THE DEAL between the Conservatives and the DUP is further evidence of the impossibility of predicting political outcomes.

Time will tell how long this alliance can last, but those of a certain age will remember the Lib-Lab pact of the 1970s to keep the Callaghan government in power. This collapsed in some acrimony, leaving Callaghan struggling to lead a minority government. More recently, in 2015, the DUP discussed with Gordon Brown the potential for a pact, but this went nowhere when David Cameron went into a coalition with the Liberal Democrats.

Strip away the criticism of Northern Ireland securing extra spending in a way that denied it to Scotland, and some of the more extreme views of the DUP, and the key question is whether this alliance will benefit agriculture? Surprising as it may seem, the answer to that question is almost certainly 'yes'.

The DUP have written various farming issues into their deal with the Conservatives. This confirms that funding will be guaranteed to the end of this parliament, which was already in the Tory manifesto. However it also states that 'both parties' recognise the importance of agriculture to Northern Ireland and the opportunities for growth that exist. It also makes clear that there will be further discussions on the future financial framework for supporting UK agriculture, and the DUP have made no secret that they like the current direct payments funding model.

While the DUP's enthusiasm is obviously to support agriculture in Northern Ireland, that cannot happen without the rest of the UK and its devolved regions securing the same treatment. That has to be good news for an industry that, since the referendum, has been largely ignored by government ministers, including the former Defra minister, Andrea Leadsom.

It is hard now to see that continuing, with the DUP likely to use their influence to question events if the new Defra minister, Michael Gove, fails to deliver. It is also difficult to envisage a situation where, when it comes to agriculture, the party will not press for the devolved administrations to be fully involved in negotiations.

One reason for this confidence is that the DUP is a party with a significant rural power base. If it fails to ensure that the government delivers for agriculture, that rural constituency will not be slow to remind it of what it promised when entering a deal with the government.

That is a potential outcome the DUP can use to seek influence at Westminster for the farming industry across the UK. Once again in politics, truth is proving stranger than fiction, but this latest twist could protect agriculture from some of the hawks of the Tory party advocating a hard Brexit, regardless of the consequences for key industries, including agriculture.

Away from UK politics, a source of frustration for farmers is the lack of an even-handed approach by Brussels when it comes to regulation. The European Commission and MEPs are always keen to lecture farmers about the importance of the precautionary principle and the importance of high welfare standards. However when it comes to imports, those priorities are too often forgotten by Brussels, and Brazilian meat has always been a case in point.

Brussels is hell-bent on concluding a deal with the Mercosur countries of South America, of which Brazil is the biggest player. This is because of the potential for non-food exports, with farming paying the price for reduced tariffs on key products coming to the EU.

Despite the recent scandal in the Brazilian meat industry, involving bribes and the export of sub-standard meat, Brussels has been reluctant to go beyond minimal action against Brazil. It has also refused to exclude meat from the Mercosur trade talks. This has frustrated farmers, and this lack of action has been made all the worse by the US Department of Agriculture imposing a blanket ban on all fresh beef from Brazil, until it is convinced better standards have been imposed on the Brazilian industry.

Many farm lobby organisation in the EU are, quite rightly, questioning why Brussels is adopting such a contrasting approach. The Commission says it has been reassured by reports from its veterinary inspectors who have been in Brazil. If that is the case Brussels needs to be more transparent about their findings and its response. Until that happens it is being shown up by the USDA for apparently putting wider commercial concerns ahead of the need to demand root and branch reform of the Brazilian industry.