Withdrawal Agreement Direct Effect
As discussed above, the withdrawal agreement is merely an explicit answer to the first of these questions, namely the obligation to directly affect primary law (and, on this issue, there are still doubts about the bill`s ability to deliver on the promise of an “explicit repeal” contained in the joint report). At the same time, it is questionable whether provisions are included in the bill, whether there are implementation decisions on the merits and what is the government delegation, all of which can have a profound influence on the legal status of EU citizens. 3. Any decree (including an order contained in this Act) is read and applies subject to the subsection (2). “(1) If this agreement provides for the application of EU law in the United Kingdom, it must produce for and in the United Kingdom the same legal effects as it produces within the Union and its Member States. Compared to the joint report, however, the text of the withdrawal agreement seems more synoptic as to how the UK should guarantee the direct effect and proper implementation of citizens` rights. The joint report expressed political support, but it had to be translated into ordinary legislation. This was done at the initiative of the European Commission and was subsequently amended in negotiations with the United Kingdom. On 19 March 2018, the UK and the EU presented their joint draft withdrawal agreement. Much of it was green, suggesting agreement between the two sides, although even in these “green” provisions, the EU maintains the principle that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”. how, in accordance with the withdrawal agreement, it can be implemented without further decree or be used in the United Kingdom. 63 The Memorandum of Understanding simply states that the “practical regulation” of the system must, in the future, fully reflect the agreement reached with the EU on citizens` rights: ibid., p. 6, point 1.8.
Given the uncertainty about the possibility of legislating under the British Constitution, it is understandable that the withdrawal agreement (which is a legally binding text) is less explicit in that language than the joint report (which is merely a political agreement). The withdrawal agreement does not explicitly state that only an explicit repeal could end the supremacy of these standards. Although the requirement of Article 4, paragraph 1, according to which “all incompatible or incompatible provisions are not applied” can be regarded as an unconditional declaration of the principle of supremacy, the general manner in which its implementation is defined in Article 4, paragraph 2, should give the British legislature more leeway to present a definition that sets fewer limits to its future action than one that allows only an express repeal.