I also congratulate Mike Amesbury for coming to the forefront of today`s vote on the private member`s bill. I hope he will choose a theme that will be the subject of consensus throughout the House. A long time ago, in 2005, I came in 16th place in the vote. I must acknowledge the role played by my neighbour in the constituency, my honourable friend Sir William Cash. He and I worked closely together and drafted a private member`s bill for MPs, the European Communities (Application) Act 1972 Bill, which used the memorable term “whatever” in Clause 1(2): In July 2017, David Jones, Minister of State for Exit from the European Union, told the House of Commons that he expected the parliamentary vote on the Brexit deal with the EU to take place. “before the European Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement.” Asked what would happen if MPs and members of the House of Lords decided they didn`t like the deal, Jones said: “The vote will be either to accept the deal. Or there will be no agreement.  At a meeting of the Special Committee on Leaving the European Union in October, Labour MP Seema Malhotra Davis asked: “Could the vote of our Parliament, the British Parliament, take place after March 2019? [Note 2], to which Davis replied, “Yes, it could be.  This has drawn criticism from opposition Labour MPs and some Conservative MPs.   Two amendments were adopted. The Brady Amendment called on the government to renegotiate the Northern Ireland backstop. It passed by 16 votes, supported by the Conservatives and the DUP against other parties in the House of Commons, but with 7 Labour MPs supporting it and 8 Conservative MPs voting against it. The Spelman-Dromey amendment explained the House of Commons` desire to avoid a no-deal Brexit.
It was passed by 8 votes, supported by all parties except the Conservatives and the DUP, but with the support of 17 Conservative MPs. An amendment that was supposed to pave the way for binding legislation that would prevent No Deal, the Cooper-Boles amendment, failed by 23 votes. Three other amendments also failed.   The main motion (as amended) was then adopted without division. Only when I have finished answering the previous intervention. What I would like to say in response to the first person who intervened with me and to whom I have not yet fully responded is that my concerns about what will happen to environmental standards under the Withdrawal Act are not dictated by dogma; They are dictated by my experience of more than 10 years in the European Parliament, when I saw Conservative MEPs constantly trying to water down environmental legislation. After losing the third vote and passing the Cooper-Letwin bill at third reading by 313 votes to 312, May and her cabinet considered the possibility of sending the withdrawal agreement back to Parliament for the fourth vote.  In mid-May, May said she would present the withdrawal agreement to Parliament in the first week of June.  Due to massive opposition to the new deal, May postponed publication from May 24 to 4. She resigned as Prime Minister.
 In late November 2018, May submitted a draft agreement on the future relationship with Europe to the House of Commons after concluding a 17-month negotiation with the EU.  Therefore, the first use of meaningful voting was scheduled for December 11, 2018.  I hope members will question whether it is really wise for the government to have added section 33 prohibiting ministers from extending the transposition period. Of course, this is just a gimmick, and with its majority, the government could repeal this clause at any time and negotiate a short extension. However, whatever our views on these issues, we should all be concerned that this bill deprives Parliament of any role in making this decision, so that if the government has not concluded and ratified an agreement with the EU on our future relationship, the so-called sovereignty claimed for this Parliament will make no sense. We will have no say in whether we will collapse on World Trade Organisation terms, even if the government is days away from reaching an agreement with the EU. We didn`t need to be here. This opposition has accepted that Brexit will take place on 31 January. [Dear Members: “Hooray!”] Triumphalism is not particularly apparent in these circumstances. Nor did we need to be able to abandon minor refugees. It should be noted that the opposition has defended refugee children. We have defended refugee children by trying to link the government to its own commitment to Lord Alf Dubs.
They do not have a mandate to do that. This is nasty and morally and politically unjustified. On the other hand, I hope that their seigneuries will reinstate our amendment, which is actually to restore the government`s commitment, which the Prime Minister himself accepted in the previous version of this Withdrawal Agreement Act. I hope that they will restore it and that we will defend refugee children in this House and in this House. I would like to say a few words about the Withdrawal Agreement, which I fear will be adopted later in the afternoon, and I would like to summarise some of the reasons why I will be voting against. It still contains this trap towards No Deal at the end of this year, and despite what has been said by the State Bank, I do not understand why they are so stubborn about this 11-month period – a completely arbitrary period – and say that this is the period in which they want a new trade agreement to be concluded. The President of the Commission said yesterday that this would not lead to the kind of deep agreement that the Prime Minister apparently wants, so it is very difficult to see how this is really in the best interest of the country. You can read our story about the passage of the Withdrawal Agreement Act at second reading here.
Guardian political editor Heather Stewart writes: “After the Withdrawal Agreement Bill comfortably passed its second reading by 358 votes to 234, it is on track to complete its passage by both houses of parliament in time for Britain to leave the European Union at the end of January. The debate and amendments have largely focused on the interface between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, mainly because it is much more under the control of the British Government. However, the process from Britain to Northern Ireland – and beyond to the European Union – is just as important, if not more so. I think these plans have not been so tested by amendments, because this work depends on the results of the future free trade agreement. In this context, it should be emphasised that a free trade agreement – even a very ambitious and inclusive one – is not the same as the agreements we currently have within the framework of the European Union; It is not the same as a customs union and a single market. A free trade agreement is a qualitatively different concept. We currently have a free trade agreement through which we have access to trade agreements with the rest of the world, and that is what we are giving up for an uncontrolled future. On 23rd October the House of Commons debated three technical pieces of legislation relating to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. The legislative debate focused on the repeal of certain technical provisions in UK law as far as the EU is concerned. If the vote for these three laws is passed, they will only come into force if the UK were to eventually leave the EU. The three items discussed concerned amendments to existing UK legislation for (1) EU free movement rules (2) regulatory oversight of the UK by third countries (EU)3) to repeal EU-codified financial services rules.
 All three amendments were put to a split vote, and all three were passed in the House of Commons.    Later in the day, on questions from the prime minister, Conservative MP Anna Soubry urged May to accept Grieve`s amendment: “The prime minister says she wants a meaningful vote on Brexit before leaving the European Union.