BREXITBREXITBREXIT

France clashed with the rest of the EU over the length of a Brexit extension on Friday as member states struggled to forge a consensus over how to respond to the deadlock in Westminster. Ambassadors meeting in Brussels were in “full agreement” that there was a need for an extension beyond October 31, according to one EU official, and they think the decision can be reached in a written procedure rather than via an emergency summit of leaders.  But EU states were unable to coalesce around a new exit date, with France refusing to commit to a long extension. The other member states have swung behind Donald Tusk, the EU council president, who is pushing for an extension to January 31, in line with UK prime minister’s Boris Johnson’s request last weekend.  France’s representative told the meeting a shorter extension would keep the pressure on the UK to “find a solution” and that ultimately a no-deal would hurt Britain more than the union, according to an official in the discussion. The inconclusive result pushes the uncertainty over an extension into next week, which is notionally Britain’s final week in the EU unless the other member states reach a unanimous agreement to extend. Ambassadors are set to reconvene on Monday or Tuesday — after a planned vote on a UK general election — for further discussions.  “It ended up 26 against one,” said one diplomat of the French position. “We should not be the ones who provoke no-deal.” Boris Johnson calls for a December 12 general election An EU diplomat said France was becoming a “lone wolf” inside the bloc. “If France really wanted to become the leader of the European pack, it would probably be better served by not irritating friends” said the diplomat. Mr Johnson on Thursday conceded defeat on his promise to take the UK out of the EU by October 31 and challenged MPs to give him a general election on December 12. If he wins Commons backing for the election in a vote on Monday, the prime minister wants to bring the withdrawal agreement bill back to parliament, giving MPs until November 6 to secure Brexit. The uncertainty in Westminster is making it more difficult for EU member states to decide how to handle the need for an extension, but all remain anxious to avoid a no-deal outcome.  Much depends on what the UK’s opposition Labour party will do in next week’s election vote, although initial signs are that they will join other opposition parties in rejecting Mr Johnson’s move. Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, told the broadcaster ITV on Friday that he wanted Mr Johnson to come to parliament next week and rule out a no-deal Brexit. Mr Corbyn did not rule out an early election but poured cold water over having one on December 12, saying it was “odd for many reasons — it’s so near Christmas, it’s after universities finish their terms”. France has been arguing that a long extension could reduce the pressure on Westminster to decide in favour of Mr Johnson’s Brexit deal forged with EU negotiator Michel Barnier. Amélie de Montchalin, France’s Europe minister, wrote on Twitter on Thursday: “What we want is clarity. The question is to know why we are giving extra time, because time alone is not a solution. Let’s wait to see if there will be elections before we get into fictional politics.” Recommended Camilla Cavendish Now Britain has a deal in sight, what comes next? France’s solitary stance mirrors the approach of president Emmanuel Macron in April, when he held out against an overwhelming majority of presidents and prime ministers who supported a long Brexit delay of nine months or more. The leaders instead signed up to an extension to October 31.  “There is a consensus that the EU will agree on an extension,” said one EU diplomat on Friday. “Talks on the length of the extension will continue at the beginning of next week — also in light of developments in London.” The diplomat added that the mood in the room on Friday pointed firmly in the direction of a “flextension” until January 31. This implies that Britain’s membership would end sooner than that date if Mr Johnson can get his legislation passed through the Houses of Parliament.  Spain and Italy were among the countries to push hard the EU to accept Mr Tusk’s plan for an extension until January 31. Germany has also firmly backed the plan, leaving France in an isolated position and facing complaints from other diplomats that Paris risks dragging other governments into Britain’s internal political debate.


France clashed with the rest of the EU over the length of a Brexit extension on Friday as member states struggled to forge a consensus over how to respond to the deadlock in Westminster. Ambassadors meeting in Brussels were in “full agreement” that there was a need for an extension beyond October 31, according to one EU official, and they think the decision can be reached in a written procedure rather than via an emergency summit of leaders.  But EU states were unable to coalesce around a new exit date, with France refusing to commit to a long extension. The other member states have swung behind Donald Tusk, the EU council president, who is pushing for an extension to January 31, in line with UK prime minister’s Boris Johnson’s request last weekend.  France’s representative told the meeting a shorter extension would keep the pressure on the UK to “find a solution” and that ultimately a no-deal would hurt Britain more than the union, according to an official in the discussion. The inconclusive result pushes the uncertainty over an extension into next week, which is notionally Britain’s final week in the EU unless the other member states reach a unanimous agreement to extend. Ambassadors are set to reconvene on Monday or Tuesday — after a planned vote on a UK general election — for further discussions.  “It ended up 26 against one,” said one diplomat of the French position. “We should not be the ones who provoke no-deal.” Boris Johnson calls for a December 12 general election An EU diplomat said France was becoming a “lone wolf” inside the bloc. “If France really wanted to become the leader of the European pack, it would probably be better served by not irritating friends” said the diplomat. Mr Johnson on Thursday conceded defeat on his promise to take the UK out of the EU by October 31 and challenged MPs to give him a general election on December 12. If he wins Commons backing for the election in a vote on Monday, the prime minister wants to bring the withdrawal agreement bill back to parliament, giving MPs until November 6 to secure Brexit. The uncertainty in Westminster is making it more difficult for EU member states to decide how to handle the need for an extension, but all remain anxious to avoid a no-deal outcome.  Much depends on what the UK’s opposition Labour party will do in next week’s election vote, although initial signs are that they will join other opposition parties in rejecting Mr Johnson’s move. Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, told the broadcaster ITV on Friday that he wanted Mr Johnson to come to parliament next week and rule out a no-deal Brexit. Mr Corbyn did not rule out an early election but poured cold water over having one on December 12, saying it was “odd for many reasons — it’s so near Christmas, it’s after universities finish their terms”. France has been arguing that a long extension could reduce the pressure on Westminster to decide in favour of Mr Johnson’s Brexit deal forged with EU negotiator Michel Barnier. Amélie de Montchalin, France’s Europe minister, wrote on Twitter on Thursday: “What we want is clarity. The question is to know why we are giving extra time, because time alone is not a solution. Let’s wait to see if there will be elections before we get into fictional politics.” Recommended Camilla Cavendish Now Britain has a deal in sight, what comes next? France’s solitary stance mirrors the approach of president Emmanuel Macron in April, when he held out against an overwhelming majority of presidents and prime ministers who supported a long Brexit delay of nine months or more. The leaders instead signed up to an extension to October 31.  “There is a consensus that the EU will agree on an extension,” said one EU diplomat on Friday. “Talks on the length of the extension will continue at the beginning of next week — also in light of developments in London.” The diplomat added that the mood in the room on Friday pointed firmly in the direction of a “flextension” until January 31. This implies that Britain’s membership would end sooner than that date if Mr Johnson can get his legislation passed through the Houses of Parliament.  Spain and Italy were among the countries to push hard the EU to accept Mr Tusk’s plan for an extension until January 31. Germany has also firmly backed the plan, leaving France in an isolated position and facing complaints from other diplomats that Paris risks dragging other governments into Britain’s internal political debate.

