THIS WEEK brought reminders that Brexit is for real. We had the minister responsible for the UK's departure from the EU – David Davis – suggesting access to the Single Market in the EU was not necessary, if the price was continued free movement of people.

Across the world, at the G20 Summit in China, the prime minister, Theresa May, was mounting a charm offensive to secure trade deals. She won some support from Australia about a free trade deal, but the US made clear that its target was the EU, rather than UK.

This is all heady political stuff, but trade is second only to direct payments as the key issue that will decide whether Brexit is a good or a bad deal for farmers. It is worrying, given the importance for agriculture of trade with the EU, that Single Market access is not a priority.

The government takes comfort from the UK buying around £70 billion more from the EU than it sells, meaning others need to find ways to trade on a tariff-free basis with the UK. However there is a big difference between Germany wanting to sell BMWs and Mercedes and us wanting to sell lamb into France. The issues that are important to agriculture are unlikely to feature in the trade debate on the Single Market. The UK could respond to any tariff barriers with similar action against food, but since that would drive up food prices, it looks a non-starter as a government policy.

This underlines that there are no easy solutions on Brexit, and that will be the situation for a long time. It is an opportunity to create a new agricultural policy that would better suit local conditions, but farming will be eclipsed by wider issues when it comes to trade. The big worry remains that access to the UK for food is used as a bargaining chip with countries like Australia to secure early trade deals. In the EU, any such temptations are blocked by the strength of the farming lobby, but that will not be the case in the UK, no matter how strong a case farm lobby organisations make.

This week saw a big EU conference in Cork on rural development. This came twenty years after the original so-called Cork Declaration on rural development priorities. These guided the Franz Fischler reforms of the CAP, and made agri-environment and rural development measures central to the policy. This was more successful for some member states than others – the UK being one of the exceptions because of its always poor share of the budget. This is another area where the UK will have to find a way to make new policies, if the projects supported with rural development funds over the years are to continue.

This should not be an issue when it comes to agri-environment policies. These will be central to support for agriculture after Brexit. Indeed, the danger is that the new policy will be built around the environment rather than food production. At the Cork event this week, the EU made clear its priorities for rural development beyond 2020. As well as agri-environment, these included innovation in agriculture, jobs in rural areas and closing the still large gap between incomes in urban and rural areas.

These are ideas that are as valid in Scotland as they are in Spain, Greece or France – but it is going to be a big political challenge to have these included in a new Treasury funded package for agriculture. This is not about a lack of available funding, given what will be saved in payments to Brussels. It is about whether agriculture is a priority for a government with different spending priorities to the EU.

For all EU members spending on agriculture is guaranteed under various treaties, but that is not the case in the UK. This was the gamble farmers took in voting for Brexit and time will tell whether it pays off. One irony that emerged in the Cork discussions this week, with regard to the future funding of rural development, is how Brussels will make up the €7 billion a year that will be lost in UK contributions to the EU budget. This could cost the CAP up to €3 billion, reducing funds available for rural development.

Simple maths suggests that on that basis the UK could have a much more generous rural development policy than now, if the political will is there in London to deliver it post-Brexit.