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 4279553
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I recognise exactly what the DUP is doing. Under the Donaldson deal, it is implementing the protocol. By accepting annex 2 and its 287 unaltered and unalterable EU laws, it is now implementing, not opposing, the protocol. To be a Minister in this House, you must, by law, implement the protocol. That is the product of the case of Rooney v Poots. That was the ruling in the High Court. It is the product of the Pledge of Office that every DUP and other Minister has taken. They have pledged to implement the protocol as part of the law, and they are doing so today without one syllable of annex 2 having been altered. What does the Donaldson deal include? This is the point to which I was coming. It includes the most constitutionally devastating part of the protocol. It includes the imposition, in annex 2, under article 5(4) of the protocol, of the customs code of the EU, thus making Northern Ireland subject to a customs code that decrees unambiguously that GB, as a non-EU member, is a third or foreign country. This is what the DUP is now implementing: a protocol that states that, under the customs code, GB is a foreign country, and hence the border in the Irish Sea and hence —
— the need for all the checks that are there.
I am sure that Mr Kingston will take the rebuke for having misled me down that particular path.
Let us be very clear, however: that was a watershed moment. That was when the DUP swallowed the camel of the protocol, and today it is implementing it. In that context, yes, it is good to see this token resistance to EU law.
Yes.
288 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 (0.95).
- 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 | 0.16 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.07 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.24 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.16 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.46 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.30 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.95 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.05 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.94 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| 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.