Karie Murphy, a senior Labour official, made a Freudian slip when addressing staff at the party’s headquarters in Victoria this week: “Labour is divided . . . I mean determined,” she declared. The Brexit position of Britain’s main opposition party has often looked incoherent during the past three years with senior figures making conflicting statements on the biggest issue of the day. Now Jeremy Corbyn, the party leader — who has called for an election at least 35 times since 2017 — faces fresh accusations of dithering over whether or not to force an election in two days’ time. “Surely you’re not suggesting that our glorious leader is indecisive?” asked one MP with heavy sarcasm. On Monday — barring a last-minute change in position — Mr Corbyn will order his MPs to abstain when Boris Johnson holds a vote on calling an election. It would be the third time in two months that the Labour leadership has resisted the election it supposedly craves. Jeremy moved yesterday towards an election then moved back . . . I don’t want to say we have a leader torn between two arguments but sometimes you have to make a decision and be a leader Shadow cabinet member The UK prime minister needs two-thirds of MPs — 434 out of 650 — to back his move for a December 12 poll under the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act. On Friday the party insisted that various options were still on the table and that no firm decision had been made. Colleagues said Mr Corbyn’s view had been shifting backwards and forwards since Mr Johnson threw down the gauntlet on Thursday night by offering to extend the period of his Brexit bill scrutiny in return for backing an election. Mr Corbyn seemed unenthusiastic about the prospect on Friday. “All the signs are that there will probably be an abstention on Monday evening,” said one member of the shadow cabinet. “Jeremy moved yesterday towards an election then moved back . . . I don’t want to say we have a leader torn between two arguments but sometimes you have to make a decision and be a leader.” For many of Mr Corbyn’s most prominent supporters, the indecision is baffling. Although Labour trail Mr Johnson’s Conservatives in the latest polls, they believe that he could close the gap by campaigning vigorously on non-Brexit issues — such as austerity — in the same way he did in 2017. “The time for a general election is now — you’ve got the policies, you’ve got the activists, and you’ve got a plan to sort out Brexit in 6 months. Hit the big red button,” Ash Sarkar, a columnist at left-leaning Novara Media, tweeted. Some members of the shadow cabinet take a similar view: including Dan Carden, Jon Trickett and Laura Pidcock — as well as advisers such as Ms Murphy and Seumas Milne, head of strategy and communications. Can Boris Johnson’s people v parliament Brexit strategy win the next election? But other senior figures such as Emily Thornberry, shadow foreign secretary and deputy leader Tom Watson would rather prioritise a second referendum. Most backbench Labour MPs currently fear that embracing a general election could see the party lose scores of seats. Even those who think an election is inevitable before January 31 want to buy time to emphasise Mr Johnson’s failure to achieve Brexit by his target of October 31. They also want to use the time to sharpen the party’s election planning. “Right now it feels like we have no strategy, no message, no message discipline,” said one senior figure. Others think that Mr Johnson’s Brexit legislation could be rejected by parliament. “Why should we dance to Johnson’s tune, when we can amend and maybe even reject his bill,” said one aide. John McDonnell is thought to have been behind a decision to advise MPs they would be whipped to abstain on Boris Johnson's election call © Reuters Shadow chancellor John McDonnell and chief whip Nick Brown are both thought to have been behind a decision on Thursday to advise MPs that they would be whipped to abstain on Monday — in order to keep an election at bay. Shortly afterwards that decision was challenged by Mr Corbyn’s office, which insisted that no final decision had been made. Mr McDonnell told journalists earlier in the day that he was ready for a December election — “I’ve bought a winter coat” — but also, conversely, that his priority was gaining extra parliamentary time to scrutinise the Brexit bill. Colleagues believe Mr McDonnell is playing a tactical game to try to avoid a pre-Christmas election that — if Labour loses — could prove fatal to the Corbyn project. “This is the first time I’ve seen him flailing,” said one ally. “What is increasingly obvious is that it’s not obvious what John wants right now.” For now senior Labour figures have a legitimate excuse for prevarication: they want to avoid the potential economic damage of a no-deal Brexit. That line could become harder to cling to if and when the EU confirms a three-month extension. On Friday EU officials agreed to delay a decision until Monday or Tuesday next week. Recommended Brexit Johnson faces big hurdles in seeking early election Even then, they have suggested that they could require further reassurance beyond an extension. Mr Corbyn told ITV on Friday that he wanted Mr Johnson to “take no deal off the table to my satisfaction”. Yet Labour MPs pushing for an election believe that the EU’s likely resistance to an extension beyond January 31 means that unless Brexit happens soon the UK will need to go to the polls in either December or January — so there is no point in delaying. The indecision has added fuel to speculation that Mr Corbyn could quit within months despite allies’ insistence that he wants to fight the next election even if it is next year. “I think the project is imploding and he is weakened and vulnerable and he is being pulled in one direction by McDonnell and Brown and another by people like Seumas and Trickett,” said one hostile MP. “It’s systematic of the fact that he is now little more than a figurehead who is wheeled out in view of the parade while the politburo descends into chaos behind the scenes.”

The British government is planning to diverge from the EU on regulation and workers’ rights after Brexit, despite its pledge to maintain a “level playing field” in prime minister Boris Johnson’s deal, according to an official paper shared by ministers this week. The government paper drafted by Dexeu, the Brexit department, with input from Downing Street stated that the UK was open to significant divergence, even though Brussels is insisting on comparable regulatory provisions. The issue will come to a head when the UK begins the next phase of talks with the EU to forge a new trade deal. However, the UK in effect still faces the prospect of a no-deal Brexit next week unless EU states agree a new extension date for when the UK will leave the bloc. France was on Friday pushing for a shorter extension date than the one Mr Johnson has requested. In a passage that could alarm Labour MPs who have backed the Brexit bill, the leaked government document also said the drafting of workers’ rights and environmental protection commitments “leaves room for interpretation”. The paper, titled “Update to EPSG on level playing field negotiations”, appears to contradict comments made by Mr Johnson on Wednesday when he said the UK was committed to “the highest possible standards” for workers’ rights and environmental standards. The document said the UK’s and EU’s “interpretation of these [level playing field] commitments will be very different” and that the text represented a “much more open starting point for future relationship negotiations”. It added that London believed that binding arbitration would be “inappropriate”. These documents confirm our worst fears. Boris Johnson’s Brexit is a blueprint for a deregulated economy, which will see vital rights and protections torn up Jenny Chapman, Labour Brexit shadow minister The document boasts that “UK negotiators successfully resisted the inclusion of all UK-wide LPF rules” in the previous Theresa May deal. A government spokesperson said the UK government “has no intention of lowering the standards of workers’ rights or environmental protection after we leave the EU and we already exceed EU minimum standards in areas such as maternity leave, shared parental leave and greenhouse gas targets.” “UK Level Playing Field commitments will be negotiated in the context of the future UK-EU Free Trade Agreement, where we will achieve a balance of rights and obligations which reflect the scope and depth of the future relationship,” the spokesperson added. Jenny Chapman, Labour’s shadow Brexit minister, said: “These documents confirm our worst fears. Boris Johnson’s Brexit is a blueprint for a deregulated economy, which will see vital rights and protections torn up.” Andrea Leadsom, the business secretary, said: “This story is not correct. UK will maintain highest standards of workers rights and environmental standards when we leave the EU. In many areas our standards are already higher then EU.” Mr Johnson has in the past been a persistent critic of what he sees as unnecessary regulation from Brussels. Jeremy Corbyn, Labour leader, this week pointed out that Mr Johnson had once described employment regulation as “back-breaking”, saying the bill’s provisions offered “no real protection at all”. But the prime minister vowed to “ensure that whatever the EU comes up with, we can match it and pass it into the law of this country”. The document gets to the heart of the dilemma between London’s desire to stay within the EU’s regulatory orbit while also seeking to diverge from the EU economic model. Speaking in New York in September, Mr Johnson set out a vision of Britain as a low-tax, lightly regulated economy on the edge of Europe — a vision that alarms some EU leaders. Mr Johnson’s deal leaves the UK with freedom to set its own regulatory standards from the end of its post-Brexit transition period, which runs to the end of 2022 at the latest. But the EU has warned that Britain’s prospects of getting an ambitious trade deal with Brussels depend on it continuing to uphold robust rules. The new deal is very different to Theresa May’s, in which the UK made a legal commitment not to roll back EU regulatory standards in areas such as social and environmental protections as long as her “backstop” plan for preventing a hard Irish border was needed. Recommended Camilla Cavendish Now Britain has a deal in sight, what comes next? This was scrapped by British and EU negotiators because, unlike the backstop, Mr Johnson’s deal does not involve a UK-EU customs union with free movement of goods. Under Mr Johnson’s deal, the legally binding “level playing field” provisions that remain in the exit treaty are almost exclusively limited to Northern Ireland. But the non-binding political declaration on future EU-UK relations makes clear that there is a direct link between Britain’s regulatory environment and market access. The declaration said both Britain and the EU should continue to uphold “the common high standards” applicable at the end of the post-Brexit transition period in areas such as state-aid policy, social and environmental regulation and tax. It also made clear that the ambition of any future trade deal would be linked to Britain’s willingness to stick closely to relevant “union and international standards”. Existing EU trade deals, such as those with Japan and Canada, have some provisions on limitations to state aid and respect for international climate and labour market accords, but breaches of the commitments do not lead to punitive tariffs. EU officials have been clear, though, that something stronger is needed for the UK, given the risks that regulatory dumping in Britain, combined with extensive market access, could pose to European companies. The declaration stipulates that the level playing field commitments in a future trade deal should be backed by “enforcement and dispute settlement”. Dexeu declined to comment.

