Brussels Notebook - Trump had demonstrated divide and rule policies

He crashed global markets with threats of tariffs, allowing those in the know to gain when he slammed the brakes on his threats.

He used his number two – the vice president JD Vance, who is Trump light but more fundamentalist – to say the UK could get a trade deal, because Trump admires the royal family.

The week ended with the right wing Italian prime minister meeting Trump – and yes, yet again the talk was of a special deal on tariffs.

So it seems both the EU and UK are in for deals, with Trump's ire now focussed on China, driving inflation and consumer pain in the US.On the face of it a deal would be a good outcome for the UK. It is easy to think of the industries that would benefit, but the caveat is what the US would want in return and what its motives are for a deal.

The talks between officials began around AI and technology, but there are now suggestions other sectors, including food, are part of the debate.That is sound cause to reflect on warnings about the consequences of making it easier for US food that does not meet UK standards to fill supermarket shelves.Vance claimed Trump admires the UK and the royal family in particular. That is perhaps fair comment, given his Scottish roots, but he has yet to show this is more than bluster.

The lower tariff rate for the UK, against the EU, is more a transactional calculation for Trump than a mark of respect around an old alliance.

The transaction is that the UK does not have as large an export/import gap with the US as the EU. This brings the debate back to what in business and politics has always been the top issue for Trump – what is in any deal for him.

That is the context for any deal with the UK.

Again ‘in politics and business' Trump has demonstrated divide and rule rather than any approach built around consensus.In his relations with the UK Trump likes the idea of dividing it from Europe. He has never liked the UK aligning itself with Europe over Ukraine against the flawed American peace plan.

Trump, as an admirer of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, has always supported Brexit. He would see a US trade deal with the UK as a way to cement Brexit and loosen remaining ties with the EU.

That might make sense to him, but it would be a bad outcome for the UK.

For farming and food the EU is our closest, biggest and best market and vice versa. It has a high standards, high cost farming industry and so can afford to buy from a country with similar standards.

This is where economic reality meets politics.

In negotiations with the US this could be a crunch issue.

Much as the UK might like a trade deal with the US the judgement call will be whether US demands alienate the UK from a market that is better financially, where trust is higher and where the government feels a greater cultural affinity.

There is no escape from the reality that with Trump the UK prime minister is dealing with someone whose policies and approaches are diametrically opposed to what he and his party have espoused for generations.The key issue is what the US will want in return. Trump needs a win with farmers.

Tariffs and the threat of tariffs have been a big blow, with US agriculture closed out of China by retaliatory tariffs that have strengthened that market for competitors.

A win would be to prove the UK – and by definition the EU – were wrong to block US food imports over GM technology, hormone use in beef and chlorine washing poultry.

This is not about the rights and wrongs of these practices, but the UK having standards its citizens want.

If food is in the trade equation the US will demand access and a dilution of standards. There is little in return for UK agriculture as the US offers few opportunities.

By changing UK rulers to allow in US food that would not then meet EU rules, trade with Europe would become more complex.

The UK is knowingly being played and faces losing its best markets to pursue one where rules change on a presidential whim.