Debate contribution: Election of Speaker and Deputy Speakers

Debate contribution by Mr Jim Allister KC on 14 February 2023.

MLA

Mr Jim Allister KC

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

14 February 2023

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Assembly Business

Heading

Election of Speaker and Deputy Speakers

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4178860

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I join in the condolences to Alex Easton. It is good to see him here today in the difficult circumstances in which he and his family have found themselves. Dáithí's law indisputably needs to be completed, and, until it is completed, I certainly urge as many citizens as possible to opt in to the donation service. However, Dáithí's law can only now be completed in the only operative legislature that is capable of doing it, and that is at Westminster. I urge the Secretary of State to stop politicking and get on with that mission. If Sinn Féin is sincere and so aghast about boycotts, let it be there to help vote this through. We will see then the depth of its sincerity and concern about Dáithí's law. As for this place, I fear that the Supreme Court has helped to seal its fate. When the highest court in the land decrees that a key component of the Acts of Union is in suspension because the protocol is superior and supreme to it, there is a constitutional crisis and a dismantling of the Union that no unionist can ignore. What is the Union? The Union is a political union and it is an economic union. The political union from the Acts of Union lies in the creation of a single sovereign Parliament, and the economic union lies in the creation of a single economic unit within which there is to be free and unfettered trade between and within all parts of the United Kingdom. However, we now know, courtesy of the Supreme Court, that that key component — article 6 of the Acts of Union — has been subjugated. It is in suspension, and that is a fundamental assault upon the Union in which many of us on this side of the House believe. That is compounded by a ruling given in our own courts: the case of Rooney against Poots, just a few weeks ago. In that case, it was ruled that any Executive and the Ministers within it, by law, have to implement the protocol and the Irish Sea border. That is why no unionist can put their hand to the implementation of the self-destruction of the Union in which they believe, and that is why this place is in the condition that it is in. As for the EU talks, they are not going to resolve this issue, because the sovereignty issue is not even on the table. Unless and until the sovereignty issue is addressed. it comes to this: under the protocol, Northern Ireland is within and subject to the EU's customs code, which means that GB is decreed a foreign country whose goods must be checked and that we are subject, colony-like, to laws that we do not make and cannot change. Unless and until those sovereignty issues are addressed, this place is doomed, and so it should be.

484 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 contribution is mainly a constitutional argument against the protocol. It engages with specific legal rulings (the Supreme Court's finding on article 6 of the Acts of Union and "Rooney against Poots") and sets out why the speaker believes the Assembly cannot function. It is framed in unionist terms ("no unionist can ignore", "colony-like") and includes a jab at a party's "sincerity" over Dáithí's law. However, it does not attack a community or its culture, use coded language about a group, or raise a symbolic grievance. Under the rubric, a substantive dispute over sovereignty and trade law is political argument rather than identity-based point-scoring.

Public interest or divisiveness

The speech deals with real questions of constitutional law, trade and the basis on which devolved government can operate, and it supports completing Dáithí's law at Westminster. It also uses the moment to defend the continued collapse of the institutions ("this place is doomed, and so it should be") and to score a point against an opposing party. That deepens a political standoff rather than seeking to resolve it, so both elements are substantial.

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