Sterling is entering a new phase now that investors are daring to believe that its biggest threat — a no-deal Brexit — is fading away. The UK currency has rocketed this month, gaining more than 5 per cent since UK and Irish leaders carved out a potential path towards a Brexit deal on October 10. Now, while Prime Minister Boris Johnson pushes for a new election in the UK before the end of the year, investors are settling in for a period of relative calm as another delay in the country’s departure from the EU — initially scheduled for October 31 — becomes increasingly likely. “If you look at the exchange rate today it shows you that a lot of the ‘no deal’ risk premium has been priced out,” said Paul Robson, head of G10 currency strategy at NatWest Markets in London. Progress towards a Brexit deal remains uncertain. MPs gave their backing in principle to the latest agreement between the UK and EU on October 19, but they have demanded a longer period to scrutinise the legislation than Mr Johnson had wanted. Now the most pressing questions are how long the delay before leaving the EU will be and whether Mr Johnson will succeed in holding a general election before the end of this year. Ugo Lancioni, head of global currency at Neuberger Berman, said long-term investors such as pension funds and asset managers are still largely avoiding sterling, but as the risk of a disruptive exit without a deal subsides, he thinks they will be looking to buy the currency while it is cheap. Large investment banks have also turned bullish on the pound in recent weeks, with Goldman Sachs analyst Zach Pandl recommending that investors buy sterling with a target of $1.35 against the dollar, bumping up his earlier target of $1.30. It now trades around $1.28. “The crucial conclusion [from recent developments] is that ‘no deal’ risk is unlikely to increase meaningfully, capping the downside for the pound,” Mr Pandl wrote in a research note. But the short-term prospects for sterling are murky. Jordan Rochester, a currency analyst at Nomura, said the bank was closing its positive bet on the pound against the euro, judging that election risks were “too high for our liking”. Other banks including ING and Bank of America Merrill Lynch also warn that the pound could tumble further against the euro. Still, short-term declines are not expected to be as severe as they have been in recent months, while swings in the exchange rate are also likely to subside for now, even if the country goes to the polls in December. NatWest’s Mr Robson said volatility in the pound’s exchange rate could be lower than usual for general elections, as parliamentary backing for the withdrawal agreement bill caps the risk of a collapse. “There is less downside in the pound as the question is about what type of deal will the UK get, rather than a choice between deal or no deal,” he added.

Brexit uncertainty is not the only thing on Mike Martin’s mind. Heavy rains have combined with pesticide restrictions to delay wheat planting on his farm in the south of England; an army of weevils is drilling holes in his beans; recently he caught some thieves trying to steal his tools. He also worries about a growing “anti-farmer brigade” of animal welfare and climate change activists who blame “bovines for all the greenhouse gases”. “Every dairy farm has been put on their website. You don’t know who is going to turn up,” he said. British farmers such as Mr Martin feel they are being squeezed on all sides: by environmental protesters picketing meat markets; Conservative policies outlined in this month’s Queen’s Speech parliamentary legislation prioritising environment and animal welfare; and post-Brexit trade arrangements that they say threaten their livelihoods. The combination has left these largely Tory voters questioning whether politicians in Westminster are conscious of how precarious farming in Britain could become. Mike Martin © Charlie Bibby/FT Dairy farmers such as Mike Martin have been drawn into the debate about climate change © Charlie Bibby/FT Among a range of farmers interviewed in Sussex, those who voted to leave the EU in 2016 — like the majority of their peers nationwide — said they did so on the assumption that their interests would be protected in future trading relations. But a number of proposed government policies, including fresh restrictions on livestock transport, and a pre-Brexit drop in the price of beef added to Mr Martin’s conviction that Boris Johnson’s government is trying to square circles in ways that come at his, and other farmers’ expense. Earlier this month the government released a new tariff schedule in preparation for the possibility of the UK leaving Europe without a deal on October 31. It proposed dropping import tariffs, which could ease food price rises in the event that barriers with Europe are suddenly erected. But it would also open up the UK to cheap imported food that would be illegal to produce here because it fails to meet environmental and animal welfare standards. That prospect has receded as the EU considers a request for a further delay in the UK’s departure date. But should Britain eventually leave without a deal, as some ardent Brexiters prefer, pressure on prices would jeopardise many rural livelihoods, said Minette Batters, the president of the National Farmers’ Union. “Farmers are going to feel betrayed,” she said. “I don’t recall anyone selling a vision of post-Brexit Britain as one involving lower standard food filling shop shelves while British farmers . . . go out of business.” In any Brexit scenario, farm incomes will drop to varying degrees, with sheep farmers hardest hit, according to modelling by the Agricultural and Horticultural Development Board, a farmer funded national body. Should the government fail to reach agreement on future trading relations, drive Britain out of the EU on WTO terms, and then phase out farm subsidies as planned, half of all UK farms would cease to be financially viable, according to Sean Rickard, former economist at the NFU. That possibility is giving some traditional Conservative farmers pause for thought. Ben Taylor © Charlie Bibby/FT Ben Taylor manages 1,700 acres on the South Downs © Charlie Bibby/FT “From a personal point of view I can’t imagine ever voting Tory again,” said Ben Taylor, who manages 1,700 acres of land on the rolling hills of Sussex’s South Downs, which has been farmed since neolithic times. The air around him was filled with endangered skylarks, a testament to his efforts planting meadows and flower strips to ensure wild birds as well as cattle and cereal crops can thrive. The farm has diversified too, with holiday cottages and fishing lakes to supplement traditional income. Mr Taylor points tothis year’s rapeseed crop as an example of the damage done by what he says are Britain’s double standards that allow the country’s environmental footprint to be offshored to countries with a more laissez-faire attitude to the way food is produced. A new EU ban on neonicotinoid pesticides, which endanger bees, caused him and other farmers in the area to lose a third of their rapeseed crop. The UK made up for the shortfall by importing rapeseed oil from countries such as Canada where neonicotinoids are still in use, depressing the UK price in the process. “We can’t produce cheaper. But we can import it from places that use methods we are not allowed to use,” he said. “The consequence is that large tracts of land will be abandoned,” he added, emphasising that best practice costs money: “You can’t be in the red if you want to be green.” James Wallis © Charlie Bibby/FT James Wallis' new dairy unit uses cost efficient methods developed in New Zealand © Charlie Bibby/FT Some Sussex farmers havebeen preparing for the day when Brexit, the loss of subsidies and tightening restrictions pile pressure on their competitiveness. “Our aim is to be in the 5 to 10 per cent of lowest cost producers,” said James Wallis, who farms the 2,000 acre Sutton Hall estate on contract, mostly for dairy cows. The farm has invested £1.2m in a new dairy unit that borrows cost efficient methods developed in New Zealand. In the year since it started production it has yielded returns of 15 per cent. Brexit Briefing Help us steer you through the twists and turns of Britain’s political turmoil, from Monday to Friday. Sign up here John Sclater, former chairman of Equitable Life and an ardent Brexiter whose family owns the estate, has also taken a long-term view of environmental sustainability. Since the 1970s, he has planted 250,000 oak trees. More recently he has started planting Christmas trees and willow trees for cricket bats. “Let’s work on the assumption that subsidies go down to zero. It’s interesting when you pose a question like that in good time,” he said. “Great changes create damage and opportunity,” he added. “We will see who survives.” But that Darwinian future, embraced by free market ideologues among Conservative supporters, is less popular among farmers with fewer resources at their disposal. “If you take away subsidies and on top of that let in all the cheap shit, we’re doomed,” said Mr Taylor. “I haven’t sharpened up my pitchfork yet, but I have a whetstone ready.”

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/content/9606face-8605-11e9-97ea-05ac2431f453#comments-anchor

