Thread by @markdurkan

1) Frustating when issues of "consent" and especially "parallel consent" under GFA are being misrepresented by some & misinterpreted by others including "experts" & some journalists.
It is *not* true that the principle of parallel consent applies to all decisions under the GFA.

2) "Parallel consent" is one of two measures of cross-community support in the Assembly.
The Agreement specified certain decisions which require cross-community support. Namely:
elections of speaker & FM&dFM (jointly), standing orders, programme of government & budgets.

3) Either measure of cross-community support could carry those designated decisions except for the joint election First & deputy First Minister.
It uniquely required "parallel consent".
Joint & equal office elected by parallel consent key in final crucial Strand1 negotiations.

4) This bespoke requirement for parallel consent was removed in the St Andrews Agreement. It abolished the joint election of FM & dFM by the Assembly (& open contestable nominations). FM & dFM separate appointments were privatised to two parties & no Assembly consent required.

5) DUP were central to disposing of this primary requirement for parallel consent specified in GFA & removing the Assembly's say on such a key decision.
Hypocritical for DUP to cite supposed "principle of parallel consent" as immutable all-encompassing obligation under GFA.

6) One other area of GFA states parallel consent as a sole applicable test.
A petition of concern is meant to be about equality or rights concerns. It was to trigger a parallel consent test vote on whether the matter may proceed without being examined by a special committee.

7) NB Petition of concern in text of GFA was not intended as automatic veto but as a trigger for using a special proofing procedure to ensure conformity with equality & rights requirements. Special committee to be set up if no parallel consent to proceed without recourse to it.

8) How petition of concern has been used & applied is *not* in conformity with GFA text.
British Govt failed to include the special procedure in 1998 Bill. Only put in amendment that Assembly standing orders would provide for special procedure outlined in GFA Strand1 pars 11-13.

9) Assembly standing orders have not actually reflected terms intended & negotiated in GFA.
Petition of concern is abused as dead end veto on anything; even against rights.
Especially by DUP.
Misapplied, it is a predictive veto in the way of proper public policy debate/choices.

10) Such bastardisation of GFA (which DUP opposed!) is at heart of PM/DUP dishonest devices around Assembly consent.
On top of Customs Union removal, "whatever you're having yourself" for vetoholics on alignment with single market will hole GFA Strand2 North-South provisions.

11) PM who speaks about "delicate balance" & "spirit & letter" of GFA offers arrangements which would decisively undermine these!
Ignores interdependence of Strands 1 & 2.
The voidable Ts & Cs for SM alignment would guarantee both political instability and economic debility.

12) UK Government meant to exercise "rigorous impartiality" on behalf of all in NI but rig a wrecking consent lock for one party.
Consent usually understood as required for change to status quo. So why not seek consent for leaving Customs Union or altering terms of SM alignment?

13) Answer is that consent requirement in those terms would deny DUP a whip hand over all other parties and sectoral interests.
Undue power PM wants to confer on DUP not just unfair to majority in North but also to impact on rights & interests in South which also mandated GFA.

14) GFA validation rested on consent North & South including for all-island cooperation in Strand 2 & constitutional changes. All part of "delicate balance" etc.
Dishonest & dangerous to frame consent device to suit anti-GFA party's prejudices & GB Brexiteer pan-UK imperatives.

15) Strasbourg EU-May terms showed that backstop would not impose new regulations on North. Michel Barnier ointed to EU-UK consultations & agreement via GFA Strands.
Par17 Strand2 also refutes "no say for NI" line against backstop as NSMC views to EU would be agreed in Executive.

16) PM scheme pretends to answer alleged consent gap around alignment & future EU regs.
It creates a weapon for consent voidance of existing alignment by one party veto.
Fundamental implications for existing island economy & North-South cooperation on top of Customs impacts.

17) GFA said future development of N-S arrangements subject to Assembly agreement.
Also has review arrangements for Strands.
But no top-up consent as a withholdable condition for continuation.
Strand 2 would not have been agreed with such voidable terms under guise of consent.

18)PM scheme would undermine "delicate balance of GFA" breaking "letter & spirit".
All now paying price of Strand1 damage conceded by then UK Government to DUP at St Andrews.
Trusting DUP with gerrymandered gearing for consent on continued alignment invites Strand 2 jeopardy.