Thread by @markdurkan

Anti-backstoppers putting big weight on par 50 Dec'17 EU-UK Report. NB It applies to any *new* regulatory divergence in future. Terms actually covered in Juncker-Tusk letter of 14 Jan ie EU won't *impose* new regs & (unlike detractors) truly respect terms of Strands 1 & 2. /1

Anti-backstoppers claiming par 50 needs consent for backstop itself.
Not so!
Brazen given Brexiters' previous lines cheering UKSC ruling neither Brexit nor its treaty terms are subject to NI consent.
Existing ambit of Strands 1 & 2 protected by backstop, jeopardised without. /2

False arguments re "top-down imposition by EU" via Bew et al = bunkum. Misdirection distracts from attempt to ensure that future "UK-wide" measures can override & undermine existing areas of N-S cooperation, harmonisation etc & encroach envelope of Strand 1 devolved powers. /3

Spurious lines re agriculture/animal health & no NI/UK discretion. Phoney SPS concerns to underplay devolved & N-S standing terms & allow post-Brexit UK-wide approach impose on NI & cut across prior NSMC arrangements.
They wouldn't seek consent arguing not new N-S cooperation./4

Hence their current emphasis on GFA words "within the competence (of 2 admins)". This showed any devolved area eligible for N-S coop -if agreed. Included animal health eg agreed NSMC Agri sector & Foot&Mouth handling. Bew lines imply devo competence curtailed in post-Brexit UK./5

No concern about Assembly consent or "bottom-up" democracy needed for such encroachment of Strand 1 as way of reducing dimension of Strand 2.
Telling that only terms on which Bew thesis requires consent would suit a DUP veto & enable erosion of existing Strands 1 & 2 ambits./6

NB not all N-S regulatory alignment/harmonisation has come via NSMC eg Single Electricity Market. More too outside NSMC to suit unionists keeping that traffic count down - inc some EU regs. Twisting things now to claim specific NSMC rubrics apply to all alignment/harmonisation./7

Par 12 of Strand 2 is specifically about "any further development" of NSMC arrangements needing specific endorsement of NI Assembly & Oireachtas. DUP didn't apply it when Arlene quietly went along with all-Ireland grid outside NSMC but now invoke it sweepingly against backstop./8

Backstop not about EU control but EU concession taking due account of GFA but contorting to meet UK red lines. Logical & linguistic tergiversations by Brexiters & anti-backstoppers dismissing GFA then distortively invoking it show why democratic pro-GFA Ireland needs backstop./9

Anti-backstoppers please note backstop & Tusk-Juncker letter uphold existing GFA undertakings but also respect S1 & S2 terms for future choices.
Pro-backstoppers need to see import of this too & recognise it cannot by itself fulfil or secure GFA as it needs to be worked by us.