In a speech on RT NS`s Morning Ireland radio, Waterford TD said that such a measure “simply cannot be allowed” because it would be contrary to an international agreement, not just an agreement with Ireland and Europe. The island of Ireland should be treated as a single commercial entity, he said. In C-621/18 Wightman (point 56), the European Court of Justice confirmed that one of the two objectives of Article 50 of the TUE was to “set up a procedure to… An exit [from the EU] is done in an orderly manner. At least two elements of the Article 50 process support this objective. First, Article 50, paragraph 3, set a two-year delay in concluding and ratifying a withdrawal agreement. Secondly, Article 50, paragraph 2, limited the material scope of a withdrawal agreement, so that it concerned only the terms of the Member State`s exit and not the details of future relations between the EU and that State. A withdrawal agreement is intended only to “take into account the framework of future relations with the Union” (my priorities). It is also clear that these aspects of the process have also had the effect of influencing the EU. Both the pressure of a broken clock and the need to pin withdrawal agreements first before going into detail of a future relationship have given an advantage to politically and economically more powerful unity in case of wear. This is how the Prime Minister of the EU makes the choice. They can either negotiate in good faith and conclude the trade agreement they said they wanted. Or they can accept a non-agreement in which the UK will defend its territorial integrity and leave the issue of the Irish border to Brussels and Dublin.
However, with the Internal Market Act published in September, the UK government is trying to repeal part of the agreement – the Northern Ireland Protocol – which would maintain an open border in Ireland. However, the press release initiating infringement proceedings against the UK does not necessarily mean that the next explosive drama in the Brexit courtroom in Luxembourg is inevitable. The United Kingdom has one month to submit its submissions and the Commission reserves the right to proceed to the next stage of a reasoned opinion. However, ministerial statements from the British government and a document on “notwithstanding the clauses” indicate a possible legal counter-argument that the United Kingdom could establish. The aim is to reverse the situation by stating that it is indeed the EU that has acted or can act against the obligations set out in Article 5 of the VA. However, these aspects of the process may have proved counterproductive in the case of Brexit. The first aspect, the impending delay, was to expose over time the risk of a disorderly withdrawal – and the economic consequences and the risks to the Irish peace process – above the minds of the negotiating parties.