Read on Twitter
I think there are actually some decent arguments in favour of having no deal in January, and then seeing what people want (there are obviously also good counter-arguments). https://www.eurointelligence.com/column/time-to-pull-the-plug
From the point of view of both parties: starting from no deal and seeing if people want some sort of cooperation would be a much clearer process. It's what's actually happening, but that's being obscured by the deep integration that currently exists.
Civil society and businesses on both sides would better see what is at stake and positions might shift as a result.
From a UK POV perhaps no deal is the only way to finally lance the boil of euroscepticism. Any deal with the EU now will be seen by some in the UK as vassalage or some such, given what the requirements for a deal are. And so the tired old arguments will continue.
Perhaps better to give the Brexiteers everything they could ever have wished for and see how the people like it? They can then decide if they want some sort of privileged relationship with the EU, and what price they are willing to pay for that.
From the EU's POV: rushing to do a deal with an important and nearby trade partner because you're trying to meet a ridiculously tight deadline imposed by Johnson for his own political ends is risky. Sign in haste, repent at leisure, and so on.
You don't want to do something that might threaten EU industry in the future, or impede its ability to pursue a goal of strategic autonomy in the future, for example (if that is what the EU wants to do).
And you might be optimistic and think that no deal will change things politically in the UK. Which would certainly make a good deal easier to achieve.
There are obviously lots of good counter-arguments. Short run disruption and costs being one; more important is the possibility that HMG might double down and renege on the WA with who knows what consequences. But there are two sides to every argument including this one.
