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
- 30 May 2022
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Election of Speaker and Deputy Speakers
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4177707
Read the official Assembly record
Text
This is patently a stunt sitting of the Assembly, initiated by Sinn Féin and its ever-willing little helpers in the Alliance Party. More than that, it is riven with the most base hypocrisy. The first person to speak in the debate, Michelle O'Neill, was the very Minister of Health who walked out of Government — not for three weeks, not for three months but for three years — caring nothing about waiting lists, caring nothing about the sick. Now, they come here to lecture us on those very subjects. Mrs O'Neill and her party are not bringing forward a proposition to try to resolve the impasse. They are trying to bring forward a proposition to break the resolve of unionists who oppose the iniquitous protocol. That is what today is about: trying to coerce and cajole unionists into giving up the key essential leverage that they have against the iniquitous protocol. I trust that that will not work today and that it will not work until that protocol is gone. No unionist who is awake at all to the protocol — sadly, that may not include all unionists — can ever come to terms with the fact that, under that protocol, Great Britain, the other part of this nation, is decreed to be a foreign country, which means that its goods must, therefore, be checked as if they were coming from Bolivia rather than Britain. That is such an affront to my citizenship and to the unionist position that it can never be accepted. Then, you top that off by saying to Members of this elected Assembly, "You should have no power over many of the laws that govern your constituents. You should have no power to make or to change laws that govern trade, economy and all the things that the protocol controls".
That is such an affront that no democrat — unionist, nationalist or other — should be prepared to live under it. I am clear to the House, therefore, that I trust that the attempt to break the resolve of unionism will fail and continue to fail. Unionism needs to hold its nerve. It is doing the right thing and, in doing so, has no option but to continue to repudiate and make clear that you cannot have the protocol and Stormont at the same time. The protocol is about dismantling the Union: that is why Sinn Féin is its cheerleader. The protocol is about dismantling Brexit: that is why Alliance is a cheerleader. Now, however, Members need to come to realise that the protocol is also about dismantling the Assembly. On your head be it, because that is the course that you have chosen to take.
The only advantage to the debate today is that, although there will be an echo chamber debate about all the issues, it gives one the opportunity, which I wish to take, to place on record the fact that Wednesday is the centenary of the formation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which served this country with such gallantry and selflessness and which paid such a high price to the terrorists who are represented in the House. Furthermore, later this week, of course, we will have the momentous occasion of the platinum jubilee of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. What a remarkable achievement: 70 years to rule over us. Long may she rule over us, indeed.
564 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: 0.83 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.90); Dog-whistle messaging (0.77).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.93).
- 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 | 0.90 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.49 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.08 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.77 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.42 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.14 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.83 | Above qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.07 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.93 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.88 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.09 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 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.