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=16d9dd3d_1)
