🧵 Examining the DUP’s core claims:

“Zero paperwork and zero customs paperwork”

False ❌

1/

“The Irish Sea border has gone”

False ❌

2/

NEW: DUP Party Exec meeting live:

JD just began speaking:

Says negotiations are over, and DUP aren’t going to get anymore.

Says we have reached moment of decision 1/ He says after much deliberation time is now to bring it to wider party. They expected the Gov to now move with publishing legislation 2/

There are really legitimate questions to be asked of *all* broadcast media over this election.

There has been a complete absence of anti-Protocol Framework voices; instead every commentary panel has been loaded with nationalist and/or pro Protocol Framework commentators. 1/ The vast majority of the unionist community (over 200,000) voted for parties who support the refusal to implement the subjugation of the Union, and yet that voice is completely absent 2/

It really becomes really monotonous listening to the self appointed ‘elite’ talk to each-other in their own echo chambers pontificating about unionist/loyalist communities, which none of them know anything about. 1/ This is regular feature in NI which feeds into the disengagement of a large section of unionism/loyalism from political/civic life. A self appointed elite talk about ‘engagement’ and inclusion, but in fact what they mean is they get to decide who and what is acceptable 2/

At the Queens Belfast Agreement event today. As someone who is implacably opposed to the 1998 Agreement, it is to QUB credit they have welcomed even those of us who oppose it. Looking forward to hearing different perspectives. 1/ I also look forward to engaging with others present, and when the opportunity arises setting out my perspective as to how the Protocol/WF has exposed the Agreement as being a fundamental deception 2/

🧵 on the DUP’s seven key tests which “must” be satisfied to restore power sharing ⬇️

Views are, of course, just that. These are mine, and there will be others. But, certainly in relation to some tests, I do struggle to see any intellectually credible counter-conclusion 1/ The first and most fundamental test (“absolutely essential”) is the Acts of Union. It is the sacred constitutional foundation upon which the Union rests, and moreover upon which the anti-Protocol campaign was largely based

2/

🧵 on reported content of ‘deal’:

The restoration of VAT, taxation & State aid to UK is an important return of sovereignty (subject to the legal text actually in substance doing that, rather than saying one thing, but in practice the legal text does another) ✅

1/8 The suggestion that the ‘green lane’ would require you to ‘opt in’ to a trusted trader scheme. This means you must ‘opt in’ to trade freely in your own country. That is incompatible with Acts of Union, and in of itself would be a deal breaker. Fundamental red line.

2/

🧵 The DUP’s seven key tests aren’t as flexible as some commentators seem to suggest. They are, in fact, really rather clear.

Here is *my* view of each of them ⬇️ 1 🇬🇧 The breach of the Acts of Union is caused, amongst other things, by the application of EU law. This is clear from CoA in Allister (see Keegan LCJ para [185] & McCloskey LJ para [325]-[327]).

If EU law- or the ECJ- applies there is no possible way the first test can be met.

🧵 BBC Talkback inaccuracies:

🚨 Court ruled NI’s place in the Union was unchanged

No, it didn’t. It ruled that the principle of consent (s1 (1) 1998 Act) only regulated the final formal handover of sovereignty, not any other diminution, p [84] 1/ 🚨 Act of Union says ‘Ireland’

Silly point. Pursuant to 'Statutory Rules and Orders, 1923, No. 405. Irish Free State. The Irish Free State (Consequential Adaptation of Enactments) Order, 1923’ , references to Ireland are to be interpreted as NI 2/

Key things to watch in this judgment (i) how Colton J finds a way to justify standing of SF activists with no standing; (ii) how the court manages to read ‘UK’ as ‘GB’ (and thus confirms constitutional impact of Protocol); (iii) the bending of s28A for nationalists purposes 1/ There is few who, given the judge, hold out any hope of E Poots winning at this stage, but the consequences of what is likely to be politically charged judgment will be huge. Likely to also see unionists/loyalists filing lots of JRs relying on fact SF activists have standing 2/

🚨 THREAD- Will be live tweeting from court in London this morning as Allister et al finally reaches the Supreme Court. See 👇 for the threads following the first instance & Court of Appeal cases.

