The Bank of England has provided a useful reminder that failure to make proper preparations for Brexit is not only a British curse. Threadneedle Street’s language was polite but do not doubt UK regulators’ deep frustration that the EU hasn’t taken seemingly simple steps to ensure that trillions of pounds worth of insurance and derivatives contracts don’t explode on day one.

The Bank did its part six months ago when it set out plans, now formalised by the Treasury, to allow European banks and insurers to maintain their UK operations under current rules after Brexit. It was a commonsense safeguard against a “hard” or disorderly Brexit and the Bank was within its rights to expect its move to be copied. Guaranteeing financial stability across Europe should not be contentious territory.

Brexit: bank contracts worth trillions at risk, says finance watchdog Read more

At a simple level, the Bank’s “temporary permissions regime” will protect the rights of UK consumers with home and car insurance policies underwritten by EU-based companies such as Allianz and Axa. Equally, it should be sensible for EU regulators to ensure EU citizens and businesses can continue after next March to claim on policies backed by UK insurers.

But no. “As yet the EU has not indicated a solution analogous to a temporary permissions regime,” the Bank’s financial stability report read on Wednesday.

Insurance is actually the smaller part of the problem. Derivative contracts between banks – interest rate swaps and so on – are far more important since they oil modern financial markets. They are also hard to move to a new jurisdiction in a hurry, which is what would have to happen without a cooperative Brexit deal.

The baffling part, viewed from London, is that the EU appears reluctant to act in its own interests. The Bank’s report offered a traffic light scorecard of risks in seven categories of cross-border contracts. The risks to the EU were shown as “high” in three areas but the UK received a red for danger in only one.

Is the EU trying to undermine the City? Is it carrying the “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” logic to extremes? Or does the European Banking Authority truly believe that it’s up to banks and insurers to prepare themselves for all outcomes, a position the Bank regards as wrongheaded and impractical?

Whatever the explanation, this quarrel is becoming increasingly bitter. It is alarming because the principals are like-minded technocrats who serve together on international financial committees. This stuff was supposed to be relatively easy to sort out.

John Lewis overhaul felt unpanicked

If John Lewis were a quoted company, it would have a day of high drama. Profits will fall “substantially” this year in a retail market in the midst of “profound change”. The balance sheet must be improved by £500m over three years. And the department stores will aim to boost their own-brand sales from 30% to 50%, a goal that is not without risk.

Yet the overhaul felt unpanicked. A strategy of “differentiation not scale” sounds very sensible for an employee-owned group that can afford to make long-term investments and already has a decent online operation.

The annual investment bill will be maintained at £400m-£500m, even though no new stores will be opened. Instead, more cash can be spent on technology, faster delivery systems and the existing estate. As for the £500m injection to the balance sheet, it should be possible to find a fair chunk from turning surplus store space into gyms, flats and so on.

Sign up to the daily Business Today email or follow Guardian Business on Twitter at @BusinessDesk

Waitrose still has to prove it can prosper in a harsher food retailing climate but, after the chain’s one-third fall in profits last year, growth is expected this time. The decline will all come in the department stores but they are world away from House of Fraser-style calamities. It’s not a crisis.

Heathrow’s owners should cough up

If you are planning a large extension and you are already mortgaged to the eyeballs, it’s a good idea to save more of your income for when it’s needed. Heathrow is taking the opposite approach. Another £455m dividend to shareholders was quietly announced on Wednesday, on top of the £3.1bn dispatched in the past four years.

They are figures to remember when the debt-fuelled owner of the airport pitches its financing proposal for the third runway. If current form is a guide, Heathrow would like to borrow heavily. Everybody else, especially passengers fearful of steeper landing charges, would prefer to see lots of pure equity so the owner can demonstrably shoulder the construction risks. Heathrow’s owners can afford to cough up – and should.