It is very hard to believe what the UK government is saying today with regard to its planned renunciation of the EU Transition Agreement with regard to Northern Ireland. As the Guardian has reported:
Johnson's spokesman defended the change on Wednesday, saying it was necessary clarification of an agreement that had been rushed through in January.
“The withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol aren't like any other treaty,” he said. “It was agreed at pace in the most challenging possible political circumstances to deliver on a clear political decision by the British people and with the clear, overriding purpose of protecting the special circumstances of Northern Ireland. It contains ambiguities and in key areas there is a lack of clarity.
“It was written on the assumption that subsequent agreements to clarify these aspects could be reached between us and the EU on the detail. And that may yet be possible and we continue to engage fully with the joint committee process. But as I said before, we cannot allow damaging default positions to kick in if we can't agree.”
To be very polite, this is not just lying: whoever said this made a claim that they must have known to be flagrantly untrue.
The Northern Ireland backstop was not negotiated in a hurry: it was the result of three years of work.
And it was not meant to be replaced: it was a backstop meant to ensure that, come what may, in the event that no other deal could be reached this would endur.
To therefore claim that it was left all rather open and loose ended because another deal was expected is blatantly untrue: the backstop was always meant to last and it is that fact which is being blatantly lied about.
What is more, the whole purpose of the backstop was to ensure that there was continuing peace: to now claim it has to be over-ridden for that reason is once more grossly untrue.
I have been angry with politicians before now in my life. But maybe never as much as I am on this.
This work is not that of liars or scoundrels, because that is too polite a description. It's the work of political scum.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Absolutely right. It’s utterly shameful.
This is a strange statement. The Withdrawal Agreement was agreed between the EU and the UK on 17 October. A bill to implement it was introduced on 21 October 2019 but did not pass before the December general election. A new bill was introduced on 19 December, and yes it was then rushed through its parliamentary stages to receive Royal Assent on 23 January. Clearly there was no time for anyone to read the text of the October agreement in the two months before 19 December, or the next month before it was actually signed on 24 January. A peculiarly slow rush. Perhaps their attention was elsewhere.
The “damaging default positions” (that is, the backstop/frontstop) was something that the EU specifically insisted upon to protect the single market in Ireland and the rest of the EU, and that the UK agreed to. Many said at the time that it might lead to a border of sorts in the Irish Sea. The government denied that, and perhaps this explains why: either they never understood what they had agreed, or they never intended to go through with it. It was expedient to agree something, anything, to get to the next stage.
“It contains ambiguities and in key areas there is a lack of clarity.” – can someone explain the nature of these ambiguities and unclear areas, please, with some examples perhaps. (Leaving something to be agreed later, with an agreed default in case there is a lack of agreement, is not unclear or ambiguous.)
How long will be people of Northern Ireland put up with being treated as a political football like this? I expect there will be serious demands for a border poll before long, and as things stand I expect it would have a fair chance of passing.
Agreed
Very succinctly put. They seem to have no idea, or no care, what effect they are having on anyone anywhere beyond England’s tabloid readers.
P.S.
“it was a backstop meant to ensure that, come what may, in the event that no other deal could be reached this would ensure.“
Is the last word there a typo for “endure?” Sorry, it just snagged me there.
Corrected
Thanks
I wonder how The Republic views the possibility of United Ireland?
AFAIK the major stumbling block at the moment appears to be the different health care systems – which neatly demonstrate the superiority of the NHS
I think the issues somewhat more complex than that
You think?
https://twitter.com/TheLancet/status/865535597896548352?s=09
The Conservative party is now facing its second “Trump moment” (the first being the prorogation of parliament). If the party does not reject the current shameful legislation they might as well go home and leave their proxy votes with Jacob Rees Mogg.
Sorry could not resist this little amended ditty from 60’s
Hey, hey, hey BJ, how many laws have you broke today.
Comments were made at the time suggesting to ERG and other hard Brexiters that they should not worry as the WA could be ‘amended’ later. I think Cummings may have suggested something similar.
As ever, we have learned to expect the worst
I don’t follow twitter very much, but came across a French view at https://twitter.com/MarionVanR/status/1303711032926404608 :
MarionVan Renterghem
@MarionVanR
Ursula von der Leyen est trop polie.
Boris Johnson nous a prouvé
1)qu’il est un menteur (campagne pour le Brexit)
2)qu’il est un incompétent (gestion de la crise du COVID)
3)et maintenant qu’il est un traître et un voyou (violation du traité avec les 27 de l’UE)
What next?
– which had a response
Orange pressé @ffunivers Replying to @MarionVanR
Vous êtes vous aussi trop diplomate.
… with which I would agree.
As someone said on interviewing him, ‘You really are a nasty piece of work’