Brexit: serious risks to UK farm income from leaving the EU - report commissioned by NFU

[llamedos]

A Brexit is likely to have significant impacts on the agricultural sector in the UK. In case the UK government decides to pursue a more open trade policy, farm gate prices and farm income would fall in a number of sectors. A reduction or complete elimination of direct payment would exacerbate these negative impacts on the sector. A study by LEI Wageningen UR shows that for most agricultural sectors the biggest driver of UK farm income changes is the level of public support payments available.

In this study, commissioned by the National Farmers’ Union (NFU), three trade scenarios combined with three different levels of agricultural policy support have been designed to estimate possible effects of a Brexit on the UK agricultural sector. The introduction of trade facilitation costs causes price effects, which effectively result in higher farm gate prices as the UK is an net-importing country for most agricultural products. A net-importing country means that a country’s import is higher than its export. In addition, the UK will lose access to EU’s preferential imports which has a similar price increasing effect. These price increases have a positive impact on supply and farm revenue and income, but agricultural products will get more expensive for UK citizens. At the level of the society this implies a loss of consumer welfare.

Significant impact on meat and dairy prices
A UK Trade Liberalisation (TL) scenario significantly impacts on UK meat and dairy prices as current import tariff rates are relatively high for these products. Consequently, the overall effect of the TL scenario is a price decline for animal products which leads to less meat and milk production in the UK, and more imports of livestock products.

Reduced agricultural support
The positive price impacts on farm incomes in the UK-EU Free Trade Arrangement (FTA) and World Trade Organisation (WTO) default scenario will be offset by the loss of direct payments, in case these trade scenarios are combined with reduced agricultural support. A reduction of direct payments or their complete elimination further aggravates farmers’ income effects under the UK TL scenario.

Full report Here

Credit: Wageningen UR

 

[Chrisw]

As farm support payments are already reducing, almost yearly, and every buyer quotes world prices, in the case of grain its CBOT (which is Chicago). I would say the report has a disproportionate bias towards no more red tape and rules for the support payments, that payments will remain at their current levels and that world prices are not the main driver in the price we receive for our produce, but some EU pricing structure, which frankly is cobblers.
Sorry, but fundamentally disagree with the report.

 

[james ds]

As farm support payments are already reducing, almost yearly, and every buyer quotes world prices, in the case of grain its CBOT (which is Chicago). I would say the report has a disproportionate bias towards no more red tape and rules for the support payments, that payments will remain at their current levels and that world prices are not the main driver in the price we receive for our produce, but some EU pricing structure, which frankly is cobblers.
Sorry, but fundamentally disagree with the report.

I'd say you don't agree with it because you don't want it to be true , I'd say it's not far off the mark , the UK Goverment don't give a sh.te about farmers and are prepared to let farming go like the coal mining , lad if I was your side of the water I would be doing everything I could to stay in .there is a big world out there and the once mighty UK who once plundered the world can't do that anymore. If you leave you will be up sh.t creek without a paddle.

 

[Chrisw]

Farming will adapt, always has, to overcome the challenges thrown at it. Our right to govern, to hold our representatives to account and our sovereignty have all come at a very high price in the past and the politicians have given it away for their own personal gain. Brexit is our chance to get our rights to run our own affairs back and hold the politicians to account without their ability to claim it is the EU's fault!
Theres a lot more to the UK than just agriculture, and even if farming suffers in the short term, I believe it is a price worth paying to regain our right to govern without dictats, regulatons or directives.
You have your view, I have mine, and there is nothing that will change my mind on that!

 

[Ashtree]

If you foresee a future outside of EU without or even with significantly reduced regulations, dictates or directives, you will be sorely disappointed.
The traditional meaning of the word sovereignty is more than a bit outdated nowadays. We now have a very connected world and like it or not many of the directives and regulations are decided at a global level and thereafter adopted by national parliaments. World trade talks for example. Decisions on trade and tariffs etc,.
Post Brexit your government will continue to do as it does today if it wants to trade. That is sign up to and adopt into law most of what it does today.

 

[RobFZS]

NFU Brexit report shows positive outcome on the cards for UK farmers post-EU.


April 5, 2016



The NFU has today published the report it commissioned from Wageningen researchers on the 'Implications of a UK exit from the EU for British agriculture'. The report confirms what Farmers for Britain and other campaigners have been highlighting - British farmers can be better off post-Brexit.



The report shows that if area payments are maintained at the current level and either a free trade deal with the EU or default WTO tariffs are put in place then British farmers would do better outside the European Union. The report did not address a scenario where agricultural funding increases pro-Brexit.



However, while credit must go to the NFU for commissioning the report, their own summary of it is disappointing and suggests that their stance on EU membership may well be a foregone conclusion. The selective choice of graphics seems designed to spread alarm and despondency about Brexit and they fail to similarly highlight the many potential benefits.



