Starmer's trade deal with Trump is an unforgivable betrayal of British farmers
Great showman that he is, Donald Trump casually dropped papers containing the tariff deal on the ground and waited for the Prime Minister to pick them up – or so it appeared. If it was deliberate it was smart. It served to underline to his core voters in US farming states that the president had their backs, and had the Brits scrabbling around for crumbs beneath his table.
The White House statement on the deal unequivocally paints American farmers as the winners: 'The deal includes billions of dollars of increased market access… especially in agriculture, dramatically increasing access for American beef, ethanol, and virtually all of the products produced by our great farmers.'
It is not hard to see who the losers are. The import of 1.4 billion litres of bioethanol annually – spookily the exact size of the UK market – is a direct threat to the UK's two bioethanol plants in Hull and Teesside. There is already talk of closure. It would be surprising if our US competitors, with their lower costs and greater economies of scale, did not ensure that they undercut our producers so that they do fold and we become reliant on US imports for evermore thereafter. So much for Labour's commitment to national fuel security.
The Government has so far avoided publishing impact statements that must surely have been produced before the deal was agreed. The knock-on effect on our agricultural base will be even more serious.
Vivergo Fuels, our largest bioethanol producer, estimates that 1,220 farming jobs are at risk on the 12,000 farms that supply them with wheat. More seriously, many arable farmers are already thinking of giving up. When the subsidy was often the only profit and that has now all but been removed.
And when the reliable bioethanol market for wheat that fails to meet the milling standard, usually for weather related reasons, disappears along with a much needed floor in the wheat price, the risk of carrying on growing cereals will be too great for many. The price of bread may well rise as a result. The option for many farmers would have been to go into beef production instead, but with 13,000 tons of tariff free US beef coming our way that industry also looks shaky.
One can forgive the Government for deciding that the greater good lay in protecting jobs in manufacturing industries and that farmers had to take one for the team. What is unforgivable is leaving our farmers at a huge disadvantage. The unilateral disarmament approach to subsidies had already left our farmers vulnerable to well subsidised overseas competitors.
The imposition of inheritance tax on family farms – but, significantly, not on institutionally owned ones – has then loaded a massive cost onto farmers. Meanwhile only US farmers with assets over $27.22 million (for married couples) need to pay it.
Prime Minister, if you are going to shaft us in trade deals, at least acknowledge it and look at what can be done to compensate through other policies.
Jamie Blackett is a farmer and the author of Red Rag to a Bull and Land of Milk and Honey
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Elon Musk blasts new version of Trump's spending bill as 'utter madness'
Elon Musk reignited his feud with Donald Trump as he tore into the president's spending bill in a blistering social media tirade. The world's richest man condemned Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' as 'utter madness', hours before Senate Republicans are expected to hold an initial vote on the latest version of the bill on Saturday afternoon. 'The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country,' Musk wrote in one of his X posts. 'Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.' Trump's massive spending bill was notably the trigger for Musk and the president's dramatic fall out just three weeks ago, with Musk taking issue with the bill's estimated $2.8 trillion spending increases. Musk - who celebrated his 54th birthday Saturday as he slammed Trump's bill - also criticized the impact the bill will have on the energy industry, with Musk recently pushing for a sharp increase in solar energy in the US. Responding to a post that noted the Senate vote 'could wipe out 500 (Giga Watts) of potential energy generation' by 2030, Musk wrote: 'This would be incredibly destructive to America!' 'At the same time, this bill raises the debt ceiling by $5 TRILLION, the biggest increase in history, putting America in the fast lane to debt slavery!' he added in another post. Earlier this month, Musk's opposition to the legislation saw his time in Trump's White House come to an acrimonious end as he tore into the president. Musk had spent the start of the year slashing the federal government's programs through his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), but saw the $150 billion he claimed to have saved wiped out by the spending increases in Trump's bill. In a shock X post that captured international headlines, Musk vented his fury by writing: '(Trump) is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' Musk also claimed that Trump couldn't have won the 2024 presidential election without him, and said in a post that Trump's bill showed 'such ingratitude.' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the Daily Mail at the time: 'This is an unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the One Big Beautiful Bill because it does not include the policies he wanted.' Trump's sweeping Big Beautiful Bill encapsulates much of his domestic agenda, covering everything from tax breaks and immigration to national defense and energy. Democrats are united against the bill, with Congressional Republicans - who hold majorities in both the House and Senate - set to decide whether President Trump's signature's domestic policy package will become law. Trump told Republicans to skip their holiday vacations and deliver the bill by the Fourth of July. Republicans say the bill is crucial because there would be a massive tax increase after December when tax breaks from Trump's first term expire. The legislation contains roughly $3.8 trillion in tax cuts. The existing tax rates and brackets would become permanent under the bill. It temporarily would add new tax breaks that Trump campaigned on: no taxes on tips, overtime pay or some automotive loans, along with a bigger $6,000 deduction in the Senate draft for older adults who earn no more than $75,000 a year. It would boost the $2,000 child tax credit to $2,200 under the Senate proposal. Families at lower income levels would not see the full amount. The bill would also fund the hiring of 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, and would provide Homeland Security with a new $10 billion fund for grants for states that help with federal immigration enforcement and deportation actions. For the Pentagon, the bill would provide billions for ship building, munitions systems, and quality of life measures for servicemen and women, as well as $25 billion for the development of the Golden Dome missile defense system. The Defense Department would have $1 billion for border security. To help partly offset the lost tax revenue and new spending, Republicans aim to cut back some long-running government programs: Medicaid, food stamps, green energy incentives and others. It's essentially unraveling the accomplishments of the past two Democratic presidents, Biden and Barack Obama.
