We must accept deal may not be possible

Brexit has become more complicated, chaotic and disorderly. We can certainly add a disorderly Brexit to the long-used terms of hard Brexit and soft Brexit.

It was unclear before the UK referendum in 2016 whether Brexit would be of the hard or soft varieties.

It was also unclear what the UK parliament would eventually support because it leans more to the Remain side of the debate than the UK electorate.

This complexity is not surprising because the referendum only asked voters whether they wanted to stay in the EU or to leave when there are various leave options and possibilities.

Norway, Turkey, Switzerland, China, Canada, and Turkey are not members of the EU, but each has a distinct trading relationship with the EU.

The majority of the UK electorate voted to leave but it is unclear what form of exit it favours.

There are additional complexities. The possible impact of a hard Brexit on the peace process in Ireland was greatly unappreciated by many proposing Brexit.

The Conservative Party is keen to avoid a split between its ‘remainers’ and its large Brexit wing, which includes a smaller and very hard Brexit wing.

The British Labour Party wants a soft Brexit which gets Britain in a customs union and a deal which includes a link to the single market that would nonetheless allow it negotiate trade deals with other countries.

However, the leader of the Labour Party seems keen to force and win a general election rather than support a solution to the Brexit without an election. The Labour Party also has to take into account that many of its supporters voted to leave.

It is always difficult to predict the outcome of a major negotiating process between two large and strong political entities and there is no guarantee that either party will secure its preferred position.

It is not a surprise that striking a Brexit deal acceptable to the UK parliament and EU members has been a difficult process.

However, it is wrong that the Brexit process has been allowed to run so close to March 29. This has increased uncertainty, damaged economic confidence, and runs the danger of a result that no one wants.

The economic impact on the Irish economy of a crash-out Brexit was quantified last week by the Department of Finance.

It predicted the effects would weigh significantly on economic growth and lead to a jump in unemployment by two percentage points.

The UK and the rest of the EU would also suffer significantly from a disorderly Brexit. The failure to achieve a timely resolution is mainly due to the UK. The UK negotiated a deal which it failed to deliver.

Of course, it may be the case that no amount of consensus-building efforts would have produced a desirable result in the UK.

The final UK position, as opposed to UK government proposals, is still unknown.

Recriminations will not solve the problem and we have to accept that a deal may not be possible.

This is despite EU goodwill and the fact that a majority of MPs at Westminster want to avoid a no-deal outcome.

In the event of a crash-out, the focus must be to aim for a phased transition to the new trading relationship. A no-deal Brexit will still be rules-based, but just with different and more costly rules.

Such rules involve the World Trade Organisation, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, and the Universal Postal Union.

Co-operation between the two sides can reduce uncertainty. The two parties should commit to an orderly transition to a no-deal Brexit trading relationship.

Anthony Foley is emeritus associate professor of economics at Dublin City University