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
- 27 October 2022
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Election of Speaker and Deputy Speakers
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4178184
Read the official Assembly record
Text
How dare unionists stand up for themselves? How dare unionists say that they cannot operate a system that requires them to operate a protocol that decrees that GB is a foreign country? How dare unionists not accept the partitioning of the United Kingdom? How dare unionists say that they will not accept, colony-like, foreign laws over which they have no control or input? How dare unionists think of using the only leverage that they have to force change on those issues? That is the arrogant, belligerent message that is coming across in the House: who do you unionists think you are that you should dare to stand up for what you believe in? Of course, it is coming loudest and clearest from those who — for not one, not two, but three years — brought government in the Province to a halt until, through using their leverage, they got what they needed, but how dare unionists think that they should dare to defend the Union? The protocol is dismantling the Union. That is why, of course, its greatest cheerleaders are Sinn Féin and its little helpers in the House.
They are, but, sadly, most in the House do not care. They do not care that our farming industry faces a crisis because, come 31 December, 51% of our veterinary medicines will not be available. They do not care about the rise in steel prices. They do not care about the 30% increase in travel costs. They care only about the precious protocol because they see it as delivering their all-island economy, which they see as a stepping stone.
I am sure that we will have an opportunity to hear from you later. I say this gently to Mr Doug Beattie, who seems to put faith in certain talks: those talks cannot deliver a solution, because they are circumscribed by the mandate that the EU has given them. That mandate is only to tinker; it is only to make the protocol work better — whatever that means. There is no mandate that allows the sovereignty issue to be addressed in those talks. Sovereignty is the fundamental issue with the protocol: the fact that we are subject to foreign laws and that the other part of our nation is decreed to be a foreign country and, therefore, we must check its goods. Those issues are incapable of being addressed in those talks because the parameters of the talks do not extend to them. It is a delusion to think, "If only we could have those talks". Of course, it is equally a delusion to think, "If only we could have Stormont, there would be no cost-of-living crisis, no fuel hikes, no problems in our health service": utter delusion. The utter delusion is rooted in the fact that the Assembly and the Executive, if there were one, have no money of themselves. All of those issues depend entirely on the generosity of the Treasury. Without the Assembly, money is coming for the energy crisis just as money came for COVID. Where from? The Treasury. It is another delusion that feeds the ego of some in the House who think, "If only we could get Stormont back". Those talks will not deliver. Let me say this to the Secretary of State: you can call an election. Bring it on, Secretary of State. I will be there to try to stiffen the resolve to make sure that unionism does not roll over and votes for strength not weakness. However, let us be very clear, Secretary of State: your first priority should not be trying to bludgeon unionists into submission on the protocol. Your first priority, Secretary of State, should be to defend the sovereignty and recover the sovereignty that was ill gotten by the EU over the very place for which you are the Secretary of State. If you are the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, you, as a Conservative and unionist, should be making sure that the Union rules in Northern Ireland, not the EU.
That is the challenge to you, Secretary of State, and you are failing miserably in that challenge. I will finish with this: "No surrender" is not just an historic slogan; it is a present-day necessity in opposing the Union-dismantling protocol.
712 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: 0.75 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.81); Dog-whistle messaging (0.73).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.95).
- 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 | 0.81 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.56 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.07 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.73 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.45 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.21 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.75 | Above qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.05 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.95 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.96 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.