,
10 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
As one involved in negotiation of #GFA (dealing with all parties not just one) I have to refute this misconstrued "Fundamental" @TomMcTague & L Bew. Anxious about "top-down imposition" & GFA's delicacy? Why blindly uphold imposing convulsive Brexit on NI that voted Remain? /1
I would not pretend the backstop fully protects #GFA. (It is mitigation/insurance & wouldn't make up existing GFA deficits eg Rights). But given the impulses & ignorance shown in London's chaotic approaches to date noone should pretend that GFA would be upheld without it. /2
I am disappointed that Lord Bew invokes "all parties" in such a tendentious appraisal. His own top-down imposition on us? Other parties have shown more consistent adherence to letter & spirit of GFA than L Trimble & have well-founded different views on Brexit & backstop. /3
This raises the capricious approach to "consent" as featured in different aspects of GFA.
Brexiters cheered UKSC rulings 1)GFA "principle of consent" only re UK v UI vote & not Brexit
2)no devolved "consent" needed for UK-EU treaty terms or W'minster Brexit legislation. /4
Brexiters cheered UKSC rulings 1)GFA "principle of consent" only re UK v UI vote & not Brexit
2)no devolved "consent" needed for UK-EU treaty terms or W'minster Brexit legislation. /4
But in scramble against backstop in WA terms, Brexiters brazenly invoke a "consent" requirement in aid of (anti-GFA) DUP which they dismiss for pro-GFA, pro-Remain majority in NI. Such disdainful chicanery in UK Brexit politics is proof why democratic Ireland needs backstop. /5
Back to L Bew concerns about par 50 of Dec '17 Joint Report. This was about any *new* regulatory divergence ie in future! The backstop is about respecting existing ambits of Strands 1 & 2 of GFA against Brexit-derived erosion & top-down imposition of "UK-wide" approaches./6
L Bew misapplies 'specific endorsement' line in par 12 Strand2 about future development of cooperation areas, implementation bodies &c to "N/S regulatory alignment & harmonisation". NB latter, crucial to island economy, both rooted before & sourced beyond Strand2 workings. /7
He told HoL par17 S2 "says explicitly" terms not there. Read 👇.
If par 17 applies post Brexit, NI Exec via NSMC can (unique in UK) have views reflected in future EU meetings =one answer to representation complaint re backstop.
If Brexiters say it can't apply, GFA clearly hit! /8
If par 17 applies post Brexit, NI Exec via NSMC can (unique in UK) have views reflected in future EU meetings =one answer to representation complaint re backstop.
If Brexiters say it can't apply, GFA clearly hit! /8
Noting L Bew premise "if people do not have democratic control upwards..you have a problem" re GFA. That is exactly the case with top-down imposition of "UK-wide" terms of Brexit against express wish of people in NI & GFA's givens. Backstop is a necessary offer of assurance. /9
Due respect for L Bew's other contributions cannot outweigh the respect owed to GFA terms as mandated by people of Ireland N&S. Partial & slanted versions of GFA & backstop by Ls Bew & Trimble mean journos, MPs et Al should not treat/repeat them as oracular arbiters of GFA. /10
