It’s quite likely that a future UK-US trade agreement would require concessions from the UK to open up certain markets to US competition. The most controversial ones, such as “chlorinated chicken” probably won’t happen because of the scale of negative publicity. Markets dominated by continental Europe will probably open up and that will be a good thing for UK consumers if US producers are able to offer cheaper prices. What won’t happen is US corporations establishing unfair monopolistic positions in the UK because the UK is desperate to sign whatever agreement is being offered. That’s not how trade agreements work. They’re about allowing external competition, not preventing domestic producers from competing. The key is that the domestic producers have to be competitive. And it’s not like US corporations aren’t fully embedded in the UK already. There’s this business trend called globalisation - you may have heard about it.
What’s more, the distance between agreeing to a trade treaty and surrendering sovereignty to a foreign government is huge. When that started happening with the EU, the UK fought against it. And now we’re leaving the EU because the majority of voters preferred sovereignty over trade. The idea that the UK would reject the EU’s shackles, but meekly accept ones from the US is laughable.
The previous Bill was approved by Parliament. However it lapsed when parliament was dissolved for the general election, and when it was reintroduced the entrenching clauses were omitted.
Not all. The European Parliament couldn’t stop the UK from leaving; had they rejected the Withdrawal Agreement then the UK would have left anyway, but without a Withdrawal Agreement. Since that would certainly have been a much lousier outcome for both sides, approving the Withdrawal Agreement was a no-brainer; hence the large majority. It doesn’t mean that the EU is glad to see the UK go.
Thank you for the correction; evidently I haven’t been paying sufficient attention. I thought the “previous Bill” being referenced was Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement, which no doubt also had different details.
Nevertheless, my general point still stands, which is that (IMO) political brinksmanship by pro-Remain MPs may result in a worse outcome than if they had backed May in the first place. Not to mention the wasted time.
Sort of. Johnson was able to renegotiate Brexit with the EU back in October. It was presented in a press conference on 17 October 2019 and scheduled for debate in a special session of Parliament of Saturday, 19 October. A motion for the renegotiated Withdrawal Agreement was presented after the Prime Minister’s statement and initial debate. That motion was amended by the Letwin amendment, which was considered a wrecking amendment, as it inserted a clause into the bill that was unacceptable to the Johnson government. The Letwin amendment passed by 322-306. Johnson then tried to submit a revised motion on 21 October 2019, but the revised motion was rejected by Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow for being too similar to the 19 October motion. The amended bill was then passed through a second reading on 22 October with the knowledge that the Government would be submitting a further Programme Motion setting a timetable for implementation of the bill. This Programme Motion would sideline the Letwin amendment. It was rejected 322-308. Johnson then put the bill on hold and opted for a general election instead as a way of breaking the Parliamentary deadlock. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7960/CBP-7960.pdf (pdf) (from p.70)
TLDR; Parliament didn’t approve any EU Withdrawal Bill motion in October 2019 that Johnson wanted to go forward.
I’m not aware of any credible proposed argument from anyone that UK-EU trade will increase as a result of the UK leaving the EU. There are arguments the UK worldwide trade will increase after the UK has had EU-mandated trade restrictions removed and is freer to trade with non-EU nations. I think those arguments represent goals that are wishful thinking in the near-term, achievable in the mid-term provided trade is a focus of the UK government, and impossible to evaluate in the long-term as any current plans will be made obsolete after a couple of decades due to external factors including technological changes and socio-economic factors that have nothing to do with current politics. British sovereignty, however, will assuredly go up in the near-term, and that rise should be maintained in both the mid-term and, absent disaster, the long-term.
Well, here we are folks, today’s the day. I must confess to feeling quite teary now that it’s finally here. Goodbye to our rights to live and work in 28 countries. Goodbye to my retirement to Italy.
Why won’t you be able to retire to Italy? A quick perusal of this site doesn’t seem to show any great barriers to non-EU citizens who wish to immigrate there:
…the process for permanent residency for EU citizens:
The process for non EU citizens:
How is a retired person going to get a work permit, be an entrepreneur, or be self-employed? That only leaves investment: which means you’ve got to be independently substantially wealthy to potentially qualify.
How is this not a great barrier to retirement in Italy, especially in comparison to EU citizens who only need a valid passport or ID?
My apologies, that probably wasn’t the best cite - I don’t think it tells the whole story. I was looking at the part that says you need to show evidence that you have sufficient income to support yourself. This site gives one example of a retired person doing this:
Sure, it’s harder than just turning up with your passport - why shouldn’t it be?
…it was the perfect cite: it told the unvarnished truth.
The process (as it is in every country) is much more complicated than “simply having sufficient income to support yourself.”
This anecdote is poor data. The guy had to provide and FBI background check. He had to have proof he had purchased a house. An independently wealthy retiree was able to obtain permanent residency. That’s exactly what I said. That’s exactly what your original cite said. If SanVito doesn’t own a house, if they aren’t independently wealthy, what path to residency do they have?
That’s the entire fucking point. It **was **simply a matter of turning up with the passport. Now it isn’t. Should it be harder for non-EU citizens to get residency? Of course it should be. Which was why SanVito said “Goodbye to my retirement to Italy”. I’m pretty sure that SanVito knows their own personal circumstances better than you.
So you’ve pivoted from “Why won’t you be able to retire to Italy?” to “of course it will be harder than it was, why shouldn’t it be?” You’ve answered your own question.
That reminds me of the completely predictable moment when the impeachment defense claimed that the House didn’t do enough to try to get around Trump’s obstructionism and therefore was morally obligated to not call witnesses.