Raising my head above the Brexit parapet

Any mention of Brexit raises strong feelings.  Passions run deeply on both sides.  There are feelings of anger, frustration and impotence - again on both sides of the argument.  Some people respond by shouting louder. Others switch off all together. I've met people who simply switch off the news whenever Brexit is mentioned.  Friends and families are hesitant to talk about it for fear of damaging relationships.  So it is with considerable hesitation that I write about it.

It is, of course,  a fallacy that anyone can be an objective neutral on this (or any) subject.  We all come with our own insights- or prejudices. So, in order that you know my insights/prejudices,  I voted remain, took part in the march for a second referendum and voted for a remain party in the recent European elections.  I suspect that some of you will have already switched off mentally if not actually closed this page! 

For those still here, some thoughts about Brexit, its impact and potential impacts, and how churches, particularly rural churches, might respond. 

First, and probably most importantly,  the biggest casualty I see in the argument (and sadly, it has been an argument not a debate) has been truth. For Christians who are followers of the One who described himself as "the truth", truthfulness matters. Jesus didn't say "It's true for me but may not be true for you.  Find your own truth." Rather, he said, "I am the truth....Follow me." At Jesus' trial,  Pontius Pilate gave the politician's answer of, "What is truth?" and couldn't recognise Jesus as the personification of truth right in front of him.
When the  bus slogan of £350 million for the NHS is shown to be a lie or the Manx kipper packaging is revealed as a falsehood  then that concerns us all. Because the abandonment of truth as the basis  for policy has meant that passion,  strength of feelings and sincerity of belief have replaced truth. Passion, not truth, makes it ok to chant abuse, "Soubry is a nazi" even if the abuse is untrue.

So, what is true in the Brexit debate.

Leaving the EU will mean we have a choice as to which bits of  EU rules and regulations (which incidentally weren't responsible for the packaging of  Boris' kipper) we decide to keep and which we decide to abandon.  But it's also true that trading under WTO arrangements doesn't mean no rules. Rather it means swapping EU rules for WTO rules. We can, of course,  agree different rules rather than WTO rules on a country by country basis (or more likely trading block of countries by trading block.) But that requires the agreement of the other country (or trading block).  If we were, as I've heard suggested, to put a tariff on Spanish strawberries then Spain would need to agree. Unlikely,  and much more likely is that Spain (and the EU of which they remain a part) would retaliate with a tariff on our exports. And they're bigger and have more economic clout. 

WTO rules are complex and don't do us any favours. WTO rules would see a tariff of approaching €100 per tonne on our cereal exports and over 40% on exports of red meat. Even if, as one farmer said to me recently, "Europe will want our lamb", it will still need an agreement for that to happen.  While that agreement is being negotiated Europe will source lamb elsewhere, (possibly from New Zealand)  and getting that market back won't necessarily be achieved easily.  Remember the French ban on UK beef after BSE. They weren't in a hurry to reopen their market to us and it took action in the EU courts before they did.

A further consideration about WTO rules is the concept of "substantial equivalence." That means that one country cannot discriminate against another country's goods if they are substantially the same even if production methods are different. That affects the UK consumers, UK farmers and the environment.
It affects consumers because currently we refuse imports of genetically modified (GM) food and hormone injected beef under agreements the EU have negotiated.  Under WTO rules GM foods and hormone injected beef are "substantially equivalent."  Already American farmers (where GM and hormone injections are normal practices)  are saying that any US/UK trade deal would have to agree to their farming practices.  The WTO will agree.
It will affect UK farmers because we have some of the highest welfare standards in the world and consequently some of the most expensive.  Substantial equivalence will require us to allow imports produced at lower costs but  involving higher animal suffering
It will affect the environment as intensively produced beef from mega feedlots with all the environmental impacts that has will be "substantially equivalent" to extensively produced grass fed beef which (I would argue)  is environmentally beneficial.

The UK government is to be congratulated that it has undertaken that, in the immediate future at least it will replace the grant's that the EU makes to farmers. However, and what must be of concern,  while those payments are ok under EU rules under WTO rules that may well breach state aid rules which prohibit a country giving preferential support to its industry.

All this adds up to considerable uncertainty for UK agriculture, quite apart from wider questions of how it is possible to have frictionless movement through the EU/UK border with different tax and regulatory regimes on each side (the so called "Backstop" issue) and the constitutional question for the United Kingdom. Scotland voted "remain" and I hear voices raised in Scotland for independence from  the UK and continuing Scottish membership of the EU.

Farming is a long term occupation and farmers I speak to - on both sides of the divide - want it sorted out. The stress is taking a heavy toll. Cornwall Live reported on the inquest of a farmer where stress over Brexit was one of the factors leading to his suicide.  There is an economic cost to Brexit. How that will workout remains to be seen.  The pundits,  by and large, are projecting a detrimental effect of leaving,  especially leaving  with no deal. I don't have a crystal ball, but  I got a much better exchange rate for my holiday euros a few years ago . However more importantly there is a societal and human cost with a society that is deeply divided and with at least one person taking their own life in part at least because of Brexit.

So what can and should churches do?

First I suggest we should value truth.  We must ask the question,  "Is this true?" We cannot claim that we know the whole truth. Indeed I would argue we cannot know the whole truth, but that shouldn't stop us asking the question. Satan is described as the "father of lies". Truth matters.

Second we should try to disagree well. The church hasn't always done that very well, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. It doesn't mean we shouldn't challenge politicians to work together.  I don't know whether the farmer who thinks that lamb exports will be ok is right or wrong.  I hope he's right but suspect he's wrong.  It shouldn't be something to fall out about. We should both see that we both want the same thing - the wellbeing of the UK- and that we see different ways of achieving it.

Thirdly the church should be doing what it actually does as part of its ongoing life, and often does very well.  That's caring for people, people on both sides of the argument. Not long after the Brexit vote I was at a conference where the speaker recounted research they had done listening to people who had voted leave.  On such person- a member of a church that had grown significantly as a result of migration from the EU - spoke of how they found the consequent changes in their church difficult and said "I suppose I'm saying that I find it difficult to love my neighbour."  Church should work to be that community that provides love and support for all.

Part of that support is to be a community of hope. Hope isn't the same as blind optimism.  Real hope recognises and acknowledges problems and tries to address them. But it does so with the faith expressed by Julian of Norwich that "all shall be well", or as the hymn puts it, "God is working his purpose out..." That's not always easy to see, but if God can take the (apparent) disaster of Good Friday and turn it into the triumph of Easter then that gives good grounds for hope and reason to believe that truth will ultimately come out on top.