Making farmers into free trade winners

The advent of free trade deals agreed between the UK and Australia, then New Zealand and Canada, and subsequently others, raises the prospect of cheaper food in the shops for UK customers. The economies of scale made possible by the larger farms that tend to dominate the ex-dominions, combined with their efficiency, mean a potential bonanza for UK shoppers. That is the point of a free trade deal. Each side receives what the other does competitively, and trade between the two expands.

The UK was previously tied into the EU Common Agricultural Policy and the Common External Tariff. These were specifically intended to “protect” European markets from the cheap foodstuffs produced outside the EU that would otherwise have been accessible to their citizens. They raised the prices to European consumers in order to keep European producers from feeling the impact of competition from outside. Brexit has given the UK the chance to opt for free trade and lower prices rather than protectionism and high prices.

The National Farmers’ Union (and its supporting MPs) is protesting that the upcoming free trade deals will make life harder for its members. In some cases they may well be right, in that British farmers who can adapt to the changed circumstances might prosper, but those less able to do so might find it difficult to compete. There is a way in which they could be helped without denying UK families access to cheaper food.

Farmers unable to compete could be offered a deal. If they opted to quit farming, half their land could be sold with planning permission for housing, provided that the other half was turned into woodland. The half sold with planning permission would bring in enough money to assure the retiring farmer of a sufficient income in retirement, or enough money to fund a new project.

The UK would gain the housing it desperately needs to make home-ownership a viable option, especially for young people, and the environment would gain the extra woodland as habitat for wildlife. In cases where the new homes might alter the view of nearby dwellers, the requirement could be that the new woods be created around the new houses. 

Such a policy could assuage farmers, would-be home buyers, environmentalists, and current rural inhabitants. And it would do so without impeding the lower food prices that imports promise. It could be a winner.