Debate contribution: Regulation (EU) 2023/2419: Applicability Motion
Debate contribution by Mr David Brooks on .
- MLA
- Mr David Brooks
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 29 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Regulation (EU) 2023/2419: Applicability Motion
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4485842
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Democratic Unionist Party will support the motion. In restoring the institutions for the good of Northern Ireland as a whole, we sought to restore unionist confidence by ensuring that the concerns of our community were heard and systems put in place to protect our trade within our UK borders and our place in the UK single market. We have successfully delivered changes to article 13 of the protocol to give locally elected representatives a say on whether new or amended EU laws should apply in Northern Ireland and have seen already that the applicability motion mechanism has allowed unionist representatives at the Assembly to vote against the adoption of EU rules that relate to non-agricultural GIs. The issues with new EU legislation on dental amalgam have been well documented in the press. Should no reasonable accommodation be reached with Brussels, I suspect that it is likely that the available mechanisms will be used to object to those rules as well, ensuring our ability to remain aligned with UK rules, which, in that case, are not only beneficial but absolutely necessary. The party has said, however, that it will not use the mechanism on every piece of forthcoming legislation, but with reference to the impact of relevant legislation on the people of Northern Ireland. This piece of legislation brings us into line with UK rules. To vote it down would be punitive and fruitless. It would not in any way lead to the removal of all EU law. Speaking personally, such removal is desirable, but it will not be attained by any vote today, and deliberately voting for an outcome that will, at best, force continued divergence with GB, is irrational. Those shouting from the sidelines have no plan, only rhetoric. From what I can ascertain, our detractors agree that the outcome is desirable, but the route is objectionable. I understand that. Indeed, I do not disagree in sentiment, but I do not agree that we should willfully prolong needless, even potentially, economically harmful divergence with the rest of the UK, knowing that to do so would not result in any move from the UK Government to rectify the same. We recognise that some EU law remains in Northern Ireland. Some try to misrepresent our position when we have been clear: we argued that the people of Northern Ireland, through their elected representatives, must have a say in the laws that govern them. While removing EU law is desirable, the DUP has focused on tangible, practical outcomes and on preventing regulatory borders from emerging. The DUP has made it a key objective to tackle the democratic deficit created by the protocol. The debate is further evidence of our success in giving the Assembly a meaningful say over future laws that apply in Northern Ireland. The safeguards against future uncontrolled divergence delivered by this party were a step forward from where the negotiation began. At no stage was it argued to be perfect, rather that we would bank the progress and work to build on it.
I recognise that, at times, it is complex and convoluted. I suspect that none of us who sit on the Democratic Scrutiny Committee would argue with that, but it has given the unionist population of Northern Ireland safeguards that we did not previously have. It has extracted from the UK Government and Brussels concessions that they would not previously give and that, our detractors said, they would not give; indeed, it was said that they would not negotiate at all. Our detractors have no plan. They have never offered an alternative road map for the way forward. They can certainly articulate idealism — even, in many cases, in terms that would be desirable to many of us on these Benches — but they offer no means by which, in today's Northern Ireland, those ideals can be delivered. It is this party that is willing to lead, make difficult decisions and do what is required to move beyond stirring but empty words to deliver tangible progress.
670 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.16 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.68).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.79).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.21 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.07 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.17 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.68 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.16 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.79 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.21 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.98 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:02 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.