INDY KAUR

After Labour's Stephen Kinnock outlines why it is better for the UK to rejoin the EU, especially in our current geo-political climate, a lady in the audience insults his father saying, "It is a corrupt, old boys network, and his family have done well out of the European Union" Stephen Kinnock later responds, "That's a disgraceful personal slur, my father - Neil Kinnock - is a patriot and has dedicated his life to public service, always standing up for what he believes in, and what is best for this country" Kinnock then asks her to name a Brexit benefit. She responds criticising CAP, says we can create our own farming model - but then admits it hasn't worked out very well 🤷‍♂️ My view: The exchange gets to the heart of the Brexit argument: it is easy to list the flaws in the system Britain left. The Common Agricultural Policy was often criticised for rewarding land ownership, creating bureaucracy and directing large sums to those with the most land. But pointing out those problems is not evidence that leaving solved them. Brexit was supposed to let Britain design support around its own priorities: backing food production, improving the countryside and giving farmers a clearer, fairer system. In England, the replacement was built around paying farmers for environmental work and other public benefits. But the transition has been difficult: direct payments were phased out while the new schemes were still being developed, and the Sustainable Farming Incentive was paused to new applicants in 2025, adding to uncertainty for farmers. There is a real case for reforming agricultural subsidies. But “we can make our own policy” describes a power Brexit gave the UK; it does not prove that the power has been used well. When the promised alternative is acknowledged to have fallen short, that is the question the Brexit case still has to answer. A personal attack may derail the discussion, but it cannot answer it.