The system would also place judges at the forefront of dealing with politically controversial issues in otherwise routine cases. Unlike some critics (such as Richard Ekins), I do not say so for the sake of judicial agendas or the need to minimize judicial violence (and there is no saying that the courts have sought such a power). Rather, it is the appropriate responsibility to identify alleged problems and control decisions: the approach in paragraph 26, paragraph 1, would involve the abandonment of the responsibility of the government and parliament when dealing with difficult and controversial issues and handing the blame to the courts. The 2019 revisions also adapted elements of the political declaration and replaced the word “appropriate” with “appropriate” with respect to labour standards. According to Sam Lowe, a trade fellow at the Centre for European Reform, the amendment excludes labour standards from dispute resolution mechanisms.  In addition, the Equal Competition Mechanism has been postponed from the legally binding withdrawal agreement to the political declaration, and the line of the political statement that “the United Kingdom will consider taking into account alignment with trade union rules in the relevant areas” has been removed.  Members of Parliament and experts quickly drew attention to a number of issues related to the bill, which they fear could not be sorted in three days. Here are a few. After an unprecedented vote on 4 December 2018, MEPs ruled that the UK government was not respecting Parliament because it refused to give Parliament full legal advice on the consequences of its proposed withdrawal terms.
 The focus of the consultation was on the legal effect of the “backstop” agreement for Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom with regard to the customs border between the EU and the United Kingdom and its consequences on the Good Friday agreement which ended the unrest in Northern Ireland, including whether the UK would be assured, in accordance with the proposals, of being able to leave the EU in a practical sense. It is important to pay tribute to the penetration of EU legislation as it has been incorporated into our law. The Product Responsibility Act is a good example: under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which transposes Product Liability Directive 85/374/EEC, consumers who have been harmed by a defective product are not required to prove an “error”. There does not appear to have been any indication that this legislation was repealed by the withdrawal agreement. Therefore, if I went to exeter County Court to sue the manufacturer of a defective toaster, I would invoke the interpretation of this legislation in the current decisions of the English Court of Justice and the ECJ as competent authorities. The agreement was revised as part of the Johnson Department renegotiation in 2019. The amendments fit about 5% of the text.  Article 26, paragraph 1, of the withdrawal agreement is clearly aimed at resolving the problems caused by the politicization of the ECJ, which lacks impartiality, and dealing with them simply and quickly. The 599-page withdrawal agreement covers the main areas of the following: “If the British authorities violate or threaten to violate the withdrawal agreement under UK internal market law in its current form or otherwise, the European Parliament will not in any way ratify an agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom,” said the leaders of the political groups of the European Parliament and members of its United Kingdom.