Ggtkuk

1. A no deal Brexit would also hurt the EU. Not so much as to offer the pact that the Parliament wants (in the case that the Parliament knew what it wants), but enough to provide an extension to see if the deal gets approved.




2. In the worst case scenario, the EU has a few more days to roll out its own contingency measures for a no deal Brexit.




3. It shows the EU as a reasonable actor that does not refuse to give some slack to the other side.

In any case, the extension is not a big deal: a few days if the temporary agreement is not accepted, less than two months if it is accepted, and in neither case it will cause issues with the upcoming EU elections.

And for "it is an attempt to force the UK to take part in the elections" comment, I do not understand what the EU would stand to win from the UK holding EU elections, and the EU is not interested in that: even the longer extension ensures that the UK will not have to elect MEPs.

Simply put, a number of countries, most importantly Germany and the Netherlands, do not want the UK to leave the EU without a deal.

This is more for economic reasons than political ones. The chaotic effect on trade, in a no deal scenario, would have a significant knock-on effect on the economies of those countries (amongst others).

So the EU leaders effectively agreed two courses of action. In the unlikely event of the Withdrawal Agreement being passed by the UK Parliament next week, there is an extension to 22nd May to allow the UK to close out all the legislation needed to enact it. This is sensible in that the EU is getting what it wants for the sake of a couple of months and without the legal complications related to interference with the EU Parliament elections.

If the Act fails, then the UK has until mid-April to come up with a plan or crash out. The April date is the latest date after which EU Parliament elections are affected. If the UK still wants to look for a solution at this stage, they will be required to participate in the EU Parliamentary elections and the date will probably be extended until at least December.

So, in essence, the EU leaders have just moved the arbitrary end March date to the latest possible dates. Politically, the value of this is that they haven't shut any doors i.e. the ball is back in the UK's court.

It's also worth pointing out that some leaders (e.g. Tusk and Bettel) in the EU are still holding out hope that the UK will come to its senses (as it were) and revoke Article 50. The thinking is that the more chaotic pre-Brexit is, the more likely that that will happen. This is probably wishful thinking but is a consideration.

The EU doesn't need more time, and it certainly doesn't want to give the UK more rope to hang itself.

The EU does not want a no-deal Brexit. There are lots of things which immediately affect the EU and/or its citizens directly, and I'll point out a few:

• There's a 39 billion € settlement which is likely not going to be paid with a no deal Brexit.


• There will be a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland on a no deal Brexit.


• There will not be an agreement on rights of EU citizens in the UK (or UK citizens in the EU). They may have to leave sooner or later.


• Additional customs checks are costly to implement, costly to maintain, and will hurt trade.

But the most important reason is that while the UK will leave the EU, it will still be located really close to the EU. The entire reason the EU exists is the realization that "we're going to need each other tomorrow". The UK may leave, but there will still be a future between the EU and the UK. Starting that future with slammed doors will only cause pain and suffering. The EU builds bridges, it doesn't burn them.

Granting a two week (or two months) extension is an easy price to pay. It only took the EU council a few hours to agree on the length of the extension, there was hardly a debate on whether an extension should be granted.

Extending a few weeks doesn't really hurt the EU*. Kicking them out now might put part of the blame on the EU, at least in some people's perception. At least with the EU elections, the EU has a good excuse to force the UK out, or force them to take part in EU elections (which is counter to the promised leaving of the EU).

If May manages to pass the deal now (very unlikely, I know), no-deal is successfully averted which would be very good for the parties involved.

If May does not manage to come up with a good alternative then the UK will be out only a few weeks later. Yes, this causes the uncertainty to exist for a few more weeks, but it also gives some time to prepare as it's clearer now than ever before that no-deal is likely.

If May does manage to propose a new deal that is agreeable to the EU and UK parliament (maybe the UK decides to come up with a cross-party approach) that would be even better. It's in everyone's interest that there is a deal and the more people support a deal the more likely it is to be a lasting solution.

*In fact, the extra time may be helpful for some business's and countries' no-deal preparations. Dutch state media wrote the following:

Het uitstel van brexit lijkt Nederlandse ondernemers goed uit te komen. Twee derde heeft zich namelijk niet of maar een beetje voorbereid op een vertrek van de Britten, blijkt uit nieuwe cijfers van het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken.

Ook in de Nederlandse havens moet nog veel gebeuren om de export naar het Verenigd Koninkrijk ook na een Brits vertrek uit de Europese Unie soepel te laten verlopen. Deal óf geen deal.

Roughly translated by me:

The postponement of Brexit seems to be good for Dutch entrepreneurs. Two-thirds has made no or only little preparations for the British departure from the EU, statistics from the Dutch Foreign Ministry show.

Dutch ports, too, still need to do a lot to ensure exports to the UK continue to run smoothly. Deal or no deal.

I have to agree for the most part with Alex. The EU is trying to force the UK so that they do not leave without a deal. Most European leaders would prefer no Brexit over May's deal, but they settle for it if it's the best option they have. Their calculation isn't that difficult: If May's deal does not get enacted, they assume that parliament will act to avoid the no deal that they clearly do not want. The two options would be ask for a longer extension(at least till the end of the year) or revoke article 50. In either case a no deal is avoided. The biggest flaw in this plan is that parliament will not have much time to act and it's even an uncertainty if they will when they are headed for a no deal.

This article goes into some detail about why the EU agreed to delay the deadline. Key points:

1. 
   They want to avoid a no-deal Brexit too. If a short time extension helps the British parliament come to a consensus, so much the better.


2. 
   They deflect potential blame. By giving firm deadlines, Britain can no longer say that they're crashing out of the EU with no deal because the EU is refusing to compromise.


3. 
   They are protecting the integrity of the EU elections. These elections are due in May. By forcing an answer to the Brexit question before then, they're making sure that there will be no legal challenge to the EU electoral process.


4. 
   They signal that there will be no renegotiation. The time extension is too short for that.

The EU decision is a balance between the following needs:

1. Not giving a long extension without proper justification on a way forward.


2. Not giving no extension at all as that would increase the risk of accidental no deal (which neither side wants).

Therefore the EU granted two different extension based on what the UK decides to do:

1. If the UK accept the negotiated withdrawal agreement then they get enough time to pass the necessary legislation to implement that.




2. If the UK do not accept the negotiated withdrawal agreement then they get two extra weeks (on top of the one week left) to choose between no deal or a longer extension. Any longer extension creates problems with the preparations for the EU elections, which is why participation in those is a prerequisite for granting a possible further extension (such as when the UK want to hold a referendum of national elections to decide the way forward).