The Independent
31 minutes ago
- The Independent
Keir Starmer says he was ‘distracted' by Middle East and Nato during welfare rebellion
Sir Keir Starmer has admitted his focus was on matters involving Nato and the Middle East while a rebellion over welfare cuts took hold of his party at home. The prime minister has faced a growing backbench rebellion over proposed disability benefits cuts. Some 126 Labour backbenchers have signed an amendment that would halt the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill in its tracks when it faces its first Commons hurdle on 1 July. Responding to questions about what went wrong during the difficult week, Sir Keir claimed full responsibility for the welfare U-turn. 'All these decisions are my decisions and I take ownership of them,' he told The Sunday Times. 'My rule of leadership is, when things go well you get the plaudits; when things don't go well you carry the can. I take responsibility for all the decisions made by this government. I do not talk about staff and I'd much prefer it if everybody else didn't.' He continued that this was due to his heavy concentration on foreign affairs instead of domestic matters, first at the G7 meeting in Canada and then a Nato summit in the Netherlands. He also had to deal with the US's strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. 'I'm putting this as context rather than excuse: I was heavily focused on what was happening with Nato and the Middle East all weekend,' he said. 'I turned my attention fully to it [the welfare bill] when I got back from Nato on Wednesday night. Obviously in the course of the early part of this week we were busy trying to make sure Nato was a success.' He added: 'From the moment I got back from the G7, I went straight into a Cobra meeting. My full attention really bore down on this on Thursday. At that point we were able to move relatively quickly.' The government's original package restricted PIP eligibility, the main disability payment in England, and cut the health-related element of Universal Credit in a bid to save £5bn a year by 2030. The government has offered Labour rebels a series of concessions in an effort to head off the prime minister's first major Commons defeat since coming to power, as discontent bubbles among backbenchers surrounding welfare cuts, but campaigners have warned that these concessions could continue to cause problems Instead, the PIP eligibility changes will be implemented in November 2026, applying to new claimants only, while the existing recipients of the health elements of Universal Credit will have their incomes protected in real terms. While lead rebel Dame Meg Hillier has accepted the prime minister's £1.5bn U-turn as a 'positive outcome', Sir Keir has been warned that his decision to protect existing benefits claimants from upcoming welfare cuts would only create a 'generational divide' as hundreds of charities and campaigners urged MPs to continue their opposition to the proposed cuts. Disability charity Mencap warned that the changes will create a 'generational divide in the quality of life for people with a learning disability'. Think tank the Resolution Foundation warned earlier this week that the prime minister's U-turns on benefit cuts and winter fuel payments have blown a £4.5bn hole in the public finances that will 'very likely' be filled by tax rises in the autumn Budget.
Daily Mail
39 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: If ever we needed an effective opposition to rout Labour, it's now
Is there no limit to the price Britain must pay for having given Keir Starmer 's Labour Party a chance a year ago? This is rapidly becoming one of the worst governments in modern history. Some of its hopelessness and nastiness was predictable. Labour signalled loudly to its more militant supporters that it planned a class-war attack on private education. Other plans were buried deep in the small print. Or they were hinted at by the choice of ministers to carry them out. Chancellor Rachel Reeves, for instance, had disclosed to all who paid attention to her writings that she was gripped by Left-wing dogmas. She professed to revere the Cambridge eccentric Joan Robinson, who spent much of her career admiring the disastrous policies of Maoist China and North Korea. Later we discovered that she was inexperienced as well. Did Sir Keir Starmer realise this, or was he also beguiled by her dubious claims that she had spent a decade working as an economist at the Bank of England? It appears he has now decided to leave her in place to absorb as much as possible of the derision and dissent which her policies have brought about – a cruel revenge, if so. As her next duty will almost certainly be a huge stealth tax rise, achieved by failing to raise thresholds in line with inflation, he will no doubt prefer to let her take the punishment for that too. But this will not protect him from the general civil war which he began by permitting ill-planned attempts to slash the winter fuel allowance and cut welfare payments. Did he really not grasp that his huge new parliamentary party was full of men and women who are profoundly, emotionally committed to spending other people's money on a grand scale? Perhaps not. Sir Keir's own politics are something of a mystery, even to him. The sense of a man floundering between vague principles and a definite desire to stay in office is very strong. For example, he now says that he deeply r egrets describing Britain as an 'island of strangers', which many took as an echo of the late Enoch Powell's 1968 speech about immigration. He claims not to have read it properly before delivering it – a ridiculous thing for a Prime Minister to say. This retraction of his own scripted words must surely be the end of his attempt to save his bacon by trying to copy Reform UK. He also claims to be sorry about an earlier pessimistic speech about the economy, saying: 'We were so determined to show how bad it was that we forgot people wanted something to look forward to as well.' But do they have anything to look forward to, apart from an intensifying civil war between Sir Keir and his traditionally Leftist deputy Angela Rayner? Sir Keir and Ms Rayner are like two opponents grappling with each other on the edge of a precipice. The danger is that they will both fall together, leaving the country to suffer. As things stand, we could have four more years of this unsuccessful and increasingly divided government. It is vital that those who are opposed to its policies coalesce quickly into a coherent and effective opposition, which can both hold Labour to account and prepare to replace it with a competent pro-British government ready to step in, stop the rot and undo as much of the damage as possible.