Castle Howard, a Grade I-listed stately home, welcomed a procession of vintage steam engines into its grounds last month. While the event was a success, it did have its drawbacks: “Visitors come to see a beautiful house, and find there’s a whole load of trailers and trucks and portaloos on the lawn,” says Lady Howard, owner of the 8,800-acre Yorkshire estate, almost three-quarters of which is farmland. Such dilemmas are familiar to landowners. They have long had to be entrepreneurial to fund their estates. Now, as Brexit promises the biggest shift in agricultural policy for generations, they have to be creative to stay afloat. Since 1972, British farmers have relied on subsidies from the EU — to which the UK is a net contributor. In 2014, 55 per cent of UK farm incomes came from the EU, according to estimates from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Subsidies are distributed through the Common Agricultural Policy, which accounts for more than a third of the EU’s €160bn annual budget, according to the European Commission. After Brexit, those payments will be phased out and replaced with a new policy, details of which have not been finalised. “All farms and estates [will] have to be very business-like in future,” says Ross Murray, chairman of rural asset management at Knight Frank. “It’s not a given they will be given public money; they will have to work for it.” Many landowners have acted already, diversifying into everything from adventure tourism to commercial woodland. Others have sold up, anxious about keeping farms solvent in the absence of subsidies. The change will be “seismic”, says Murray. So how can landowners prepare for it?’ Diversify or die “In a post-Brexit, post-heavily subsidised world, we’re reviewing our land operations,” says Lady Howard. The estate hosts live music, is used as a film set and is dotted with rental properties. “We are having to manage a lot of very different small businesses. I so wish there was a sole answer, but no one has been able to find a silver bullet and just focus on one or two things,” she says. Of all the visitor attractions at the Howard estate, the biggest money-spinner is a static caravan site. Filming the BBC’s ‘Antiques Roadshow’ at Castle Howard © Alamy The looming loss of EU subsidies is a cause of anxiety for the estate and farmers in general, says Lady Howard, who estimates that CAP subsidies represent 30-40 per cent of the estate’s profits. But it presents an opportunity too. “There were areas where we were farming for subsidies. Some of that could be rewilded and used for eco-tourism. There’s huge interest out there in nature and biodiversity,” she says. The UK’s future agricultural policy is unclear, but “the mood music is that responsible, sustainable farming will be rewarded”, she adds. Recommended FT Magazine Why Brexit could be good news for Britain’s farmers End of the status quo From 2014-2020, UK farmers are expected to receive €28bn from the CAP. Three-quarters of that is direct income support allocated through the “basic payment scheme” and paid on the basis of hectares farmed, rather than being linked to any specific goal, such as environmental benefit. The subsidy is designed to support food production and stabilise farm revenues — hedging against poor harvests or livestock disease. By underpinning production within the EU, the scheme reduces dependency on imports from outside the bloc — though critics complain that food prices are kept artificially high as a result. The scheme might be a lucrative but it is by no means universally popular, attracting criticism from economists and environmentalists alike. Dieter Helm, the chair of the government’s natural capital committee, describes the CAP as “one of the most destructive forces in our natural environment”. Come to our live event Is now the right time to buy property in London? Join us at the FT’s new London office to discuss whether now is a good time to buy property in the UK capital. Event chaired by Nathan Brooker Buy tickets here The CAP does not ensure farmers use land in an environmentally sustainable way and even encourages the farming of unproductive land in pursuit of subsidies, said Helm at last month’s Hay Festival: “It’s an extremely bad idea to pay farmers taxpayers’ money to own land. We pay farmers who put chemicals on our land, that go into our water, which we pay higher water bills for.” The CAP payments have likely contributed to an increase in the value of farmland, which has more than doubled since the per-hectare subsidy replaced production subsidies in 2005, data from Savills suggest. Expensive land is a barrier to entry in farming, where the average age is near 60. Another criticism is that some of the biggest payments have been to wealthy landowners with substantial private incomes — the inventor James Dyson, who has bought 35,000 acres of UK land, received £2.8m in financial support from the EU in 2017, the FT reported at the time. Towards a new strategy Helm is one of the architects of the UK’s new agricultural policy, which will see subsidies reconfigured. Central to the new direction, Helm said at Hay, are the ideas that “public money is for public goods” and that the “polluter pays”. Those principles are expected to be included in the government’s agriculture bill, initially presented in the 2017 Queen’s Speech and currently at the report stage in the House of Commons. The agriculture bill would replace the CAP’s basic payment scheme with the environmental land management scheme (ELMs), intended to be phased in between 2021-2027. The new scheme would pay farmers for environmental initiatives, such as sequestering carbon in soil or growing hedges as habitats. The policy is “a radical departure from the CAP”, said the National Audit Office, in a report released this week. As it stands, “timescales are incredibly tight to develop a successful scheme”, says Guy Smith, deputy president of the National Farmers Union. Recommended Life & Arts Could Brexit save Britain’s wildlife? Core to the new model is the idea of “natural capital” — which regards the natural world as a set of assets that can be priced. The new approach includes the value of natural assets — be they wildflowers, soils or rare animal breeds — by considering factors such as wellbeing and health rather than simply commercial value. Michael Gove, the environment secretary and a driving force behind the legislation, said in a statement: “This Bill will allow us to reward farmers who protect our environment, leaving the countryside in a cleaner, greener and healthier state for future generations.” There were areas where we were farming for subsidies. Some of that could be rewilded Lady Howard One example of how that might work in practice is a partnership between Wessex Water, a utility company, and EnTrade, a platform that creates a market for environmental goods, to pay farmers for growing cover crops that reduce the levels of nitrates entering Poole Harbour, in Dorset. Post-Brexit, “the only way to access direct payments or public money would be through the ELMs,” says Emily Norton, head of rural research at Savills. Farming is unlikely to qualify as a public good, she adds. “The whole industry and everything around it will be affected.” In New Zealand, subsidies were removed entirely in 1985. The immediate result was a collapse in land prices and a farming crisis. But New Zealand’s farmers eventually reduced inefficiencies and upped productivity. The removal of subsidies is now widely regarded as a success. A blueprint for a green future Landowners looking to adapt could follow the example of the Knepp Estate. Charlie Burrell and Isabella Tree, who own the 3,500-acre estate in West Sussex, have spent the past two decades transforming poor quality farmland into a diverse expanse for wildlife and plants. In the process, they have made Knepp a cause célèbre for “rewilding” and, more important, profitable. Last year, the estate’s activities — environmental stewardship, meat sales, wildlife safaris and rental properties — generated an income of more than £1.25m. Burrell estimates that profit margins at the estate are between 30-40 per cent. Prior to rewilding, the estate typically failed to turn a profit. Isabella Tree on the Knepp estate © Anthony Cullen Financial stability is vital, but just as great an achievement for Burrell is the habitat he and Tree have created for rare wildlife. This year, the arrival of a black stork to the estate has been his proudest moment. Even if they have not gone so far as Knepp, most estates have diversified away from agriculture in recent years because farm earnings are so volatile, says Norton. The Peregrine Tree House on the Knepp estate The right diversification strategy will in large part be determined by location. For wet, mountainous estates in the Scottish Highlands, hydroelectric power generation has provided income. “Hydro has proven to be a really significant opportunity for estates,” says Hugh Raven, whose family own the Ardtornish estate on the west coast of Scotland. “Like many Highland estate owners, we were asset-rich and cash-poor. We [borrowed] more than the estate was worth to build the hydro, but [the estate] is now worth a considerable amount more.” Installing hydroelectric power costs roughly £3m for every megawatt of output, but could pay for itself in a decade, says Raven. The Ardtornish estate has spent “well over £10m” on hydroelectric capacity. Farming makes up around 15 per cent of income at Ardtornish. Remove EU subsidies, and farming at the estate — and across the Highlands — is likely to look very different. The estate’s accountant, who represents around 100 agricultural businesses in the Highlands, estimates that just one of them would be profitable without subsidies. The average Highland farm currently receives two-thirds of its income from EU subsidies, estimates Raven. Slow Adventure on the Ardtornish estate © Otter Adventurse/Karl Bungey “There will be farm amalgamations, increased efficiencies, and payments of one form of another. It won’t be the end of farming, but livestock numbers will decline significantly,” he says. In the south-east of England, the weather and terroir lend themselves to viticulture. Since 2000, the area of the UK under vine has trebled and wine is the fastest-growing UK export, according to Savills. Establishing a profitable vineyard requires as little as three hectares, the estate agency calculates. From the pits of despair In Blaenau Ffestiniog, north Wales, there is evidence that — no matter how deep and dark the hole left by a departed industry — there are ways out. Open pits are criss-crossed with zip-wires, and vast trampolines are slung across blasted-out caverns the size of cathedrals: a former slate mine is now a thriving adventure tourism business. At full capacity the mine employed 900, but by 2014 — when quarrying ceased — just 19 miners were working. As the mine gradually became unproductive other activities sprang up on the site, which now employs around 300, says Alastair Altham, whose family has owned the mine for 180 years. Altham got involved with the project a decade ago, at which point it was insolvent. “Like so many other estates you feel this sense of obligation and sense of opportunity as well. There’s such an incredible history and such an incredible landscape. I thought ‘there must be a different approach here’,” he says. Zip World at Blaenau Ffestiniog © Ray Wood Altham reinstalled the hydroelectric capacity that had originally been put in place by the Victorians to provide cash flow and attract subsidies. Then he focused on tourism by updating the mine tour and partnering with Zip World on the zip-wires. “It took us four years to break even. But we now have a business that is significantly profitable. What matters more than anything is getting the cash flow right — a lack of cash can kill a business like this,” he says. Blaenau Ffestiniog More recently, glamping sites and a hotel have opened at the mine, which this year will host a motor rally. Visitor numbers are up fivefold in a decade. That may provide reassurance, but the future of farming remains uncertain. “There’s been a lot of words, but nothing concrete,” says Howard. Farmers are still “waiting to see which way the wind blows”.

