Beware of linguistic cons
Brexit

Beware of linguistic cons

Statement by TUV leader Jim Allister:-

“There can be no pretence that “assurances” or “understandings” – no matter how they are packaged – will change one iota of the legal text of the draft Brexit deal, nor alter its interpretation.

“I hear talk of ‘protocols’ or ‘codicils’, but given the treaty with the EU is not yet ratified by either side it has not yet attained the status whereby a protocol would be the appropriate or necessary mechanism to perfect change. If legal change is intended, then, simply amend the text. Talk of a separate protocol at this stage therefore makes me suspicious that it is intended to have some lesser legal status (whatever it is called), otherwise you’d just change the text. Patently, clarifications, letters of explanation or political assurances have no legal status or effect.

“So, I caution those who have stood firm so far not to be hoodwinked by any slight of hand or subtlety of language. Hold firm to the insistence that the Backstop must go. It can never be justified because it was constructed on the false premise that it was  necessary to avoid something that no one was ever going to build, namely ‘a hard border’. The ease with which the Government fell for this hoax is one of the most spectacular failures of Mrs May’s handling of the negotiations. 

“Little wonder the EU doesn’t take her seriously now.”

Leave a Reply