With the economic fallout of COVID-19 difficult to quantify but predicted to be tough, many have questioned the wisdom of moving from the security during transition of EU trade deals to a no-deal situation on 31 December. Last week, Joe Owen, programme director at independent thinktank the Institute for Government, argued that the coronavirus pandemic ‘renders the government’s Brexit timetable essentially impossible’.
Owen pointed out that the pandemic negates the perceived benefits of Brexit―’trade deals and greater control over immigration and regulations’―as governments are too preoccupied with the coronavirus to negotiate, travel is all but suspended and ‘regulatory freedom makes little difference to an economy in deep freeze’. Therefore, he argues, as the benefits are postponed, why not also postpone the cost?
The government has reiterated that it will not extend the transition period.
In a House of Commons Library article this week, Graeme Cowie, researcher at the Library, sets out the legal and procedural hurdles that would need to be overcome, including the additional obstacle of parliament legislating in time.
A one-off extension is possible, and must be for no more than two years. It would need to be agreed by a decision of the UK-EU Joint Committee (a body created by the Withdrawal Agreement) by 1 July. Domestic legislation would need to be passed. However, Cowie says the physical chamber is limited to about 50 MPs during the coronavirus crisis and, under current rules, only those physically present can register their vote.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
