The post-Brexit Australia trade deal and the farming problem is a headache the government doesn’t need

When Theresa May’s cabinet discussed Brexit, her allies dismissed Boris Johnson’s argument for a threadbare EU deal to allow the UK to land trade agreements around the world. A frequent jibe at the hardline Brexiteers from pro-EU ministers was: “Try selling that to Welsh and Scottish farmers.”

How times have changed. Johnson is chairing a meeting of cabinet ministers today (20 May) to approve a trade deal with Australia. He is likely to ride roughshod over opposition from the devolved governments in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast, worried their farmers will be undercut and put out of business by cheap meat imports from Australian farmers, who are subject to lower animal welfare and environmental standards.

The cabinet is divided. Liz Truss, the free-market international trade secretary, wants to give Australia the “zero tariffs, zero quotas” agreement it seeks; it currently pays 20 per cent tariffs on beef exports to the UK. George Eustice, the environment secretary, who hails from a farming family, wants Australia to face tariff rate quotas, which would mean higher tariffs when imports reached a certain level but the idea is opposed by the Australian government. Michael Gove, whose Cabinet Office brief includes Scotland, is worried about the political impact north of the border at a highly sensitive time. The Scottish National Party is already on the attack, and Scottish Tories are nervous.

Johnson is siding with Truss, though Australian tariffs might be phased out over 10-15 years to cushion the blow for UK farmers. The issue is much bigger than a trade deal with a country 10,000 miles away; the agreement will be the model for the UK’s other deals around the world, notably the big prize of the United States. It will also be the first “real deal” since Brexit; other agreements were based on the terms the UK enjoyed as an EU member.

Johnson is keen to trumpet the rewards of Brexit at every turn – not least because it discomforts a Labour opposition often reluctant to mention the B-word. There is also a recognition among ministers that they cannot keep parroting their “got Brexit done” line and now need to “show Brexit works.” Never mind there is little chance trade deals will compensate for the forecast 4 per cent hit to GDP under the UK-EU agreement.

If Johnson upsets the National Farmers Union, so be it. Yet consumers worried about food standards are a much more powerful lobby. On the US deal ministers, who insist standards are not being diluted, will have a fight on their hands over chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef. A separate, even bigger battle looms over genetically modified foods; stand by for a fresh crop of headlines about “Frankenstein foods”.

The government’s stance on the Australia deal could also have implications for its dangerous dispute with the EU over the Northern Ireland protocol. Ministers could end most EU checks on goods moving from Great Britain to the province by signing up to EU rules on agri-foods. But they won’t do so on the grounds that not “taking back control” of such regulations would dampen the prospects of trade deals with third countries.

Johnson showed his instincts when he addressed the 1922 committee of Tory backbenchers last night. “We’re the party of Peel,” he declared, citing the prime minister who lost his premiership by repealing the Corn Laws in the 1840s to bring in free trade, after which the Tories were out of power for almost 30 years. There was a time, during the bitter internal divisions after the 2016 referendum, when some Tories believed Brexit would result in a similar historic split between protectionists and free marketeers. But the ousting of May, Johnson booting the leading Tory pro-Europeans out of the party and his hardest of hard Brexits have settled the argument.

Despite all the talk of big spending, levelling up, one-nation conservatism and stealing Labour’s clothes, when it comes to trade, Johnson is the heir to Margaret Thatcher.