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 4279545
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member, if he wants to learn from Mr Tice and Mr Habib, could do very well, because they have discovered emphatically just how pernicious and how constitutionally destructive the protocol is. If Mr O'Toole has seen the light in respect of these matters and wants to come on board on the right side of the argument, he would be very welcome indeed. I welcome the progress that has been made. The watershed moment was in December 2020, when the DUP foolishly voted into play 45 EU directives. There was another detrimental watershed moment, and that was when, under the Donaldson deal, the DUP accepted annex 2 of the protocol. Yes, we have all these measures on applicability resolutions for future EU law, and we have the Stormont brake, for what it is worth, for amendments to existing law, but, as Mrs Dodds pointed out this morning, we have the entirety of annex 2 of the protocol. There are 287 laws in annex 2 — I printed off the titles of them; pages upon pages upon pages — that are entirely beyond the reach of this House and that are applied automatically in perpetuity, with no consent ever sought or obtained from the House. The reality of the Donaldson deal is that not one syllable of any one of those 287 laws is disapplied; rather, those are now accepted in the Donaldson deal. They are not some incidentals. Amongst —
Yes, certainly.
242 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: 0.19 (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 (0.98).
- 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 | 0.11 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.16 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.11 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.59 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.19 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.92 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.08 |
| 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.