She suggested that the government was “ready” to reject constructive negotiations with the EU if it could “not register in the arbitrarily short time” provided for by the bill. The UK has said this can be done by the end of 2020 and the bill also excludes the extension of the transition period, even though no free trade agreement has been reached with the EU. South Shields MP Emma Lewell-Buck, one of six Labour MPs who wanted to vote in favour of the bill, said it was time to end “opposition to the opposition.” The government submits a delegated memorandum for all public bills (including hybrids) to justify the delegation of powers, usually to ministers, in the bill. Nandy voted against the law Friday, along with others who hoped hopefuls Rebecca Long-Bailey, Keir Starmer, Clive Lewis and Emily Thornberry. But the Conservatives promised in their election platform that there would be no extension of the transition period, and Johnson reiterated that promise on numerous occasions during the election campaign. The bill, which came into force yesterday, removes a clause in the previous version that gave Members the right to authorize the extension of the transition period and replace it with a new clause prohibiting any extension of the transposition period. It sets the closing date for the implementation period at 23 .m to December 31, 2020. But the withdrawal agreement, which became law yesterday, contains a major change to the previous law, which will greatly complicate the work that is before the EU and the UK in negotiations on their future relations. The withdrawal agreement negotiated by the EU and the UK provides for a period after withdrawal during which the UK, although no longer a member of the EU, will remain in the EU internal market and the EU customs union. The agreement provides that the transitional period expires on 31 December 2020, unless the UK requests it and the EU grants an extension until 1 July 2020 until 31 December 2021 or 31 December 2022.

This provision was agreed because both parties understood that it would be extremely difficult to reach agreement on all relevant issues related to their future relations in the context of their future period of relations. MPs overwhelmingly backed the bill in its first phase at the end of December. After winning a Conservative majority in the elections, the law was revised and reintroduced on 19 December, after being passed at second reading the following day. The revision of the law in December repealed the provisions adopted in previous versions of parliamentary control of the Brexit negotiations. [10] On Wednesday, the House of Commons rejected the five amendments by separate votes by a significant majority and sent the original bill back to the House of Lords. It could have started with a parliamentary ping-pong game where other versions of the law went back and forth between the two houses, until they agreed on a version. But faced with the Conservatives` 80-seat majority in the House of Commons, the House of Lords accepted and approved the bill yesterday in its original form without a vote. In a flurry of legislative activities this week, the British House of Lords on Monday and Tuesday passed five amendments to the European Union Withdrawal Act (withdrawal agreement) passed by the House of Commons on 9 January; On Wednesday, the House of Commons rejected the five amendments and sent the bill back to the House of Lords; and yesterday, instead of participating in parliamentary ping-pong by passing one or more of the amendments a second time, the House of Lords approved the original bill without a vote and passed it. Shortly thereafter, the bill received royal approval and became the Withdrawal Agreement. After passing its second reading by a sovereign 358 votes to 234, the withdrawal agreement is on track to complete its adoption by both houses of Parliament in time for Brexit to take place at the end of January.