DOWNING Street said Boris Johnson wants to “maximise” the benefits of trade deals as he intervened in the Cabinet row over a planned agreement with Australia.
The Prime Minister chaired a meeting of senior colleagues as negotiations with Australia about the terms of a deal continued.
International Trade Minister Liz Truss and Environment Minister George Eustice are thought to be at odds over the proposals and the impact they might have on British farmers. Truss, who has said she wants an agreement in principle by early June, is thought to favour a zero-tariff, zero-quota approach in order to boost the flow of trade.
Such a move could leave British farmers vulnerable to competition from beef and lamb producers in Australia. Eustice suggested quotas could be used to protect them.
The Prime Minister’s official spokesperson said: “There are a regular series of meetings on not just this trade deal but the deals we have been working on throughout.
“The Prime Minister met with the ministers involved, like Liz Truss obviously, as part of the regular process.”
Johnson “wants to maximise the massive opportunities presented by post-Brexit trade deals”, the spokesperson said.
Downing Street insisted farmers would be protected in any deal with Australia.
“Any agreement would include protections for our agriculture industry and won’t undercut UK farmers,” the spokesperson continued.
“We want a deal that is good for the British public and any agreement would have protection for the agriculture industry.”
But the spokesperson refused to be drawn on what the measures to protect farmers would be, insisting he would not comment on the ongoing negotiations.
The proposed deal has been criticised on environmental grounds because of the prospect of Australian beef being shipped around the world.
Patrick Holden, chief executive of the Sustainable Food Trust, said: “Our cattle come from a mainly grass-fed nation and we have one of the best carbon footprints for beef production in the world.
“In contrast, imported Australian beef will likely be produced on feedlots, fed on grain and full of antibiotics and growth-promoting hormones.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel