Debate contribution: Democratic Consent Resolution

Debate contribution by Mr Jonathan Buckley on 10 December 2024.

MLA

Mr Jonathan Buckley

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

10 December 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Democratic Consent Resolution

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4715891

Read the official Assembly record

Text

What is today's debate all about? Is it a genuine attempt to give Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly a democratic say in the laws that govern them? Or is it merely parliamentary parlour games, giving lip service to the basic tenets of democratic concepts? Members, be under no illusion: today's debate, today's vote, is an illusion of democracy. It is a rigged vote of which the European Union already knows the outcome. If any Member believes otherwise, please stand up and I will take your intervention. The outcome of this vote is known. Just yesterday, I listened to some experts on the Brexit process and, indeed, European relations say that this vote is something special, as the European Union does not simply allow devolved Governments to have a say on trade policy, never mind the UK Government. It simply would not let this happen if it thought that the outcome would not be guaranteed. It has its quislings in this very Chamber: those who know exactly what the EU's priorities are and who will advance them at every opportunity. The protocol has destabilised Northern Ireland's political landscape, fuelled division and shattered trust. The rigged nature of today's vote is evidence of that. My colleague Paul Frew often talks in this place about a "zombie Assembly". Well, never has there been a more clear example of a zombie Assembly than today. Members will vote on giving the authority for the EU Parliament to take control of over 300 areas of law, allowing it to decide the regulations by which businesses and consumers will operate, with no attempt, no ability and no desire to scrutinise them and vote on them in this Chamber. What was the protocol designed, in part, to do? We were told that it was to protect peace, protect the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland. It is important, in today's debate, that we examine and scrutinise those basic concepts for which we were told it was so necessary to have the arrangements in place today. Let us look at the first two objectives. First, to protect the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. Members will probably agree that it seems odd that the DUP is in the Chamber today to stand up for the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. We do so because one of its core concepts, which went to the very heart of settling Northern Ireland politically, was by means of mutual consent and respect and by means of a cross-community vote.

I thank the Member for the intervention because not only have I studied my party's manifestos but I have studied Alliance's.

I will come on to that very point. In 1998 —

Perhaps the Member can allay my fears on this very point. In 1998, there were political negotiations and so emerged the Belfast Agreement. What was the Alliance Party's response to the Belfast Agreement?

It was yes. I will read it:

"a genuine settlement to the political problem was only possible if all sections of the community had a perception that they shared in Government. We had recognised that this was not possible under a majoritarian system."

The leader of the Alliance Party is keen to quote party policy.

I will in a moment. Perhaps she should take a long look in her own mirror as to how the Alliance Party has moved from the core principles of the Belfast Agreement, which enshrined cross-community voting to ensure that this place could operate on a fair and equitable basis.

I will come to the Member in a moment. Other parties are on the record from that time. John Hume said:

"So long as the legitimate rights of both Unionists and Nationalists are not accommodated together in new arrangements acceptable to both, that situation will continue to give rise to conflict and instability."

The Member probably does not understand —

I will say it, because the Member simply does not understand the procedures by which the Assembly operates.

Yes. Systems that were, in part, crafted by his late party leader, John Hume.

Let us continue to quote him:

"It has always been our view that the bedrock of peace and order, the bedrock of justice in every society, is consensus among the population on how it is governed."

"only the most extreme and self-deluded believe it is possible to govern without inclusiveness."

I do not know whether "deluded" refers —

— to the Member for South Belfast. I will allow him to perhaps comment on that at another stage. John Hume went on to say:

"Only by incorporating everybody into the decision-making process can we build stable, democratic and legitimate institutions."

I will not give way at this stage, but I will happily give way later in the debate to the leader of the Alliance Party.

Sorry? Oh, yes, absolutely, Ms Armstrong.

This is great viewing for anybody watching today — the Alliance Party calling for majoritarian rule.

I always knew that Ms Armstrong harboured leadership ambitions

but her saying it in the Chamber today really is quite something. The comments of the Members' parties at the time were clear. They accepted that at the heart of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement was the need for cross-community voting on serious and substantial issues.

I will not give way to the Member at this stage, but I promise that I will bring her in later. I know that she has plenty to say on these matters.

Now, Mr Speaker, I will go back to the substance of what I was discussing, which was protecting the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. I am pretty sure that no Member in the Chamber would deny the impact and, indeed, the participation of the late Lord Trimble in designing the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. My party may not have shared some of the late Lord Trimble's positions — in fact, there were many that we did not share — but we do share the emphasis that he placed on cross-community voting. We do not have to look to legacy statements from 1998. We can look at what he said during the crafting of the protocol. I quote Lord Trimble:

"the protocol ... changes fundamentally the constitutional relationship between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom."

He continued:

"This amounts to a seismic and undemocratic change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland and runs contrary to the most fundamental premise in the Belfast Agreement and section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998."

Do members of the Alliance Party, who were keen to intervene, and members of the SDLP, who were also keen to intervene, agree with the late Lord Trimble's comments on cross-community voting? I will give way.

It is clear that the Alliance Party is keen to cherry-pick when that suits its agenda. I have seen that clearly in my time in the Assembly. To put it in context, if Brussels was to self-identify as a plug, the Alliance spokesperson on the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, Mr Tennyson, would self-identify as an EU adapter.

I have seen that time and time again. However, let us look at some of the commentary from an even more recent time: Lord Dodds, for example. On 19 October 2019, commenting in the House of Commons on Boris Johnson's deal with the European Union, he said:

"It drives a coach and horses through the Belfast agreement by altering the cross-community consent mechanism."

The DUP went on to say that day that the Government have:

"departed from the principle that these arrangements must be subject to the consent of both unionists and nationalists in Northern Ireland".

The principles of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement should be respected in all its forms. I have just demonstrated how those parties —

Do the Members want to chunter again about not demonstrating anything, yet the principle of cross-community consent

— I think that this goes to the heart of how the Alliance Party's continual abuse of democratic processes in this place —.

The Member may think that we are in the Committee room of the Committee on Procedures, but I remind her that we are on the Floor of the Northern Ireland Assembly —

— and the Member cannot get away from the point that this will be the first occasion on which the Assembly, since 1998, will vote not on a cross-community basis, as was stipulated in the Belfast Agreement, on a major issue such as this. That is a step backward, and I say to the Alliance Party that it is quite clear that its agenda denigrated the concerns of unionism when it looked at cross-community voting as an issue that was of genuine need at the time of the agreement and that many nationalists used on many occasions to safeguard and protect the position that they held. However, when unionists look to cross-community consent to demonstrate their collective opposition to something quite substantial, the Alliance Party is silent. Let us not forget that article 18(2) of the protocol — yes, I will quote from your protocol — actually decrees that any vote on the continuation of the arrangements should be held:

"in a manner consistent with"

the Belfast Agreement. How ironic that Boris Johnson and subsequent UK Governments, as supposed custodians of that agreement, would be content to ride roughshod over the fundamental consent principle. How is the constitutional affront, whereby GB is decreed to be a third country, with the Irish Sea seen as the entry point to the EU customs area, in keeping with the spirit of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement? How? For Members who want to smirk, chunter and laugh from a sedentary position, I say that this goes to the very heart of how unionists feel about the Northern Ireland protocol. I have spoken very much from a constitutional perspective. I will come to the economic heartache that it has been causing to many of our businesses and consumers in recent times. Multiple court rulings against the Government, who give hollow words of constitutional guarantees, show us how deceitful and shameful this entire episode has been. The point is not about whether Members agree with individual policy proposals. It is no legitimate way of dealing with these issues when we are surrendering the ability to make these very laws in Parliaments to which we elect Members. We are disenfranchising our citizens in over 300 areas of law. Those 300 areas of law, Members, are not 300 laws but thousands of regulations controlling vast swathes of the Northern Ireland economy that are included in articles 5 to 10 of the protocol. It is colonial light control from the EU. I know that Members take exception to the word "colonial", but I have seen at times, in history and in the current context, how Members, particularly those of a nationalist persuasion, have railed against laws made in the sovereign UK Parliament, 500 miles away, yet today they will happily acquiesce to sending our law-making ability 700 miles away, to a place to which nobody is elected. If he wants to come in on that point to expound his rationale behind observer-status MEPs, by all means, Mr O'Toole, please take the Floor.

The Member knows very well how unionism voted against it at every stage.

Again, the EU's little helpers in the Alliance Party are keen to grapple with those EU regulations.

I will in a moment. It is clear to me that nationalism has acceded to the EU planters by delivering regulation without representation. That is the objective of today's vote.

The Member is absolutely right. I was not aware of Sinn Féin's political history with Europe. In fact, I was listening to some of the recent coverage of the Irish election, in which some of the commentators were trying to paint Sinn Féin as the Eurosceptics of the Irish Parliament. My goodness. I know that Sinn Féin is keen on Irish reunification, but its supporters in the South must not be taking much note of its actions in this place. We listened to the Sinn Féin Member for North Antrim talk about the protocol protecting the Belfast Agreement in all its dimensions. As I said, cross-community voting has been ripped out. The Member said that Northern Ireland voted to remain and that we should therefore respect Northern Ireland's wish. I do not recall the ballot paper in 2016 reading, "Does Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the European Union?". It was a UK-wide referendum, and, should we want to boil it down into an ever narrower context, if we follow the narrative of the Member for North Antrim, North Antrim itself voted for Brexit.

Does the Member represent the views of those constituents? The deputy leader of the Alliance Party? Upper Bann voted to leave. There are many Members in the House —.

I do not think that the Member picked me up correctly. The Upper Bann constituency voted as a majority to leave. That is exactly what I said.

In the context of the argument that Northern Ireland should therefore follow a different set of laws, should North Antrim follow a different set of laws? Should Upper Bann follow a different set of laws from Newry and Armagh? No, of course not, Members. It makes no sense. Doing so makes a mockery of what was a democratic vote by the nation of the United Kingdom, yet Members —.

Yes, well, we will see. It would seem that times have changed, Mr Frew, in the Assembly. The very nature of today's vote constitutes an assault on democracy.

It is the culmination of a long democratic dispersion, from the Northern Ireland protocol through to the Windsor framework and the present day. The people of Northern Ireland have been democratically disenfranchised and discriminated against in a way that the rest of the people of the United Kingdom simply have not. We have been humiliated and disrespected by having our rights to impact the laws to which we are subject demeaned. That has wider implications for the country. Today's vote asks each one of us to agree to uniquely discriminate against our constituents by denying them the right to have a say in all of the laws — not merely some of them — to which we are subject.

At the heart of this, however, is the future of democracy. That lies with our young people. I refer to a letter that I received from a young unionist just yesterday in which he expressed his deep grievance with today's vote:

"Democracy is non-negotiable, yet somehow, for some reason, in Northern Ireland democracy is contestable. It is substandard and it is happily watered down as each day passes. The application of laws to Northern Ireland, on which its citizens have no ability to impact by standing for election themselves or, indeed, voting for someone to make those laws on their behalf, is indicative of the type of democracy that Northern Ireland currently has — a half-hearted attempt. The vote on the democratic consent mechanism is undemocratic because it contravenes the rights, equalities and safeguards which were promised to my generation in the Good Friday Agreement. For the past 26 years, people have held the right to vote for someone to make laws on their behalf, to have a voice and say in the legislation which impacts them, but not my generation. We have never experienced full democracy, only a half-hearted alternative. Since 2021, we have been made subject to arrangements which have resulted in an erosion of my generation's promised rights, and voting for the democratic consent mechanism will only serve to see the radical diminishment of those rights even further. No MLA who believes in democracy in Northern Ireland could deliberately and knowingly vote for these arrangements. The very nature of this vote being conducted on the basis of majoritarianism is yet another strike at my generation. Since 1972, majority voting at Stormont has been prohibited because the British Government then recognised that there was a section of the Northern Ireland community not being fairly represented. The vote lays the foundation for returning to a time where both communities weren't fairly represented. Unionism's voice must be heard."

I know that the Member wants to chunter, but I am expressing the sentiments of a young unionist in my constituency who feels that he is being disenfranchised by the vote. He goes on to say:

"The MLAs of this Northern Irish Assembly do not have the right to lay siege to my generation's rights by voting for the democratic consent mechanism on Tuesday. They have no mandate to determine whether I should only be able to have a say in some of the laws which I am subject to, nor can they determine that democracy in Northern Ireland is only quantifiable every four years."

If some Members had their way, perhaps it would be every eight years.

That will be a legitimate vote for another day. However, I guarantee Mr Carroll that, if such a decision is made, we will make it in the House as democratically elected Members in Northern Ireland. We will not sell it off to the Europeans to make the decision on our behalf. I will finish the letter:

"I do not want to see a return to the disorder and violence that once engulfed our country. I want to see a preservation of peace, the maintenance of stability and the protection of democracy that has been fostered over the past 26 years. For my generation's sake, please do not support these humiliating and fundamentally undemocratic arrangements."

That is quite a testimony from a young unionist. We were told that the protocol was put in place to protect peace and stability in Northern Ireland. My constituent has outlined how it has had directly the opposite impact. Tensions are high. The protocol has fundamentally failed to ensure that there is no tension or violence on our streets. In times past, it has caused violence, threats of violence and the collapsing of political institutions. At the time, we had Leo Varadkar, the then Taoiseach, going to the European Parliament and waving in his hand a photograph of a bombed customs post in an attempt to extol the virtues of subjugating unionists to arrangements that severed their unfettered access within the United Kingdom. We do not even have to look to Leo Varadkar in the Irish Parliament: we had Mary Lou and Michelle smashing fake border bricks, and we had Claire Hanna, the leader of the SDLP, talking about the concept of civil disobedience at a very minimum. That was the language not of unionists who had concerns but of those who were trying to force such undemocratic means on the people of Northern Ireland. What was that in aid of? It was to protect against a hard border on the island of Ireland. That was one of the central tenets of the protocol. Leo Varadkar told us that, in order to have a lasting agreement and to protect and enshrine the institutions of the Belfast Agreement, there must be not even a camera at the border and that to have one would be such a dilution of the agreement and such an impingement on those who did not share my constitutional position. The voices went silent, when, just recently, we received news that the guards were making border checks on buses and cars moving from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland to ensure that immigrants were not passing into their territory. Not an eye was batted by Alliance, the SDLP or Sinn Féin. That was not the movement of bacon rashers, Members, but the movement of people. It showed clearly that the objective was to ensure that Northern Ireland was captured in the EU's regulatory orbit, putting barriers between Northern Ireland citizens and their counterparts across England, Scotland and Wales. The UK Government betrayed unionists in Northern Ireland. That was shameful. Successive Conservative Prime Ministers spoke much of constitutional guarantees and promised much in frictionless trade but delivered none of it. We all know what the EU's real political objective was. Michel Barnier used to say that the clock was ticking. Well, his clock ran out with the French people last week. His objective with the agreement was clear: Northern Ireland was to retain its place in the EU single market and customs area, thus keeping it in the EU regulatory orbit. By that means, the rest of the UK would have to decide whether it wanted to keep its country together or subject itself to EU laws. Members may not universally agree with my constitutional outlook, but they should seriously consider the economic implications of articles 5 to 10 of the protocol that we are debating today and the impact that they have had on businesses and consumers. I will talk first about the chilling effect on GB businesses and consumers. Each week, members of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee gather to listen to proposed new EU laws or amendments and constantly ask officials what the impact will be on GB trade with Northern Ireland. Continually, although it is no fault of theirs, the officials cannot tell us. They have no ability to ascertain what the chilling impact will be. People have asked me many times to spell it out: "Tell us. Let us know what the issues are". For the purposes of today's debate, it is important that I do just that, so I will give some examples. At least 97 GB retailers have not been delivering to Northern Ireland as of September 2024. That excludes online marketplaces, which I may capture later in my contribution. There is a threat of the discontinuation of the supply of veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland from Great Britain; a ban on the direct-to-consumer sales to Northern Ireland of seeds marketed in GB; and the discontinuation of the supply of powered wheelchairs to Northern Ireland. I hope that Members understand the thread of what I am trying to get across. These are not unionist issues or nationalist issues; they are everybody's issues. There are new requirements for poultry fanciers travelling to GB; additional requirements on pets travelling to GB; an outright ban of certain plant and tree species; difficulties for florists seeking to secure flowers, ribbon and bamboo, resulting in diversion; continued barriers to livestock movement for shows and sales in GB; segregation and separation of Northern Ireland animals; divergence in type approvals for vehicles, jeopardising supply for Northern Ireland dealers, who traditionally source new cars from the GB stock; and extra controls on animal fodder and hay moving between GB and NI. Yes, I understand why hay is of such detriment to the EU single market. It has bedded many animals over many years, yet it was such a threat in 2010 to 2017 that it is still a threat today. I understand that. There is the cost and disruption of the requirement for supplementary declarations on GB to NI trade; treated wood for fencing for agricultural purposes not being permitted in Northern Ireland; the cost and delay associated with the Trader Support Service and the duty reimbursement scheme; new barriers to the shipment of waste between GB and NI; and significant rises in haulage, logistics and courier costs. Am I mad, Members? Am I the only person who sees those as genuine issues for consumers in Northern Ireland?

