Three clauses and a timetable have been completely removed from the original October WAB. These were the following clauses: clauses that give Parliament a say in future Brexit agreements, negotiating targets or the extension period have been removed. Specifically, they are: the bill was reintroduced immediately after the parliamentary election and was the first bill to be introduced in the House of Commons in the first session of the 58th Parliament with amendments to the previous bill by the re-elected government, and on December 19, immediately after first reading of the Outlaw Bill and before the start of debate on the Queen`s Speech, was read for the first time. The second reading took place on 20 December and the third on 9 January 2020. Described by The Independent as the government that “prays” to Conservative rebels, the bill, as originally conceived, would have allowed MPs to review each agreement “line by line” and make changes.  Conservative MP Steve Baker, who wrote for the Times, claimed that the new bill “gives an appropriate position in UK law to any deal we reach with the EU” and that it is consistent with the referendum result by “giving more control over how we govern the British Parliament”.  It gives the EU House of Lords committee the right to examine developments in EU law of “vital national interest” for the UK during the transition or implementation period. The House of Commons already had these powers under the October Act. The clause that gives MEPs the right to accept an extension of the transition period. The limited control of the WAB is, to some extent, the product of institutional design, not government decision-making. From the beginning of the Brexit process, it was foreseeable that the revision of the WAB would be inadequate. There are two main reasons for this.
The first is that the bill will not be introduced and Parliament will not move forward until the Withdrawal Agreement is concluded and politically approved. This meant that the possibility of amendments in Parliament was limited by the fact that the Treaty had been concluded, but more importantly, the political conditions of the debate would mean that there would be little appetite or time for constructive consideration. The second is the absence of parliamentary procedures or constitutional provisions to structure the participation of parliamentarians in the negotiation of an international agreement such as the Withdrawal Agreement. The WAB contains a mixture of constitutional messages. The WAB is ensuring an orderly Brexit through the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement, but is also seeking to empower Parliament and the courts to engage in the government`s approach to the Brexit gutting. This is also stated in Article 33, which prohibits the government from agreeing on an extension of the transposition deadline. This is difficult to reconcile with Article 132 of the Withdrawal Agreement, which explicitly provides for the possibility of a single extension of up to two years. .