TUV have today published the party’s submission to the Northern Ireland Select Committee which is currently taking evidence on the impact of the Backstop.
Commenting Jim Allister said:
“Our submission is timely coming as it does just before the Commons faces a series of crucial votes on Brexit. We underscore how the proposals are incompatible with the Union and cannot be accepted by any Unionist. There can be no compromise in favour of the Backstop for any period of time. Unionist should remember that the Belfast Agreement was supposed to be reviewed “after a specified period” yet now the document is regarded by many as on a par with Holy Writ.
“Data which we cite in our submission exposes the nonsense that imposing a border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in order to keep an open border with the Republic of Ireland would be in the interests of the people of our Province. An analysis of purchases and imports from trade partners split by goods and services for 2016 showed that:
· The total purchases from Great Britain in goods was £10,989 million while the purchases of services from Great Britain was £2,432 million.
· The total imports from the Republic of Ireland in goods was £1,995 million while the purchases of services from the Republic was £293 million.
- “In fact, the total purchases in goods from Great Britain (£10,989 million) dwarfed the total purchases in goods from the Republic and the rest of the EU combined (£3,959 million) (see Table 2 here ).
“So, for the sake of unfettered access of £1,995 million of goods from RoI the Withdrawal Agreement proposes to fetter £10,989 million goods from GB – the very goods that stock our supermarket shelves and are part of the vital supply chain to our industry.
“There being no economic logic or reason for this approach the motivation can only be political. The purpose is clear: annex Northern Ireland from the UK and detain it within the EU customs and single market orbit.
“Further, the idea that the Backstop is essential to avoid a ‘hard border’ is a hoax. The core question, which remains unanswered, is “Who would build this hard border?” Ireland says not it. The UK says the same. So who? The EU Commission has equivocated, but it is one thing for a spokesman to articulate the theory that No Deal means a hard border, but quite something else to translate such into the reality of border infrastructure. It won’t happen, unless the EU makes the Dublin Government physically partition Ireland. How likely is that?
“It is Republic, not Northern Ireland, that needs special concessions, because it will be RoI that is subject to the EU single market and CU requirements.
“The first such significant derogation they might need to seek is exemption from the Treaty obligation on a frontier state to establish and maintain the EU border. Such derogation, if not total, might involve mitigations to allow checks away from the border in RoI.
“It is worth noting that since it will be Republic and not the UK which is obligated to meet EU requirements it is entirely logical and right that the onus is on Dublin to come up with solutions.
“We are where we are, but continued rejection of the proposed Backstop is imperative for the constitutional and economic survival of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom. If because of EU intransigence such leads to a ‘No Deal’ then so be it. Indeed, I believe, that would quickly become the catalyst that would bring Brussels to the table in a more realistic frame of mind, not least because the Republic of Ireland, and particularly its agri-food industry, can least afford a no deal.”
Read the full submission here.