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.

Lord Ashcroft KCMG PC is an international businessman, philanthropist, author and pollster. For more information on his work, visit lordashcroft.com

Last month I surveyed 850 members of Reform UK, asking about their priorities for government, their attitudes to Britain, Conservative defectors, how they see prominent figures inside and outside the party, whether they trust elections, and how they think the civil service and the political establishment would react to a Reform victory. A separate survey of the general population allows us to compare their views with those of the general public.

 Policies and priorities

Ninety-four per cent of Reform members named immigration and asylum among the three most important issues facing the country. Second was national security and defence, chosen by 30 per cent, followed by welfare and benefits. The cost of living was in fourth place chosen by just over a quarter. The general public were more than twice as likely as Reform UK members to choose the cost of living, less than half as likely to choose immigration and asylum, and four times as likely to choose the NHS and social care. Reform members were more than four times as likely to mention free speech as the general public.

Asked which Reform policies they see as the most important priorities for government, party members were most likely to choose leaving the ECHR and detaining and deporting illegal migrants. These were followed by scrapping net zero targets, reforming welfare and ensuring that anyone entering Britain illegally is ineligible for asylum.

Presented with a selection of policy ideas (not currently Reform UK policies), Reform UK members were most supportive of a law stating that women-only spaces should be defined by biological sex (98 per cent, compared to 68 per cent of the general public), banning the burqa and other religious coverings (also 98 per cent, compared to 51 per cent of the general public), deporting illegal migrants even if they have since been granted asylum (96 per cent, compared to 54 per cent of the general public), and requiring civil servants to sign a contract promising to implement the wishes of the elected government (also 96 per cent, compared to 40 per cent of the general public).

A majority of Reform UK members said it was more important for Britain to have a close relationship with the US than with the EU. A further 39 per cent thought the two were equally important. Only one in a hundred thought it was more important to have a close relationship with the EU than with the US. The general public were as likely as Reform UK members to say the two were equally important, but were much more likely to prioritise the EU relationship than the US one.

Nigel Farage, Reform leadership and other political figures

Four out of five Reform UK members said they would want Nigel Farage to continue as leader even if the party is not in government after the general election. Thirteen per cent said he should step down if Reform UK are not in government.

 Just under two thirds of Reform UK members said they think Farage attracts more people to the party than he puts off. Just under three in ten think he attracts and repels people in equal numbers. Only 3 per cent think he puts more people off than he attracts. Voters as a whole were slightly more likely to think Farage puts off more people than he attracts than the reverse.

Asked unprompted to say who they would like to see as the next Reform UK leader, party members were most likely to name Zia Yusuf, closely followed by Richard Tice. Just over one in ten named Lee Anderson, with 6 per cent suggesting Robert Jenrick.

The most popular political figures among Reform UK members were Nigel Farage, Richard Tice, Lee Anderson and Zia Yusuf. More members gave a positive score to Kemi Badenoch than to Danny Kruger, Rupert Lowe or Nadhim Zahawi.

Conservative defectors

Three quarters of Reform UK members thought either that the party had let too many former Conservatives join or that the balance was about right. Only just over one in five said Reform should try to attract more from the Conservatives.

Nearly three quarters of Reform UK members said Conservative MPs joining Reform UK brought expertise and experience to the party and showed that Reform had the momentum. Just over one in five said it diluted Reform’s brand and made it look like a party of failed Tories.

The next general election

 Just under half of Reform UK members expected the party to win the next general election with an overall majority. A further 45 per cent said the most likely result was Reform UK being the largest party in coalition with the Conservatives. Overall, 95 per cent of members expected the party to be in government after the election. The public as a whole were equally likely to expect a Reform UK majority or a Reform-Conservative coalition (20 per cent each), with 13 per cent expecting a Labour-led coalition with other parties of the left.

Reform UK members were most likely to see “the party being seen as nasty or racist” as one of the biggest barriers to winning the next election, followed by “people not thinking the party has thought-through policies on important issues”. They were more likely to think the party’s policies not being radical enough was a potential obstacle than being seen as too radical. Only 13 per cent thought voters being put off by Farage himself was one of the biggest barriers.

Voters as a whole agreed with Reform UK members on the two biggest barriers (the party being seen as nasty or racist, and not having thought-through policies). However, they thought the next biggest obstacles were not being seen as a serious government in waiting, and voters being put off by Nigel Farage.

 Nine out of ten Reform UK members said they would want a coalition or a deal with the Conservatives if Reform were the largest party after the election but don’t have an overall majority. Seven per cent said they would rather stay in opposition.

Fewer than one in ten party members think Reform UK would be given a fair chance to form a government and take office if they emerge as the largest party after the general election. Nearly nine out of ten think the political establishment and the civil service will do everything they can to stop this happening.

 A majority of Reform UK members said they were not confident that elections in Britain are conducted fairly. This included 17 per cent who said they were not at all confident. Among the public as a whole, two thirds said they were somewhat or completely confident that British elections are conducted fairly.

A Reform UK government and the civil service

 Nearly nine out of ten Reform UK members said that in politics, getting things done is more important than sticking to rules and conventions. They were nearly twice as likely to think this as the general public, who were nearly four times as likely as Reform UK members to think it was more important to stick to rules and conventions even if it stops some things getting done.

More than eight out of ten Reform UK members said civil servants should do what they’re told by politicians who have been democratically elected. Fourteen per cent said they should follow established rules regardless of what elected politicians ask them to do. By contrast, a majority of the general public said civil servants should follow established rules regardless of what they’re asked to do by elected politicians.

More than nine out of ten Reform UK members think the civil service will try to obstruct Reform ministers and their policies if the party is in government after the election. Only 0ne in twenty think civil servants would give impartial advice and follow instructions, and only 1 per cent think they would proactively help Reform ministers implement their policies.

Attitudes to Britain

Just under four in ten Reform UK members said they would describe someone who was from an ethnic minority, was born in England and was a British citizen as both British and English. Just under a quarter said the person would be British but not really English. Three in ten said the person would be a citizen legally, but not really British or English. Among the public as a whole, a clear majority said the person would be both British and English.

Nine in ten Reform UK members say life in Britain is worse than it was 30 years ago, compared to two thirds of the public as a whole. Seven in ten Reform UK members say there are always opportunities in this country for people willing to work hard enough to take them, compared to 49 per cent of the general public. Nearly nine in ten Reform UK members think that for most children growing up in Britain today, life will be worse than it was for their parents, compared to 70 per cent of the public as a whole. More than nine in ten Reform UK members say the Christian faith is an important part of Britain’s culture and should continue to be so, compared to 44 per cent of the general public.

Previous support and alternative parties

Nearly three quarters of Reform members said they had supported the Conservatives before Reform UK. 8% named the Brexit Party, with 6 per cent each naming Labour and UKIP. A further 6 per cent said Reform was the first party they had supported.

Asked who they would vote for if no Reform candidate was available in their constituency, 42 per cent of Reform UK members named Restore Britain. One in three named the Conservatives. A further 13 per cent said they would not vote.

Full data tables at LordAshcroftPolls.com