On January 22, 2020, the law was passed by the House of Lords without further amendment. The next day she obtained royal approval.   On 13 November 2017, Brexit Minister David Davis announced a 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.  Limited control of WABs is, to some extent, the result of institutional organization and not of government decision-making. From the beginning of the Brexit process, it was foreseeable that the REVIEW of WABs would be deficient. There are two main reasons for this. First, the bill would not be introduced and advanced by Parliament until the withdrawal agreement has been concluded and politically agreed. This meant that Parliament`s margin for change was limited by the fact that the treaty was concluded, but more importantly, the political conditions of the debate would mean that there would be little appetite or little time for constructive consideration.
Second, the absence of parliamentary procedures or constitutional provisions to structure parliamentarians` commitment to negotiate an international agreement such as the withdrawal agreement. 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. In October, the government attempted to get the WAB through the House of Commons in just three days to meet the October 31 deadline. Even with a large majority, it is unlikely that a new government would try to do it again, especially if there was no reason to do so. In any case, once the WAB passes the House of Commons, it is possible that the House of Lords could slow down the process to become law. Assuming that a majority Conservative government insisted on the same three-day sitting period and that the House of Lords was fully compliant, the shortest the WAB could go through the House of Lords would be three more days of meeting.