South Molton does not look like a crucible for the future of the English countryside. Even on market day, the narrow streets of this Devon town in the south-west England are far from busy, although sheep are being auctioned and local produce is for sale on the stalls nearby. But this sleepy place on the edge of Exmoor is part of an ambitious proposal by local people to transform the way Britain’s countryside is managed. It is a do-or-die moment. With Brexit due next year and, soon after, the end of EU agricultural subsidies worth more than £2bn annually, big decisions must be made by policymakers about what sort of rural economy Britain wants, and how best to deliver it. Exmoor has been farmed and lived on for thousands of years, and has been shaped by that history. Straddling the border between Devon and Somerset, its 267 square-mile patchwork of fields surrounded by tree-topped banks is interspersed with woodland, deep valleys and rivers, and dramatic areas of moorland. But the area’s future is uncertain. People here voted overwhelmingly in favour of leaving the EU, in part because of widespread dislike of its Common Agricultural Policy and the rules for accessing its subsidies. In the half-century since the CAP was introduced, hundreds of billions in funding have been handed out to farmers across member states, from French dairy producers to Bulgarian grain growers. The aim was to keep food prices low for consumers, while ensuring food security and sustaining the livelihoods of those working on the land amid growing global competition. But the policy has been repeatedly criticised for skewing incentives towards mass production, and for the fact that the largest handouts often go to already rich landowners. Many Exmoor farmers view leaving the EU as a once-in-a lifetime opportunity to redesign agricultural policy. A group of them have banded together with residents and local groups to come up with their own vision for a post-Brexit future, which they have optimistically named Exmoor’s Ambition. They believe their proposal could secure both the livelihoods of local people as well as the attractions of the area’s beautiful landscape for visitors.  Near Wheddon Cross, in the national park © Nicholas JR White Whether they can persuade the government is another matter. While most policymakers agree that the end of the CAP should prompt a transformation of rural policy, there are some who see Brexit as an opportunity to reduce farmers’ dependence on taxpayers’ money. Last year, the centre-right think-tank Policy Exchange suggested phasing out subsidies for food production, and argued that the UK could lower agricultural tariffs  with other countries to allow for cheaper imports — a move that would put pressure on farmers to cut their costs.  Westminster has said it will match EU subsidies until the next election, scheduled for 2022. It is unclear what will happen after that. “The disaster for Exmoor and other areas would be if the CAP is cut and nothing is put in its place,” says Ian Bateman, professor of environmental economics at the University of Exeter. “That would lead to mass bankruptcy.”  Robin Milton’s family have farmed on Exmoor for nine generations. He raises sheep and cattle on 400 acres of farmland and 2,000 acres of moorland, while also tending one of the oldest herds of Exmoor ponies — small yet hardy creatures well adapted for the poor grazing and sometimes extreme weather on the moor. Subsidies from the EU provide the Miltons with a substantial proportion of their income, and a guaranteed cash flow in an uncertain market. Lamb prices, for example, have fluctuated by more than 100 per cent over the past four months, explains Milton. “How can you produce a business plan when values move like that?” he asks. With 1,000 breeding ewes, a £10,000 annual profit would be “a good year”, and without the EU’s basic payment scheme, he adds, “there really would not be enough to produce a living” — a message echoed by farmers  across the region. The Valley of the Rocks © Nicholas JR White While acknowledging the importance of EU money in keeping his farm going, Milton, a 57-year-old who speaks with a warm West Country burr, has harsh criticism for the way the rules for its disbursement have been designed and implemented. Under these, farmers are paid a certain amount per acre of land occupied, provided they maintain it to a minimum standard. This means that landowners with larger and more profitable arable farms in other parts of Britain can get paid more than farmers in challenging areas such as Exmoor. There are other anomalies. Farmers are penalised rather than rewarded for features such as ponds, which encourage wildlife but are deemed ineligible for support. And there are rigid timetables for when and how farmers can harvest, sow and plough their land, which take little account of local circumstances. One example: hay meadows cannot be cut until July 15 each year, to guarantee that they have gone to seed. But this year, after an unusually hot May and June, the fields were ready to mow a month earlier.  “The rules are the same wherever you are in the country,” says Milton. “They don’t take any account of the fact that Exmoor may be different from Northumberland or Cumbria.” Kill the farming and you kill all the dependent businesses. The farming generates the landscape, and then people come to see the landscape John Prideaux, farmer Most importantly, perhaps, Milton believes EU subsidies disempower farmers, not just by setting inflexible rules that cannot be bent to match local circumstances, but also by telling farmers what to do rather than setting objectives for them to meet. “You’re doing things not because it’s right to do them, but because it ticks a box,” he says. “Farmers feel we have lost ownership of what was there. It’s removed any feelings of trust between farmers and the establishment. The vast majority of farmers I know, they want to look after their land properly. Their main ambition is to leave their farm a bit better than when they started, for the next generation to take over.” As well as farming, a task that he and his brother have mainly now handed on to their children, Milton is a member of the Exmoor Hill Farming Network, which includes more than 300 farmers in the area. He also chairs the Exmoor National Park Authority. These groups, with input from the Exmoor Society, Natural England, the RSPB and local landowners, have come up with a proposal that they believe would far better answer the needs of farmers and other businesses on Exmoor than the current EU regime. It would also turn the region into a test case for a more effective policy for Britain’s countryside after Brexit. VIctoria and Andy Comerford in their cheese shop in South Molton © Nicholas JR White Exmoor’s Ambition suggests that farmers should be offered financial incentives to produce “public goods” — services or products that unregulated markets either under-provide or fail to provide at all, such as a clean and attractive environment or a neighbourhood park. For farmers, this could mean providing anything from access to food to a beautifully maintained hedge, a properly preserved historic farm building or a tranquil view. This holistic redefinition of what farmers do would have huge implications. Under the scheme, farmers who actively manage farmland and woodland would have the natural and cultural “capital” of their land evaluated, identifying the assets that are of public value. They would then sign up to an annual agreement to maintain and improve these assets, and be financially rewarded for doing so. The types of land management that delivered the greatest public benefits would receive the highest payments, and more money would be given to farmers who convert to organic production, for example, or who undertake conservation work such as hedge-laying, coppicing or the protection of watercourses. Recommended Life & Arts Could Brexit save Britain’s wildlife? These proposals, in fact, mirror many of the ideas that Michael Gove, the environment, food and rural affairs secretary, set out when he launched a consultation in February on the future of farming after Brexit. Gove, a Brexiter and key member of the Vote Leave campaign, has spoken a number of times about the opportunities presented to agriculture by leaving the EU.  The consultation paper suggested a number of ways of replacing CAP subsidies, including offering farmers payment for public goods. Under the proposal, they would be paid “for delivering environmentally beneficial outcomes . . . such as restoring peat bog and measures which sequester carbon from the atmosphere; protecting dry stone walls and other iconic aspects of our heritage”.  Dieter Helm, the influential economics professor at New College Oxford who pioneered the concept of “natural capital” and chairs the Natural Capital Committee, believes the value of places such as Exmoor to society has been underestimated for years, and that the new proposal would set this right.  Dunkery Beacon, Exmoor’s highest point © Nicholas JR White “Exmoor is an incredible, unique asset,” he says. “It’s about farming, but it’s also about health, exercise, fresh air, mountain biking, walking and village pubs. The character of the place is the ultimate public good. If you want to provide open access, repair the hedges, create wildflower diversity, then farmers should be supported for that.” Looking after these public goods, he argues, would justify spending taxpayers’ money more effectively than the current system, under which agriculture produces just £9bn a year for the UK economy but receives £3bn in subsidies and tax breaks. “Farmers are essentially recipients of huge state benefits, and those should be tied more closely to the good of the whole of society,” he says. It is difficult for visitors to this landscape, with its chocolate-box villages, swaths of moorland and views over rolling hills and coastline, to realise that, beneath the beauty, both farmers and the businesses that depend on them are struggling with tough realities. Farmers feel we have lost ownership of what was there. It’s removed any feelings of trust between farmers and the establishment Robin Milton, farmer Real returns on farming have declined dramatically over the past century. The average income for a farm in an area such as Exmoor in 2016/17 was £27,000, according to government data, including the EU basic payment but excluding the cost of labour of farmer and family and of capital investment in machinery or buildings. Effectively, this means that, even with the subsidy, which averaged £28,000 in 2016/17, most farmers in the region are barely scraping by. “The vast majority of farmers, particularly in those difficult upland landscapes, could not survive without some form of subsidy,” says the MP Peter Heaton-Jones, whose constituency spans about a third of Exmoor as well as other areas of North Devon.  