I have all the sympathy in the world for business leaders who at the moment are:
a) far too busy keeping their companies alive; or
b) terrified of pissing off the very government whose largesse they'll depend on to get through the next 12 months...
to speak out.
I get it.
But there's no alternative. There's no one to free ride on.
No mysterious alternative group of people at the intersection of "understands importance of transition extension" and "actually listened to by Tories sometimes" exists to speak out so you don't have to.
People (not Katy) often talk about fishing's contribution to GDP like if the UK gives ground the UK fishing industry will cease to exist.
I don't think there's a lot of evidence to support that conclusion.
Ironically, failure to secure tariff free access into the EU and failure to streamline UK caught seafoods passage through EU SPS and customs screening may do more damage to the industry than any waters access outcome.
If you live in a Developed Country, represent farmers, asked for a subsidy and were rejected "because of WTO rules" then 99% chance:
a) They were wrong; or
b) They were lying; or
c) They could have come up with an alternate way to legally subsidize you with 10 minutes thought.
I'm basically not exaggerating.
Unless you're asking for a subsidy directly linked to how much you export, or for the government to establish price support (and even then, the EU has 80 more billion in AMS to burn), the WTO rules aren't the problem.
Whenever I talk about the consequences of No Trade Deal being marginal compared to the broader and inevitable costs of leaving the Single Market/Customs Union, I'm always careful to add, "except for in some sectors, like agriculture."