IN JUST a week, the threat posed to agriculture by a free trade deal with Australia has slipped out of the headlines.

Beyond farming this failed to secure political traction, compared to concerns linked to the environment that might surface if the deal was with many other countries. If this really is the end of opposition to a free trade deal with Australia, this will be a grim outcome for Scottish agriculture.

Once again farmers are victims of political spin. Boris Johnson has reportedly assured the National Farmers Union in England that farmers would be disadvantaged by a deal 'over his dead body'. Commitments like this come very easily from Johnson. He is adept at saying in a cheery tone what people want to hear and he has given many similar commitments in the past. There was to be no border down the Irish Sea, but that is now very real. The trade deal with the EU was 'oven ready' and would be the easiest in history. Many Scottish businesses know the reality is very different.

In his assurances about how UK farming could withstand a surge of beef and lamb imports from Australia, Johnson said farmers would receive the same support as under the CAP. This is however a different issue and in any event that support was already promised. The only debate is how long it will last. As things stand it will not last as long as the support guaranteed through the CAP and direct payments.

If devolution fails to establish clear blue water between England and the UK regions, the support he is promising will come with many more green strings attached than the CAP. But even if farmers live with that, the promise is still far from watertight. They want to secure their income from producing food the market wants. Packing shelves with cheap imports as part of a global free trade mantra will damage both the UK market and export prospects to the EU.

Like all political promises, Johnson's assurances to farmers are fine words but no more than that. The government wants the Australian deal in place before a similar, but more European farmer-friendly, deal being negotiated with the EU is finalised. It is a soft way to slip in the concept of the UK as a global free trade advocate. The government wants to boast of this new role at the G7 summit it is hosting in Cornwall next month. It also reflects the reality that there will be no early deal with the United States, which now sees more economic merit in rebuilding trade relations with the EU that were trashed in the Trump years.

Trade deal economics, as opposed to politics, are about cost/benefit analyses and on that basis the Australian deal is a poor prospect. Over fifteen years it might add 0.02% to the UK gross domestic product. That is a poor return for undermining the future of one of the UK's great industries. A much better return would come from getting trade working properly with the EU.

This is the only logical way to look at trade outcomes. There are few, if any, examples of success flowing from politics being put ahead of economic reality. In response to concerns about a trade deal Australian beef farmers have sought to reassure farmers here that it is not their intention to undermine the market. They see the UK as a small, high value market but their sights are set on Asia. They say they will seek to supply the UK market when local supplies are short, but this is not a decision in the gift of farmers.

This, in theory, was how New Zealand lamb was to come to the UK, filling in when local supplies are not available. However, as farmers that visit supermarkets know, many of the major retailers see the southern hemisphere as a reliable source of supply they are happy to use. This ignores assurances about the aim being to limit damage to the UK lamb market.

It would be a triumph for hope over expectation to believe it will be different with Australia. Unlike politicians, farmers there are not wilfully telling lies – but once the free trade deal is in place commercial realities will eclipse all other issues. Also eclipsed will be the government's green credentials, which have to mandate that food is produced as close as possible to where it will be eaten.