A MEETING, or even a conversation, between Donald Trump and the leaders of the European Commission will not happen any time soon.

The EU is interested in the US as its biggest market, but the Trump agenda is domestic and he sees little political capital in relations with Europe. However, when that does eventually happen, they will have one thing in common – a willingness to impose punitive duties on China.

The EU imposed duties on Chinese electric cars at the end of October, claiming government subsidies damage battery and car producers in Europe. If reports are right about the government thinking again about targets for electric car sales, this problem runs deeper. People are simply not convinced about electric cars. The Trump plan, promised from his first day as president, is to slap tariffs on goods coming from China, Mexico and Canada. He says this will protect American jobs, but consumers are not convinced, because they fear higher prices. His actions would break both World Trade Organisation rules and a free trade customs union between the US, Mexico and Canada, known as NAFTA, which began in the 1990s.

Time will tell whether this is for real, but all trade barriers damage economic growth. This is accepted by all global trade bodies, including the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) which represents developed economies. Particularly in agriculture, the more countries move away from open markets the greater the damage to growth. Those being hit with tariffs inevitably retaliate – another example of the adage that an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. The EU is waiting for China to react over electric cars and it knows food and agriculture will be in the firing line.

That would be a big blow, given that China, along with the US, is one of the EU’s top export markets for food and drink.

The UK has resisted following the EU lead over Chinese cars, mainly because we do not have much of an electric car or battery industry to protect. We could gain if tariffs on EU food exports are imposed and this would be a bonus for key sectors of agriculture.

However, any gain would be short term and open markets remain a better option. For the government, even a temporary gain would be welcome. It needs to build bridges with the farming industry, given that it is sticking to its inheritance tax plans, regardless of all economic arguments.

So ridiculous has this become over a paltry £500m of a £44bn tax grab that it is beginning to look like a personal vendetta by Rachel Reeves against landowners. She is being supported by a weak and now unpopular Prime Minister, backing himself into a corner to placate a far from impressive Chancellor.

Back on the other side of the Atlantic, one of Trump’s last picks for government positions was his secretary of state for agriculture. She is Brooke Rollins, predictably another right-wing pro-Trump advocate and lawyer, but with a first degree from a top Texas university in agricultural development. What is interesting is the brief Trump has set.

It contrasts with the game plan for any farm minister here. He has told her the job is to ‘protect’ American farmers who are the ‘backbone of the country’. They are also loyal Trump supporters in key Midwest states. In typical Trump style, he has told her to protect America’s self-sufficiency in food and drive the restoration of agriculture-dependent small towns. A big part of her challenge will be to drive up US food exports while Trump is risking a situation where US exports will face punitive tariffs in response to his imposition of tariffs as part of his MAGA – make America great again – philosophy.

Farmers here are unlikely to look with much envy towards their American counterparts, despite the road map set out by Trump for the incoming US agriculture secretary. One interesting lesson from the US is that it has always separated the agriculture and environment briefs, because it sees these as conflicting policies. In the EU, animal welfare has now been separated from agriculture and given to the health commissioner, while environment has always been a single brief. In the UK, the loss of political influence for agriculture began when, thanks to a Labour manifesto commitment, MAFF became Defra in 2001.

Agriculture then became the very poor relation to the environment in the Defra brief.