This week, Abi Kay reflects on a week of revelations and Government backtracking.
This week has been full of contradictions.
On Monday,
草榴社区 lined up to criticise him for failing to speak out sooner, accusing him of having no backbone.
Then, just a day later,草榴社区 Guardianpublished a story - verified by five different sources - about Defras plans for ELM.
The reaction on social media was extraordinary.
Many farmers complained that the attendees who spoke to us had broken confidentiality rules and Defras trust. But trust is a two-way street.
It is remarkable that, six years on from the EU referendum, with basic payments already dwindling, the department is holding privileged meetings where secrecy is sacrosanct because future policy is still undecided.
It is understandable that people who were in that meeting felt frustrated by a change of direction, after spending more than half a decade in talks with Ministers and officials on how to make farm support work.
If what they are hearing now rings alarm bells, when farmers are facing incredible financial difficulty, do they have a duty to speak out?
Or do they keep quiet and hope they can be more influential on the inside?
That is the tightrope they, along with Mr Eustice when he was Defra Secretary, walk.
But unlike Mr Eustice when he was in Cabinet, these people are not bound by the rules of collective responsibility.
There has been a tendency over the past few years for Government to bring farm organisations into the fold, to give them a sense of power through the sharing of privileged information and, in doing so, force them to stay quiet.
We saw it before with the first Trade and Agriculture Commission.
So how did that work out? For Government, very well, because it quietened criticism.
But for farmers? Ask Mr Eustice.
It might just be possible that sometimes, being in the room is not enough. Occasionally, you have to open the door.
