Brexit: Government's commitments over backstop meaningless, says Nigel Dodds

In a last-ditch bid to win support for the prime minister’s withdrawal agreement ahead of a crucial vote next Tuesday, the government released details of new measures designed to assuage the fears of her DUP allies.

In a paper published on Wednesday, the government said if a EU/UK trade deal fails to materialise by the end of the implementation period in 2020, there would be a legally binding commitment to “consult” with Stormont before deciding to either enter the backstop or ask for an extension of the implementation period.

The view of the Assembly, said the government, would then be presented to Parliament before MPs took a final decision on the issue.

If the backstop does come into effect, the government said the NI Assembly and Executive would then be given a strong oversight role in its operation.

If the EU proposed changing any laws that impacted on the operating of the backstop, the UK would have to consent to such a measure applying to Northern Ireland and the government has now committed to seek the agreement of the Assembly before signing off on any such change.

But DUP Westminster leader Mr Dodds said the withdrawal agreement would override any domestic law changes made by the government.

He added: “The Assembly would not be able to override UK international legal obligations as the backstop provisions would be in the treaty.

“Furthermore, it is clear that under these proposals providing a law for a mandatory process of consultation with the Assembly on whether to bring the backstop into effect would ultimately have no bearing on the decisions to be taken by Parliament.

“Were we to find the backstop being brought into effect then, in such circumstances there would be no exit mechanism from the backstop and consequently these series of measures outlined by the government would not be sufficient to deal with the major and significant flaws of an internationally binding backstop arrangement,” Mr Dodds added.

UUP leader Robin Swann labelled the government’s commitments as “frankly insulting”, adding: “No amount of political assurances or explanatory notes will change the fact that there are fundamental problems with the backstop and the democratic deficit it will create.”