They think it's all over,so normal business is resumed

So their attention turns once more to what would have been the continued dripping on for the last few months had covid not intervened (very small mercies and all that)

A Rawnsley is our anxious forecaster,although whoever provided the headline took a few liberties as we will see:

The coronavirus crisis won't give Boris Johnson an alibi for a calamitous Brexit 

In other words, s/he [the sub] dreads that it will. In the actual article, an insight into long term underlying npb/journo fears appears first with this:

I detected considerable fear among officials and ministers that panic buying would clean out supermarkets and spark food riots. [But] Cargo ships and lorry drivers have continued to make deliveries from our neighbours in Europe. Even as borders were closed to most other traffic, everyone came to the sensible conclusion that frontiers had to remain open for freight...Tariff-free and frictionless trade have played vital roles in enduring this emergency. And thanks for that is due to Britain’s membership of the European Union.

But now there might be apocalypse after all, because we are leaving the protection, sense and benevolence of our neighbours and so we will not be able to cope. No-one will want to continue (vulgar trading) business as usual. There are still legs in Operation Fear:

The CBI [that entirely non-partisan source] says that the coronavirus has left companies with “almost zero” resilience to a chaotic exit from the single market. [requiring more hefty subsidies, no doubt]. Most analysis suggests that the hardest hit regions would be those where many voted Tory for the first time in 2019 ['told you so' mixed with 'serves you right']....The International Monetary Fund estimates that a no-deal Brexit would compound the coronavirus havoc by inflicting further scarring on the economy and a permanent loss of 5% of GDP.

No discussion of these estimates and their reliability and connection with any IMF policies on Brexit, of course. 

And a revival of an old insight into the ways the deals actually proceeded in the old days, when every basically decent chap simply agreed on the assumptions, the 'European values', the inertia of the EC system, the dangers of going it alone and so on, and so Kit Kat deals could be developed out of the public gaze:

Four rounds of talks with Brussels have gone badly and Boris Johnson has set an adamant face against asking for an extension to the transition. Negotiations by videolink are not a satisfactory substitute for meeting face to face. [Secure telephone calls?] As one veteran of bargaining with Brussels says: “You can’t have those quiet, informal corridor conversations where you say, ‘If we give a bit on this point, can you give something on that point?’”...the talks have been characterised by mutual [not just us then?]  distrust, grandstanding and temper tantrums. 

The EU is right that the Johnson government has been backsliding on commitments made in the withdrawal agreement...[or is the problem less rational] pre-existing suspicions of a British prime minister who caused enduring offence by comparing the EU to Nazi prison guards [Rawnsley had to dig deep for that one]. The British government is right that some of the EU’s demands, especially on fisheries and state aid, are too aggressive. [not ludicrously unrealistic?] ... European leaders are bored stiff [not still offended then?] with Brexit and the coronavirus crisis has pushed it further down their list of priorities. 

The real worry is that

the economic damage will be masked by and can be blamed on that caused by the disease....This theory is unconvincing even to many Tories. [Why worry then? The same old arguments, so sensible, will surely prevail against this flimsy justification and we will -- rejoin?]

Some argue that the prime minister genuinely wants a deal, but believes that the way to get to it is to play hardball. It was his consistent critique of Theresa May and David Cameron that they got lousy offers from the EU because they were never prepared to threaten to walk away....[pretty undeniable I would have thought]

At least Rawnsley is not echoing the Graun bleat for an extension to the deadline, with continued payments of what now seems to be accepted to be £1bn a month. 

I do still feel a twinge at having to rely on Johnson of all people. Rawnsley reminds us that, like all politicians:

This prime minister has a flair for putting a boastful face on failures to keep his promises – witness his “world-beating” handling of the epidemic – but it fools only those who don’t bother to check the fine print.

We still need Observer journalists to do this checking, of course, but they have blown it long ago by their partisanship. Overall, Rawnsley thinks sense [ideology] will prevail. I think it is hard economic and political self-interests emerging at last from all the crap about European values that will prevail, but I agree that:

It would be madness [well -- unfortunate] for Britain and bad for the EU not to reach an agreement.