How UK Farming and Brexit Trade Deals Created a Crisis a Decade in the Making

When you’ve been cautioning people about something for years and it still happens—slowly, methodically, exactly as you predicted—a certain kind of frustration sets in. That’s about the current state of British farming. Instead of falling abruptly, one farming leader described it as a “death by a thousand cuts.” a gradual bleed that began as soon as the UK started to separate from the EU.

In Wiltshire, Liz Webster cultivates 647 hectares of land. Even farms this size are feeling the pinch in ways that would have seemed improbable ten years ago, despite the scale’s apparent magnitude. Her earning potential for each beef animal has been reduced by about £400. That kind of drop is not just uncomfortable when it comes to livestock that normally fetch between £2,000 and £3,000 each. It’s existential. Cheaper Australian beef arriving under one of the post-Brexit trade agreements the government signed after exiting the EU is largely to blame. Prices on supermarket shelves haven’t changed much. The earnings of farmers have.

Brexit trade agreements and UK farming are now practically intertwined in the industry’s narrative, and it’s not a positive one. The amount of farmed food exports to the EU, which used to be Britain’s biggest agricultural market, dropped by almost half, according to a study released last year. The value decreased by 35%. The range of goods being exported decreased by one-third. According to the National Farmers’ Union, exports of poultry decreased by 38%, beef by 24%, lamb by 14%, and dairy by 16%. According to a number of reliable estimates, Brexit has also increased regular consumers’ food expenses by about £7 billion. Thus, both farmers and consumers have suffered as a result.

One thing is worth being fair about. There were other storms besides Brexit. Extreme weather, COVID, energy shocks, and the conflict in Ukraine all fell on farmers in waves that overlapped. The NFU’s president, Tom Bradshaw, admitted as much, stating that it’s actually challenging to distinguish the harm caused by Brexit from the wider worldwide disruption. However, he also made it clear that the slow-burn effect that farmers had always cautioned about is now clearly apparent. It was not going to be a precipice. It was always going to take time.

Brexit brought about three structural changes that fundamentally altered farming. The first was the termination of the EU subsidy program known as Common Agricultural Policy payments, which had supported farm income since the middle of the 1970s. The second was a change in trade policy that allowed for cheaper imports, many of which, according to farmers, are made with lower environmental and welfare standards than their UK counterparts.

The third was the abrupt onset of trade disputes with the EU, the market that British farmers had been exporting to for decades. Brexit was partially marketed as a bonfire of red tape, so the irony becomes almost painful when you add seasonal worker visa complications and a mountain of new paperwork. The tape is thicker than ever, according to farmers.

The bright spot was supposed to be the reform of subsidies. On paper, the idea of substituting money linked to environmental outcomes for blanket land-area payments had real potential. As the government put it, public funds for public goods. Farmers who support wildlife, preserve water quality, and safeguard soil health would be rewarded. It was cautiously welcomed by some farmers. The previous CAP system, which essentially rewarded the largest landowner regardless of how they farmed it, was far from ideal. However, the shift has been difficult, and many smaller farms have been forced to choose between waiting for new programs to fully materialize and phasing out the previous support.

What remains is a farming industry that feels as though it has shot itself in the foot, according to Webster. She now advocates for closer EU re-engagement because she believes that British food in mainstream supermarkets will become increasingly scarce and a premium niche for those who can afford to seek it out if trade standards and import competition are not reconsidered.

She might be mistaken about the timeline. However, when the data consistently points in the same direction, it is difficult to discount the direction of travel. According to a recent interview with a Surrey beef farmer, exporting premium cattle to Europe was the foundation of his business strategy. That market closed as soon as the UK left. Irish farmers from the South intervened and seized it. They remained in the European Union. The neatness of the logic was almost cruel.

The government cites a new agreement with the EU that it claims reduces millions of dollars in regulatory burden, as well as a record farming budget. It is not insignificant. Announcements, however, seem far removed from the mud and the numbers to farmers who are witnessing their margins shrink year after year. They desired their previous level of market access. They received a trade agreement with Australia.