The EconomistFebruary 29th 2020 Britain 211I
t is a truismthat farmers like Conserva-
tive governments. The party has deep
roots in the shires and has traditionally
supported country pursuits. Yet the pre-
sent Tory government worries farmers.
Their biggest concern is about whether and
how it will replace their £3bn ($3.9bn) of
annual subsidies under the European Un-
ion’s common agricultural policy, which
make up nearly two-thirds of total farming
income. They are right to fret. Some Tories
believe that escaping the ludicrously lavish
and protectionist capis among the biggest
benefits of leaving the eu.
Drenched by recent floods, farmers will
have drawn little comfort from this week’s
conference of the National Farmers Union
(nfu). George Eustice, newly promoted to
the job of secretary of state at the Depart-
ment for the Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, spoke enticingly of a prosperous
future, but also of the biggest change in ag-
ricultural policy in half a century. Much of
his agenda is commendable, notably tying
subsidies to environmental and other pub-
lic goods rather than ownership of land.
And he promised that any changes would
be phased in over seven years.
But there was a sting in the tail. The day
before delivering his speech, Mr Eustice
announced sharp and progressive cuts in
direct payments to farmers, starting in- Those due to get under £30,000 will
see a reduction of just 5%, but the cuts will
rise in steps to 25% for those collecting
over £150,000. And this attack on the
squirearchy may be just the beginning. The
government is committed to keeping total
subsidies unchanged only for the term of
the current parliament.
In future, subsidies will be doled out in
three tiers under the broad heading of “en-
vironmental land management”: one to in-
centivise such measures as pest control,
hedge planting and soil improvement, a
second for local actions like tree planting
and creating habitats and a third to foster
general landscape improvement. These
may be sensible goals, but the red tape in-
volved in monitoring them could be even
more intrusive than today’s system of di-
rect support. Imposing such an avowedly
green agenda may also sound to farmers
decidedly unTory.
And then there is the prospect of future
trade deals that may lead to cheaper im-
ports. Mr Eustice told the nfuthat, in re-
sponse to farmers’ concerns, he was
amending the agriculture bill to include
regular assessments of food security. He
also promised to pay particular attention to
food safety and animal welfare. Yet his bill
offers no guarantees on food standards.
And whereas his predecessor, Theresa Vil-
liers, vowed in January to stick to the eu
ban on importing such horrors as chlori-
nated chicken from America, Mr Eustice
has made no such pledge, suggesting in-
stead that there is “a discussion to be had”
on food standards.
This ambiguity is surely deliberate.
Next week the government will publish its
guidelines for future trade talks with
America, hoping thus to put pressure on
Brussels to soften its negotiating position
in the eu-uktrade talks that start on March2nd. Washington’s priority in any trade ne-
gotiations will be to prise open the British
market for American agriculture. Minette
Batters, the nfu’s president, argued this
week that letting in cheaper food which it
would be illegal to produce in Britain
would be “morally bankrupt” and “insane”.
But she may have a fight on her hands.
Farmers are mindful of the experience
of New Zealand, which scrapped most of its
farm subsidies in the 1980s. Agriculture is
now thriving there, but the transition was
long, painful and, to quote Mr Eustice once
more, chaotic. Yet if the future looks fright-
ening, farmers share responsibility for
shaping it: like turkeys voting for Christ-
mas, a substantial majority of them backed
Brexit in June 2016.^7Farmers fret about losing both their
protection and their subsidiesFarming after BrexitA green and
poorer land
T
he corpus clockis a mechanical mar-
vel. Plated with 24-carat gold, the 1.5m-
wide timepiece is accurate once every five
minutes. The rest of the time tourists are
able to enjoy the macabre grasshopper
which sits atop it, munching the minutes
as they pass. At least, that is, when they are
not having to dodge vans making three-
point-turns near the recently installed bar-
rier at the bottom of King’s Parade, de-
signed to stop terrorists from targeting the
centre of Cambridge.
Common for years in big cities, such
protection is spreading across the country.Cambridge is one of a number of smaller
towns and cities—including Canterbury,
Windsor and York—that have recently in-
stalled it. They may be ahead of the trend.
On February 24th the government opened a
consultation on a new duty to protect,
which would require businesses and pub-
lic authorities to put in place measures to
guard the public from attacks.
The government also wants to make
public spaces more beautiful. The Cam-
bridge example suggests reconciling these
two desires may prove difficult. Susan
Grossey, a local resident, accepts the needCAMBRIDGE
Anti-terror architecture is increasingly common, and more is on the wayBarricaded BritainBeauty or safety?
A barrier fit for King’s?