听演讲学英文可以提高听力、练习口语、还可以阅读演讲原稿（附有中英文对照）学习原汁原味地道的英语材料，提高英语阅读能力。
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would liketo update the House on the further assurances and clarifications we havereceived from the European Union on the Northern Ireland Protocol.
As a proud Unionist, I share the concernsof Members who want to ensure that in leaving the European Union, we do notundermine the strength of our own union in the UK.
That is why when the EU tried to insist ona Protocol that would carve out Northern Ireland from the restof the UK’s customs territory, I said no.
And I secured instead a UK-wide temporarycustoms arrangement – avoiding both a hard border on the island of Ireland anda customs border down the Irish Sea.
I also negotiated substantial commitmentsin the Withdrawal Agreement and the PoliticalDeclaration to do everything possible to prevent the backstop everbeing needed – and to ensure that if it were, it would be a temporaryarrangement.
But listening to the debate beforeChristmas, it was clear that we needed to go further.
So I returned to Brussels to faithfully andfirmly reflect the concerns of this House.
The conclusions of December’s Council wentfurther in addressing our concerns.
They included reaffirming the EU’sdetermination to work speedily to establish by the 31st of December 2020 alternativearrangements so that the backstop will not need to be triggered.
They underlined that if the backstop werenevertheless to be triggered, it would indeed apply temporarily.
They committed that in such an event, theEU would use their best endeavours to continue to negotiate and conclude assoon as possible a subsequent agreement that would replace the backstop.
And they gave a new assurance thatnegotiations on the Future Relationship could start immediately after the UK’swithdrawal.
Since the Council and throughout theChristmas and New Year period, I have spoken to a number of European leadersand there have been further discussions with the EU to seek further assurancesalongside the Council conclusions.
And today, I have published the outcome ofthese further discussions with an exchange of letters between the UK Governmentand the Presidents of the European Commission and European Council.
The letter from President Tusk confirmswhat I said in the House before Christmas – namely, that the assurances in theEuropean Council conclusions have legal standing in the EU.
Mr. Speaker, my Rt Hon Friend the AttorneyGeneral has also written to me today, confirming that in the light of the jointresponse from the Presidents of the European Council and the Commission, theseconclusions “would have legal force in international law”, and setting out hisopinion…and setting out his opinion – “reinforced” by today’s letter – “thatthe balance of risks favours the conclusion that it is unlikely that the EUwill wish to rely on the implementation of the backstop provisions.”
And further…and further, that it istherefore his judgement that “the current draft Withdrawal Agreement nowrepresents the only politically practicable and available means of securing ourexit from the European Union.”
Mr. Speaker, I know that some Members wouldideally like a unilateral exit mechanism or a hard-time limit to the backstop.
I have explained this to the EU and testedthese points in negotiations.
But the EU would not agree to this, becausethey fear that such a provision could allow the UK to leave the backstop at anytime without any other arrangements in place and require a hard border to beerected between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
I have been very clear with them that thisis not something we would ever countenance – that the UK is steadfast in itscommitment to the Belfast Agreement and would never allow areturn to a hard border.
But it is not enough simply to say this.Both sides also need to take steps to avoid a hard border when the UK isoutside of the EU.
Failing to do so would place businesses onthe island of Ireland in an impossible position having to choose between costlynew checks and procedures that would disrupt their supply chains or breakingthe law.
So we have the backstop as a last resort.
But both the Taoiseach and I have saidconsistently that the best way to avoid a hard border is through the futurerelationship – that is the sustainable solution, and that neither of us want touse the backstop.
So since the Council, we have been lookingat commitments that would ensure we get our future relationship or alternativearrangements in place by the end of the Implementation Period, so that therewill be no need to enter the backstop and no need for any fear that there willbe a hard border.
And that is why in the first of the furtherassurances they have provided today, the EU has committed to begin exploratorytalks on the detailed legal provisions of the future relationship as soon asthis Parliament has approved the deal and the Withdrawal Agreement hasbeen signed. And they have been explicit that this can happen immediately afterthis House votes through the agreement.
If this House approved the deal tomorrow,it would give us almost two years to complete the next phase of thenegotiations. And, of course, we will have the option to extend theImplementation Period if further time were needed for either one or two years.It is my absolute conviction that we can turn the Political Declaration intolegal text in that time, avoiding the need for the backstop altogether.
The letters also make clear that thesetalks should give “particular urgency to discussion of ideas, including the useof all available facilitative arrangements and technologies, for replacing thebackstop with permanent arrangements.”
And further, that those arrangements “arenot required to replicate the backstop provisions in any respect.” So contraryto the fears of some Hon. Members, the EU will not simply insist that thebackstop is the only way to avoid a hard border. They have agreed to discusstechnological solutions and any alternative means of delivering on thisobjective – and to get on with this as a priority in the next phase ofnegotiations.