Mr Dickson.

I thank Mr Dickson for his intervention and remind him that every issue that I have raised — I am on number 16 and have a few to go — pertains to the people of Northern Ireland. It is about how they have been disenfranchised by arrangements that were propped up and supported by the Alliance Party, which called for rigorous implementation. Before I get back to point 16 — somebody remind me of that — let me remind you, Members, that the protocol that the Alliance Party asked for the rigorous implementation of was far worse than the variant that exists today. I will take no lectures about being a Little Englander; I am a proud Northern Irish man, and I will never shy away from speaking up for the people of Northern Ireland in this place. The Member may wish to send lawmaking off to Brussels at the behest of the EU, but I certainly do not. I will speak up and speak out for the people of Northern Ireland every chance I get, as will the Democratic Unionist Party.

Number 17: the movement of horses is now administratively complex and time-consuming, especially for local amateur competitors. The UK VAT margin scheme has not been available for second-hand goods that are purchased in GB and moved to Northern Ireland. The introduction of EU GPSR requirements on 13 December will create further chill factors on trade between GB and NI. The Irish Sea border that you see today, Members, will have changed by the end of the week. It is going to get worse, and not for the first occasion.

I will finish my list first, and then I will come back.

Number 21: the EU retains a veto over state aid granted in Northern Ireland where it deems it to affect trade with the EU or exceed limits for farmers. The Government pause on UK-wide "Not for EU" labelling is creating uncertainty in relation to the appetite of GB firms to supply the Northern Ireland market. There is a chilling effect on GB businesses doing business with Northern Ireland.

Absolutely.

I thank the Member for his timely intervention.

I will in a moment. Do I, as a proud Northern Irish man, look as though I am protecting the interests of GB businesses? The Member fails to understand my point entirely. Northern Ireland consumers are impacted on by the inability of GB suppliers to supply them in Northern Ireland. Who has not seen examples of that? It is Christmastime, Members. It is pantomime season for many of the Members opposite.

How many times have our family members and constituents gone online to look for products that they normally buy at Christmas from GB suppliers only to be told that those are not for sale in Northern Ireland? That has been delivered to you by the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin.

