Thread by @faisalislam

Here we go....

Juncker - the Deal has been in the table for 105 days now, but the ratification has been more difficult on the UK side...

Here is the Juncker letter:

https://twitter.com/junckereu/status/1105238043106181120?s=21

Juncker says Varadkar has signed up to this... says there will be no further clarifications if MV voted down, says he recommends to Tusk and European Council to endorse this at Summit next week, on condition MV is passed tomorrow

Juncker says he hopes “these meaningful assurances are meaningful enough for the meaningful vote”

PM - backstop is not basis for the future relationship... (this is part of what Raab cited when resigning)

PM: alternative arrangements worked on from next phase

PM announces Unilateral declaration that there is nothing to stop UK from disapplying backstop - this is the basis of Cox changing legal advice

BUT they’ve just published the Government motion which talks about “reducing the risk” of being kept in backstop:

Our Mark Stone asks PM if a single word of WA has changed: PM says it is “an addition” to WA, that it is of same legal weight... and it’s legally binding

PMs words on unilateral declaration, used by other countries (Argentina is example I’ve been pointed to) “it is the position of the UK that there would be nothing to prevent the UK instigating measures that would ultimately disapply the backstop”.

But no date.

Here is the 5 page joint interpretative instrument that the Council has been advised to approve if Commons approves vote tomorrow...

EU source:
Changes are
“facilitation of arbitration by making it more actionable. Beefing up review.”

“Alternative arrangements work stream linked to customs / regulatory aspects of future relationship”.

DUP:
“We note PMs latest statement & update on our EU exit negotiations..need careful analysis. We’ll be taking appropriate advice, scrutinising text line by line and forming our own judgement..will measure latest text against Brady amendment and commitments made by PM on Jan 29”

Declaration that UK could unilaterally “instigate measures” that would “ultimately lead to disapplication of obligations under the Protocol”... “under proviso that UK will uphold obligations under the 1998 Agreement in all its dimensions and under all circs to avoid hard border”

UK Governments own Unilateral declaration that the backstop can be disapplied refers to this being arbitrated on under Part 6 Title III - is the Withdrawal Agreement dispute resolution mechanism....

includes A174 matters of EU law ECJ “shall have jurisdiction” that is “binding”

... also (an old favourite) the chairperson of the arbitration committee on whether we can leave backstop unilaterally... if not agreed mutually... will be chosen by lottery.

ALSO - how can we unilaterally declare we are able to leave the backstop - and then have that legally subject to arbitration, on matters of EU law subject to binding ECJ jurisdiction? Answers on postcard.

basically Government now hinges on whether its own Attorney General will unilaterally declare that Government’s unilateral declaration that it can unilaterally trigger an exit process from the backstop (subject to arbitration) now means the backstop will not “endure indefinitely”