where they can get it, so that is not going to happen.
“You could say the British Government will pay it but it would be reckless and naïve to believe that is going to happen.
“Without a shadow of doubt the UK is better off within the CAP, which is not to say agricultural policy doesn’t need to change,” he said.
He said leaving the EU would leave UK farmers disadvantaged against farmers stilln accessing the CAP in 27 other member states and would expose the UK to trading on its own in the global marketplace, where it would face tariffs on ‘everything you send for export’.
Labour South East candidate James Swindlehurst said the UK needed to be part of the EU trading bloc to compete on a global scale with the likes of China, Russia and the US.
“China is growing at 7 per cent a year. The only trading bloc big enough to rival it is the EU. In the long-term we have to work in that marketplace,” he said.
“The last CAP reform didn’t do nearly enough to tackle the historic inefficiencies of the CAP but we need to retain a common policy.”
Catherine Bearder, an East of England MEP, stressed that her party, the Liberal Democrats, was the only one that stood, unequivocally as ‘the party of in-Europe’.
She said that, if the UK left Europe, farmers would still have to comply with all the rules and regulations coming out of Brussels to trade with it but would be powerless to alter those rules. Farming rules would be set by the French and the Germans.
“We would have a very much impoverished UK,” she said.
This prompted an angry response from Mr Agnew who claimed the UK already had minimal influence over events in Europe, which were increasingly driven by countries in Eurozone. “Our voice is pathetic,” he said.
Green Party candidate Caroline Allen, a practising vet, said her party wanted to stay in Europe but push to reform it, including doing more to tackle climate change and transforming the CAP to benefit the environment and smaller farmers.
“We need to work together in Europe to tackle climate change and the idea. If we leave Europe the CAP money disappears and the idea that we could carry on on our own in global markets is just ridiculous,” she said.
This article first appeared in thEUnit Digest.
Announcements by the European Commission on the proposed restructuring of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) have been condemned by British MEP Stuart Agnew who said they would create “a lawyer’s paradise”. Mr Agnew said: “The proposals to target CAP subsidies toward ‘active farmers’ are a classic example of ‘doublespeak’, introduced as a simplification when it rapidly becomes apparent that things will be much more complicated. These proposals will create a lawyer’s paradise because they will have to become involved in deciding if the splitting of a business is a genuine desire or whether it is just a cynical subsidy harvesting operation. Lawyers will also be involved in deciding who is an ‘active farmer’ and what exactly constitutes ‘farmed’ land.”
“Inevitably, yet another British quango must be set up to advise farmers of their benefits. All this new tide of micro-management demonstrates is that it is not practical or sensible to have a single agriculture policy for 27 very diverse countries developed and administered by unelected, deskbound bureaucrats from the European Commission.”