Opinion: Realignment with the EU is about outcomes, not politics

There is something quietly revealing about the latest reports of an imminent sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) trade deal between the UK and the EU.

We are told that easing checks, removing veterinary certificates and smoothing exports would be a major win for British farming. And it would be.

But let’s be honest about what that actually means. It means we are negotiating to remove barriers that did not exist before Brexit.

See also: The pros and cons for farming of closer EU alignment

Exports of UK agri-food products to the EU have fallen sharply since leaving the single market – by roughly 30-40%.

That is not theory. It is the lived reality of farmers and exporters dealing with more paperwork, more cost and, in some cases, lost markets.

The wider picture points the same way. Analysis from the Resolution Foundation suggests the economic cost of Brexit may now be approaching double what was previously assumed by the Office for Budget Responsibility.

That is roughly £200bn a year in lost economic output and perhaps £60bn-£70bn in foregone tax receipts.

Foreseeable

Much of this damage was entirely foreseeable.

Brexit was presented as though tariffs were the main issue in trade, and as though “zero tariff, zero quota” would preserve something close to frictionless access.

But the real barriers in modern agri-food trade are non-tariff barriers.

These are not abstract. They are customs declarations, export health certificates, SPS checks, border control posts, haulage delays and the cost of complying with two regulatory systems instead of one.

Even where tariffs are nominally zero, exporters still carry the cost, risk and burden of proving compliance.

This is what was glossed over by the proponents of Brexit.

The EU operates a single rulebook. You either align with it, or your goods are treated as third-country goods and checked accordingly.

This is why the UK is now seeking to reduce those checks through closer alignment, because that is what removes that friction.

This is the uncomfortable truth behind the current negotiations.

What is now being presented as a “reset” is, in reality, an attempt to correct outcomes that have not matched what was promised.

Evidence

The evidence is difficult to ignore.

If divergence delivered frictionless trade, we would not be negotiating to remove checks today.

If regulatory autonomy came without cost, we would not be seeing reduced exports and increased barriers.

This sits within a wider pattern. Trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, the handling of the Sustainable Farming Incentive in England, inheritance tax changes, labour shortages, the loss of the domestic biofuels market, and an uneven playing field on imports all reinforce the sense that farming is absorbing policy costs that others would struggle to bear.

The contradiction on standards is particularly stark.

Farmers are told to compete, while imports can be produced using methods banned in the UK.

At the same time, international trade law limits the UK’s ability to restrict imports unless it can justify measures on a scientific basis and show they are proportionate.

Outcomes

None of this is about relitigating the referendum. It is about acknowledging outcomes.

Reducing friction with the EU is sensible. It is necessary. But it should be described accurately.

This is not about unlocking new opportunity. It is about repairing what has not worked.

British farmers do not need slogans or evasions.

They need systems that function, borders that make sense, and honesty about trade-offs.

And they need recognition of a basic reality that should never have been ignored: the EU is, by a very large margin, our closest and most important market.

This is not about politics. It is about outcomes.