Westminster Correspondent

A BREXIT trade deal must be well under way by this summer or the UK could walk away, the government has warned.

A report setting out the UK’s plan for a trade deal with the EU states that “the broad outline” of an agreement should be reached by June, with the aim of finalising a deal by September.

If there has not been enough progress, Downing Street said it would “need to decide whether the UK’s attention should move away from negotiations and focus solely on continuing domestic preparations to exit the transition period in an orderly fashion”.

Michael Gove addressed Parliament yesterday morning, as the 30-page report was published, explaining the government’s proposals for agreements covering all parts of the economy, from fishing and justice to goods and services.

The proposals include no tariffs or fees on manufactured or agricultural goods; no participation with the EU arrest warrant scheme and equivalence for the financial services sector.

A separate agreement on fisheries has also been demanded, with suggestions of an annual negotiation on access to each other’s waters, including the amount of allowable catch and shares.

Officials said that even if the government’s plans were agreed, it would mark the end of frictionless trade with the EU as new customs posts would need to be set up, as well as regulations on exports.

It was also confirmed that a consultation would be done on the “economic impact of the future relationship” between the UK and EU, but when asked if an impact assessment on the effect to economic growth would be published, officials declined to say.

Gove insisted that the UK would be “even safer” after Brexit as there would be full control over the country’s borders.

He also said the UK did not want to be involved with the European Court of Justice (ECJ), adding that the government did want an agreement with the EU on law enforcement an justice.

The MP also insisted that the Government was just asking for a trade deal similar to those offered to other countries by the EU, and dismissed claims that a Canada-style deal would not be possible due to the proximity of the UK to the EU compared to Canada.

He said: “We do not need the EU’s permission to be a liberal nation leading the world in the fight against climate change and for social progress.

“That is why the government seeks a free trade agreement with robust protections for the environment and labour standards. But we do not see why the test of suitability in these areas should be adherence to EU law and submission to EU models of governance. The EU does not apply those principles to free trade agreements with other sovereign nations and they should not apply to a sovereign United Kingdom.”

Gove said he was “confident that [the] negotiations will lead to outcomes which work for both the UK and the EU” but warned “in pursuit of a deal, we will not trade away our sovereignty.”

Pete Wishart,veteran SNP MP, said the government’s plan was “a load of bunkum, baloney and codswallop”, and insisted Scots “will not accept it”.

He told Gove: “ This is nothing but a route-map to the cherished ‘no deal’.

“How many times does this government have to be told that the UK will not leave with a better deal and arrangement than is currently enjoyed just now? It doesn’t matter if it’s Canada plus, Australia... they will have an inferior product.”

He also warned that the Government would be “trounced by the EU” during negotiations, adding: “Their hard Brexit will do nothing but hurt my nation. Even with one of these free trade agreements, our GDP will be hit by 6.1%. If they get their cherished no deal, the consequences will be absolutely catastrophic for my nation of Scotland.

“Scotland wanted nothing whatever to do with this ruinous Brexit and we will not accept it.”

Labour MP Yvette Cooper said the public would be less safe under the “extremely worrying” proposals for criminal justice.

She said the plan “made it plain that the UK is no longer seeking the kind of access to vital EU databases and security tools that would replicate our existing relationship, despite its own analysis stating repeatedly that failing to participate in existing tools would mean a serious loss of capability with damaging consequences for public safety.”