Debate contribution: Election of Speaker and Deputy Speakers

Debate contribution by Mr Jim Allister KC on 7 December 2022.

MLA

Mr Jim Allister KC

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

7 December 2022

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Assembly Business

Heading

Election of Speaker and Deputy Speakers

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4178537

Read the official Assembly record

Text

On 7 December 1922, exactly 100 years ago, the elected unionist representatives to the predecessor of this House, the Northern Ireland Parliament, unanimously declined to leave the Union of the United Kingdom and join the Irish Free State. One hundred years later, it remains the unanimous view of every unionist elected representative that the protocol is unacceptable because of the manner and extent to which it dissipates and disrespects that very same Union. That fundamental has not changed and will not change for those of us who are, by conviction, unionists. What is the Union? As David Trimble quite rightly said, it is the Acts of Union. What do they do? Whether it was the 1707 Union with Scotland Act or the 1800 Act of Union, those created a Union of the United Kingdom based on two premises: a political, parliamentary union where a single sovereign Parliament was created; and an economic union that created a single market and a single trading area, which was the United Kingdom. That, of course, was premised on article 6 of the Acts of Union. Last week, I sat in the Supreme Court listening to an His Majesty's Government barrister — barristers only speak upon instructions — argue that the protocol disapplies article 6 of the Acts of Union and, in so arguing, confirm everything that we have ever said about it. What does disapply mean? It is pretty obvious what it means. It means that it sets it aside, overrides it, subjugates it — we can all understand that — but what does it do? It takes that key component of the Act of Union, the economic union, sets it aside and says that it no longer applies. There no longer is a single market in the United Kingdom. There no longer is the freedom to trade unfettered between and within all of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it goes further than that because it says that GB is now a foreign country whose goods must be checked when coming to Northern Ireland. That, of course, is the fundamental reason why no unionist can ever operate institutions that, by law, would be required to implement such a protocol, to accept that GB is a foreign country, to accept that there must be checks on its goods and to accept that we must be subject to foreign laws that we do not make and cannot change. That is the fundamental essence of the reason why the protocol can never be accepted.

The Member is absolutely right, but those are now the ground rules of the operation of devolution in Northern Ireland. That is the fundamental premise upon which devolution now has to operate, and it can never be bearable or acceptable to any unionist. The sad truth is that the protocol achieved what the IRA in all its murderous campaign could never achieve: a border in the Irish Sea, and the suspension of a significant part of the Act of Union. Whether it was its murder 39 years ago of the very talented Edgar Graham — 39 years ago today — or the callous kidnapping 50 years ago today of Jean McConville, for all that murderous attack, the IRA never achieved what the protocol achieved. Then there are those in the House who think that unionists should just suck it up. It is not going to happen, because we are defending the very fundamentals of the Union when we resist and reject the protocol. Let us be clear: a protocol that requires unionists to operate an Assembly and to conduct themselves as Ministers on the basis that GB is a foreign country is not going to operate with the consent of unionists. If there are others — be they the Government, the EU, the American president or other MLAs — who want an Assembly to operate, they need to recognise and accept that reality. It is not going to operate on the basis that GB is a foreign country, that article 6 of the Act of Union has been disapplied and that we are being disenfranchised from within the Union that we believe in. Unless and until those who fail to face up to that reality do face up to it —

— the Assembly, quite rightly, is going nowhere.

715 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict

Not flagged

Public interest or divisiveness

Mixed

Against the published rubric

The speech is framed heavily in communal terms, with phrases such as "no unionist can ever" and "not going to operate with the consent of unionists", and it includes an emotive comparison that the protocol "achieved what the IRA in all its murderous campaign could never achieve". However, its core argument engages directly with what the measure does: the disapplication of article 6 of the Acts of Union, checks on goods from Great Britain, the loss of a single internal market, and laws made elsewhere. It does not portray nationalists or any community as a whole as hostile or illegitimate. Under the rubric, a constitutional dispute argued on the legal and practical effects of a measure, including how cross-community consent affects a community, counts as policy argument rather than culture-war activity.

Public interest or divisiveness

The contribution sets out and justifies a substantive political position, refusing to operate the institutions while the protocol stands, by reference to its legal and economic effects, and that is ordinary constitutional debate. The IRA comparison, the invocation of victims on their anniversaries and the jibe at those who think unionists "should just suck it up" add grievance and heighten communal feeling. That rhetoric is substantial, so the effect is mixed, but the main function is to argue a constitutional case rather than to attack a group.

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:33 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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification