Get a full list of what you need to do for yourself, your business and your family. However, the EU wants a comprehensive agreement covering all aspects of future relations, while the UK argues that there should be a number of separate agreements, including a basic free trade agreement. The transition period is not extended. The United Kingdom has stated that it does not want an extension. The option of an extension was included in the withdrawal agreement. The UK and the EU have had until 1 July 2020 to agree on a possible extension. However, a prolonged transition period requires a UK financial contribution to the EU budget, as the UK would continue to participate fully in the internal market, with all its benefits. The transition period began on January 31, 2020. During this period, almost all EU rules continue to apply in the UK. The UK remains part of the EU internal market and customs union. The European Court of Justice remains responsible for the United Kingdom during the transitional period.

This also applies to the interpretation and implementation of the withdrawal agreement. The agreement was revised as part of the Johnson Department renegotiation in 2019. The amendments amend about 5% of the text[22] Before the withdrawal, a withdrawal agreement was negotiated to ensure that the main political and economic relations between the EU and the UK were not separated overnight. The agreement has been in force since 1 February 2020, when the UK left the EU. It provides for a transition period until 31 December 2020, during which time EU legislation will continue to apply to the UK and the UK will continue to be part of the EU internal market and the EU customs union. During this transition period, the EU and the UK are negotiating their future relations. The political declaration on future relations, adopted by both sides, accompanies the withdrawal agreement and sets the framework for the negotiations. The deadline set in the withdrawal agreement until 1 July 2020 for the extension of the transitional period has passed without the European Union and the United Kingdom agreeing on an extension in the Joint Committee.

A free trade agreement between the UK and the EU will top the to-do list. This will be essential if the UK is to continue trading with the EU after the transition, without tariffs, quotas or other barriers. On 15 January 2019, the House of Commons voted with 230 votes against the Brexit withdrawal agreement[10] the largest vote against the British government in history. [31] The government may survived a vote of confidence the next day. [10] On March 12, 2019, the House of Commons voted 149 votes against the agreement, the fourth-biggest defeat of the government in the history of the House of Commons. [32] A third vote on the Brexit withdrawal agreement, widely expected on 19 March 2019, was rejected by the House of Commons spokesman on 18 March 2019, on the basis of a parliamentary convention of 2 April 1604, which prevented British governments from forcing the House of Commons to vote several times on a subject already voted on by the House of Commons. [34] [35] [36] An abbreviated version of the withdrawal agreement, in which the annex political statement had been withdrawn, consisted of the test of “substantial amendments,” so that a third vote was held on 29 March 2019, but was rejected by 58 votes. [37] On 6 September 2020, the Financial Times reported that the UK government was considering drafting new laws to circumvent the protocol of the Withdrawal Agreement in Northern Ireland. [45] The new law would give ministers the power to determine which state aid should be notified to the EU and to define which products at risk of being transferred from Northern Ireland to Ireland (the withdrawal agreement stipulates that in the absence of a reciprocal agreement, all products are considered vulnerable). [47] The government defended this approach and stated that the legislation was in accordance with protocol and that it had only “clarified” the volumity in the protocol. [48] Ursula von der Leyen warned Johnson against international law