Debate contribution: Election of the Speaker

Debate contribution by Mr Jim Allister KC on 3 February 2024.

MLA

Mr Jim Allister KC

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

3 February 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Assembly Business

Heading

Election of the Speaker

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4254932

Read the official Assembly record

Text

This is a day of glee and gloating for republicanism as the DUP leadership returns, after its seismic climbdown, to implement the Union-dismantling protocol. Despite all the fake news and attempts to spin defeat as victory, this is a climbdown of monumental proportions. It is quite clear that not one word of the protocol has changed — not one word. Northern Ireland remains under the EU's customs code, which decrees GB to be a foreign country. That is of momentous constitutional significance in itself. We continue to be ruled, in significant part, by foreign laws. In annex 2 of the protocol, all 287 of those EU laws remain in place in perpetuity, beyond the reach of the Stormont brake, and therefore under the supervision of the European Court of Justice. We still have an Irish Sea border. If the Irish Sea border was gone, we would be dismantling, not continuing to build, border posts, yet millions of pounds are being spent in that pursuit. Under EU legislation, Northern Ireland is still determined as EU territory. None of that has changed. On article 6, despite the weasel attempts in the Donaldson deal to diminish its importance, it is still in suspension and, with it, so is one of the twin pillars of this Union. Northern Ireland's place within the United Kingdom is not restored. We are still constitutionally a condominium, ruled in part by UK laws and in part by foreign laws that we do not make, and all of that with a partitioning border down the Irish Sea. It is little wonder that this morning, in 'The Belfast Telegraph', Sam McBride described the deal as "the Windsor Framework in drag". That is exactly what it is. The Windsor framework was not good enough to bring the DUP back to vote in a Speaker, nor is this deal, and to roll over now and become protocol implementers is beyond comprehension. I accept that there are many in the DUP — some of them are on the Benches today — who are very unhappy with this course of action and agree with many of the things that I am saying, and I urge them to continue to stand strong. I suggest that the moment that we vote to elect a Speaker, that is a vote to proceed to implement the protocol. That is a step that should not be taken. Of course, as it turns out, there were many for whom opposition to the protocol was just bluff and bluster, and none more than Mr Poots. This is the man who told us that there had to be seismic changes to the protocol. It turns out that, for Mr Poots, seismic means the promise — not even the delivery — of the reduction of green-lane physical checks from 5% to zero. That is not even in the legislation that was passed this week. For Mr Poots, that is seismic. Wow. To everyone else, it is closer to infinitesimal.

So, from Mr Seismic to Mr Speaker: oh, the irresistible lure of office for those whose principles are expendable. For Mr Poots, the speakership is the fruit of the poison tree, and no good can come of it.

534 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 mainly a detailed constitutional argument against the Windsor Framework arrangements. It cites the EU customs code, the 287 laws in annex 2, the reach of the Stormont brake and the European Court of Justice, spending on border posts, and the suspension of article 6, which engages with what the measures actually do. There is some communal framing, in the opening line about "a day of glee and gloating for republicanism" and in phrases such as "foreign laws" and "partitioning border". But the main target is another unionist party's "climbdown" and one member's record, which is political criticism rather than an identity attack on a community. Taking a side on the constitutional question and its legal substance falls within ordinary democratic activity under the rubric.

Public interest or divisiveness

The contribution deals with a matter of real constitutional and legal significance at the point the Assembly was being restored, and it sets out specific claims about trade law and governance that others can test and dispute. It is also heavily rhetorical and point-scoring, with sarcasm such as "from Mr Seismic to Mr Speaker" and "fruit of the poison tree", and it presents the outcome as a win for republicanism. That framing adds a communal edge, so the substance and the division are both significant.

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