The United Kingdom has properly implemented the agreement through the European Union Withdrawal Agreement 2020 Act (Withdrawal Agreement) and its amendments to the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018. The section 4 requirements take effect by Sections 7A-7C of the 2018 Act. In summary, the law uses the same wording and technique used in Section 2, paragraph 1 of the European Communities Act 1972 to ensure the direct effect of the agreement and the availability and application of its provisions without further adoption. Section 7A (3) also seeks to prevent tacit repeal in the same way as Section 2 (4) of the 1972 Act. Using these well-known constitutional techniques, the intention was undoubtedly to assure the EU that the UK intended to fulfil its legal obligations. The result is the dilemma that British constitutional rights defenders are familiar with and which has been the subject of much discussion during the UK`s lifetime membership of the EU. If a British court were to implement substantial law provisions of national law which, in turn, clearly and, admittedly, violates the OBLIGATIONs of the United Kingdom and that they acquire internal legal effects through legislation guaranteeing the orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU, or should a court make these provisions incompatible with the withdrawal agreement and not by legal arrangements incompatible with the Do Not Take It Back Agreement? There are circumstances in which a bill can obtain royal approval without the approval of the House of Lords, but with the exception of silver bills, this can only be done after a period of at least one year from second reading of the Commons (in accordance with the 1949 Parliament Act). The fly in the ointment, however, is included in Section 38 of the 2020 Act. The so-called « sovereignty » clause requires that paragraphs 7A-7C be read as if they did not depart from the sovereignty of Parliament. This could have been a source of concern for the EU, but it has always been true that all the legislation transposing the withdrawal agreement was contrary to the principle of Parliament`s sovereignty and that the law had not, in itself, complied with Article 4, provided that the agreement could be applied in practice and that inconsistent provisions could not be applied. Section 7A takes up the wording of the European Communities Act 1972 (which conferred national legal effects on EU legislation during accession) so that directly effective provisions of the withdrawal agreement are available and applicable under the law and without further adoption.
It is important – and again with the same type of legal instrument to guarantee the rule of law of the EU during EU membership – Section 7A (3) provides that any decree (including a decree provided for in the law) must be interpreted taking into account the need to implement and enforce directly effective provisions.