Debate contribution: Regulation (EU) 2023/2411: Applicability Motion
Debate contribution by Mr Jim Allister KC on .
- MLA
- Mr Jim Allister KC
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 19 March 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Regulation (EU) 2023/2411: Applicability Motion
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4279527
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Mr Brown has tempted me into some preliminary remarks before I come to the substance of what I want to say. We have just had 10 minutes of exposition of the value of the geographical indicator legislation and a tirade against anyone who could ever be opposed to it. The astounding thing is that the proponents of it were prepared to see it fall, because they did not table a motion to approve it. If they had read the Windsor framework regulations, they would know that regulation 18 says that, if no motion of approval is brought, the regulation in that sense falls. The effect of voting it down today is the same as never having brought an approval resolution under regulation 18.
When I finish the point. Mr Brown tells us how foolish we are not to approve something that he had no convictions about, because he did not bother to table a resolution to approve it. I will give way.
The Member misunderstands the regulations. The motion can only be brought initially by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. Failing that, it can be any Member, including the Member for South Down Mr Brown. "Mr Brown can table a motion", the regulations might as well say. However, Mr Brown chose not to table a motion, because, despite all he says here today, Mr Brown was not in the least exercised about this. He was happy to see it fall, and then suddenly, when a motion was brought, he discovered an interest in this and an enthusiasm for it. He had no courage of his convictions to table the motion in the first place, and therefore, under regulation 18, he was prepared to see it fall. He is really in a pretty untenable position as far as his approach to the debate today is concerned. Coming to the debate itself, I welcome the token resistance to EU colonial rule. For me, the fundamental issue, whether there are merits or demerits in this proposition, is the constitutional issue that we are being governed by laws that we do not make and cannot change.
Even today, we cannot change that which is before us. That is why I describe it as EU colonial rule. They made the law. It is their law, not ours. It is a law that we cannot even change. Regardless of the merits or demerits, it does not deserve democratic assent, because to give that consent is to consent to colonial rule. I welcome the token resistance that it represents in that regard.
I also welcome the progress, in a sense, that it represents for the DUP, because the last time that we debated the applicability of EU laws in the House was on 8 December 2020, when we had a DUP Minister, quite astoundingly from my point of view, propose the imposition of not one but 45 different EU directives into our domestic law. What Mr Lyons said on that occasion was:
"They will ensure that Northern Ireland's primary legislation that governs plant health and animal health and welfare continues to operate ... in a way that aligns with the Northern Ireland protocol." — [Official Report (Hansard), 8 December 2020, Bound Volume 133, p476, col 1].
It certainly is progress to have the DUP table a motion today disavowing alignment with the EU protocol. It certainly is progress that it has learnt, I hope, a lesson from December 2020, when all Members of the House, with the exception of Mr Wells and me, voted to impose 45 animal health and plant health measures, including the measure that you cannot have British soil brought into Northern Ireland. It is progress that the DUP has woken up to the issue and is now seeking to resist additions to the protocol.
634 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.30 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.75).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
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 | 0.19 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.11 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.42 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.36 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.38 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.30 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.75 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.23 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.93 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.07 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:51 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.