Brexit backstop: Gregory Campbell says it is the destination that matters, not the mechanism

Gregory Campbell said his party was more concerned about the “destination” – ie securing legally enforceable changes to the backstop – rather than the “mechanism” used to arrive there.

His remarks appear to be in stark contrast with those of their Tory ‘rebel’ allies the European Research Group (ERG), who have already indicated they will not support a deal which relies on a codicil to remove the indefinite nature of the backstop, which could separate NI from the rest of the UK in terms of trade.

Mr Campbell’s comments echo those of Culture Minister Jeremy Wright, who on Sunday suggested that the prime minister may put her Brexit deal to Parliament again without having secured changes to the withdrawal text.

The Cabinet minister said it may not be necessary to reopen the treaty, adding: “If this is the only way of doing it then that’s the way we will pursue. If there are other ways of doing it that are just as effective that perhaps we haven’t yet explored then we will do that too.”

Leading ERG member Steve Baker said only a “treaty-level clause” which gives the UK an unconditional right to exit the backstop would work.

In light of these comments, the News Letter asked East Londonderry MP Mr Campbell whether securing changes to the withdrawal text was a red line for the DUP.

He replied: “If they (the government) are saying it can be done another way, then we are not going to quibble about what that other way might be.

“The bottom line is that the withdrawal agreement is a legally binding document which puts NI at a disadvantage, trading wise, to the rest of the UK.

“That has to change. We are not getting into the pedantics of whether that will be a codicil, an addition, or a deletion.

“Whatever the change is, we will judge it against the fundamental position of whether it removes the disadvantage that exists for NI under the withdrawal agreement.”

Mr Campbell said that, whatever form a change to the backstop takes, it must “override” the current arrangement contained within the withdrawal text.

He added that the attorney general should be consulted to ensure this was the case.

“Does it have legal standing and does it put us on the same path as the rest of the UK? That is the pre-eminent and paramount concern that we have,” he stated.

But TUV leader and barrister Jim Allister said he was sceptical that any addendum could counteract the withdrawal text.

He added: “Article 4 of the agreement sets out the supremacy of the text of the deal. So unless you get something that overrides that, then in any legal tussle over what has supremacy, Article 4 would rule the day.

“It is imperative that there has to be a binding, irrefutable change to the agreement. Anything outside that is going to labour under the difficulty of being subsidiary.

“I am totally with the ERG in arguing that there must be an upfront change within the agreement. Doing so would remove all doubt.”