Read on Twitter
For the benefit of Bernard Jenkin and others - a recap. This thread is on the Withdrawal Agreement (WA), and its relationship with any future relationship deal the UK and the EU might strike. 1/13
The ERG, and the Govt, appear to be engaged in a (ham-fisted) attempt to rewrite history. It is profoundly dangerous. And it must be challenged. 2/
There were, back in 2017, debates about the 'sequencing' of the Brexit negotiations, and some disquiet that the divorce terms (ie the WA) were to be agreed independently of the future relationship deal. The UK, as David Davis should recall, did not get its way. 3/
There were also debates, in 2018, about the scope of the WA, and some disquiet about the fact that it dealt with citizens rights and the Irish border. The UK did not get its way. 4/
I assume people remember the 'Irish backstop' - the set of rules which would apply *in the event of a failure to reach a future relationship deal* so as to guarantee that there would not be a hard border in Ireland. 5/
Theresa May's Withdrawal Agreement (and here I simplify slightly) would have aligned the whole of UK law with the EU to such an extent that there would not be a need for a border. It was decisively rejected ('not Brexit', 'vassalage') by the ERG. 6/
PM Johnson's strategy was to replace the 'UK wide' backstop with an 'NI only' backstop; to bind NI to EU rules, whilst allowing GB the freedom to diverge much more sharply. For some, the 'backstop' became a 'frontstop'. 7/
The implications for NI did not go unnoticed. Theresa May was a vocal opponent (though she subsequently duly voted with the Government). So too was the DUP. 8/
The Withdrawal Agreement provides for border checks between GB and NI, and ensures that they remain in place until the EU and the UK, via the Joint Committee, agree mutually acceptable alternative solutions and they are endorsed by the people of NI (and only post 2024). 9/
It does not afford either the UK, or the EU, a unilateral right to rewrite the agreement. 10/
So... yes, the terms of the WA can be superseded, but only by an agreement between the two sides. In the event of a failure to reach agreement, the WA contains binding international law commitments which guarantee no hard border in Ireland. 11/
All this was the subject of intense discussion at the end of 2019.
All this formed part of the 'oven ready' deal with which PM Johnson told us he had 'got Brexit done'.
Without the guarantees about the Irish border, he would not have got Brexit done. 12/
All this formed part of the 'oven ready' deal with which PM Johnson told us he had 'got Brexit done'.
Without the guarantees about the Irish border, he would not have got Brexit done. 12/
The pretexts given this week for the plan to breach of international law are paper thin.
The fact that @BorderIrish has been spotted again on twitter gives an indication of just how serious the situation has become. 13/13
The fact that @BorderIrish has been spotted again on twitter gives an indication of just how serious the situation has become. 13/13
PS: Just to follow up on this thread: here are some questions which I would like to see the likes of Bernard Jenkin have to answer... https://twitter.com/syrpis/status/1304028609687023616
This
might be a good line of questioning. I don't know how various Brexiters would answer...
@mrjamesob @UKLabour @Keir_Starmer @maitlis @Emmabarnett @KayBurley @jonlis1 @IanDunt @chrisgreybrexit
might be a good line of questioning. I don't know how various Brexiters would answer...@mrjamesob @UKLabour @Keir_Starmer @maitlis @Emmabarnett @KayBurley @jonlis1 @IanDunt @chrisgreybrexit