Off the farms, professional life on Exmoor can be challenging. The national park no longer has a bank branch, after the last one in Dulverton closed. For many it is a 10- or 20-mile drive to the nearest petrol station or post office. Owning property is out of reach for most local workers, given that house prices are 14 times the average salary. West Somerset, within which part of Exmoor sits, was the worst performing area in the whole of Britain in November 2017’s report by the social mobility commission. John Prideaux, farmer © Nicholas JR White Communications are limited, with patchy broadband and mobile signal, few main roads and mainline rail stations only at Taunton and Exeter, outside the borders of the park. “It’s much easier for us if agriculture in the area is doing well,” says Andy Comerford, who with his wife Victoria runs The Cheese Larder, a shop specialising in local produce, in South Molton. “We get honey from a producer down the road – he brings in a couple of jars every now and then. It sells immediately.”  Until two months ago, the shop’s turnover had grown every month since the couple founded the business in 2013. But with three banks closing their South Molton branches over the past six months, business from locals, who make up half their customers, has dropped off. Fortunately, the tourists who make up the other half are still coming. Tourism is Exmoor’s biggest earner, bringing in an estimated £105m a year, and creating the equivalent of more than 2,000 full-time jobs, according to national park data — about a fifth of the area’s entire population. Over a tenth of visitors to Exmoor are from overseas, up from 5 per cent in 2005, with significant numbers of Dutch, German and Belgian tourists, according to Visit Exmoor. The tourists, too, rely on the farmers maintaining the landscape they so enjoy, as do a whole host of other businesses, from veterinary practices and agricultural machinery suppliers to hedgers and thatchers, supermarkets and chemists. Exmoor after Brexit — a test bed for Britain's land policy Subtitles unavailable “Kill the farming, and you kill all the dependent businesses,” says John Prideaux, who retired from British Rail in the 1990s and now farms the local Exmoor cattle, Devon Reds, near Timberscombe. “The farming generates the landscape, and then people come to see the landscape, eat somewhere, sleep somewhere. If the support system stopped, the farming communities on Exmoor would simply collapse.” Julie Edwards, of Mole Valley Farmers, which supplies agricultural products, says her business is “symbiotic” with the farmers on Exmoor. “We are absolutely reliant on them. If their family businesses aren’t successful, then we can’t be successful either.” Run as a co-operative, Mole Valley Farmers turns over nearly half a billion pounds a year, and is a significant local employer. Founded in South Molton in 1960 by a group of farmers, it now employs more than 2,000 people at 60 stores in the south-west and beyond. At Acorn Saddlery, just down the road, founder Frank Edwards and his son James tell the same story. Although the business sells its equestrian and shooting products to customers all over the world, at least half of its customers are involved in some way or another with local agriculture. But, like the farmers, the Edwards see opportunities for their business from Brexit. “Our leather goods are respected all over the world,” says Frank Edwards. “We’re hoping that more will be made in this country and supported in this country.” John Prideaux and his herd of Devon Reds © Nicholas JR White Others are more anxious about what Brexit might mean for this rural community. Trudi Spratt runs a recruitment consultancy outside South Molton. She says there has been a fall in job applications since the referendum. “We’re not getting as many people applying. People are staying [in their current jobs] because they don’t know what’s going to happen. And we are losing skilled European workers.” She believes that, to keep workers in the area, wages will have to rise. “Salary increases are inevitable. It has to happen for us to be able to attract people into work, but unfortunately that is going to hit the smaller employers quite hard. Employers have had to raise wages already to attract staff, across the board, whichever level we’re looking at.” At Visit Exmoor, the official tourism body for the region, marketing manager Jennette Baxter is also concerned about the future. “What is our biggest worry is the uncertainty [over what happens after Brexit], that’s the biggest frustration, but we’re also concerned about possible barriers to international and EU visitors. Are pet passports going to be revoked? Are there going to be longer queues for customs? Another issue is the challenge of finding seasonal workers. One hotel near Dunkery Beacon has already found it difficult to recruit and is thinking about opening for fewer hours.” Exmoor’s Ambition estimates the cost of its proposal at £16.9m a year, £1.5m more than existing EU farm and environment support and administration costs — justified, it says, because it would not just protect but also enhance Exmoor’s beauty and productivity for future generations of workers and visitors.  Sarah Bryan of the Exmoor National Park Authority © Nicholas JR White One of the aspects farmers like most about the proposal is that it brings back local accountability. Rather than hands-off monitoring from a distance, compliance would be measured by results, and overseen by farm liaison officers. “Fairly quickly, we saw [Brexit] as a massive opportunity,” says Sarah Bryan, chief executive of the Exmoor National Park Authority. “Because the [CAP] rules are so centralised, they’re either coming from London or from Brussels. It’s a bit ‘nanny knows best’, telling people what to do, without any clarity or understanding about what we’re trying to achieve . . . One of the positives of Brexit is that we could shape our own destiny on Exmoor and, if there is a support mechanism, have something that we all want.” Rather than just sit back and wait for someone else to decide our future, this is a golden opportunity Dave Knight, farmer Robert Deane, a rural consultant who advised on Exmoor’s Ambition, says the proposals do not suggest giving carte blanche to farmers, but that their voice has been for too long absent from discussions about national agricultural policy. “It seems bizarre that, at the moment, there is no conversation with the people who are actually doing it about whether it makes sense,” he says.  Wydon Farm was one of three farms to have its natural capital measured during the design phase of Exmoor’s Ambition. Dave Knight’s family have farmed here for hundreds of years and are long-term tenants on the National Trust’s Holnicote Estate on the north coast of Exmoor, rearing beef cattle and sheep on 1,400 acres of moorland and pasture. From the top of the hill on which Knight’s farmhouse perches, the view encompasses not just the Bristol Channel and the Welsh coast but also Dunkery Beacon and the Butlins holiday camp in Minehead.  The natural capital assessment revealed a rich and complex variety of assets on the farm, some of which surprised even Knight’s 77-year-old father. Rating Wydon Farm’s dramatic coastal and landward views as well as its productive agricultural land was one of the tasks the assessors set themselves. They also took into account its literary associations: Coleridge was famously woken from his dream of Kubla Khan in 1797 by the “man from Porlock”, just down the coast. Dave Knight at Wydon Farm © Nicholas JR White After the second world war, the land had to be reclaimed for farming, as it had been used as a tank-driving circuit — the farm’s moorland is dotted with slit trenches for infantry training. Other historical features include quarries, dew ponds, burial cairns, a possibly medieval field system, 16 bomb craters, Iron Age hill forts, a 16th-century gun encampment, Mesolithic and Neolithic flint implements, and the site of the Domesday Manor of Myne or Mere. The 630-mile South West Coast Path runs along the borders of the farm, which is criss-crossed by other tracks for walkers. Wydon has the only working water meadow on Exmoor, and hosts the rare high brown fritillary butterfly, red kites, which have been reintroduced into England after facing national extinction, and the Dartford warbler, which was reduced to just a few pairs in the 1960s. Knight says it is a challenge to make a living from this harsh terrain, but he believes the proposals in Exmoor’s Ambition would support his family’s desire to look after all the elements of the land they farm: its moorland as well as its pasture, its birds as well as its cattle, and its beauty as well as its ­history. “Farming under the current system is done by dates and numbers, with farmers being told how to achieve the end result,” he says. “Rather than just sit back and wait for someone else to decide our future, this is a golden opportunity.” Proposals such as Exmoor’s Ambition face criticisms. That devolving power down from national to local bodies risks conflicts of interest and loss of accountability. That it is difficult to place an objective “price” on the value of intangible assets such as historical significance — or to weigh up the public benefit of hedge-laying versus, say, coppicing. It will also be complicated to ensure a fair and consistent system of incentives across the UK. Perhaps most importantly, in a time of continued austerity and deep government cuts to everything from police numbers to children’s services, the agricultural community will face brutal competition for the funding it needs. Other national initiatives will also influence policymakers. A new agriculture bill, expected to set the broad parameters of post-Brexit farming policy, is due later this year; the journalist Julian Glover is leading a review of England’s 10 national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. Pastureland on Wydon Farm © Nicholas JR White Local groups warn that, if the opportunity to design an ambitious and appropriate new approach to the countryside is missed, the consequences could be dire. “If financial support is lost,” says Sarah Bryan of the Exmoor National Park Authority, “farms would be abandoned, and the moor and agricultural pasture would be overtaken by bracken, rhododendron and other invasive species. More subtly, you would see over time a change in the feel of the place, because the people who managed the land would not be able to afford to stay here.” But local politicians are confident that national government is starting to get the message. Heaton-Jones, the MP, says that in the past Exmoor’s needs have been ignored by governments of all colours, but that “the battle has been won that subsidies are not a handout to farmers. They are a fundamental part of stewardship of the landscape. “What you can’t do is seek to preserve it in aspic, and sometimes in the past that has been the view of national parks,” he adds. “I see Exmoor and its ­hinterland as a living, changing thing.”

Really good Countryfile-style article which highlights community and  the absurdities of some EU policies. However, the economics of pastoral hill farming in a National Park is not the norm. Most farmers (nobody loves us and we don't care) run a profit driven business and so the outcomes - chasing revenue at the expense of most else - will be to the detriment of the natural world unless legislators say otherwise. And in a post-Brexit world I'm sadly not expecting much on that front.

An interesting article. Essentially it argues that Brexit could be of benefit to Exmoor and other rural areas by allowing the redesign of rural subsidies (and an increase in their level). The arguments on more accurately identifying the public goods provided by rural areas and targeting subsidies on them rings true. I would rather the UK remained in the EU and made these arguments inside, but I agree that leaving gives more opportunity to directly control the subsidies. The point about the level of subsidies is perhaps slightly underdone in the article. The UK farming sector currently benefits from access to a large, high income market with relatively high tariffs and so higher prices and higher revenues to farmers. Being outside that market will reduce revenues and mean more subsidy is needed. But this does not undermine the article's key point about rewarding farmers and rural areas more generally for the public goods they provide. But whether this is the vision of the Tory party (as opposed to Mr. Gove) - nobody knows. There is also a strong lobby for scrapping subsidies and exposing UK agriculture more fully to global competition. That could reduce food costs as food is the main area where EU tariffs are actually material. If it is not accompanied by a new subsidy scheme that it would devastate the local area described in this article.  As with most things on Brexit there are multiple competing visions of the UK post-Brexit and a complete absence of leadership to decide between them or of honest public debate.

I have little sympathy for the CAP, but it did subsidise a lot the region including non farming related subsidies. There was nothing stopping them to make non subsidy related income. Several “inflexibilities” are related to domestic applications of EU rules, thus British bureaucratic inflexibility. Therefore, the problem is unlikely to be either sunny or uplands, but controversial to the bone. Good luck, but Brexit cannot be everything, free imports from everywhere regardless of quality with pressure to reduce prices, good domestic prices... but cheap food, targeted subsidies to a group and not to others... It is simply not possible domestically and not cheap at all. Who will pay? Mexicans? The Swiss farmers discovered the problem. A “referéndum” decided the Swiss sunny uplands wonderful rules for farmers. Stringent environmental and landscaping rules... but it drove domestic costs and prices up.... so? people go to France, Italy and Germany to buy their food. “Referendums” are wonderful because people can vote on a single issue in total oblivion of the consequences and real costs. We all want the promised land, none of us wants to know that it requires personal action.

The level of naivity/stupidity in this article is amazing. Why is it only the UK that criticises the CAP? If you have 28 countries and just one constantly complains perhaps the problem is not with the policy but the way the one implements the policy. Please, no more articles about farming in post-Brexit Britain without any consideration of how trade deals with the US or New Zealand might affect British agriculture and the quality our food. Ask these naive romantics who are clutching at unicorn straws to justify their stupid vote what they think of chlorinated chickens, GM crops and hormone-pumped cattle.

Lovely. Sarah Bryan says "One of the positives of Brexit is that we could shape our own destiny on Exmoor" - that is, we could shape our own destiny if the rest of you stump up 20% a year more than the EU are  doing now. I honestly don't think the rest of the taxpayers are going to feel like paying extra money because someone from Porlock once happened to disturb Coleridge. More to the point, if farmers wish to be paid extra for maintaining areas of historical and natural beauty, presumably this opens the door to other people who are also maintaining areas of historical and natural beauty. I am sure those who always wanted to buy a listed property in the country are looking forward to the coming government support! Really, it's so entitled and completely out of touch, it almost makes you weep. On a more realistic note, she is also quoted as saying  “If financial support is lost,” ... "farms would be abandoned, and the moor and agricultural pasture would be overtaken by bracken, rhododendron and other invasive species. Well yes. I grew up in New Zealand in the period where agricultural subsidies were withdrawn, and that is, in fact, exactly what happened to thousands of small farms.  And that is what they voted for. Amazing.

Romance aside. What a preposterous suggestion. The EU CAP policy is not perfect but it is way to redistribute income to the farming communities across Europe. Without this support many would go bankrupt and may even starve. And of course it would be great to have all kind of exceptions for farmers in Devon but that makes the system of subsidy disbursement prone to corruption and administratively very expensive. I am quite that the very same people that are now moaning, will look back to the CAP with regret.

Brexit deal difficulties
Hooves clicked on the pavement outside Whitehall last month when farmers herded a flock of sheep down the street to protest against Brexit. The farmers’ T-shirts read “Let us be heard” as they campaigned for a second referendum on leaving the EU. While the puns may be funny, the situation facing British farmers is not: once the UK is no longer bound by Europe’s common agricultural policy, they face a period of profound change. A new approach to how farm subsidies are handed out is expected to reduce support, while new trade deals and tariffs endanger the competitiveness of products at home and abroad. The government has promised to put the environment at the centre of its new approach to farm subsidies after Brexit. This may sound attractive, but experts predict the upheaval could force up to a quarter of farms out of business, while the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) said it could make the UK less self-sufficient in food production and even more reliant on imports. £3bn Total payments currently received by farmers in the UK under the EU regime If the plan goes ahead, farmers will no longer receive annual “basic payments” based on the area of land they cultivate. Instead farmers will be paid only if they carry out land management or environmental projects, for example, to protect wildlife or provide clean water. By delivering such “public goods”, the government argues that farmers will earn their right to support rather than being entitled to it. It has promised a “green Brexit” with the new policy, saying it would leave “the countryside in a cleaner, greener and healthier state for future generations”. Recommended UK agriculture UK subsidy change risks increasing imports, say farmers Today, under the EU regime, farmers in the UK receive payments of around £3bn a year, but experts have warned that support may be much lower under the new system as agriculture competes with other priorities such as healthcare or education for funding. The basic payment will start to be phased out in 2021 until it is completely replaced by the new subsidy scheme by 2028. The new farm policy “ignores food production” and could result in output failing to keep pace with population growth, according to the NFU. If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, many goods — including cheddar cheese, beef, pork and wheat — will immediately be subject to export tariffs when going into European markets. The loss of such markets would be a big stress on farms, even before the new subsidy policy comes into force. About 60 per cent of the UK’s exports of food and drink headed to the EU last year, according to the Food and Drink Federation. Meanwhile, about half the UK’s food is imported, with 30 per cent coming from the EU, and another 11 per cent from non-EU countries under trade deals negotiated by the bloc. I don’t think they care about producing food in this country . . . It’s going to be a race to the bottom Joe Stanley, farmer in the East Midlands Trade policy will also determine just how sustainable and environmentally friendly Britain’s food system becomes after Brexit. The UK would be free to sign new trade deals after leaving the EU, but such negotiations are expected to be lengthy and complex, with powerful nations like the US pushing for better access to UK markets for their own agrifoods businesses. The Trump administration has already begun pushing for access for America’s chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-fed beef, which both fall short of EU standards. Joe Stanley, who grows crops and raises cattle on his 750-acre farm in the East Midlands, fears that the new government policies would damage food production. “I don’t think they care about producing food in this country, and would be fine with importing food with lower standards,” said Mr Stanley. “It’s going to be a bargain-basement race to the bottom.” Derrick Wilkinson, a consultant and former chief economist for the NFU, admits that it is hard to predict how things will shake out for agriculture after Brexit. Recommended Brexit Gove promises farmers safeguards in no-deal Brexit “For consumers, they just want good products at good prices. But for the industry, anything that reduces production is seen as a negative,” he explained. A serious discussion was needed about how Brexit would affect competitiveness and what kind of trade policy would help farmers to “mitigate the downsides”, he said. Julia Aglionby, chairman of the Uplands Alliance, an organisation that brings together farmers, conservationists academics, and policy makers to advocate for the hilly regions of England, argues the current political paralysis is not good for farmers. Farmers have raised sheep in the region for generations, helping to create a bucolic green landscape, but many barely break even and rely heavily on government subsidies. “It is a very uncertain time,” she said. Many predict sheep would be hard hit in a no-deal Brexit because much of the meat is exported to Europe and would be subject to tariffs. The government is preparing an aid package that would pay farmers a fee for each lamb, but Ms Aglionby warned that such measures could have perverse consequences for the environment if they encouraged farmers to keep more sheep than the land could handle. If there is no market for sheep, farmers will keep them for another year, she explained. “The right number of sheep can be really good and the wrong number can be damaging, leading to soil erosion and overgrazing.”

It is getting harder for Beverly Dixon to recruit the roughly 1,500 seasonal workers needed each year to harvest lettuce, radishes and onions on G’s Farms in the UK.  “In previous years, when we would recruit in Bulgaria and Romania, we would invite 300 people to an event and 600 would turn up,” said the human resources director for one of Britain’s largest growers of vegetables, with farms in East Anglia and the West Midlands. “Now we invite 600 people and 100 turn up, and those applying are less educated with lower levels of English.”  Like all UK growers, G’s relies largely on workers from eastern Europe to bring in the harvest from April to November.  Attracting the 60,000 to 70,000 seasonal workers needed across Britain each year has been a struggle since the Brexit referendum in 2016, prompting farm businesses to increase wages and spend more to recruit and retain people. The UK competes for farm workers with countries such as Germany, Spain and the Netherlands, and the fall in value of the pound means that they risk earning less if they come to Britain.  Industry groups such as the National Farmers Union and British Summer Fruits have warned the government that reliable access to labour is critical for fruit and vegetable growers, who are among the most profitable and least reliant on subsidies of farm businesses in the UK.  But with Boris Johnson, prime minister, insisting on the UK leaving the EU with or without a deal on October 31, and the harvest not yet finished, growers are worried about how they will staff their picking and packing operations in the coming weeks and months. The government’s announcement last week that freedom of movement for EU nationals will end on October 31 in the event of a no-deal Brexit, without any clarity of what that means in detail, has sown confusion among farmers.  The uncertainty is also making it harder to convince the seasonal workers currently in Britain to commit to coming back for the next picking season, which risks lowering retention rates, according to two recruitment agencies.  Few British workers want such temporary jobs that require long hours in difficult conditions. The jobs typically pay workers the national minimum wage of £8.21 an hour plus performance-related bonuses, for example by kilogramme of fruit or vegetables picked.  Ali Capper, who heads the NFU’s horticulture and potatoes board, said she had fielded multiple calls and emails from the biggest producers of fruit and vegetables in recent days about the government’s announcement on ending free movement in a no-deal Brexit.  “They are in disbelief,” said Ms Capper, who runs an apples and hops farm with her family in Worcester. “As a sector we’ve spent every moment since the referendum to make sure that everyone in government understands why labour is such a critical issue.” Her farm has a permanent staff of about six people, but needs about 65 seasonal workers each year to bring in the crops.  Before the government’s latest announcement, there were signs that the sector had been able to mitigate labour shortages this harvest by hiring more people in anticipation that roughly a quarter of them will not show up.  According to data from the NFU, the shortfall in seasonal workers from January to June was slightly smaller than during the same period last year. About 11.5 per cent of job vacancies so far this year have gone unfilled because workers could not be found or because they did not arrive as promised. That compares with a 15.8 per cent shortfall during the same period in 2018, and 16.2 per cent in 2017.  But the problem is far from solved: last year 56 per cent of growers surveyed by the NFU reported not being able to secure all the seasonal workers they needed, compared with 59 per cent in 2017. In contrast, the figure stood at 25 per cent before the referendum.  Last year, 44 per cent of farmers also reported crops going unharvested as a result of labour shortages, a significant increase from the 30 per cent in 2017.  Recommended House & Home UK landowners prepare for Brexit Nick Marston, who leads British Summer Fruits, which represents growers of strawberries, raspberries and cherries, said such wastage was unavoidable when workers are scarce. Some relief has come this year from a new, two-year pilot scheme that gives visas to 2,500 seasonal workers from outside the EU to pick fruit and vegetables on British farms for up to six months. The initiative is similar to one that existed before 2013, but the government has not yet decided on whether to make it permanent.  Farming organisations have urged that the visa programme for non-EU workers be greatly expanded, pointing out that Germany already has a similar scheme to bring people from Ukraine, while Spain hires from Morocco.  Siobhan Marsh, who heads human resources for Pro-Force Recruitment, one of two agencies running the pilot, said at its current size the scheme was “a drop in the ocean” compared to the sector’s overall needs. Pro-Force opened an office in Ukraine to help it bring roughly 1,500 workers to the UK this season.  “It gets harder and harder each year to recruit,” said Ms Marsh. “We’re still struggling but the pilot is propping us up.” However, it is no panacea: since the pilot does not cover flower farms, Ms Marsh has already started worrying about where she will find 1,000 workers to harvest daffodils in January.

Gove was a rabid Brexiter who lied to the UK people to win the vote in June 2016. He now is lying to the UK people about potential mitigation strategies. He doesn’t control international tariffs that suddenly will spring up against UK agricultural products in a no deal scenario nor can he prevent the border checks for SPS issues. What are they planning, massive subsidies? So much for the Brexit dividend, and get set for trade wars. Though one has difficulty feeling sorry for the rabidly nationalistic UK farmers who in their legions voted Leave. What did they expect? Oh, and yes that promised trade deal with the US is going to do wonders for UK agriculture. Not. Huge competition from lower-standard producers with huge economies of scale, and if par folie you accept their standards none of your products will be accepted in your biggest market - Europe. Typical bonkers Brexit bullshit.

Millions of Britons woke up on Saturday morning desperately hoping it was the day the Brexit saga would end. After weeks listening to Boris Johnson imploring parliament to “get Brexit done”, the fervent prayer of many was that the House of Commons would finally cross the Rubicon, back the Johnson deal and bring the whole sorry saga to a close. Wrong again. For the umpteenth time, the Brexit tale goes through one more twist, one more moment of utterly incomprehensible British parliamentary procedure. Remainers will rejoice, hoping the latest confusion is another step towards a second referendum. But for many citizens — whether Leavers, Remainers or plain Brexit agnostics — Saturday’s events in parliament will have been the cause for despair. And so, three and a half years after the referendum, Brexit grinds on. The bad news for the British public is that the purgatory won’t end any time soon. The great illusion about Brexit — in many ways the greatest of all the many Brexit illusions — is that there is going to be one breakthrough moment, one fine hour when it all gets settled — and then the country can get back to the things it should really be focused on like soaring levels of knife crime, underfunded schools and the desperate need to solve the crisis in social care and mental health. Instead, as Denis MacShane puts it, the British are entering “Brexiternity”. We have years ahead in which the B-word will never be far from our lips. Why so? In part, as MacShane observes, it’s because even if a Brexit deal gets endorsed by MPs, Britain and the EU will enter years of agonising negotiations over what their future trade relationship should be. Mr Johnson thinks a trade deal can be agreed by December 2020. It is going to take a great deal longer than that. But much more troubling is the fact that any Brexit pact — in particular the hard “Canada-minus” break that Johnson aims for — will generate years of political and economic turmoil. The special new economic status that Johnson has agreed for Northern Ireland — tying it closer to the Irish Republic — will reopen the dreadful sectarianism of the past. Scotland’s clamour for independence will be turbocharged as it enviously eyes Northern Ireland’s special economic deal. And that’s before we get to the implications of the Johnson pact for UK manufacturing, workers’ rights, food standards and much else. MacShane is a former Labour MP who was Europe minister under Tony Blair. Back in 2015 (when the overwhelming consensus in UK politics was that Remain would win an EU referendum) he published Brexit: How Britain Will Leave Europe. Brexiternity is another title with foresight and flair. But the book itself is less a description of the future, more a cri de coeur from a passionate Remainer about the condition of Britain and how we got here. In analysing why Brexit happened, MacShane hits out at the usual suspects. David Cameron “never missed an opportunity to sneer and mock at Europe” and was therefore bound to lose the 2016 referendum. Theresa May made a “mess” of the Brexit negotiations by failing to build a cross-party consensus on Brexit. Jeremy Corbyn has been “unable to define a convincing position on Brexit since 2016”. Labour today is therefore “a national and global laughing stock”. MacShane is also clear-eyed about the failures on the Remain side. The campaign for a second referendum has never found a leader who can galvanise the public like Johnson and Nigel Farage. Business has often been too hushed in pointing out the dangers of Brexit which means “the economic debate has never caught fire”. Think-tanks and academics too often adopt a “solutionist” approach, trying to find ways to make Brexit work rather than saying plainly that it’s bad for Britain. MacShane’s main hope is that even after a Brexit deal is agreed, those who did not want it to happen will keep up the fight. He wants people to rally to the cause of defeating the isolationists who aim to remove the rights of millions of young British citizens to travel and who will fundamentally weaken the country in the decades to come. In the meantime, he predicts that Johnson will fall victim to the whirlwind that he has sown: “He will find the crushing weight of Brexiternity making normal politics and governance all but impossible.”