Sorry to say the fundamentals on which this argument are based are flawed. Take economic impacts - for trade deals these are measured typically over 10-20 years. Not one. Business investment decisions take time to take effect. And losing an extra 2% is still a big deal. 
Then the flow of trade. Most people would agree that essential food supplies have been remarkably unaffected by the current crisis. The global supply chain has held up. How you get from here to a confident but evidence free assertion that there will be no gridlock I don't know.
Then we're back to the mythical mini-deals, which don't exist (unilateral measures do exist of course).
The single market, which if it does exist for services, is suspended. Untrue. (it exists and is not suspended. this is taking some crisis measures out of context).
Subjects not mentioned. Data adequacy (could be a problem for that services economy?). Northern Ireland. 50,000 UK customs agents. Other trade deals that had been promised and won't now happen. Travel restrictions that may last for years and hit services economies.
I think I recall the author said he was tempted to support extension until 'the usual suspects' (I think including me, you'll know the others) started 'banging on about it'. Which isn't much of a basis for making policy.
We go back to a government correctly devoting most of their attention to coronavirus choosing in turn to trivialise 50% of the UK's trade as relatively unimportant by not caring much whether deal or no-deal, or what deal. I cannot think of a precedent. prospectmagazine.co.uk/economics-and-…
