[Sephiroth]

"A longer Brexit transition is pointless, dangerous, and plays straight into Mr Barnier’s hands"

So opines Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Torygraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...lays-straight/

Some important extracts from this first rate article:

The EU’s “future arrangements” proposal is not a trade deal at all. It is an attempt to lock the UK into its legal structure under the ECJ. Michel Barnier insists that the UK must swallow the acquis on competition, state aid, labour, and the environment – and future acquis through “dynamic alignment” – demanding “level playing-field’ clauses of a character quite different from normal FTAs.

In other words, the EU is still refusing to treat Britain as an independent sovereign state. Since our proposal is not so far removed from an “Australian” or WTO settlement that Europe cannot deny, it would be craven to accept these terms.

The EU is trying to impose terms appropriate only for a country defeated in war. My presumption is that it cannot take the diplomatic and economic risk of pushing this ideological agenda much further.

The article points out that during the transition period the UK must obey EU law and during any extension must continue to make payments to the EU. It asks to what extent the UK would be sucked into paying more as a result of the 2021-2027 budget (albeit we're not part of that). Ambrose E-P says an extension is exactly what the EU wants because of the money and a degree of trading stability in difficult times.

For what my opinion is worth, the Guvmin would not negotiate an extension that led to us paying more than we would in any previous year.

But it would be very dangerous to seek an extension - it prevents us from doing trade deals elsewhere and jeeps us where the EU wants.