The Member is absolutely right: divergence is happening all around, and it is impacting on consumers who, primarily, we must shield and protect by voting for laws that are in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland. That must be at its core. Companies and consumers are having problems sourcing tropical fish. There are specific requirements for retagging livestock sold to Northern Ireland keepers. Northern Ireland businesses face double the tariff costs faced by businesses established elsewhere in the UK because of differences in UK-EU trade defence measures. There are concerns over the supply of medical devices and products, including podiatry products. Number 27: the potential for Northern Ireland to be carved out from the single UK immigration policy because of article 2. The Rwanda case is a case in point. I will not get into that today, because it is not part of articles 5 to 10, on which we will vote today. Be under no illusion: articles 5 to 10 contain vast swathes of EU laws that the Members opposite want to surrender to the European Union, but there are more, and they are fundamental. While we may not agree on the policy intent from Westminster in some regards, be it on the Rwanda policy or others, it is being interpreted in such a way that it will have a profound impact on the ability of the UK Government to bring forward legislation and policy in the best interests of the United Kingdom. When the temporary derogation ends, Northern Ireland organic egg producers may be forced to use different feed compositions for hens in the same way as producers in GB. Agri-intermediate goods will still be subject to full EU requirements and procedures. Professional operators in GB will still not be able to sell seed potatoes directly to consumers in Northern Ireland. I see that the First Minister is leaving. She is not content to debate and listen to the issues, which affect all our constituents. Just this week, I was in contact with a constituent who cannot get fabric. My goodness, such a threat to the EU market. An elderly lady emailed me just this week to tell me that, because of the proposed new GPSR rules, fabric and craft companies are no longer supplying Northern Ireland. That may seem trivial to some Members who want to sweep it under the carpet with the EU laws that have been surrendered to Brussels, but, in reality, that is having an impact on everyday consumers. My constituency colleague Cheryl Brownlee discussed particular concerns that some of her constituents have brought to her, particularly about crafting. Again, they have been told, "Not in Northern Ireland". Just this morning, I spoke to a local angler who informed me that he can no longer receive dead bait from GB suppliers. Members may ask what that is, and I see that Mr Honeyford is laughing keenly at that, so let me give him a very easy explanation that goes to the very heart of the absurdities of some of the rules. Roach that is caught in Lough Neagh goes to GB and is processed and vacuum-packed in order to be sold as dead bait to local anglers. What has happened? The GB companies are saying, "Not for Northern Ireland". Wow. They can take the fish from Lough Neagh and bring it to GB, but, on the journey across the Irish Sea, it somehow becomes a threat to the single market. It is ridiculous in the extreme, and that will only grow over time. That is a list of issues that I and Members on these Benches have experienced.

I will.

I really thank the Member for that point, because it is such a point of contention for me. Northern Ireland did not get Brexit. Let us face it. Why did we not get Brexit? It was because it was the intent of the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland were bound to the EU single market and to EU customs codes. I remind the Member that, in doing so at the behest of his EU paymasters, he has disenfranchised the people of Northern Ireland. He has ensured that our consumers have less choice and that businesses continue to struggle with the rigorous implementation of the very barriers that his party called for. Do not just take my view or the views of the Members on these Benches on how that is impacting on local consumers. Just recently, at a meeting of the Economy Committee, I asked the chief executive of Invest NI whether he could point to an example of business having been won to Northern Ireland as a result of our unique dual market access. Members, the chief executive could point to none. How many times in the Chamber have we heard Members extol the virtues of dual market access? Yet, it was revealed by the very chief executive who is charged with trying to secure foreign direct investment that there is no such benefit that he could recount to date. Just recently, Tina McKenzie from the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) talked about how GPSR rules were seriously disrupting the ability of GB businesses to trade into Northern Ireland. Dual market access is a myth because, in order to achieve it, you have to have an equal playing field. There is no such equal playing field, so dual market access is the myth: trading divergence is the reality. It comes down to this question: who has supremacy? The EU has supremacy in trading terms. The EU's rules ensure that GB is classed as a foreign entity; a third-party country in trading terms with the rest of Northern Ireland.

I will in a moment. The economist Dr Esmond Birnie is repeatedly on record debunking the myth of dual market access, because it is exactly that. You cannot have dual market access. One rule will supersede the other, and essentially that is what is happening by means of the protocol. Members always talk about the access to the European market and how essential it is for businesses in Northern Ireland. They make it out as though, if we did not have the protocol and did not have the arrangements that Northern Ireland has in place, we would not be able to trade with the EU.

I thank the Member for her intervention. She will know that I addressed, at the beginning of my contribution, some of the issues through which the institutions collapsed. I do not think that she wants me to go over them again.

Let me reassure her that the collapse was because of the political instability that the protocol created. As for dual market access, you would think that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and President Joe Biden were bowled over by so many Members in the Chamber. What was the attitude? Was it that Northern Ireland was the most interesting, exciting economic space in the Western world, the Singapore of the western isles? Wow! There is not one example of where dual market access has secured foreign direct investment. Members, pull the curtain back from your eyes. Stand back from your EU love-in and realise that your quest to ensure regulatory alignment with the EU is causing pain to the very people whom you claim to represent. I remind you all of this. I was taken a bit to the wayside there, but I come back to the point following Ms Nicholl's point. Let us look at this: we are told that EU access is so important. Britain has access to the EU market. The United States has access to the EU market, but the US does not sacrifice or surrender its own internal market access for its own citizens at the behest of a foreign entity to enter a foreign market at the expense of our largest market, that of the internal market of the United Kingdom. Articles 5 to 10 are again causing a continued chilling impact on GB trade. I have mentioned this time and again. Members should be very alert to the fact that this will get worse as time goes on. What has "no hard border on the island of Ireland" achieved? It is only hardship and disruption, rather than practical measures. Technological solutions were decried by the Members opposite throughout most of the Brexit process, but those technical solutions can offer real hope to the people of Northern Ireland, respecting their constitutional outlook whilst ensuring that trade maintains free and unfettered within the United Kingdom.

Article 5 applies the EU customs code in Northern Ireland. It decrees that GB is a third country and gives supremacy to EU single market rules. It also sustains the at-risk test, which punishes many businesses by pushing them into the red lane for full customs checks. That bureaucracy is disrupting internal, domestic UK trade. It is having a devastating impact on the haulage sector, which anybody who takes time to speak to the sector will understand. I spoke to one haulier just yesterday, because I wanted to ensure that I highlighted today the views of the people who are suffering from the imposition of the protocol. The haulier to whom I spoke is from the second generation of his family to have served the Northern Ireland economy. He noted the huge impact that the disruption caused by the protocol is having on his ability to secure produce from GB businesses across the Irish Sea and on to Northern Ireland shelves for consumers. He told me, "I feel less of a citizen. Businesses in Scotland and Wales can freely trade into England and vice versa, yet I, with my UK-registered company and as a British citizen, face the prospect of my business being destroyed because people in Northern Ireland, at the behest of the EU, are intent on ensuring that we can't make our own laws: laws that demand the careful curation of conditions that suit the Northern Ireland consumer". That is a huge issue that continues to face many people. Those who have some understanding of haulage across the Irish Sea know that it can be complex in the extreme in many regards. A load that is brought from GB into Northern Ireland is often a mixed load, but, because a business cannot guarantee that its entire container will stay in Northern Ireland, it is essentially pushed down the road of full customs checks. I spoke to hauliers about that. They cannot say wholeheartedly that their load will not end up in the Republic of Ireland, so they are being pushed down that road, when the likelihood is that it will all stay in Northern Ireland. Article 6 deals with the protection of the UK internal market. We would expect that to right the wrongs of disrupting internal UK trade that are outlined in article 5. Bear in mind that the title of article 6 is "Protection of the UK internal market": is that not ironic? Article 6 states that restrictions on GB to NI trade should apply only where strictly necessary and in order to provide assurances to the EU. My goodness. The article that is there to protect internal UK trade contains the condition, "Only if the EU says we can". That is a despicable display of negotiating by the UK Government. Think about the threat of trees and of British soil. How dare they enter the Northern Ireland marketplace. Article 7 gives effect to huge swathes of EU law that govern the regulation of goods produced in Northern Ireland. We see that impact of that acutely in many of the laws that we scrutinise on the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee. Competitive disadvantage continues to prevail for local firms. The risk of divergence is always present. Article 8 sees Northern Ireland shackled to the EU's VAT regime, which means that the UK VAT margin scheme has not been available for second-hand goods purchased in GB and moved to Northern Ireland since January 2021. That is strangling many businesses and sectors that source the bulk of their stock from GB for onward sale. It is absolutely imperative that the Government at Westminster regain the power to make regulations specifying VAT, excise and taxation to lessen, eliminate or avoid difference between Northern Ireland and GB. Article 9 deals with the functioning of the single electricity market, with Northern Ireland being subject to EU laws that deal with the generation, transmission and supply of electricity. We are governed by the EU's state aid rules on energy in that respect. The danger is in what is coming down the tracks. The EU's plans for a carbon border adjustment mechanism run the risk of creating a carbon border within the United Kingdom, with checks and tariffs on goods like electricity, iron, steel, aluminium and some fertilisers that move between GB and Northern Ireland. That is because those carbon taxes would be levied on goods that originate in countries that do not apply EU emissions trading rules.

That may seem very technical to a lot of Members, but, in reality, when you follow some of that through, you see that there is huge risk of divergence. I give way to Mr O'Toole.

