The EU issued a statement about as furious as any statement I have ever seen in such a context – and called on the UK government to withdraw controversial plans to end last year`s agreement with the EU by the end of the month and threatened to take legal action if it did not. But cabinet minister Michael Gove said Britain had said it was “perfectly clear” that it would not withdraw the bill. VAT applies to goods traded between the EU and the UK. By derogation from previous articles, the title allows access to the information systems necessary for the application or treatment of VAT (Article 51). This title relates to the customs regimes of goods transferred from the United Kingdom`s customs territory to the CUSTOMS territory of the Union and vice versa (Article 47). Processes that begin before the end of the transition period “are considered an intra-Union transfer with regard to import and export authorisation requirements under EU law.” The agreement also deals with the cessation of temporary filing or customs procedures (Article 49). The withdrawal agreement also contains provisions for the United Kingdom to leave the Convention setting the status of European schools, with the United Kingdom bound by the Convention and accompanying regulations on accredited European schools until the end of the last academic year of the transition period, i.e. at the end of the spring semester 2020-2021.  All disputes relating to the withdrawal agreement must be resolved within the dispute resolution mechanisms under the withdrawal agreement (for example). B settlement or arbitration of the joint commission) or by subsequent international agreements between the parties. Under these dispute resolution mechanisms, parties can refer to international law to justify their position, including those codified in art.
60 and 62 VCLT. Some commentators have suggested that either the “substantial violation” (Article 60) or the “fundamental change in circumstances” (Article 62) of the provisions of the VCLT could allow the United Kingdom to unilaterally denounce the agreement or denounce it if the Irish backstop were to become permanent. But there are difficulties with these proposals. It would be extremely difficult to demonstrate a “substantial violation” of “best efforts”; and it is essential that the continuation of the backstop is not a “fundamental change in circumstances” within the meaning of the VCLT.