Politics Home | The cost of getting it wrong: whoever leads Labour must get EU reset right

The past few weeks in Westminster have carried a tone of chilling familiarity. And while the government tussles over by-election selections and the arcana of Labour leadership rules, serious and consequential conversations are taking place behind the closed doors of Whitehall and the chancelleries of Europe. Chief among these is the government’s much-touted reset with the European Union. As we saw from the King’s Speech on the 13 May, with the announcement of the European Partnership Bill, the proposed UK-EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) agreement remains at the heart of the government’s legislative and diplomatic agenda. With the attention of SW1 focused on the policies and personalities of rival leadership hopefuls, this agreement, which will shape the way we eat, grow, and sell food for the next decade, is not receiving nearly the attention it deserves. If the government’s ambitious timetable is to be met, we could be little more than a year away from the deal taking effect. The government has one chance to get this right.

The SPS agreement sounds technical, but in reality it is intensely political. Its stated aim is to reduce costs to consumers by reducing friction at the border. However, this comes with a significant trade-off in regulatory freedom. Since leaving the European Union, Great Britain has been able to make decisions about the use of genetic technologies and the regulation of Plant Protection Products (PPPs) independently of EU institutions. This has enabled UK regulators to bring innovative products to market more quickly and to better reflect the unique growing conditions of the British Isles. Divergence has been Fabian in nature, as much of the regulation currently in use is simply transplanted EU law; however, a rapid boomerang back to EU decision making would have a major impact. A closer relationship with our nearest trading partner is vital, but the pace of these negotiations risks seriously undermining the potential benefits.

This is not entirely new information. In January this year, the Andersons Centre report, commissioned by CropLife UK, produced a report highlighting the risks to farmers and growers of an SPS cliff-edge scenario. The findings were stark. In the “immediate alignment” scenario modelled by Andersons, UK crop production falls by around 3 – 6 per cent in the first year, while total income from farming drops by 7 – 11 per cent, a hit of between £500m and £810m, with growers losing access to key tools on which they currently rely. That translates into double-digit income losses for some crops, with wheat volumes down by 9 – 16 per cent, potatoes by 4 – 6 per cent, and apples by 3 – 7 per cent, alongside pressure on berries and leafy salads. Since the report was published, the wider landscape for growers has become even more challenging, with rising input costs adding further strain. CropLife UK has been clear that it supports a deal that cuts red tape and smooths trade, but a deal that automatically overrides legitimate GB science-based decisions on plant protection products and maximum residue levels would be devastating for British farming. The government, and any future government, must ask whether it is willing to sacrifice farmers and rural communities in order to secure this deal as quickly as possible.

The good news is that none of this is inevitable. The Andersons’ work for CropLife UK is clear that the greatest damage comes from an “immediate alignment” model, and that a managed approach to alignment under an SPS deal would greatly mitigate the shock to production and incomes. Managed alignment, in political terms, means three simple things: respecting legitimate GB decisions; ensuring UK involvement in EU decisions relating to UK-specific conditions and varieties; and building in realistic transitional periods so that EU approvals or Maximum Residue Level (MRL) divergences do not remove essential tools from farmers overnight. This is not a call for lower standards, but for evidence-based, predictable processes that allow growers to plan, invest, and maintain yields while moving together towards high, shared outcomes on food safety, the environment, and trade.

If Labour wants to be trusted on both the economy and Brexit, whoever leads the party needs to be bold and explicit about any SPS deal. They must fight for an agreement that reduces barriers to trade with our neighbours without embedding automatic alignment that undermines British growers’ ability to compete and invest.

For the Labour leadership, the future should be to commit to an SPS agreement with sensible transition periods and managed alignment on plant protection products and MRLs, rather than overnight overrides of GB rules. Insist on genuine UK involvement in any EU decisions that would subsequently apply here, including proper consultation and impact assessments for UK farming. Use the European Partnership Bill to create a combined regulatory regime that reflects new technologies and UK agronomy, and stress-test any draft text with growers and the wider food chain before signing, not afterwards.

Click here to read the Andersons Centre report.