On the face of it the new Withdrawal Bill published by the government this evening is a rather functional piece of legislation that gives effect to the deal negotiated by Boris Johnson.

However you don’t have to dig very far beneath the surface to see that the main aim of the proposals is to take power away from Parliament who have thus far proven very successful in their bid to frustrate the will of the government.

The best way to start understanding the new legislation is to note that ‘exit day‘ is no longer what the average voter might expect ‘exit day’ to actually mean. Instead there will be a legally defined ‘transition period’ after exit day during which time EU law will continue to apply.

No doubt that will annoy some of the more dogmatic Brexiteers but is this not a fair compromise in order to get the Bill through Parliament?

Well there are a couple of related reasons why the ‘transition period’ is not quite as flexible as it might first appear.

Firstly clause 30 makes it clear that the implementation period can only be extended if the proposal originates from a Minister of the Crown. In other words a government that has set its heart on ‘getting Brexit done’ could simply never put forward an extension and we would almost be guaranteed to leave at the end of 2020.

Secondly clause 31 follows up by requiring the House of Commons to approve the objectives when it comes to negotiating the future relationship with the European Union. This might sound like it is actually giving Parliament power but again the proposals have to come from a government Minister and thus we are left with another attempt to rein in the legislature by limiting the scope of their possible actions.

Combining these two points together it is not difficult to foresee a future where the implementation period is coming to an end in just over 12 months time and, at best, the House of Commons is forced to accept negotiating objectives laid down by the government. At worst this is the first step on the sleepwalk towards no deal Brexit.

So is this a deliberate ploy or just plain incompetence?

Well on the one hand the financial implications of the Bill have been severely underestimated because a range of costs have been deemed too uncertain at this stage to quantify. These are not small items of expenditure either and include border controls and tariffs, implementing a permit system for workers and future contributions to the European Union (including the withdrawal agreement itself).

On the other hand there is convincing evidence of a power grab. So-called Henry VIII powers are a controversial form of legislation that push what the executive branch can do to its very limits. This Bill alone contains 19 such powers.

Forcing MPs to come to a decision on such a significant piece of law in such a short period of time is both reckless and dangerous. The debate will last only a few days but the consequences could remain for a long time to come.