After the WAB becomes law, the withdrawal agreement must also be ratified by the European Parliament. The most important elements of the draft agreement are: EU and UK negotiators have reached agreement on the draft withdrawal agreement allowing the European Council (Article 50) to adopt guidance for the future EU-UK relationship on 23 March 2018. The trial will last at least three months. The 599-party withdrawal agreement covers the following main areas: The UK and the EU have published this new version of the draft withdrawal agreement. It is coded in color and shows where the two parties have agreed (in green), where they are halfway through an agreement (in yellow) and where things are not resolved (in white). (March 19, 2018) The Declared Withdrawal Agreement (European Commission Slides) Feb 2019 Draft Withdrawal Agreement (intgral text) Leaked Draft Political Agreement (non-definitive) Letter exchange on Withdrawal Agreement on 14/2019 01/2 1019: UK EU EUCO Conclusions (10/04/042019) withdrawal delay to 31.10.2019 the United Kingdom is bound by the Convention and the provisions relating to accredited European schools until the end of the last academic year of the transition period, in fact: End of the spring semester 2020-2021.  On the issue of the Irish border, there is a protocol on Northern Ireland (the “backstop”), attached to the agreement, which establishes a position of withdrawal, which will only come into force if there is no evidence of an effective alternative regime before the end of the transition period. The agreement defines the goods, services and processes associated with them. Any provision of goods or services legally put on the market before leaving the EU may be made available to consumers in the UK or in the EU Member States (Article 40-41).
On 15 January 2019, the House of Commons voted with 230 votes against the Brexit withdrawal agreement the largest vote against the British government in history.  The government may survived a vote of confidence the next day.  On March 12, 2019, the House of Commons voted 149 votes against the agreement, the fourth-biggest defeat of the government in the history of the House of Commons.  A third vote on the Brexit withdrawal agreement, widely expected on 19 March 2019, was rejected by the House of Commons spokesman on 18 March 2019, on the basis of a parliamentary convention of 2 April 1604, which prevented British governments from forcing the House of Commons to vote several times on a subject already voted on by the House of Commons.    An abbreviated version of the withdrawal agreement, in which the annex political statement had been withdrawn, consisted of the test of “substantial amendments,” so that a third vote was held on 29 March 2019, but was rejected by 58 votes.  The agreement was revised as part of the Johnson Department renegotiation in 2019. The amendments fit about 5% of the text.  Rules of understanding and interpretation of the agreement. It is specified that they have the same legal force in the EU as in the UK.
The rules have a direct effect, i.e. if they are precise and clear, they can be directly invoked by individuals before national courts. The provisions of EU law are interpreted in accordance with EU law and the practice of the European Court of Justice. The reception of the agreement in the House of Commons ranged from cold to hostile, and the vote was delayed by more than a month. Prime Minister May has received a motion of no confidence within her own party, but the EU has refused to accept further changes. On 6 September 2020, the Financial Times reported that the UK government was considering drafting new laws to circumvent the protocol of the Northern Ireland Withdrawal Agreement.  The new law would give ministers the power to determine which state aid should be notified to the EU and to define which products at risk of being transferred from Northern Ireland to Ireland (the withdrawal agreement stipulates that in the absence of a reciprocal agreement, all products are considered vulnerable).  The government defended this approach and stated that the legislation was in accordance with protocol and that it had only “clarified” the volumity in the protocol.  Urs