There was an interesting letter from Mark Tinsley in last week’s Guardian.
I do understand his concern about the uncertainty surrounding the result of the referendum on the UK’s EU membership.
Unfortunately, this applies equally to both sides of the debate.
There are nine prospective new members waiting in the wings to join the EU after our vote. They all have underdeveloped agricultural industries and will want EU support.
The EU generates no money of its own. Farming subsidies and other grants are all paid for by contributions from a few main EU members, including the UK – and we get back far less than we pay in.
No-one knows exactly what will happen if we remain. It will certainly herald huge change and expansion of EU control, not the status quo.
It may help to know that the Conservative agriculture minister, George Eustice, supports Brexit and believes that UK farm subsidies will continue as before, while support for farmers may actually increase.
That surely has to be better than the UK paying out to farmers in up to 36 other nations.
The issue of migrant labourers would not be a problem either. After Brexit, they could still apply for temporary fixed-time work visas and those who have special skills that are needed could enter under a points system, subject to proper screening.
The same applies to the health services. NHS hospitals will not suddenly lose their migrant workers, that’s just part of the scare campaign.
EU nationals already living here legally would not be affected.
An administration which fails to produce a plan B, in case it loses, is acting irresponsibly and for political purposes.
There will be huge change after June, whatever we decide.
Personally, I prefer to have that change controlled by people I can vote out if they get it wrong, not by unelected committees in Brussels, so I will vote to leave.