IF THE government at Westminster thinks a trade deal with the United States will be easy after Brexit, it needs to look at what is now going on between the US and EU over beef. At issue are restrictions on the EU access quota, but more significantly opposition to Europe banning imports of beef from animals treated with hormones.

While this is a spat between Brussels and Washington, what is happening is a sign of what could happen when the UK is seeking a deal – and if it gives in to buy that deal, farmers will be the losers.

US and other beef enters the EU via a special tariff, restricted to beef from hormone free cattle. Since that was agreed with the US, to head off questions as to whether the EU ban on beef from animals treated with hormones was illegal under World Trade Organisation rules, that tariff has been extended to other countries. These include Australia, Canada, Uruguay and Argentina, but without the volume being increased. The US believes that is unfair.

But the bigger issue is that the US beef industry wants retaliatory action against EU products, because it believes the ban on beef from animals treated with hormone growth promoters is unscientific. This will be the first test in agricultural trade of the Trump presidency's commitment to put America first. Given that campaign slogan, which he is now putting into practice, a good trade spat with Brussels would attract the sort of publicity he wants.

Beyond that, it is a sign that the US is what it has always been – tough on trade issues and prepared to retaliate if it believes it is on the receiving end of unfair treatment. This battle over beef is further evidence that trade deals will not be the easy task some pro-Brexit government ministers in London suggest. The threat remains for farmers that food is one of the difficult areas, and the best way to an easy deal is to give way over that to the disadvantage of farmers.

What is now happening between the US and EU is also a sign of what could lie ahead for the UK, if we end up with the hardest of hard Brexit deals. That would be about a situation where the UK is completely out of the Single Market, and not part of the European Economic Area (EEA) customs union which allows tariff free or reduced tariff trade.

Treated like a third country, no different to India, Brazil or New Zealand, the UK would face massive duties to get food products into the EU. An example would be cheddar cheese, at over £1500 a tonne, making trade impossible. This is why many even pro-Brexit politicians would like to see the UK in the EEA.

When this is debated, there is a lot of sabre rattling from politicians in some, but not all, EU member states. They believe the UK should be 'punished' for deciding to leave the EU, reflecting their concern that if the UK makes a success of leaving, pressure will grow in other countries to go down the same road. That is why so many even generally pro-UK politicians are taking a tough line.

In doing so they are also aware that the UK's departure will blow a big hole in the EU budget, with conservative estimates that it will reduce funding available by around 10%. However this has to be seen in a context of whether those making the most noise can afford to pull the trigger. We know that Germany and France are vulnerable to any controls on car exports to the UK, but the disparity over food is much greater.

Food exports to the EU 27, which it will be after Brexit, were around €15 billion last year, but imports by the UK were €35 billion. That makes the UK, by far, the biggest food export market for the EU 27. As a percentage of global exports, if the UK is classed as a third country, it would account for a quarter of EU 27 trade, against 12% for the US and just 6%t for China.

The country most vulnerable to a loss of the UK food market would be the Netherlands, followed by Ireland, France, Germany and Spain. This is why, while a number of EU member states are talking tough over the terms for Brexit, they will ultimately compromise over market access.