Contrary to the overall findings of the report, the NFU themselves appear to highlight the worst case scenarios - where area payments are either halved or cease entirely. This inevitably presents a gloomy outlook for agriculture's post-Brexit future. However, the report itself does not suggest that these two outcomes are the most likely.



In light of the statement by George Eustice (backed by David Cameron) that funding will either remain the same or increase post Brexit, and taking into account the economic and social value of agriculture to the UK, it seems perhaps that the NFU may be mistakenly pessimistic in their take on what is certainly not a negative report.

http://www.farmersforbritain.co.uk/...farmers-postEU/twpur/57042a0f0cf2e0dbcac56c26

 

[Hilly]

For all them in support of the eu why dont you pay me a big subscription every year say 50k each and i will give you a few extra foreign sheep to keep that will need housed fed water and vet and i give you 25k back at the end of the year ! just forward your 50k to Hilly.quango#jobsfortheboys. thankyou.

 

[arbel]

NFU Brexit report shows positive outcome on the cards for UK farmers post-EU.


April 5, 2016



The NFU has today published the report it commissioned from Wageningen researchers on the 'Implications of a UK exit from the EU for British agriculture'. The report confirms what Farmers for Britain and other campaigners have been highlighting - British farmers can be better off post-Brexit.



The report shows that if area payments are maintained at the current level and either a free trade deal with the EU or default WTO tariffs are put in place then British farmers would do better outside the European Union. The report did not address a scenario where agricultural funding increases pro-Brexit.



However, while credit must go to the NFU for commissioning the report, their own summary of it is disappointing and suggests that their stance on EU membership may well be a foregone conclusion. The selective choice of graphics seems designed to spread alarm and despondency about Brexit and they fail to similarly highlight the many potential benefits.



Contrary to the overall findings of the report, the NFU themselves appear to highlight the worst case scenarios - where area payments are either halved or cease entirely. This inevitably presents a gloomy outlook for agriculture's post-Brexit future. However, the report itself does not suggest that these two outcomes are the most likely.



In light of the statement by George Eustice (backed by David Cameron) that funding will either remain the same or increase post Brexit, and taking into account the economic and social value of agriculture to the UK, it seems perhaps that the NFU may be mistakenly pessimistic in their take on what is certainly not a negative report.

http://www.farmersforbritain.co.uk/...farmers-postEU/twpur/57042a0f0cf2e0dbcac56c26

One has to ask the question as to why the NFU take such a pessimistic stance in relation to the report it commissioned from the Wageningen researchers. Anyone care to throw some light on this?

 

[RobFZS]

One has to ask the question as to why the NFU take such a pessimistic stance in relation to the report it commissioned from the Wageningen researchers. Anyone care to throw some light on this?

What i got from it, is the nfu's total lack of influence on government policy, too much back slapping, not enough hard work being done, maybe they're getting a bung off the eu like the cbi and don't wanna lose it?

 

[Chrisw]

If you foresee a future outside of EU without or even with significantly reduced regulations, dictates or directives, you will be sorely disappointed.
The traditional meaning of the word sovereignty is more than a bit outdated nowadays. We now have a very connected world and like it or not many of the directives and regulations are decided at a global level and thereafter adopted by national parliaments. World trade talks for example. Decisions on trade and tariffs etc,.
Post Brexit your government will continue to do as it does today if it wants to trade. That is sign up to and adopt into law most of what it does today.

Interesting as Switzerland, for example, trades very well with the EU and adopted NO rules, regulation or directives issued. Watch this train crash interview for some facts and figures:

Not only that, if the government continues to issue red tape etc (that they currently blame on the EU) even though they promised to cut it, we can vote them out and hold them to account at the ballot box. At the moment they have a get out clause and blame the EU and the public believe it, so don't actually hold the government to account at the ballot box.

 

[Muck Spreader]

If the report is to be believed (no reason not to) it looks like Brexit could be good news for the Horti boys if not particularly for anyone else, but I am sure the supermarkets would sort that little discrepancy out pretty quickly.

 

[Ashtree]

Interesting as Switzerland, for example, trades very well with the EU and adopted NO rules, regulation or directives issued. Watch this train crash interview for some facts and figures:

Not only that, if the government continues to issue red tape etc (that they currently blame on the EU) even though they promised to cut it, we can vote them out and hold them to account at the ballot box. At the moment they have a get out clause and blame the EU and the public believe it, so don't actually hold the government to account at the ballot box.

Switzerland voluntarily adapts to EU laws from time to time

The Swiss relationship with the EU is different to Norway’s.

It’s also got a trading relationship through the European Free Trade Association, without being part of the European Economic Area.

This also involves taking on EU laws.

But instead of laws constantly flowing into its legal system, it negotiates new treaties or amends old ones in return for access to the single market and other EU activities.

Some of the important treaties are linked, so that if Switzerland or the EU pulls out of one, the others also collapse.

This system means that Switzerland doesn’t formally lack control over its own laws.

