THE EUROPEAN Commission is facing criticism from farm lobby organisations and a number of member states over its plans to allow Brazil and the other Mercosur countries special tariff access for around 78,000 tonnes of beef. 

This is part of a plan to secure a trade deal with these key South American countries. Beef is a sacrifice Brussels believes is worthwhile to secure access to these markets for the eurozone economy. 

To the fore in opposing this plan are Ireland and France – but Brussels knows it has to give something if it wants to secure a deal, as promised, by the end of the year. 

It is under pressure to do so as part of the economic growth strategy of the commission president, Jean Claude Juncker. Concerns about damage to agriculture will not be allowed to delay or derail his plans.

This is a battle that has been going on for some time. What makes it interesting is that it is a glimpse of what lies ahead for us after Brexit. 

The interests of the beef industry are being set aside in pursuit of a wider economic policy. 

As far as the EU is concerned that makes economic sense, but it not going to be achieved by Brussels without concessions to placate farmers and to counter member state opposition. 

Once Brexit happens, the UK will have to make its own trade deals with the Mercosur countries, which include Brazil and Argentina. Both are now facing some economic problems, but they remain powerhouse economies within South America. As such they are exactly the sort of countries with which the UK needs to make deals to secure exports.

When these negotiations begin in earnest, the same issues about access for beef, and indeed poultry, ethanol and sugar as sensitive commodities will arise in the UK. 

The big difference between now, in the EU, and after Brexit, will be the pressure the farming lobby is able to exert. 

For now, the commission is under enormous pressure from Ireland, France and at least nine other member states to take account of the concerns of the beef industry. 

It is also under pressure from COPA, the umbrella body of EU farm unions, on grounds that there is no need for any increase in beef imports. COPA also claims that South America already dominates the import market for manufacturing beef and that it has no need of tariff free or reduced tariff access to make a bigger impact.

When these and other trade negotiations are happening in the UK, the big question is how will farmers be defended against a potentially damaging deal. 

For years we have gained from the pro-CAP member states in the EU leading opposition on behalf of farmers. The gains they achieve then apply across the EU, meaning farmers in Scotland benefit.

However, after Brexit, this will be a much more lonely campaign. There is also the added danger that over generous deals to allow in food imports will damage exports to the EU-27, because of a suspicion that the UK is being used as a back-door route for imported farm products to reach the post-Brexit EU.

If that is a Brexit negative, comments the Defra Secretary Michael Gove made on future support for agriculture, during the Conservative party conference in Manchester, look more promising. He is certainly engaged with the issue. 

He appears to recognise a need to have a support structure that benefits family farms, rather than large landowners. He also seems to want an industry that is innovative and profitable.

There are suggestions that he is considering some form of support level guarantee for the transition from the CAP to a new system. He is also considering using regions to pilot different approaches, rather than insisting one size must fit all. 

This has long been a problem with the CAP. This sounds hopeful, although with Gove it is always hard to separate his green and farming credentials. There is no question that new support structures will have a green element – but at the same time he is using words like innovation and profitability. 

Gove is rising to a challenge and most farmers would agree with his two key building blocks for a new policy – that the CAP ‘is a failure’ and that how it allocates funds is ‘environmentally damaging and socially unjust’.

Whether for or against Brexit few would disagree with those views.