,
5 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
It might have been more welcome that UK govt finally look to GFA strands for Brexit answers if their paper was not so selective & distortive about "safeguarding". A pander paper slanted to curb Strand 2 potential, contort Strand 1 workings & ignore Strand 3 (&2) possibilities. 
If a main point of paper is to show potential inputs for NI Exec & if serious about not altering the remit of NSMC, why not highlight par 17 of Strand 2? This would enable NI Exec views agreed in NSMC to be represented appropriately at relevant EU meetings. A unique advantage.
Why nothing on Strand 3? Could highlight bespoke input under par 7 on BIIC for NI Ministers at meetings of B & I govs on matters at their level. This might include eg those immigration issues where DUP now say they want NI to have comparability with South.
The paper was not written to be balanced, comprehensive or truly positive about potential inputs/influence for NI Exec with expansive use of GFA terms. It is framed to appeal to a vetoholic mindset playing to phoney fears of EU driving an expansion of N-S functions or remits.
Gratuitous reassurance that EU or EU-UK channels on NI Protocol can't push expansion of N-S scope is not matched by any assurance that future UK approaches will not undercut or impede existing N-S cooperation, implementation etc. That reinforces the very need for the backstop!