It’s under strain, though, after a Swiss referendum vote to cap immigration from the EU.

This has been criticised by the EU as against the rules of the treaty dealing with free movement of people, and led to the suspension of talks over cooperation in research funding.

There’s a lot of uncertainty about how to resolve this. News outlets report that the current Swiss deal with the EU could be under threat.

And the EU has previously said that it’s concerned about the way this system is working in general.

 

[arbel]

If the report is to be believed (no reason not to) it looks like Brexit could be good news for the Horti boys if not particularly for anyone else, but I am sure the supermarkets would sort that little discrepancy out pretty quickly.

As I understand it, the UK's net contribution to the EU is about £8.5 billion per annum. That looks much nicer if expressed as being £8,500,000,000

So quite a sum of money in the kitty to help a hard pressed farming community. Maybe the NFU should be rather more active in getting a definitive statement on what happens after Brexit.

I feel very confident that the UK government would never allow agriculture to go down the pan and end up in a situation where we had to rely on food imports. The public are not viewing politicians very favourably these days, as they lurch from one disaster to another. But I do feel that there should be a definitive statement made to this effect, prior to the Referendum, rather than a constant stream of scare-mongering stories. Gradually, the opinion seems to be coming around to the idea that a Brexit might not be such a bad idea. It could provide a stimulus for some fresh ideas and motivation for change.

There will always be some losers, as well as winners. But do we really want more decades of the same? If we stand alone, at least we can focus on getting our politicos to get out there and start batting for Great Britain. Seems like an opportunity not to miss.

 

[Cowabunga]

As I understand it, the UK's net contribution to the EU is about £8.5 billion per annum. That looks much nicer if expressed as being £8,500,000,000

So quite a sum of money in the kitty to help a hard pressed farming community. Maybe the NFU should be rather more active in getting a definitive statement on what happens after Brexit.

I feel very confident that the UK government would never allow agriculture to go down the pan and end up in a situation where we had to rely on food imports. The public are not viewing politicians very favourably these days, as they lurch from one disaster to another. But I do feel that there should be a definitive statement made to this effect, prior to the Referendum, rather than a constant stream of scare-mongering stories. Gradually, the opinion seems to be coming around to the idea that a Brexit might not be such a bad idea. It could provide a stimulus for some fresh ideas and motivation for change.

There will always be some losers, as well as winners. But do we really want more decades of the same? If we stand alone, at least we can focus on getting our politicos to get out there and start batting for Great Britain. Seems like an opportunity not to miss.

You mean, do we want more decades of relative prosperity [banking crisis excepted], peace and tranquility and easy travel for our kids like we've had, rather than restrictive trade, strikes, food shortages, and two world wars like our parents and/or grandparents had?
Hmm! Tough one.

 

[Hilly]

You mean, do we want more decades of relative prosperity [banking crisis excepted], peace and tranquility and easy travel for our kids like we've had, rather than restrictive trade, strikes, food shortages, and two world wars like our parents and/or grandparents had?
Hmm! Tough one.

Norwegians and thee Swiss live in peace can travel freely dont have strikes or food shortages or wars, infact they look after there farmers very well.

 

[Hilly]

Greenland came out the EU they do fine.

 

[Hilly]

You mean, do we want more decades of relative prosperity [banking crisis excepted], peace and tranquility and easy travel for our kids like we've had, rather than restrictive trade, strikes, food shortages, and two world wars like our parents and/or grandparents had?
Hmm! Tough one.

Would you run your farm like the eu ? pay more to a group of neighbours than you get back ? for what ? nothing ? if you did you would go bankrupt, oh hang on we are bankrupt arnt we our government print money if you or i printed money we go to jail.We are ruled by criminals, better the criminal we know as the one we dont.

 

[Hilly]

We had ag subs long before any eec or eu, nothing to say we wont after ! although finding a way of subs for all long term is the best solution, no hope of that if hang on to froggys shirt tail.

 

[Cowabunga]

Would you run your farm like the eu ? pay more to a group of neighbours than you get back ? for what ? nothing ? if you did you would go bankrupt, oh hang on we are bankrupt arnt we our government print money if you or i printed money we go to jail.We are ruled by criminals, better the criminal we know as the one we dont.

Its not a farm. Its a collection of sovereign nations complete with their own governments. That includes ours of course and our own politicians and civil servants have got such a good track record of running the business/country haven't they. Brilliant they are, whether in or out of the EU.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

The EU it's clearly a mess. However in response to many of the points above I would just point out that;

To vote out a politician you need a majority to agree with you. Over half the people in this country now live in cities. Many know and care little for farming. Good luck voting out a politician based on agricultural facts.

Ever since Margaret Beckett let the cat out of the bag all senior Whitehall politicians have considered that food security is not an issue for the U.K. It's just that very few are prepared to say so.

I'm undecided how to vote but worry about the implications of either result.