Case begins at 10:30am. A huge constitutional showdown… 🇬🇧

https://twitter.com/JamieBrysonCPNI/status/1465249132956823555

The political ramifications of this case are huge. If the applicants lose, as in earlier courts, but demonstrate the Acts of Union are “subjugated” & that the Bel Agreement doesn’t in fact guard against constitutional change, then that has enormous political consequences 1/

This account (no idea if it’s real or fake) issued a tweet today claiming I had ‘emailed’ her or her boss threatening legal action. Let me be unequivocally clear. This is a lie. There is not a scintilla of truth. It is a total fabrication. 1/ To be crystal clear. I have no idea who this person is, never engaged with this account, never sent an email to anyone- directly or indirectly- either personally or anyone on my behalf. It is a total lie which has been made up as part of some weird trolling 2/

🚨 Constitutional Referendums Bill 🚨

Those who think the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires ‘a majority’ to be 50% +1 are simply wrong.

Here is - THREAD on why 👇 Section 1 (1) of the 1998 Act states ‘a majority’ of those voting is required for constitutional change. This is subject to Sch 1 of the 1998 Act.

The first obvious point is ‘a majority’ is not defined as 50% +1. It does not say ‘the’ majority. 2/

On 13 October 1994 the Combined Loyalist Military Command announced a ceasefire on behalf of the UVF, UDA and RHC, predicated upon the principle of consent.

In the statement Gusty Spence “abject and true remorse for all innocent victims”. 1/ In 2021, all loyalist groups withdrew support for the Belfast Agreement due to the imposition of the Protocol, which upends the principle of consent. 2/

NEW: Local councils have been operating yet *another* MoU agreement to implement the Protocol, this time with DAERA. It has been in operation from June 21, and is subject to yearly review. THREAD/ In Ards & ND unionist councillors voted for this Protocol implementation in August 21, having been extraordinarily told by council officials it had “nothing to do with the Protocol”. 1/

💥 Questions for Tory leadership contenders

The Government position is that there is an “urgency” and “peril” occasions by the Protocol, so much so that the international law doctrine of necessity is being involved.

Therefore, how will this grave peril be dealt with?

1/ (1) Will you put a time limit on the commencement powers within Clause 26 (3) of the Protocol Bill, to ensure the “urgency” of the situation is reflected by the provisions coming into force within a specified time after Royal Assent? 2/

Bizarre article by @rodneyedwards In todays Independent. Colin Harvey conflates political debate, with (unacceptable) threats & abuse, seemingly unable or deliberately failing to differentiate between the two. This is a very carefully calculated effort to create a chill factor 1/ The article goes from someone talking about beheading (clearly offensive & threatening) and then jumps to me saying Colin Harvey is a partisan activist. As if the two things are the same or comparable. They plainly aren’t 2/

The complete lack of understanding on the part of those commenting on the Tigers Bay case is astonishing.

Here is the basics: it was accepted by all we were right on our legal point.

The only issue was whether the matter required a formal declaration or was now academic. 1/ The Court held that the law was now sufficiently clear so the declaration we sought wasn’t necessary, and thus the matter was academic. We didn’t ‘lose’ as is being presented, rather the opposite is true. The respondents could offer no resistance on the legal point 2/

NEW: Protocol legislation likely to be published 6th June, with 1st reading that day or a few days later. 2nd reading 22nd June. Dates may slip by a day or two, but at this moment that is the time frame. 1/ Section 7A issue to be dealt with, stripping away its supremacy, and thus by default restoring Art VI of Act of Union. Also ECJ jurisdiction
and customs/regulatory processes for internal UK market goods stripped out. 2/

🚨Unionists have rights under Bel Agreement as well:

Thread/

US politicians & nationalist activists in media, academia & law (‘the nationalist elite’) campaign on the basis that keeping the Protocol is necessary for maintaining peace & Bel Agreement. Let’s look at that 1/ The Protocol has caused serious violence & is fuelling loyalist anger, thus endangering peace. It also respects only the nationalist elements of the Bel Agreement, dismantling the unionist guarantees by changing NI’s constitutional position without consent 2/

🚨Boris article

There is much to welcome for unionism, alongside some other concerning parts- most notably around language bill. But on the constitutional substance, it is solid 1/ On the Protocol whilst it superficially says ‘change rather than scrap’, this is inconsistent with what appears to be a clear intent to strip out all its key organs. If the corpse that’s left wants to remain, that’s of little significance 2/