And many MPs, including former ministers, were furious that Chancellor Sajid Javid refuse a request to publish an economic impact assessment of the cost of the deal to the public and the country.
The legislation, which MPs will debate on Tuesday, runs to 110 pages and is accompanied by 124 pages of explanatory notes.
But MPs complained that there would be just three days to debate and vote on the detail of one of the most important bills in a generation.
Under a timetable set out by Commons leader Jacob Rees-Mogg, the legislation would clear the Commons by Thursday. It is expected that it would clear the Lords by Monday and become law on Tuesday, giving two days for the EU to ratify it in time for October 31.
The withdrawal bill includes a provision to allow Johnson’s Brexit deal to be ratified in time for the UK to leave with an agreement on his ‘do or die’ Halloween deadline.
It also attempts to woo Labour MPs with new commitments on workers’ rights, and removes the need to hold yet another ‘meaningful vote’ on the deal itself.
Starmer said it was “outrageous” that MPs would not have a chance to properly scrutinise the Withdrawal Agreement Bill.
“This is a bill to implement Boris Johnson’s deeply flawed plan for Brexit. Ministers are trying to bounce MPs into signing off a bill that could cause huge damage to our county,” he said.
“The truth is Boris Johnson knows that the more time people have to read the small print of his deal, the more it will be exposed for the risks it represents to our economy and communities across the country.”
Labour and other parties accused the government of trying to rush MPs into approving a ‘blind Brexit’, attacking the absence of any Treasury or other figures on the impact of the deal.
One recent study by the UK in a Changing Europe think tank calculated that Johnson’s plan would slash between 2.3% and 7% from economic growth over the next decade, compared with remaining in the EU. By contrast, Theresa May’s deal would have hit GDP by 1.9% to 5.5%.
However Javid wrote on Monday to the Treasury select committee to state that the deal was “self-evidently in our economic interest”.
“It would bring an end to the damaging uncertainty and delay of the past years and allow businesses to get on with taking decisions, including around recruitment and investment,” he said.
When Philip Hammond was Chancellor, a cross-Whitehall economic analysis published last year suggested the economy would be hit hard by a free trade agreement similar to the one implicit in the latest deal.
But Javid told MPs that such ‘generic’ figures would be misleading, adding that he would only update parliament with an analysis at “appropriate points” over the next year once the shape of the trade deal was clearer.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, said: “Flying blind on a massive decision on the future of the economy is no way for a government to make recommendations to parliament or make legislation. It’s preposterous behaviour by the chancellor and this government.”
Treasury select committee interim chair Catherine McKinnell said the lack of any substantive assessment was an insult to MPs and would mean them voting ‘blind’ on the Brexit bill.
Rees-Mogg dismissed complaints from Labour, stating: “If anybody is frit they are on the Opposition benches.”
The new withdrawal agreement bill is focused on sticking to the October 31 deadline. It “disapplies” provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act (CRAG) that any international treaty such as the Brexit deal must be laid before Parliament for at least 21 sitting days before ratification.