BORIS Johnson’s claim that the backstop undermined the Good Friday Agreement was described as “rank hypocrisy” by Sinn Fein but welcomed by the DUP.
The latter’s leader, Arlene Foster, claimed there was no support among Unionists for the safety net intended to prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland.
In his letter to European Council president Donald Tusk, Johnson said: “The historic compromise in Northern Ireland is based upon a carefully negotiated balance between both traditions in Northern Ireland, grounded in agreement, consent and respect for minority rights.
“While I appreciate the laudable intentions with which the backstop was designed, by removing control of such large areas of the commercial and economic life of Northern Ireland to an external body over which the people of Northern Ireland have no democratic control, this balance risks being undermined.”
Instead, Johnson said, the border could effectively be replaced with a commitment to “alternative arrangements” involving the use of technology.
READ MORE: Johnson takes UK closer to the brink as EU rejects backstop demand
Tusk, above, disagreed. He tweeted: “The backstop is an insurance to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland unless and until an alternative is found. Those against the backstop and not proposing realistic alternatives, in fact, support re-establishing a border. Even if they do not admit it.”
Sinn Fein’s Stormont leader, Michelle O’Neill said: “It is rank hypocrisy for Boris Johnson to claim to be acting in the interests of the peace process, claiming it will be damaged by the backstop.
“In reality, it is Boris Johnson’s reckless pursuit of a No-Deal Brexit that is threatening to undermine the peace process.
“Brexit is incompatible with the Good Friday Agreement and the Tories have shown a total and callous disregard for that agreement and for the democratically expressed wishes of the people of the north.”
Foster told the BBC: “It is inconsistent with the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, and, of course, it risks weakening the delicate balance, as is pointed out in the letter, between the parties to the Belfast Agreement.
“I think that’s very important because, of course, the Belfast Agreement has been used to justify the backstop but, as the Prime Minister points out, it doesn’t have our support.”
She added: “When you look across unionism, we are all against the backstop so that should concern the Dublin government, because if the Dublin government is genuine and values the Belfast Agreement it should be very concerned that unionism does not support the backstop.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel