Debate contribution: Regulation (EU) 2023/2411: Applicability Motion

Debate contribution by Mr Jonathan Buckley on 19 March 2024.

MLA

Mr Jonathan Buckley

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

19 March 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Regulation (EU) 2023/2411: Applicability Motion

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4279025

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

At the outset, it is important to note that this is the first time that the Northern Ireland Assembly will vote on whether a new EU law should apply in Northern Ireland. That, in itself, Members, is a significant moment. Regardless of individual views that will be expressed in the debate, it is still significant. The very fact that the Assembly is able to debate and express its view on the matter is something that many in the Chamber said should never happen and could never be achieved. The issue has been debated and voted on in this place over many years, and it is a matter for the record that there are parties present in the Chamber today that were cheerleaders for the undemocratic arrangements conceived under the original protocol.

They did not just tolerate the democratic deficit that deprived them of any say; they called for it to be rigorously implemented.

The Democratic Unionist Party and wider unionism has made it a key objective from day 1 to tackle the democratic deficit created by the protocol. Today's proceedings are testimony to the fact that what our opponents said was impossible was, indeed, possible. I have particularly noted the comments from the leader of the official Opposition, Mr Matthew O'Toole, in recent days. They must be the only Opposition in the world who are not looking to debate an issue or scrutinise potential legislation. On one hand, I cannot understand that, but, on the other, such was his concern about craft —.

I am happy to.

I will definitely come on to that, because it is an important point for clarity in the debate. However, such were your concerns for craft producers that you did not even table an applicability motion yourself. Where was the concern from the brave Mr O'Toole when it came to representing their cause in the Chamber? He also said that, if we do not debate the issue today, it goes ahead regardless; it does not apply. That is an important point for the Member to address in his remarks later. The Member is right: bizarrely, the legislation that sets out the required procedures dictates that a motion is brought to the Assembly in the affirmative; in other words, it seeks consent for the rule to be added. While legislative procedures may dictate certain distinct phraseology, there can be no doubt about our motivation for bringing the motion to the House today. That speaks directly to the point that the leader of the Opposition raised. The legislation is clear: any Member from any party can table an applicability motion. It is a means to an end. For our part, we will vote decisively against the motion and against the imposition in Northern Ireland of the new EU regulation. It is clear to the Democratic Unionist Party and all of those who will join us in the No Lobby that the new EU law would create a new regulatory border within the United Kingdom. The legal position in relation to new areas of EU law is clear: the UK Government can add the new EU regulation to the scope of the framework only with the express consent of unionists and nationalists voting in the Chamber, save in exceptional circumstances or where the Government can demonstrate that a new EU law would not create trade barriers within the United Kingdom. However, we are not willing to contemplate a situation in which political forces, whether in Dublin or Brussels, can use the silence of the Assembly on this or any other EU law to exert pressure on the Government at Westminster to abandon the principle of cross-community consensus.

I thank the Member for her timely intervention. It is an issue about which she has spoken passionately to me privately, as well as publicly, during her time as a Member of the European Parliament. Her knowledge of such issues is extensive. In the constituency that we both represent, we have had many people who fall into that category: sadly, they have had laws imposed on them and their businesses to the detriment of the Northern Ireland economy. On the wider point, the Member is absolutely right that democratic consent is something that no Member of the House should ever take for granted, regardless of the particular EU law that we are talking about.

I will, and then I will make progress.

I can say only that I am working to the procedures that the Assembly has in place. One of the key issues throughout the period of Brexit turmoil and turmoil in post-Brexit trading conditions has always been the concern regarding the cross-community consensus politics that we need in Northern Ireland. It has been repeated time and again in the House that not one unionist signed up to the original protocol or the provisions in it. That is an important point, because today we have the ability for the Assembly to express its view. I will wait to see the outcome of that vote, but, given the commentary that I have heard prior to the debate, I venture to say that it will be expressed clearly again in the House today that unionism en bloc will, in all likelihood, vote against the recommendations. The new EU law before the House is on the protection of geographical indications for craft and industrial products. What will it mean for Northern Ireland? A lot of people have been asking that question, and I have no doubt that the leader of the Opposition will come to that in due course. The new proposal would mean a substantial expansion of EU intellectual property law in Northern Ireland covering craft and industrial goods. It would add 56 pages of EU law to the Windsor framework, all under the oversight of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Most significantly of all, it would create a new and unacceptable regulatory border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. I give the following example for Members' understanding of the new regime. Fabric produced in GB might no longer be legally marketed in Northern Ireland. For example, if Donegal tweed obtained protection in the Republic of Ireland, UK authorities would be responsible for removing non-compliant products from our local market. That is just one example. We can talk about supply chains and about how, when there is availability of choice, we can drive down prices. Therefore —

I will come to the point in a moment. Therefore, when we limit choice, we increase costs. As I said, that is just one example. We can really comprehend in all of the issues — this is but one — how additional supply chain costs can be applied and put strain on local businesses. As elected representatives, we have not only a duty to act but a responsibility to do so. According to the UK Government's explanatory memorandum, the regulation could mean new checks at ports, to the benefit of EU companies far more than their Northern Ireland counterparts. It could have implications for GB to NI movements. It could mean Northern Ireland being cut out from free trade agreements in some areas. It could even result in UK authorities having to police the websites of companies in Northern Ireland to see whether they are protecting the EU craft products, as per article 60 of the regulation.

The point that I am trying to make to the Member is that the supply chain is complex. Often, some of our manufacturers will look for cheaper supply costs, and that can be, due to economies of scale, from across the United Kingdom. This regulation has the potential, as outlined in the UK Government's explanatory note, to cause friction and barriers. That is something that this party is firmly against. It is hardly surprising that the European Scrutiny Committee in the House of Commons described it as a significant legal change. Surely, regardless of political views on Brexit or otherwise, Members can recognise the risks associated with the new EU law. Surely they can put the interests of local indigenous businesses before those of the unaccountable EU. It is not an isolated issue. As a member of the EU scrutiny Committee, I have had sight of potentially damaging EU law, ranging from dental fillings to vehicle standards and everything in between, that will require the House's full scrutiny in due course. At this point, I put on record my sympathies to our Committee member Steve Aiken on the loss of his father-in-law. I know that this issue exercised Steve greatly. He spoke to me about it in private, and, indeed, I am sure that it will be reflected in his leader's comments. The EU must understand clearly that our primary objective is the protection of our people and our businesses. It should be in no doubt that we will use every legitimate tool at our disposal to ensure their viability and prosperity. It was always right for the people of Northern Ireland to have a say in preventing the application of EU law that is damaging to our economic rights within the United Kingdom. That is exactly why we will vote against the new EU law, which is being foisted on the people of Northern Ireland, and our hope is that others will join us in using the democratic mechanism to do the same.

1,562 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:45 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