The only government in history to insist on a non-level playing field, for the other side. As the NFU put it:
“Despite manifesto commitments and frequent warm words from the government, it is disappointing that they did not take the opportunity to legislate that they will not allow the imports of food that would be illegal for our farmers to produce here. We have seen clearly in the past few days the strength of feeling among farmers, MPs and politicians on this issue and as the Bill now moves to the House of Lords we will continue our work to ensure British farming standards are not undercut by future trade deals.”
A majority of MPs voted against an amendment, new clause 2, requiring new international treaties on the import of agricultural and food products to comply with World Trade Organisation safety rules and the UK’s own standards. It was put forward by the chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Conservative MP Neil Parish, and was defeated after receiving the support of Twenty Two Conservative MPs.
The proposed amendment would have protected our environment and animal welfare standards in future trade deals. As Parish wrote an article for the Conservative Home website, “there is no point having world-leading standards in the UK if we do not expect trade partners to reciprocate.” This stance was supported by the British Veterinary Association, along with 26 signatories of a letter, including representatives of the National Farmers’ Union, RSPCA, Wildlife Trust, Friends of the Earth, Green Peace, Soil Association and WWF, sent to all MPs.
This letter proposed that “The Bill should ensure that agri-food imports are produced to at least equivalent environmental, animal welfare, and food safety standards as those required of producers in the UK… We have heard concerns that such an approach would prevent the UK achieving the maximum benefit from its decision to leave the EU. We believe the opposite is true.”
We now come to the crux of the issue. The government appears to have decided against incorporating these standards into law because, as former international trade secretary Liam Fox pointed out during his speech in parliament on the 13th:
“the US would walk were the proposals to become law in the United Kingdom, and it would be swiftly followed by others—the Australians, the New Zealanders and those involved in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership would be unlikely to take kindly to it.”
So, we insist on red lines with the EU, but insist on none with the rest of the world, which is odd.