Therefore, the Court may conclude that the reference to the “objective” of the DT. 5 of the VA withdrawal agreement necessarily implies fidelity to the objective of guaranteeing a formal retraction. Applying this telos to the facts, it can be concluded that even the mere proposal of clauses 44, 45 and 47 of the UK Domestic Market Act may run counter to the objective of the order and hence to the negative obligation of Article 5 of the VA, by providing for the possible suspension of the application of the obligations under Article 4 AV, Article 5 of the Competition Code and Article 10 of the PIN in national law. The legal order of enforcement mechanisms is complex, but the practical strategic consequences are simple: if the European Commission wants to prevent the UK from introducing clauses 44, 45 and 47 of the UK Internal Market Act which came into force, the only legal possibility is to bring a case against Diesamulakrakumkumkum before 31 January 2020, using the powers of the simulacrum under Article 131 AV. that the United Kingdom is in good faith violating its obligations. section 5 of the VA. I would argue that the broad wording of section 47 could be considered a “measure” within the meaning of section 5 of the VA. Catherine Barnard, who is available to the House of Commons in the presentation of future relations with the EU committee, argued that the “strong language” of Term 47 (as it is today) could be contrary to Article 5 of the VA and Article 184 of the VA by publishing the Act. Good faith can be defined as “honesty of purpose” and makes a decisive distinction between section 4 of the VA, which, in my view, can only be violated if the provisions in this area are adopted, and article 5 of the VA.
In this sense, the introduction of the law shows one of the objectives of the British government to act inconsistently with the VA. This clause serves as a legal means to ensure that the transition period, immediately after withdrawal, maintains a supranational constitutional “simulacrum” vis-à-vis the United Kingdom. The permanent jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice is confirmed by Article 131 of Article 131 of the VA in the next judgment. This repetition of the EU`s legal order also works reflexively with regard to the withdrawal agreement: Article 131 concludes that “[this jurisdiction of the Court of Justice established by the first paragraph [is] also applicable during the transitional period to the interpretation and application of this agreement” (emphasis).