The key bit of SBs post is that 97% of the lamb exports go to the EU. We can try and strike continuity deals with other large markets as you suggest, but that doesn't help if there is suddenly a 40% cost for 97% of your exports.
Plus, those other large markets, take Japan for example, might be seeing this as an opportunity to get a better deal with the UK than they have with the EU, and therefore might not rush to give us the same terms. They will have more negotiating power if they know we are desperate, after taking a big hit in EU trade. Why should they rush to offer us the same terms? These trade deals often take many years to finalise, so even 2-3 years would probably be seen as 'quick'. 90 days would be alarming for many of our trading partners I guess.
I have this habit of using "(say)" as a "for the sake of argument" just to get (hopefully) the argument across. So when I use "(say) 2 years" I am not necessarily suggesting 2 years... maybe 5 years, maybe 10 years, maybe never. Nobody knows until we engage with other countries.
Maybe some countries will see an opportunity to strike a better deal (for them) with the UK than they currently have with the EU. Good for them, I say. There's always a quid pro quo and there's always a period of re-adjustment. Maybe lower tariffs will offset higher volumes? Maybe they'll be reciprocated by reduced tariffs in the opposite direction? Perhaps we'll get foreign investment into UK industry? Who knows until we engage?
The point is: we can all sit here and identify problems before they arise and put stuff like this in the 'too difficult' pile, or we can list them as perfectly sensible concerns with which to go into bat with other countries like good negotiators do.
Everything is inter-connected. It is the government's responsibility to also look at the whole shooting match in the round, holistically.
If the Welsh farmers are disadvantaged then I'm willing to bet that there are other things that can be done that will put other industries into better positions than they are under the EU. If that's the case, then the holistic approach is to ensure that (for a sensible period of time) measures are put into place to assist the disadvantaged whilst they adjust to the new reality.
None of this is easy, of course. Some people will undoubtedly end up unhappy, but isn't that always the case as economies ebb and flow?
Farmers have been massively ****ed over Foot & Mouth a few times over my lifetime. Mad Cow wasn't a big hit. Nor was swine flu, bird flu and other ****. They adjust, adapt, some go to the wall, some thrive. It has always been thus.
I'm not trying to be complacently dismissive of the plight of others. I may well be affected by this too.
But the electorate voted for this in a democratic referendum, if my memory hasn't failed me.
Whether the outcome of the referendum had been 99:1 or 52:48 in favour of Leave, the government of the day has a moral duty to both deliver on the referendum and support those adversely affected by it so that they can readjust and eventually thrive.
Lights blue touch paper...
