Debate contribution: Regulation (EU) 2023/2411: Applicability Motion
Debate contribution by Mr Jonathan Buckley on .
- 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 4279575
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank all Members for their contributions. Whether we agree or disagree on the content of particular non-agricultural GIs, it is important to say that the very fact that we are having the debate in the Chamber is progress, which is to be welcomed. I take on board Mr Allister's point about regulation 18: whether or not there was an applicability motion, the impact is the same. I tend to look at this from a very honest perspective, and I believe that, wherever we have the opportunity to put on record our concerns about, or acceptance of, a particular issue, it is only right and fitting that we do so in the House. We have done that today. I appreciate that this is a hugely technical piece. Ms Sugden highlighted some of the technicalities. Looking at the evidence that is in place and at the UK explanatory memorandum raises varying levels of concern, albeit that Members can look at it from different perspectives, as they have done throughout the debate. The Democratic Unionist Party tabled the applicability motion using the affirmative procedure — that is, procedurally, how it had to be tabled — but will ultimately and decisively vote against the regulation because of the potential that it will create a trade border and regulatory border. At its core, the rationale for today's debate is quite simple. The Assembly will vote on the motion about the proposed regulation, and it will be clear whether it enjoys cross-community support. Those watching today's proceedings, whether they are local constituents, UK Cabinet officials or even Brussels legislators, should be under no illusion: the votes that are cast in this place matter; the voices of the elected representatives in Northern Ireland matter. For that reason, this exercise is worthwhile. It is worthwhile if for no other reason than Members will democratically express their viewpoints. I recognise the points that have been made across the House about the lack of information and the lack of scrutiny that preceded today's debate. That is very much against the grain of how we do business through the Committee scrutiny and the debates and votes at First Reading and Second Reading. However, these are the procedures that are laid in front of us, and it is only right that we go through them. We are serious in our desire to protect Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom and its internal market. Today's debate and vote will be proof of that.
412 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: 0.10 (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 | 0.14 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.26 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| 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 01:20 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.