If MPs approve second reading, they will be asked to approve the proposed programme. Members can make changes to this motion, which sets the timetable for MDM review by MPs. This is the phase at which some bills – for example, Nick Clegg`s House of Lords Reform Act in 2012 – died. The bill slightly passed the vote because of the overwhelming majority of the Conservative party that came after last week`s election, in contrast to many embarrassing votes suffered by Prime Minister Boris Johnson because he did not have a parliamentary majority until 12 December. This could be a big stumbling block for Members who are trying to organise or stop the withdrawal agreement after second reading. In 1972, while the House of Commons was considering the European Communities Act, Robert Grant-Ferris decided that the amendments to amend the treaty text were not correct. On November 13, 2017, Brexit Minister David Davis announced a new bill to enshrine the withdrawal agreement in national law through primary legislation. In further talks in the House of Commons, Davis said that if the UK decided not to pass the law on 29 March 2019, the UK would remain on track to leave the EU without a deal, having invoked Article 50 in March 2017, following the adoption of the Notification of Withdrawal Act 2017.  Lawmakers on Friday passed the revised Brexit law, which paves the way for leaving the EU by 31 January. A number of clauses in the previous version of the act have been removed.
This implies that when I listened to Mr Paterson`s speech, which was present until a minute or two ago, I was impressed by what he said about the fishing industry and the opportunities that would be open to him outside the common fisheries policy. I have heard him make this speech many times over the years. It would, of course, have been an agreement if the Mrs May-led government had done what it had said and introduced the UK`s removal of the common fisheries policy in the withdrawal agreement and not in the political declaration. If that were the case, we would see an exit from the common fisheries policy at the end of the month. Of course, despite their promise, they did not. They did not do it because, frankly, they did not have the political will to do so. Friday`s vote focused on the second reading of the law, in which MPs will vote on whether they were in principle ready to pass a bill. Changes can be made at later stages.
In the committee phase on the Floor of the Assembly, it will be up to Deputy Spokesperson Lindsay Hoyle, Chair of the Funds, to decide which amendments will be selected for the debate and which of them will be put to a vote. The main point of disagreement with the WAB will be whether the main objective of the law – the implementation of the withdrawal agreement – is the justification for not choosing certain changes. For this government, democratic control is apparently only an inconvenience, so MPs must be denied a say in our key post-Brexit trade relations. So let`s be very clear: this is an executive takeover. Faced with all the rhetoric about the withdrawal of control, this withdrawal agreement ironically gives MEPs less say in our trade with the EU than MEPs in Brussels, who will have a guaranteed vote on trade agreements and the vision of the pre-negotiating mandate. The bill is introduced in the House of Commons for third reading after the committee phase, and then sent to the House of Lords before seeking royal approval to become Jan`s Bill.