Extending the Brexit transition deadline would be a disaster for Britain and the EU

Boris Johnson heads to Brussels later this month for face-to-face meetings with Ursula von der Leyen and other European Commission senior figures to get Brexit done. Or so the Prime Minister hopes.

If Johnson and his Commission counterparts are unable to come up with a mutually attractive deal by the end of June, then we are on track for a no-deal departure from the EU at the end of December.

The only way of avoiding a no deal Brexit is if the Prime Minister asks for a two year extension to the transition by the agreed July 1 deadline. But Johnson has made it abundantly clear he will not countenance an extension even if the two sides do not have the outline of a future agreement. Nor should he.

Extending the transition period by another two years would be a disaster and a distraction, not only for the UK but for the European Union too as we struggle to recover from the devastation of the pandemic. The politicians of all 28 states have enough to do mending their own countries, both socially and economically, without wasting time and energy on yet more tortuous negotiations. Everyone needs to get with the essential rebuilding work to come

And what would another two years delay and talking achieve anyway? The big stumbling blocks to arrive at a good arrangement – deal is the wrong description – will remain the same as they are today.

Delay would only mean more space for arguments, for recriminations and bad blood over fishing quotas and level playing fields at a time when the politicians and policymakers should be more constructively employed in healing their economies.

With any luck, the latest third round of talks – which started today – will lead to some resolution on some of the specific sticking points.  For example, the UK is asking for a fisheries deal to be a standalone agreement whereby the two sides negotiate access and quotas. The EU, on the other hand, wants to link fisheries to other trade issues.

Agreeing the so-called level playing field is another sticky issue. As you might expect, the EU is concerned that Britain may diverge on rules and regulations to gain a competitive advantage. It wants to ensure that EU standards will be kept by London in return for a high degree of access to the single market.

Both sides are right: both want their cake. And why shouldn’t they ?

You can see why the EU is rattled though. In the last few weeks Nissan has decided to close down its Barcelona plant and concentrate production at Sunderland: the result of more than forty years of investment but also fantastic labour relations between management, unions and workers. But also because the car market is in a state of flux : Nissan believes it’s better off making cars for the UK market than trying to sell overseas.

Elon Musk’s Tesla is also said to be looking for a four million square foot site on which to build a new Gigafactory research, development and manufacturing plant for its electric vehicles. Tesla’s decision to seek a home in the UK comes after a German court raised concern about a similar plant near Berlin because of the impact on local wildlife.

Yet the EU is foolish to fear the UK going it alone. The EU is right that the UK will want to be as competitive as it can be. And why shouldn’t it ? But why does that stop the EU member states from adapting their own rules to be equally competitive? Its not a zero sum game.

There’s another reason why extending the deadline would be daft, for all parties. Countries are going to have to be more nimble than ever post-Covid. World trade has been changed, in ways unimaginable only a few months ago, by the pandemic, and will change even more as countries seek to bring industries home and focus on recovery.

Supply chains have proven to be brittle, and will have to be rethought. Governments have realised that some industries ( and employees) are more key than others. Personal Protective Equipment, masks, healthcare generally, and certain utilities in particular will be studied carefully. Many of these industries will be coming back on shore. Ironically, big pharma companies such as Astra Zeneca or GSK, which have global reach, have shown that they can work closely with international partners. Even so, there is no question that once we emerge from lockdown, we will all need a period of serious scrutiny as well as reflection about some of the most basic relationships between organisations, the public and government.

That’s why having this end of June deadline – and sticking to it – is so important, not just for Johnson’s own popularity but to put to rest the sparring and nastiness which has raged within Britain’s political class for too long. And to start a new and vibrant relationship with our European neighbours and other trading partners.

If not, we will still be hearing forever from Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, blustering that there will not be an “agreement at any cost.” And we still be listening to the UK’s team claiming that the the EU is making unbalanced demands.

Far better for everyone involved to get on with it.