The passage of the law immediately drew widespread criticism from several politicians and parties. As someone who has worked for decades in affected industries such as auto manufacturing, banking, financial technology and travel technology, I am delighted that we will conclude an agreement in an orderly manner. The objective of this government is to ensure that we not only maintain, but expand our relations with our partners on the other side of the Channel. It is often said that trade negotiations take many years and therefore it is too ambitious to try to reach an agreement by the end of the year, but there has never been a trade negotiation like this in the history of the world. We assume a 100% alignment position. We need to agree on where it makes sense to stay on the same page, how we do it, and where we want to break. It seems to me that this is a perfectly achievable goal, given the political goodwill on both sides of the negotiating table. On the morning of December 13, 2017, Davis issued a written statement saying: “In the United Kingdom, the government has committed to holding a vote on the final agreement in Parliament as soon as possible after the conclusion of negotiations. This vote will take the form of a resolution in both houses of Parliament and will cover both the Withdrawal Agreement and the conditions for our future relationship.  The good gentleman made a very personal remark about the fact that I separated from most of my constituents. Does he want to explain why, if I separated from most of my constituents, my majority on the Conservative and Unionist Party went from 1,000 to 12,000 votes in the parliamentary election? MPs voted overwhelmingly in favour of the latest Brexit law. This means that when the government lost the significant vote delayed on January 15, 2019, it had three days of meetings (until January 21, 2019) to create its “Plan B”.
 Chris Evans (Labour – Islwyn) (Proxy vote cast by Mark Tami) The Honourable. Mr. Gentleman and I voted on many parts of this bill. He is right when he says that all the forecasts suggest that Brexit will impoverish people in the UK, but the same forecasts say that Scotland`s exit from the UK will make Britain poorer, so why is he in favour? This is how MPs voted in favour of the Prime Minister`s Withdrawal Agreement: today`s vote means that MPs have endorsed the general principles of the law and are now moving on to the so-called “committee” phase, where a more detailed examination will take place. Here is a guide to what happens next on Parliament`s website. I understand why the government rejected some of the amendments that we and other opposition parties tabled, but not all. Many simply reinstated the government`s previous commitments and others were supposed to improve the law; no one should thwart Brexit. During the brief debate on the bill in committee, we, as the opposition, raised five main issues that we believe reflect the serious problems with the Withdrawal Agreement and how the government has implemented it. More than 100 amendments were tabled in committee, but not a word of the bill has changed, which is why we will be voting against third reading today.
Labour MP Keir Starmer has called on Conservative MPs who want Britain to remain in the EU to vote with Labour for the Lords` amendment when the bill returns to the House of Commons, and former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown has suggested that May could be replaced by a new Conservative prime minister if she loses the vote.  Prominent Conservative Amber Rudd called on her party`s MPs to support the government in the vote.  On September 4, the Benn Bill passed second reading with 329 to 300 residents. a 22nd Conservative, Caroline Spelman, voted against the government`s position.  Later in the day, MPs rejected Johnson`s request to call a general election in October by a vote of 298 to 56 and failed to secure the two-thirds majority in the House of Commons required by the Parliaments for a Fixed Term Act. .