theguardian.com
Brexit's £600,000 Cheese Cost: New UK-EU Deal Offers Hope
British cheese maker Simon Spurrell, who lost £600,000 due to Brexit red tape, welcomes a new UK-EU trade deal that could allow him to relaunch his business and create 14 new jobs, four years after initially being forced to sell due to prohibitive export costs.
- What immediate impact did Brexit have on Simon Spurrell's cheese business, and what specific changes does the new UK-EU deal offer?
- Brexit red tape cost British cheese maker Simon Spurrell £600,000, forcing him to sell his business. A new UK-EU deal may allow him to relaunch, eliminating prohibitive export costs like £180 per veterinary certificate. This comes four years after Brexit initially impacted his business, resulting in a 20% loss of sales revenue.
- What are the potential long-term implications of the new UK-EU deal for the UK's agricultural export sector, and what factors could influence its success?
- The new UK-EU deal could revitalize the UK's agricultural export sector, particularly benefiting SMBs. While the long-term impact remains uncertain, the potential for increased exports and job creation (Spurrell's company will add 14 jobs) is significant. However, the deal's success hinges on its full implementation and whether it truly eliminates all checks for individual customer orders.
- How did the size of a business affect its ability to cope with post-Brexit trade barriers, and what were the consequences for smaller companies like Spurrell's?
- Spurrell's experience exemplifies the challenges faced by small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) post-Brexit. Larger companies absorbed increased costs, while SMBs like Spurrell's were unable to manage the burden of veterinary certifications and other trade barriers. The new deal aims to alleviate these burdens, potentially restoring access to the EU market for smaller producers.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The narrative frames Brexit as solely detrimental to Spurrell's business, emphasizing the losses and delays. The headline and introduction immediately highlight the negative consequences, setting a tone of victimhood. The positive aspects of the new deal are presented only after extensively detailing the negative impacts, minimizing their significance.
Language Bias
The article uses charged language such as "prohibitive export costs," "hard Brexit deal," and "sabre-rattling." These terms convey a negative connotation and lack neutrality. More neutral alternatives could include "increased export costs," "post-Brexit trade agreement," and "strong rhetoric." The repeated use of phrases like "lost out" reinforces the negative framing.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the negative impact of Brexit on Simon Spurrell's business and omits perspectives from those who supported Brexit or who might argue that the new deal is not a complete solution. It does not explore potential benefits of Brexit for other businesses or sectors. While acknowledging space limitations, the absence of counterarguments weakens the overall analysis.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by portraying the situation as solely a result of Brexit red tape versus a successful outcome achievable through a new deal. It ignores other factors that could have contributed to Spurrell's losses.
Sustainable Development Goals
The new Brexit deal has the potential to significantly improve the economic prospects of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) like Spurrell's cheese company. The deal addresses the prohibitive export costs and bureaucratic hurdles imposed by the previous Brexit agreement, which had led to substantial financial losses for many SMEs. The potential for relaunching the business and creating new jobs directly contributes to economic growth and decent work opportunities.