Debate contribution: Election of Speaker and Deputy Speakers
Debate contribution by Mr Jim Allister KC on .
- MLA
- Mr Jim Allister KC
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 3 August 2022
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Election of Speaker and Deputy Speakers
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4177989
Read the official Assembly record
Text
There is a straightforward reason why, after three months, the net product of the Assembly is nugatory and today is just another stunt sitting. That straightforward reason is the protocol, something that most in the House do not want to face up to. The very same people who yesterday and in recent days were effusive in respect of Lord David Trimble consciously and deliberately ignore the very telling finding of Lord Trimble about the protocol. He said that the protocol has ripped the heart out of the Belfast Agreement. Why is that? The Belfast Agreement was proclaimed to be the establishment of an equilibrium between east-west and North/South. Then along comes a protocol that operates on the basis that, because we remain in the single market of the EU, Great Britain is to be regarded as a third or foreign country and its goods that come here must be subject to customs and checks. That is what it means to drive a coach and horses through the Belfast Agreement and upset the North-South, east-west equilibrium. Too many in the House do not want to face that reality and the political reality that, because GB is now regarded in trading terms as a foreign country, that has constitutional implications that no unionist can come to terms with. That means that the very basis of our Union has been corrupted by the protocol and, in consequence, no unionist can accept implementing that very protocol. The price of this Stormont now is to implement those checks and implement that protocol.If the protocol — as it is — is wholly incompatible with our constitutional position as an integral part of the United Kingdom, it follows that no unionist can be a party to that. The failure and refusal — the stubborn refusal — of the protocol fanatics in the House to face up to that is the reason that we are in this position.
Those who are playing with fire, as far as the future of these institutions is concerned, are those who are unbending in their support for the protocol. They are the ones who are putting in jeopardy these very institutions. Of course, they aspire to be Members of a legislative Assembly that would not be able to legislate on many issues because of the protocol. There are people in the House who preen themselves about their anti-colonial credentials, whether republicans, nationalists or crypto-nationalists. They all preen themselves about their anti-colonial credentials, and, yet, they are the new colonialists. They are the people who want to live under foreign rule and foreign laws that they cannot change or even rubber-stamp. What an ultimate irony and what a fundamental reason why no one — never mind a self-respecting unionist — who is a self-respecting democratic can come to terms with a protocol that says, "You are not good enough to make the laws that govern your country. Your laws will be made in a foreign place. They will be handed down to you. They will be changed as a foreign place sees fit. You will have no say whatever in how you manufacture your goods, the standards that you manufacture them to or how you sell them or trade them".
All of that is the product of the protocol. That is what those who continue to howl at the moon about Brexit and continue to insist on the protocol seek to put upon Northern Ireland.
That is the very reason why it is they who are putting the institutions in total jeopardy.
589 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty
Jev’s structured answers met every documented threshold for a qualifying culture-war activity.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.65 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.75); Sectarian or communal antagonism (0.63); Dog-whistle messaging (0.82).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.84).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The text adopts an antagonistic or dog-whistle framing, which qualifies even alongside legitimate scrutiny.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.75 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.63 | Yes |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.82 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.27 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.23 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.65 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.16 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.84 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.99 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:32 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.