UK GOVERNMENT officials accomplished a whole new level of hypocrisy last week as they contemplated a tariff-free trade deal with Australia which would sell British farmers down the river.

In an attempt to prove Brexit hasn’t been an utter shambles, Prime Minister Johnson is desperate to speedily sign global trade deals, even if that means UK food producers are sacrificed in the process.

Read more - Archaic trading system is strangling UK exports

Unlike with the US trade negotiations - where fears over welfare and production standards sent alarm bells ringing - the sticking point here is one of scale and to put it simply, Australia would blow UK food producers out of the park.

Smaller, family-run British farms cannot begin to compete on an even playing field with an agricultural powerhouse like Australia and its vast cattle and sheep stations, yet it would appear cries from the farming lobby are once again falling on deaf ears.

An emergency meeting was called last week between the four farming unions of the UK with its leaders declaring a betrayal by the UK Government over its promises to protect domestic farm businesses by considering opening the flood gates to cheaper food imports.

The president of Scotland’s national farming union, Martin Kennedy, pointed out that the industry has just had to go through two serious consultations on animal welfare in transit, yet at the same time the UK Government is happy to enter into trade with a country that doesn’t enforce such strict welfare regulations.

Read more - Livestock travel ban proposals: Island farmers need action. . . not empty promises

It is a slap in the face to food producers in the UK who are constantly being scrutinised for the way they farm and their impact on the environment, to then pave the way for produce flown halfway around the world.

British farmers are ready and willing to play their part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and are facing a future where direct subsidies for food production are to be removed and financial reward is to be tied to environmental credentials. Indeed, in Scotland, farmer-led study groups have put forward very radical, but sensible ideas on how to reduce the industry’s carbon footprint.

This makes it all the more mind-blowing that the UK Government is willing to sacrifice environmentally friendly domestic food production in exchange for a hefty carbon price tag - undermining the very principles of its new vision for the industry.

Read more - Meat production can be more sustainable and ethical than veganism

British farmers have been criticised for raising concerns over the proposed deal, with many saying that they are to ‘blame’ for voting in favour of Brexit and are now ‘suffering the consequences’. In the heat of debates around Brexit, many Remainers forget or at least are too ignorant to acknowledge why some farmers voted for Brexit in the first place and why they were desperate to escape from an archaic Common Agricultural Policy which stifled innovation in the industry and unfairly rewarded big landowners.

Many farmers that voted Brexit believed that there would be a unique opportunity to design an agricultural support system which would take into consideration the unique farming needs and climate of the UK and deliver a more ambitious, environmentally friendly and productive sector, rewarding active farmers as opposed to perpetuating antiquated farming practices.

Farmers have every right to complain that they feel betrayed by the UK Government in trade discussions. They were promised a future outside of the EU which would make them more competitive on a global stage, with higher animal welfare, production, and environmental standards to boast of, yet instead they are now realising that the Government is willing to sacrifice these principles in pursuit of free trade deals.

Those who argue in favour of trade liberalisation often point to the fact that the UK is only 60% self-sufficient in food production, relying on imports to meet gaps in production. However, this figure is exacerbated by our disregard for seasonality and demand for year-round produce, which has evolved over time as we became less connected with domestic food production.

Irresponsible and unsustainable demand for year-round produce was flagged up during the pandemic when global supply chains ground to a halt and many consumers experienced food shortages for the first time.

As a nation we were reminded not to take food for granted and became more climate conscious over the choices we made. We chose to support small independent businesses, sought out local butchers, signed up to milk and vegetable doorstep deliveries, sparking a buy local revolution.

The last year has reignited our relationship with food, and those who produce it, and is one of the real positive legacies to have come out of an otherwise crippling pandemic.

Does the UK Government not see this as an opportunity to build on this support for farmers by looking at increasing domestic food production, thus reducing our reliance on imports and their associated food miles?

Why set ambitious climate change targets on the one hand and then on the other hand look to export our climate responsibilities abroad?

Read more - Indyref can't continue to dominate the next five years — there are bigger issues

This all comes back to a matter of pride over a botched Brexit deal and the need to swiftly deliver on global trade promises, no matter the cost.

Although an agreement with Australia is by no means a done deal, the UK Government knows only too well that giving way on food is the route to a speedy agreement and speed is of the essence to secure a deal ahead of the G7 summit this June.

The clock is now ticking, and the UK Government has a very important choice to make between pursuing their blinkered trade agenda or standing by their promises to British farmers.