How Boris is spoiling Cameron's EU speech in advance

The Mayor's demand for an EU referendum before 2015 means it will be harder for Cameron to impress.

There is no prospect of David Cameron staging an EU referendum before 2015, so it was typically mischievous of Boris Johnson to declare this morning that it would be "fantastic" if one were to be held before the next election. Such interventions by Boris mean that Cameron's plan to offer a referendum after 2015 on "a new settlement" for Britain (to be announced in his long-delayed speech on Europe) will inevitably disappoint. The PM declared this week: "Thanks for reminding me that my Europe speech remains as yet unmade. This is a tantric approach to policy-making: it'll be even better when it does eventually come." But conscious of the growing threat from UKIP, many Tory MPs will complain that a vote can't be held sooner. The presence of the Lib Dems in goverment, however, leaves Cameron with little choice.

Boris also added to the Prime Minister's woes by arguing that the UK should be prepared to leave the EU if it proves unable to secure radically changed terms of membership. "That is correct, absolutely correct [that Britain should be prepared to exit the EU]," he said. "I don’t think that [leaving the EU] is necessarily the end of the world.

"Don’t forget that 15 years ago the entire CBI, British Industry, the City, everybody was prophesying that there’d be gigantic mutant rats with two or three eyes swarming out of the gutters, the sewers, to gnaw the faces of the remaining British bankers because we didn’t go into the euro. My preferred option is for us to stay in there. I will stress [leaving] is not my preferred option."

Cameron's referendum is expected to offer voters a choice between renegotiated membership and withdrawal, but the PM will struggle to prevent many Tories arguing for the latter, regardless of the concessions he extracts from Brussels. The promise of a vote on Europe will only prove the start of his problems, not the end.

Mayor of London Boris Johnson said leaving the EU would not be "the end of the world". Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

GETTY
Show Hide image

Cabinet audit: what does the appointment of Andrea Leadsom as Environment Secretary mean for policy?

The political and policy-based implications of the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

A little over a week into Andrea Leadsom’s new role as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and senior industry figures are already questioning her credentials. A growing list of campaigners have called for her resignation, and even the Cabinet Office implied that her department's responsibilities will be downgraded.

So far, so bad.

The appointment would appear to be something of a consolation prize, coming just days after Leadsom pulled out of the Conservative leadership race and allowed Theresa May to enter No 10 unopposed.

Yet while Leadsom may have been able to twist the truth on her CV in the City, no amount of tampering will improve the agriculture-related side to her record: one barely exists. In fact, recent statements made on the subject have only added to her reputation for vacuous opinion: “It would make so much more sense if those with the big fields do the sheep, and those with the hill farms do the butterflies,” she told an audience assembled for a referendum debate. No matter the livelihoods of thousands of the UK’s hilltop sheep farmers, then? No need for butterflies outside of national parks?

Normally such a lack of experience is unsurprising. The department has gained a reputation as something of a ministerial backwater; a useful place to send problematic colleagues for some sobering time-out.

But these are not normal times.

As Brexit negotiations unfold, Defra will be central to establishing new, domestic policies for UK food and farming; sectors worth around £108bn to the economy and responsible for employing one in eight of the population.

In this context, Leadsom’s appointment seems, at best, a misguided attempt to make the architects of Brexit either live up to their promises or be seen to fail in the attempt.

At worst, May might actually think she is a good fit for the job. Leadsom’s one, water-tight credential – her commitment to opposing restraints on industry – certainly has its upsides for a Prime Minister in need of an alternative to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); a policy responsible for around 40 per cent the entire EU budget.

Why not leave such a daunting task in the hands of someone with an instinct for “abolishing” subsidies  thus freeing up money to spend elsewhere?

As with most things to do with the EU, CAP has some major cons and some equally compelling pros. Take the fact that 80 per cent of CAP aid is paid out to the richest 25 per cent of farmers (most of whom are either landed gentry or vast, industrialised, mega-farmers). But then offset this against the provision of vital lifelines for some of the UK’s most conscientious, local and insecure of food producers.

The NFU told the New Statesman that there are many issues in need of urgent attention; from an improved Basic Payment Scheme, to guarantees for agri-environment funding, and a commitment to the 25-year TB eradication strategy. But that they also hope, above all, “that Mrs Leadsom will champion British food and farming. Our industry has a great story to tell”.

The construction of a new domestic agricultural policy is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Britain to truly decide where its priorities for food and environment lie, as well as to which kind of farmers (as well as which countries) it wants to delegate their delivery.

In the context of so much uncertainty and such great opportunity, Leadsom has a tough job ahead of her. And no amount of “speaking as a mother” will change that.

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.