I know very well how the lights in the Building work — thank you, Mr O'Toole, for that education — but I will say this: for Mr O'Toole to suggest that I am filibustering on an issue that is of such magnitude and such importance to the constituents of Northern Ireland is so dismissive, but it is not untypical of the SDLP's approach throughout. I do not care what time I stand on my feet to in the Chamber to ensure that the legitimate concerns of the people of Northern Ireland are represented. If the Member wants to go home, by all means he should do so, but I will not leave the Chamber before I have stood up and shouted out for those constituents. Aside from whether the Assembly continues to see merit in cross-border cooperation on wholesale electricity, which was the point that Mr O'Toole raised, it is a perverse feature of today's vote that MLAs are expected to vote on the discontinuation of articles 5 to 10 as a block. It does not give you the option to say, "I like article 9, but I do not like article 5"; the vote is en bloc. There is no individual scrutiny of each provision of the protocol. Because of article 10, Northern Ireland has been carved out of a number of provisions in the UK Subsidy Control Act 2022 in relation to subsidies that are deemed to affect trade between Northern Ireland and the EU. The circumstances in which the EU can bring action against the UK over subsidies in Northern Ireland under EU state aid rules were tightened under the Windsor framework, but the underlying legal position remains. The EU must approve the allocation of UK financial support to companies within the United Kingdom: how absurd. Businesses that are looking for intervention and financial support — for example, during COVID we saw a need for a fast supply of money to businesses to ensure that they remained operational — will get it only if the EU says that that is possible. Members on these Benches have always been concerned that those provisions could endanger support, investment and even, perhaps, rates relief policy in Northern Ireland compared with other regions in the United Kingdom. There is a cap on the amount of funding that can be given to farming, for example. How will that impact on future investment on farms and any schemes that the Executive might wish to bring forward to offset the harm of inheritance tax rules or National Insurance contributions? Northern Ireland agriculture is already hampered with regard to funding streams for capital investment compared with other regions of the United Kingdom. If Members use their vote to approve those laws by sending control of them back to the EU, support systems for agriculture may not be there in the future.

The motion focuses on articles 5 to 10 of the protocol. If Members vote against it — I hope that I have convinced a few to do so — those provisions would be disapplied in two years' time. In theory, that would remove vast swathes of EU laws that were imposed on us without any say and at great detriment to many of our constituents. It may also ensure that our position in the single UK internal market is improved, but it would not remove all EU laws. The root cause of the problems that we face today is —

— the implementation and imposition of EU laws that no Member in this place or the UK Government can change. That is the reality. That will not change as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol. Members may wish to shout "Brexit" from a sedentary position, but the reality is that the Northern Ireland protocol is your version of Brexit. You own it; you sell it. I say this to Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin: when businesses go out of business because they cannot access their supply chains and when consumers are faced with challenges, you own it; it is yours. Do not say that you were not warned or that the concerns were not aired. Do not plead innocence when it comes to oversight. Today's vote is on you. As I said, the imposition of EU law is the root cause. The EU overstretch and court interpretations, as we have seen in many policy areas, will have grave consequences for UK decision-making going forward. It has been alluded to that that may even come into sharp conflict with a potential US trade deal with the UK, because, while Northern Ireland continues to be bound by the EU's single market and customs union, we will for ever be in its regulatory orbit. The practical problems that I outlined are only the symptom: the application of EU law is the root cause. The UK Brexit negotiators were the laughing stock of Europe as they hastily sold out their citizens, prioritising access to a foreign market over their own. We must put that right. It is imperative that the Assembly assert its democratic rights in line with the provisions by which the institutions operate, the bedrock of which, as I have been told many times, is the Belfast Agreement. Some Members blindly continuing their love-in with the EU will lead only to more self-harm. I will speak directly to the people of Northern Ireland: do not lose hope and think that this is the last opportunity to have your say on these matters. The 300 areas of law — the number is growing — that were surrendered to the EU by Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin will come back to be voted on in four years. Skulduggery may succeed today, but the power lies in your hands. You have the ability to elect representatives to this place who can legislate in your interests, not at the behest of the European Union. People who vote in the future have the right to expect that their democratic right will be exercised through their elected representatives in the Northern Ireland Assembly and the UK Parliament and the ability of those representatives to vote on laws made in the United Kingdom.

7,638 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Qualifying Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:45 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.

Challenge this classification