IF THE Conservative party at Westminster believed the 2016 EU referendum would end divisions in the party over Europe it has been proved wrong.

Relations within the cabinet and amongst rank and file MPs are worse now than when John Major was prime minister and branded his party's Eurosceptics 'bastards'.

It is hard to believe a government so split with fundamental differences can conclude a Brexit deal based around the interests of the country and the views of moderate leave and remain voters. Instead policy is being driven by the demands of a vocal minority that want a hard Brexit regardless of the short term economic consequences.

This is all the stuff of high politics, but in practice it comes down to the interests of businesses that depend on exporting to Europe. The government has made clear to the European Commission that it does not want to be part of the EU customs union or the single market. That rules out a Switzerland or Norway European Free Trade Area (EFTA) type arrangement, where trade is tariff free in return for accepting EU social conditions.

With that out of the equation for now – although the track record to date has been that the government ends up erasing its red lines – this raises a simple question. If the EU market is closed, or more difficult to get into, where will UK lamb be sold?

The government has promised exciting new trade deals beyond Europe, but it is hard to envisage any of these countries buying lamb in the volumes farmers need. The government might also claim that farmers will have a bigger share of the UK market, because countries like Ireland will find it more difficult to trade. However the biggest lamb processors in the UK are Irish, and they will find a way to continue doing business.

On top of that the government in London, with an entirely urban focus, will never allow the result of Brexit to be higher food prices, because of import tariffs. Despite the government's wafer thin majority, it is not allowing cool heads to prevail.

Regardless of how people voted back in June 2016, what they want now is a deal that delivers the best outcome for the economy. That will not happen if policy is to appease the extreme Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative party to avoid a leadership challenge.

We need a deal that avoids sudden change to trading patterns with the EU, built up over 40-plus years of membership. It also seems ironic that Eurosceptics in the Conservative party, many of whom have a God-like respect for Margaret Thatcher, are so keen to walk away from the single market in Europe that was one of her big successes. It made sure that the then EC was more about business success than politics.

Those pressing for a hard Brexit and a restricted transition are arguing that during that period the EU could slip in extra legislation over which the UK would have no say. That is a fair point, and some of the examples they cite are indeed cause for concern. These include onerous recycling targets, insurance for tractors and quads – which seems sensible – and tougher regulations on phosphate use in fertilisers.

If these are genuine concerns, it would be good if those warning of new EU regulations would make clear now that the UK would not impose new legislation, but would instead roll back some of the EU-inspired rules that make life difficult for farmers and other businesses. That would create a new enthusiasm for Brexit amongst those now beginning to question whether the outcome will be what they hoped for when they voted leave to escape red tape.

Good idea this might be, but the problem is that this commitment would be all but impossible to give in agriculture. That is because the government in London is committed to delivering a green Brexit and higher standards of animal welfare than any other major agricultural country.

That has to be built on a foundation of legislation and implementing rules. Given the gold-plating UK officials have applied to EU regulations for years, farmers will not be easily persuaded.

Warnings about new EU regulations during the transition period seem to be little more than sabre rattling by those more committed to a clear-break divorce settlement with Brussels than they are to concerns about the impact of that style of Brexit on businesses, large and small.