Second, the EU has now committed to afast-track process to bring our future trade deal into force once it has beenagreed. If there is any delay in ratification, the Commission has now said theywill recommend provisionally applying the relevant parts of the agreement sothat we would not need to enter the backstop.
Such a provisional application processsaved four years on the EU-Korea deal and it would prevent any delays inratification by other EU Member State parliaments from delaying our deal cominginto force.
Third, the EU has provided absolute clarityon the explicit linkage between the Withdrawal Agreement andthe Political Declaration, and made that link clear in the way thedocuments are presented.
I know some colleagues are worried about animbalance between the Withdrawal Agreement and the PoliticalDeclaration because the EU cannot reach a legal agreement with us onthe future relationship until we are a third country.
But the link between them means thecommitments of one cannot be banked without the commitments of the other – andthe EU have been clear that they come as a package.
Bad faith by either side in negotiating thelegal instruments that will deliver the future relationship laid out in the PoliticalDeclaration would be a breach of their legal obligations underthe Withdrawal Agreement.
Fourth, the exchange of letters confirmsthat the UK can unilaterally deliver all of the commitments we made last weekto safeguard the interests of the people and businesses of Northern Ireland andtheir position in our precious union.
For it gives clear answers to address somequestions that have been raised since the deal was reached…
…that the deal means no change to thearrangements which underpin north-south cooperation in the BelfastAgreement…
…that Stormont will have a lock on any newlaws the EU proposes should be added to the backstop…
…and that the UK can give a restoredNorthern Ireland Executive a seat at the table on the joint committeeoverseeing the deal.
Mr. Speaker, President Juncker saysexplicitly in his letter that the backstop “would represent a suboptimaltrading relationship for both sides.”
We have spoken at length about why we wantto avoid the backstop. But it is not in the EU’s interests, either.
For this backstop gives the UK tariff-freeaccess to the EU’s market.
It does so with no free movement of people,no financial contribution, no requirement to follow most of the level playingfield rules and no need to allow EU boats any access to our waters for fishing.
Furthermore, under these arrangements, UKauthorities in Northern Ireland would clear goods for release into the EUSingle Market with no further checks or controls.
This is unprecedented and means the EUrelying on the UK for the functioning of its own market.
So the EU will not want this backstop tocome into force – and the exchange of letters today makes clear that if it did,they would do all they could to bring it to an end as quickly as possible.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I fully understandthat these new assurances still will not go as far as some would like.
I recognise that some Members wanted to seechanges to the Withdrawal Agreement: a unilateral exit mechanismfrom the backstop, an end date or rejecting the backstop altogether – althoughit should be said that this would have risked other EU Member States attemptingto row back on the significant wins we have already achieved such as on controlover our waters or the sovereignty of Gibraltar.
But the simple truth is this: the EU wasnot prepared to agree to this.
And rejecting the backstop altogether meansno deal.
Whatever version of the future relationshipyou might want to see – from Norway to Canada to any number of variations – allof them require a Withdrawal Agreement and any WithdrawalAgreement will contain the backstop.
And that is not going to change however theHouse votes tomorrow.
And to those who think we should rejectthis deal in favour of no deal, because we cannot get every assurance we want,I ask what would a no-deal Brexit do to strengthen the hand of thosecampaigning for Scottish independence – or indeed those demanding a border pollin Northern Ireland?
Surely, this is the real threat to ourUnion.
Mr. Speaker…Mr. Speaker, with just 74 daysuntil the 29th of March, the consequences of voting against this deal tomorroware becoming ever clearer.
With no deal, we would have: noImplementation Period, no security partnership, no guarantees for UK citizensoverseas, and no certainty for businesses and workers like those I met in Stokethis morning. And we would see changes to everyday life in Northern Irelandthat would put the future of our Union at risk.
And if, rather than leaving with no deal,this House blocked Brexit, that would be a subversion of our democracy, sayingto the people…saying to the people we were elected to serve that we wereunwilling to do what they had instructed.
So I say to Members on all sides of thisHouse – whatever you may have previously concluded – over these next 24 hours,give this deal a second look.
No, it is not perfect. And yes, it is acompromise.
But when the history books are written,people will look at the decision…people…people will look…people will look atthe decision of this House tomorrow and ask:
Did we deliver on the country’s vote toleave the European Union?
Did we safeguard our economy, our securityand our Union?
Or did we let the British people down?
I say…I say we should deliver for theBritish people and get on with building a brighter future for our country bybacking this deal tomorrow.
And I commend this Statement tothe House.
用户评论